[ExI] morality

[Brent Allsop]

Isn't much of morality based around making as many people as happy as
possible?  In other words, getting them what they truly want?  If that is
the case, then knowing, concisely and quantitatively what everyone wants,
then defines that morality.  Finding out concisely and quantitatively what
everyone wants, in a bottom up way, is the goal of Canonizer.com.  It could
then become a trusted source of moral truth, with the ultimate goal of
first knowing, then getting what everyone wants.  In my opinion, any AI
would understand that this is what its values must "align with".

The only real "sin" would be trying to frustrate what someone else wants.
The police would then work to frustrate those that seek to frustrate.  That
becomes a double negative, making the work of the police a positive good
and moral thing.  Just like hating a hater, being a double negative, is the
same as love.  And censoring censors (you censoring someone trying to make
your supported camp say something you don't want it to say) is required for
true free speech.  Even though you can censor people from changing your
supported camp, you can't censor them from creating and supporting a
competing camp, and pointing out how terrible your camp is.

There is also top down morality, in which what people want is declared,
from above, rather than built, bottom up.  Instead of "trusting in the arm
of the flesh" you trust in the guy at the top.  It is only about what the
guy at the top wants.  Some people may trust an AI better than themselves.
Even this is possible in Canonizer.com.  You just select a canonizer
algorithm that only counts the vote of the guy at the top of whatever
hierarchy you believe to be the moral truth you want to follow.















On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:50 AM efc--- via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 17 May 2023, Tara Maya via extropy-chat wrote:
>
> > When AI show a capacity to apply the Golden Rule -- and its dark mirror,
> which is an Eye for an Eye (altruistic revenge) -- then we
> > can say they have a consciousness similar enough to humans to be treated
> as humans.
> >
>
> Hmm, I'm kind of thinking about the reverse. When an AI shows the
> capacity to break rules when called for (as so often is the case in
> ethical dilemmas) then we have something closer to consciousness.
>
> In order to make ethical choices, one must first have free will. If
> there's just a list of rules to apply, we have that today already in our
> machines.
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230517/58abf6d3/attachment.htm>