[ExI] Zuboff's morality

[Ben Zaiboc]

We're getting mired in confusing terminology, I think, and this is 
getting far too long. Let's zoom out and look at the essentials.

On 08/11/2025 00:20, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>     On Fri, Nov 7, 2025, 5:19 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
>     extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>     So who knows? Maybe an omniscient being would see that a healthy
>     chicken's eggs would make a crucial difference in the brain
>     development of a person who eventually invents or discovers
>     something fantastic that benefits all mankind forever after, and
>     deem this law morally good.
>
>
> If you think an omniscient mind is better positioned than any lesser 
> mind to make morally correct decisions, then you already tacitly 
> accept the utility of using a "perfect grasp" to define morally 
> optimal actions.

Yeah, that was sarcasm. You're not supposed to take it seriously.

What I accept is the truth of the trivial assertion that IF we knew more 
than we do, we'd be able to make better decisions. If this is what 
Zuboff's idea boils down to, then I change my mind, the man's a genius 
(that was more sarcasm), he has discovered something we all knew all 
along, the obvious idea that more knowledge about a thing can enable you 
to make better decisions about it.

What has that got to do with morality, though? How is this idea, that 
everybody already knows, supposed to be a basis for a moral system?

Having better knowledge enables more /effective/ decisions, but that 
says nothing about whether they are 'good' or 'bad' decisions. It 
doesn't enable someone to define what 'good' means, for them.

"If you think an omniscient mind is better positioned than any lesser 
mind to make morally correct decisions..." Losing the 'omniscient', and 
replacing it with 'more knowledgeable', which puts things on a realistic 
footing, I'd have to say No, I don't think that. Is the morality of a 
less knowledgeable or less intelligent person less valid than that of a 
more knowledgeable or more intelligent one? I'd think (or certainly 
hope, anyway!) that the answer to this is obvious. If your answer is 
"yes", then you're already halfway down the slippery slope that leads to 
most of, if not all, the worst atrocities we are capable of. It's 
basically saying that some people are intrinsically inferior to others, 
because of their ability to know things. I don't think that was really 
the intention of whoever coined the phrase 'knowledge is power'.

More realistic moral foundations, in my opinion, can be found here:
https://moralfoundations.org/

Notice that 'knowledge' is not mentioned in any of these.

I think the important thing, going back to the distant original topic of 
this discussion, is to realise where morality (as actually practiced) 
comes from. It comes from our developmental past. AIs are a future 
unfolding of that, and I reckon that, rather than speculating on their 
morality springing de-novo from their intelligence, it might be useful 
to consider it being a consequence of where they come from (humanity) 
and how it might develop, just as ours has developed over time.

-- 
Ben

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251108/45c3e060/attachment.htm>