<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Nov 8, 2025, 4:56 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<div>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.<br>
<br>
On 08/11/2025 00:20, Jason Resch wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
On Fri, Nov 7, 2025, 5:19 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat
<
<a rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener noreferrer" href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>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.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yeah, that was sarcasm. You're not supposed to take it seriously.<br>
<br>
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.</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It was sarcasm, but also, you believe the sarcastic statement you made.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div> If this is
what Zuboff's idea boils down to,</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That's part of it. Greater knowledge enables better decision making, therefore enables more correct moral decisions (but this is only half of the picture). The other is on what basis are good and bad, and right and wrong, defined.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div> 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.<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It is good to see that you understand and accept this half of Zuboff's argument.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
What has that got to do with morality, though?</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That half, alone, has nothing to do with morality.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div> How is this idea,
that everybody already knows, supposed to be a basis for a moral
system?<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You have to consider his connecting glue between desires (what we want), corrected desires (what we would still want with a perfect grasp), and the reconciliation of all systems of desire (a balancing act which is what one would still want in the consideration of how those wants (and obtain them) affect all other consciousness beings who also have wants of their own. This is how he defines the ideal of good and bad right and wrong, and the proper aim of morality.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
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.<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That's what the paper does.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">At this point we could have saved a lot of time if you had simply read it.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
"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'.<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Earlier you acknowledged that it was trivial that having less knowledge means we make worse decisions. This is why so many quotes compare evil and stupidity:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/230940-never-attribute-to-malice-that-which-is-adequately-explained-by">https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/230940-never-attribute-to-malice-that-which-is-adequately-explained-by</a></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8616320-stupidity-is-a-more-dangerous-enemy-of-the-good-than">https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8616320-stupidity-is-a-more-dangerous-enemy-of-the-good-than</a></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8616320-stupidity-is-a-more-dangerous-enemy-of-the-good-than">https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8616320-stupidity-is-a-more-dangerous-enemy-of-the-good-than</a></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But note that this says nothing of the moral value of persons. It doesn't even say that more intelligent people act more morally than less intelligent people.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">An intelligent person who is unmotivated to make moral decisions is not inherently better behaving than a lesser intelligent person who makes attempts to act morally.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
More realistic moral foundations, in my opinion, can be found here:<br>
<a href="https://moralfoundations.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://moralfoundations.org/</a><br>
<br>
Notice that 'knowledge' is not mentioned in any of these.<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Nor is any attempt made to define good or evil.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
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.</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Historically yes. I don't dispute that.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div> 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.</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Then you should see Zuboff's paper as a continuation of that development. And for those (human ornl artificial) intelligences capable of seeing the truth in it (assuming it is sound) they will be rationally motivated to adopt the morality described in the paper.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Zuboff has experimented with having AIs of today read and evaluate this paper. All the current models seem to accept it's conclusions as valid. That provides me some hope, at least.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jason </div></div>