Leo Gura

Yes, and I even suggested one such test. My NYC street test. I dare you to find a single human on the internet who can produce as intelligent a policial conversation as I had and posted with Claude. Run the test.

My definition accounts for that. If you don't have the power to reduce the suffering your selfishness causes others then it's a moot point. And anyway, my defintion is not normative. It says nothing about blame or that you have to act in any way. You could just be an asshole if you want. But if you want to be considered "moral", then take whatever measures are reasonable to reduce the suffering you cause others.

Bingo!

All of morality boils down to reducing the harm your selfishness causes to others. And its entirely subjective how far you wish to take that. Everyone will draw that line in a different place, which is why the moral debates are endless.

No.

I don't us AI so much for raw factual data but for its Tier 2 reasoning and helping me see new perspectives. For this function it's hard for it to be "wrong" because it's just giving me more perspective which just opens my mind and helps me think in fresh ways. So there are qualitatively different uses for AI. If you use AI to help you write a screenplay then it can't really be wrong. So the trick here is to leverage the AI's strengths not its weaknesses. Hallucination may be a weakness for law research, but it is a strength for creative work. They really need to make a slider to adjust its hallucination rate per conversation.

That's NOT just a preference for most people. You are misusing that term.

Fixed it for you Don't bullshit yourself. The number of beings you don't care about is a million times larger than the ones you care about.

This goes both ways. There is no way around trusting yourself. If you didn't trust yourself then you would have no position to argue for and you could not know that humans are any better than AI.

But my position is far more radical than that. What I'm saying is that even if I had no health reasons, and just ate meat purely out of selfishness, that too would be okay. Because where you draw the line of your selfishness is subjective.

I have reflected on it. But my personal health situation is such that I cannot live well on a zero meat diet. I have tried zero meat diets and they are not good for me. And no hippie fantasies will change that.

You paint far too charitable of view of these "subjectivists". I claim that such people don't exist even if they say they do. Because they have not thought deeply enough about the existential and epistemic foundations of these issues. What you call "subjectivists" are really just Stage Green types who don't think too hard.

I would prefer not to eat meat but I am selfish. I am not going to cloak my selfishness in moral fictions.

This assumes the humans were truthful in how they conducted and reported that study. But I have not tested AI on the topic of law, so perhaps it makes more mistakes there. But on the stuff I did test it on, it made no mistakes. In fact, I have only seen Claude 3 make one mistake. But I see humans making dozens of mistakes. If you go to NYC and just interview humans off the street, and ask those same questions to Claude 3, you will see that Claude 3 gives more intelligent answers than 90% of humans. The only people who can really outshine Claude 3 would be advanced polymaths like a Ken Wilber or a Daniel Schmachtenberger.

Your hypothetical subjectivist is full of shit. You are ignoring the normative aspect of morality. No one who is passionately advocating for policy believes it is just his personal preferences. It is believed to be normative and anyone who disagrees is wrong, shameful, and ought to be defeated in battle. You are aware that driving automobiles kills bugs and creates pollution. Will you stop driving automobiles? Will you also stop consuming products driven to you by automobiles?

Yes

No one is. Your whole life is built on the exploitation of others in ways you don't wish to know. That's the problem with all this morality stuff. The mind wants to paint itself as good and others as evil, but this will never work in the end because self is evil. And that's what morality is hiding. There is no such thing as a consistent moral system or life. Because it's a fantasy in the end.

"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. A crocodile will meet you there." -- Rumi

It's crazy that the US doesn't even recognize Palestine as a state. So much empty rhetoric and corruption.

There is no drive to be effective or productive or organized unless you have some meaningful purpose for investing your energy in such things. Why do you care about being effective or organized at all? Why not just be an ineffective bum?

1) Look for biz ideas that require little money. 2) Work a job and save up money for your biz idea. Look for needs and deficencies in the marketplace.

That's how immature people live. Just by looking at our business culture. Nah, what runs the world is money and power, not progressive ideals. It is deceptive because many of these giant companies virtue signal with Green values, but in fact they are run by pure profit motive. Look at Facebook, these AI companies, Big Tech, all of crypto, all of medicine, all the top universities -- it's all Orange on steroids with some lip-service to Green. You realize how bad it is when you realize that even universities are not Green but Orange.

Start a business and learn it by doing. Hire some people and manage them.

Too much hippie vibes is not good for you. Life is a brutal affair. Hippies are too disconnected from that. Which is why I speak of crocodiles. A hippie will not understand life until a crocodile bites her foot off.

Fundamentally, I think it's because finite things must get their energy from outside themselves. Your finiteness impinges on others finiteness. A molecule cannot move without pushing another molecule.