Leo Gura

To be honest, GI docs can be aweful and worse than useless.

@Scholar If you insist on defining morality as merely preferences then you will come up with wierd conclusions. According to your absurd logic a crocodile is moral or immoral because it prefers flesh over pineapples. See what trouble you got yourself into?

Sounds like crocodiles are living in your head rent free.

Sit down and examine what morality is. Think it through. It's something the mind spins up. You had no morality as a child. You had to invent it.

Eagle is a high attainment. Perhaps you're more like a winged rat

You flirt. Flirting is being playful, humorous, and cheeky. Communicate to her like you are interested in her, but in a challenging way. As in, Hey, I'm interested in you, but also not too interested. Be playful with her. Don't try to have serious talk. "Hey, I like your shirt, but I think it would look even better on me "

False. This is just another trap. You cannot reduce Consciousness to anything, not nothingness, not essence.

Spoken like a true crocodile

Probably. I haven't tested it so rigorously. Test it yourself.

Even if that is allowed, the answers will still not be as intelligent. But if you gotta google what Spiral Dynamics is and how communism works, then that's a serious lack. Part of AI's genius is that it instantly understands all the nuanced and obscure terms and concepts I throw at it.

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?