Chris PetrilliThem: if you set aside all the ethical concerns…
Me: this is what evil is. This is how evil talks.
gloriouscowmy friend that is most people at the grocery store
Jargoggles
Azuaron@gloriouscow @petrillic My friend, that's not an argument against what they said.
who's arguing
Roadskater, Ph.D.@gloriouscow @petrillic This is the competition for slots in the grocery store parking lot.
Sam@petrillic sounds like a conversation starter at fellowship hour after church
@0f4d0335 is that before or after I spontaneously combust for setting fot in a church? :)
@petrillic i think that doesn't happen only in episcopalian churches
The Three Fingers@petrillic evil is always a bullshit concept. anyone who uses words like that has serious mental problems.
Violet MadderHow about torture, rape, or double-tap bombing hospitals?
If that isn't evil what the fuck is it?
@violetmadder @petrillic it's torture, rape, and bombing hospitals, obviously.
benji_w@3Fingers @violetmadder @petrillic sounds pretty evil to me. I'm comfortable making a value judgement on those particular things and calling them evil.
Simply describing these acts and declining to judge whether it's good, bad, or extremely bad strikes me as a very impoverished approach to human relationships.
@benji_w @violetmadder @petrillic no, it doesn't. you're completely evading the point, being intentionally obtuse. nothing sounds evil to anyone. that's not possible. what's happening is, you're imagining that there is a concept we call "evil" which can be used to describe things you don't like.
it's not "declining to judge", it's an acknowledgement that the concept of a good/evil judgment is fundamentally illogical, and built on inherently oppressive frameworks.
@3Fingers @violetmadder @petrillic ...No, I've checked. It definitely sounds evil to me.
I'm comfortable with a value system that deems torture to be bad enough that I'll call it evil.
I don't need that to be rooted in an absolute view of the universe, I don't even need a more sophisticated use of the word 'evil' than 'really really bad' when it comes down to it.
Additionally, when someone posts "Torture is an evil thing!",
and instead of saying "I agree, although I wouldn't call it evil",
instead you say "You're mentally ill for calling it evil!",
you're either trolling or seriously missing the forest for the trees.
@benji_w @violetmadder @petrillic all of that is wrong. you do need it to be objective and universal to see it as "evil" because that's what defines morality. subjective values are preferences. objective imperatives represent morality. and no, since evil doesn't exist, you don't see those things as evil. you're deceptively and manipulatively using the word "evil" to coerce people into behaving in ways that conform to your preferences. you're probably inclined to respond to this by saying you're fine with coercing people to not torture or rape other people, but that would be simply missing--and proving--my point.
why would i say "i agree" with someone saying something is evil, when that's exactly the sort of rhetoric i want to abolish..? morality absolutely is a mental illness.
@3Fingers @violetmadder @petrillic *checks pockets*
No, definitely still think it's evil.
Also took some time to read more about intersubjectivity as a basis for morality rather than referring to a deontological or other objective system, which was interesting.
...I didn't say you should say that you agree with someone saying something is evil, I merely suggested you treat it as shorthand for "Bad", agree with that, and then if and only if someone wants to have a completely separate conversation about the semantics of the word evil and it's relationship to objective morality.
Rather than straight up calling someone who's objecting to Bad Things as mentally deranged.
@benji_w @violetmadder @petrillic no, you don't think it's evil.
funny you should specifically mention intersubjectivity, i was thinking the past few days that i should make something responding to Mackie's clarifications at the start of Inventing Right And Wrong, because they give entirely too much space for the acceptance of an intersubjective "bad" as a standard interpretation of "evil"...
in some areas, i agree with Mackie, like the delineation between hypothetical and categorical imperatives, and in the hypothetical sense, sure, something can be "bad" in the (almost aristotelean) sense that "this does a bad job of serving this purpose", and if the implied purpose is simply your own happiness, then something is subjectively "bad", to you, in the hypothetical imperative sense. but often "bad" and "evil" are simply synonyms, and i'm saying "bad" in the categorical imperative sense of the word is nonsense.
the problem with the post is that it uses moralism. it's rooted in moralism. it's all ABOUT moralism. there's nothing to say about it, other than point out the fact that it's nonsense.
i'm going to sleep and won't be checking back for a while, so i want to say this first.
it's absolutely crucial for everyone to understand that morality is entirely a product of oppression, and it does nothing except oppress marginalized people.
no one needs to convince others to oppose things that are actually harmful. describing something as torture is sufficient to make someone angry that it's happening. the purpose of morality is to make people angry about things that AREN'T harmful, and justify violence towards people who aren't a threat: the satanic panic of the 80s/90s. honor killings in the middle east. gender-variant american prisoners being forced off HRT right now. etc.
people oppose things that hurt them and their loved ones naturally. morality is a tool used to brainwash people into bigotry.
@3Fingers @violetmadder @petrillic Putting it bluntly:
If someone calls something evil, and that maps directly to something that you agree is a bad thing that should be violently and angrily opposed,
and your first and initial response it to completely ignore the thing that they're rightly angry about, and instead veer into a completely abstract conversation about the correct use of the word Evil,
you're going to Fail Hard at communications and then wonder why people seem to always be angry at you.
@violetmadder @petrillic and, it needs to be said - this is such an annoyingly lazy, unsophisticated, ridiculous, cliché response. for hundreds of years (at least), people have been denying the existence of moral truths, and putting forward still-undefeated arguments refuting moralism (Hume's Guillotine, Error Theory, Stirner's observation that religious morality is nothing but the subjective preferences of a being revered as a god, etc.), and every time the nonsensical nature of moralism is brought up, moralists simply fall back on the tired old refrain of pointing to cruelty and calling it evil, insisting "there are things i don't like, therefore evil must exist!"
CyIt's what the news wants you to care about, so you don't focus on improving the life of yourself and people around you, and remain a helpless little obedient worker drone.
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
Why on earth would caring about something stop me from taking action to stop it?
Anyia, geeky 🏳️⚧️ girl@petrillic My boss, in response to the meeting where a number of us raised a whole lot of ethical concerns around LLMs: "We can't not use it just because of these big picture issues"
Incidentally, I'm looking for a new job.
Cairo Braga@anyia @petrillic that's some pure dishonesty, damn. I hope you find a new job soon.
Tattered@petrillic There are things I don’t like about Emmanuel Levinas (Theology!). However, his response to his WW2 experience was to attempt an “Ethics first” approach to philosophy. This, I think, is admirable; especially when applied to politics.
“Setting aside ethics” is the logic behind class divisions, racism, sexism, gender discrimination, climate denial,…
The pattern is clear. “Ethics first” means respect for others and the world we live in. Those who don’t respect that do not deserve respect in return, as per Popper.
Evil? Perhaps; though the word has supernatural overtones.
Uncivilized, and unacceptable to a civilized society? Certainly.
LovesTha🥧@petrillic meh, I've enjoyed some conversations that start that way. But if they aren't detailing those ethical concerns then they are expecting people to ignore them all the time and not just in this conversation.
@petrillic
Me: If you set aside all the ethical concerns, it is still in my interest to live in an country that assists the poor, people with kids, the elderly ..., a country that provides good health care for it's population and social insurance. Because I, egoistically, want to live in a safe country surrounded by happy people.
Me: If you set aside all the ethical concerns, it is still in my interest to live in an country that assists the poor, people with kids, the elderly ..., a country that provides good health care for it's population and social insurance. Because I, egoistically, want to live in a safe country surrounded by happy people.
sarah tonin 
@petrillic "if i set aside all ethical concerns" is technically a question, and the answer is no
Max Leibman@petrillic @mariyadelano If we can just set aside that everything is wrong with it…
https://beige.party/@maxleibman/114745353400485361
https://beige.party/@maxleibman/114745353400485361
Max Leibman (@[email protected])
Look, I know AI is controversial, but just for a moment, let's set aside our preconceived notions, our biases, the environmental impact, the massive cost to train and run models, the labor exploitation, the intellectual property theft, the inaccuracies, the mania it causes in users, the destruction of search, the deskilling of professionals, the devaluation of creative work, job losses, and lack of economic value from enterprise implementations. Wait, what were we talking about?