[Jolly2]

Nevertheless, their feelings can be real and sincere,

As were those of the Nazis, Stalinists, Thatcherites, supporters of Idi Amin.... Sincerity does not confer moral authority.

"Always wIth the best of intentions is the worst work is done" Oscar Wilde.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Nevertheless, their feelings can be real and sincere,

As were those of the Nazis, Stalinists, Thatcherites, supporters of Idi Amin.... Sincerity does not confer moral authority.

"Always wIth the best of intentions is the worst work is done" Oscar Wilde.

What do you think can turn best intentions into the worst work? Surely not all efforts with best intentions end up as worst work.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What do you think can turn best intentions into the worst work? Surely not all efforts with best intentions end up as worst work.

Let me help you to answer the question. It's because of one or more false assumptions. Someone with good intentions must expect his actions would give good results. It's absurd to claim that we have good intentions while expecting that our actions will bring worst results.

[alancalverd]

My mum used to say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So, is there any known immoral action that start with bad intention?

[alancalverd]

I made the point some pages ago that morality does not define good and bad!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I made the point some pages ago that morality does not define good and bad!

You just redefined morality against currently accepted dictionary.

[alancalverd]

Actually I didn't define morality, just proposed tests of whether an action could be regarded as moral or not.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Actually I didn't define morality, just proposed tests of whether an action could be regarded as moral or not.

Consequentially, you just declared that the definition of morality found in currently used dictionaries are incorrect.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Mark Zuckerberg & Yuval Noah Harari in a Conversation

In 1:06:30, Harari gave his thought on free will.

The people that are easiest to manipulate are the people who believe in free will, and will simply identify with whatever thought or desire pops up in their mind because they cannot even imagine that this desire is not a result of my free will, it is the result of some external manipulation.

In 1:07:30

The tools to do [mind manipulation] on a massive scale has been developed over the last few decades. And they may have been developed with the best intentions of just selling stuff to people.
But now the same tools that can be used to sell me something I don't really need, can now be used to sell me a politician I really don't need. Or an ideology that I really don't need. It's the same tool, the same hacking the human animal, and manipulating what's happening inside.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Many people believe that we need moral rules to guide/direct/control our free will, which require the existence of free will in the first place. Here are some opinions I found in youtube.

Let us know what you think.

[alancalverd]

Typical philosophers'  loose use of language!

we need moral rules to guide/direct/control our free will, which require the existence of free will in the first place.

Who we? I invent and promulgate moral rules to persuade you to act in ways that I find acceptable. You don't need my rules, or any others: you could perfectly well survive by breaking every moral rule imaginable (think professional criminal, despot, pedophile priest....)

Free will or not, I can use various forms of force, moral, physical, or the threat of harm,  to constrain your behavior. Free will is irrelevant. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Who we? I invent and promulgate moral rules to persuade you to act in ways that I find acceptable. You don't need my rules, or any others: you could perfectly well survive by breaking every moral rule imaginable (think professional criminal, despot, pedophile priest....)

Perhaps you can survive by breaking some moral rules, but
you can't survive by breaking every moral rule imaginable, especially the "you should not commit suicide" one. You can argue that it's not part of your moral rules, but it's clearly part of some moral rules held by some human societies.
In some ancient societies, you can't even survive by working on holiday. You can't survive long after being caught stealing or killing someone.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Free will or not, I can use various forms of force, moral, physical, or the threat of harm,  to constrain your behavior. Free will is irrelevant.

Traditionally, free will was used to determine accountability and responsibilities of persons to their actions. It then determined the extent of reward and punishment as consequences of their actions. Without free will, rewards and punishments were thought to be useless.
Some people thought that free will is a material part of human individuals. Some others think that it's a supernatural thing. Some others think that it's an illusion.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

IMO, what we usually refer to as free will represents the hidden layers in neural networks, located between inputs and outputs layers. We usually exclude direct shortcut communications between inputs and outputs, like reflex responses, from free will. Thus, free will requires hidden layers with some specified minimum depth. It has memory storage capacity, which contains information from their inception such as genes or hyperparameters, past experiences, and some randomly generated flukes.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The rise of autonomous vehicles reminds us on the need to develop  appropriate moral rules applicable for non-human conscious agents. It would be more urgent when AGI is getting closer to reality.
Reward and punishment system is just a function to modify weights of neural connections in the agent's internal feedback mechanism, so the agent know if their current action is aligned with its terminal goal or not. Whether or not the agent is made up of organic chemistry is irrelevant.

[Eternal Student]

The rise of autonomous vehicles reminds us on the need to develop  appropriate moral rules

     Yes.  Autonomous vehicles are exactly what has made the "trolley problem" and similar discussions of ethics and morality popular again.  I think you've already discussed this and I'm sorry for joining the discussion this late.

     An autonomous vehicle should consider the option to drive the vehicle off a cliff, killing all occupants if that would avoid a greater loss of life by continuing along the road and running over other people.  People may not want to buy or get into such a vehicle, so the research being done by some of the big technology developers is not always about the nature of ethics but more about what the general public would want and find acceptable.  The technology developers make the weak argument that if the people did not consider killing the occupants, then that would be the appropriate ethical resolution just because it mimics human behaviour.  This matches up with earlier posts you (Hamdani) have made about morality being defined as a "meme" and the argument that the fundamental nature of morality must be self-protecting.

     I am equally suspicious that the development of AGI will not be governed by ethics.  Although, I admire your desire to get other people involved and considering the issue.  Like many areas of scientific development it is something that all people should be involved with and informed about.  Sadly, history doesn't set a good precedent for this sort of consultation with the general public.  Nobody asked me if I was happy to continue miniaturising microprocessors and nobody seems to be asking me if I'm happy with the use of CRISPR and Cas9 technology, for example.

Good luck to you.

[alancalverd]

you can't survive by breaking every moral rule imaginable, especially the "you should not commit suicide" one

That may be your moral rule but it isn't mine. You might consider it immoral to eat animals (vegan) or onions (Jain) but lot of people survive on beefburgers.

[alancalverd]

The rise of autonomous vehicles reminds us on the need to develop  appropriate moral rules applicable for non-human conscious agents.

The Laws of Robotics superficially cover all the requirements, but Asimov made a living by pointing out the practical limitations and complications of mechanistic application of moral rules.

[alancalverd]

You can't survive long after being caught stealing or killing someone.

There's  difference between breaking a rule and being  caught. Crime pays at least as well as legitimate stock investment.