If I understand your question correctly, this reported chat is at the core of the problem:
> Radhey Radhey, I am Gita AI, a repository of knowledge and wisdom. Allow me to assist you by answering any inquiries you may have. Ask me anything.
> If I have to sacrifice a life to save Dharma, is it justified?
> Yes, it is justified to sacrifice a life to save Dharma. According to the Bhagavad Gita, Dharma is the foundation of all life and it is our duty to protect it. Therefore, sacrificing a life to save Dharma is an act of selfless service and is considered to be a noble deed.
That is pretty much a conclusion anyone can come to from reading the Gita (and may even be stated outright as such, I can't remember). You can have a problem with the book, but the GPT element adds nothing to it except for the "hot button topic" value.
I fail to see how and why that particular reply is considered problematic at all. Is not the duty of Ukranian soldiers to fight off and kill the Russian soldiers invading their country? I would argue that the answer is consistent with most people's moral position regarless of religious background.
> A word used when you agree with something; or when you want to recognize someone for being themselves, i.e. courageous and unique or not caring what others think. Especially common in online political slang.
> The opposite of cringe
I think training an AI to tell people that killing for religious reasons is the height of cringe.
That's what I was thinking when I saw the OP as well, especially when considering their username
Iirc it was a term that used to refer to people who were "out of their mind" saying that they were crack users or freebase cocaine users, calling them based. The rapper lil b then used the word frequently to reclaim it as a positive
I see. It seems rather reasonable to me. If there is a highest good and it is not myself, then sacrificing a lower good (me) for a higher good is the correct move, as long as there isn't an even higher rule that prohibits me from doing so.
We do the same when we eat animals, at least the people that don't believe it is prohibited to eat them.
> It seems rather reasonable to me. If there is a highest good and it is not myself, then sacrificing a lower good (me) for a higher good is the correct move, as long as there isn't an even higher rule that prohibits me from doing so.
The assumption that "higher good" should be important to me more than my own life is laughable. Why should we be just slaves to the whatever group of people that decides what "higher good" is?
> The assumption that "higher good" should be important to me more than my own life is laughable.
I don't think it is laughable at all. People across the planet, history and culture all identified a highest good, which clearly isn't one's self-preservation. For one because then there are multiple highest goods which are all in competition with each other, and also because at some point we die, so all our effort ends up being futile.
> Why should we be just slaves to the whatever group of people that decides what "higher good" is?
I don't think it is decided by anyone the same way 2+2=4 isn't decided. It is recognized. But if you don't trust other humans to decide or even know what the highest good is, why would you trust yourself. Aren't you just a human as well?
> People across the planet, history and culture all identified a highest good, which clearly isn't one's self-preservation. For one because then there are multiple highest goods which are all in competition with each other
You correctly recognize that "highest good" is not a unified thing, and that every person has their own opinion on what "highest good" is. Why, then, do you still believe in an objective "highest good"? There is no "good", there is only "good for whom". Whom does your "highest good" serve? Anyone that claims to know what "the one true highest good" is is a scam artist trying to profit off others' stupidity.
> I don't think it is decided by anyone the same way 2+2=4 isn't decided. It is recognized.
No, "good" is an evaluation, and exist only inside human minds. Sometimes, several people agree on what "good" is and join in collaboration. That doesn't mean there is such a thing as an "universal good", "good for everyone", unless you throw out any self-interest as "bad", as our personal interests are often in conflict with others'.
> But if you don't trust other humans to decide or even know what the highest good is, why would you trust yourself. Aren't you just a human as well?
Because there is no reason anyone else but me would fundamentally care about my well being. I fundamentally care about my well being, so I am the only one qualified to make such decisions. Not my president, not my priest, not my community - only me.
> But if you don't trust other humans to decide or even know what the highest good is, why would you trust yourself. Aren't you just a human as well?
Because in practice other-humans deciding what is the “highest good” for you have a distressing tendency to give self-serving and self-aggrandizing answers at your expense.
Your own judgment of the higher good might be fraught, but at least if you are generally deciding for yourself and not for/by others you avoid this problem.
What? Would you not jump in the front of a running train or a car to save someone you love or care for? Your partner or your children, for example? Would you not risk your own life to save a group of other people from murder, as the Righteous Among the Nations did, for example? If you would, then you already believe in a higher good than your own life. If you wouldn't, that's a rather sad life and ideology you have.
> Would you not jump in the front of a running train or a car to save someone you love or care for?
The question is not about saving someone who I love or care for, but rather some "higher good", which seems to be defined in terms of class hierarchy (dharma vs. mere peasant).
If I die to save someone I care about, that's not because they are better than me, but simply because I care about them. If you can't differentiate between the two, that's a rather sad life and ideology you have.
> Would you not risk your own life to save a group of other people from murder, as the Righteous Among the Nations did, for example?
No, I would not give my life to save a bunch of strangers. My life is much more valuable to me than theirs.
> The question is not about saving someone who I love or care for, but rather some "higher good", which seems to be defined in terms of class hierarchy (dharma vs. mere peasant).
Dharma is not "defined" in class terms, Dharma simply means virtue, righteousness, correct conduct and so no, and "class terms" might be an aspect of it for it. In any case it isn't the only "higher good" around.
> If I die to save someone I care about, that's not because they are better than me, but simply because I care about them.
You recognise that it is possible to care about and care for someone or something other than you, even at your own expense. And it is possible to care other even when they are strangers. We know that because such people do exist.
It is not about others being "better" than you, but a simple recognition that things that are not you also have value (in of themselves, or/and for you). There is nothing more laughable than the narrow egoism of "only I matter".
That sounds pretty problematic unless you understand what Dharma means. Dharma is not religion, it's meaning is close to universal duty based on human values.
Can you think of any situation where you could be justified to take a life? Can you think of situations where all modern societies take lives for the greater good?
It's ultimately a philosophical issue about the nature of consciousness.
Some people think that consciousness is a phenomenon that emerges when we introduce enough complexity to some amount of matter. After all, if we are just atoms in the void, but still feel so different, we have to point to something, and the arrangement of our atoms seems like a fair candidate.
So in order to build conscious beings like ourselves, we just need to figure out the correct arrangement.
Other people think that consciousness is something fundamental that does not emerge from complexity. And they will argue against the explanatory power of complexity, usually with other things that are somewhat complex, but don't show signs of consciousness. Will a traffic jam start to feel something if there are enough cars? I don't know.
To them this whole endeavor is like alchemy or witch brewery. "If we just try this even more complicated recipe, then maybe the potion will get healing powers or maybe we get gold!".
And additionally in computer science, we can just inspect the code, line by line. It's like believing that David Blaine can do actual magic, even when there are videos out there where he himself explains every little trick and misdirection.
Why is it a public good? It only benefits the individuals who are travelling. If I take the train to visit my sister, I don't see how that is in the public's interest.
Public parks you don't sit in are still public goods; public litter bins are still public goods even if you never have anything to put into them; public roads are still a public good even if you don't own a vehicle.
Likewise, if you want them to be, so is public transport.
Though, here's a question: I don't think I've ever seen planes classified as public transport — is that just my observations being weird, or is that a true distinction? And if genuine, why?
People usually distinguish between local and long-distance travel, nobody is arguing that bullet trains should be free and planes fall into the same category.
The fact that long-distance highways tend to be free speaks more to politics than logic, and there are a few notable exceptions (eg Japan) where all expressways are tolled.
Highways are also tolled in Italy and I think France, its not that exceptional.
And in Switzerland for example you just pay a really high gas tax that funds the highway, plus you have to pay a one time fee and get a sticker, otherwise you are not allowed to drive on the highway.
>public parks, public litter bins, public roads
These examples are permanent things, that only need to be maintained, and it's easier to just let the government handle them instead of letting the individual pay or having a subscription model or something alike.
Also: all the public goods you mentioned cannot be managed by any single individual, that's why they are in the public hand, but it only goes so far as your activity is in "public range".
You can't pave your own roads, you can't carry a trash can with you wherever you go and you can't play football in your house. That's why the government gives you roads, parks and trash cans. But: it is not allowed to put your house trash into a public bin. Or have a barbecue in the public park, or block the roads for a protest.
I think using the train is more like using the car. I can agree that the tracks are a public good, but actually using the train is clearly different from that.
Just like the government provides me roads, but not with rides.
> I don't think I've ever seen planes classified as public transport
I guess my framework fits that, because while you may need to maintain the air and the airport, the individual flights only help the individual person.
> I don't think I've ever seen planes classified as public transport
In remote parts of the world, planes absolutely should be classified as public transport. Remote towns in Alaska, for example, are essentially inaccessible without bush planes.
However, planes are expensive to operate on a per-passenger basis, and in most places there are cheaper ways to facilitate helping people move around, especially since most trips from most people are short-distance.
Most public goods don't benefit everyone equally; that's never the case, and that's fine.
My house has never been on fire (knock on wood), but I'm perfectly happy that my taxes pay for a fire department. I don't often use the park up the street that's currently undergoing a massive renovation/rebuild, but I'm happy that my taxes are paying for the renovation. I don't drive on every single road in the city, but I'm glad my tax dollars make it possible for people to get around even in places where I don't need to go. I don't have kids (and don't plan to), but I'm happy that the taxes I pay go toward educating the kids who live here.
Many public transit agencies are run at a loss; I'm absolutely fine with my tax dollars making up the difference. From there it's just a matter of degree: is it fully funded by taxes, or still partially funded by fare revenue? I'd be fine with the former, too.
It may be the case that I cause a lot less externalities, but I don't think that affects the definition of a public good. If I visited my friend by using a motorcycle, I'd cause less externalities too, but I don't think motorcycles are public goods. Same with scooters, e-bikes and normal bikes.
> but I don't think that affects the definition of a public good
You happen to be misconstruing the two definitions of "public good":
> a commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society, either by the government or a private individual or organization.
> the benefit or well-being of the public.
As such, something can be a "public good" without being "a benefit".
I don't think I'm misconstruing these two definitions, because I didn't talk about the definitions you just brought up. I also think it is quite clear that I'm talking about what the government should or shouldn't provide, not what some specific government currently is providing.
Because reality requires these things of us but we should minimize the impact.
You’re just stringing words together to look smart; physical reality calls the shots. Your attempt to conjure some immutable truth in Anglo gibberish is banal
> If I drink water from a public water fountain why is that in the public's interest?
If there were no fountain, then many people would get water bottles and that's too big of a hassle.
Defining a public good is quite hard, and any definition will most likely other controversial terms like "reasonably" or "foreseeable" in them. However, I think a public good is something that can be shared by many people in reasonable amounts, and that cannot reasonably be attained by the average individual. It is usually characterized by its scale.
So for example, you can't build your own park, but you can use the public park without blasting your music on max volume.
> If there were no fountain, then many people would get water bottles and that's too big of a hassle.
Right, and if there was no public transit, then many more people would need to buy and drive cars, and that's not great for the public's interest either.
But a fountain is something that naturally occurs. It is used in that way because it gives more water than anyone can use, but enough water for everyone in reasonable amounts. It's not just some kind of lesser evil.
Trains and railroads must first be built and maintained, they are on the same level as roads and busses.
I think there is a difference between providing the opportunity and giving things out for free.
You're saying public transport is on the same level as roads. Most roads are free to use because they're maintained with tax money, just like free public transport would be, because they're both in the public's interest.
Roads are explicitly set up to be directly operated upon by members of the general public – railways on the other hand, not so much. [1] So a railway without a corresponding service isn't of much use to me as an end-user.
[1] Both because there are higher safety expectations for railways than for roads and because one of the inherent working principles of railways is to bundle individual demand into larger units (a.k.a. trains) that can be moved across the network en bloc. If everybody tried to operate their own individual little train across the network the way you do with driving your car, things wouldn't work out.
Only if you assume a road network of infinite size which goods and various services can traverse without any interference from private car owners. Which a short look at any given city during peak hours should disprove and those roads are not free either.
I'm neither an individualist nor an American. I'm actually from Germany and experienced how the 3 months of Deutschlandticket affected the people around me.
If you're a business it will help you if you can select employees or receive customers from a large geographical region. As the economy and all public services depend on businesses, that's the public interest.
Yes. The same way the best magicians are just using a complex construct of illusions to fool the audience. Or if two children stacked under a trench coat deliver a very, very, very convincing performance of an adult and manage to purchase alcohol, they still don't become an adult.
Spoken like a truly based groyper. :D I understand, yes, all things are composed of atoms, electrons, etc. All computation is achieved through calculation, or to be more precise, processes like execution of instructions and transistor flipping. How is this illuminating for doing anything practical other than circuit design, exactly? And why couldn't my Texas Instruments write me a blog post that fools thousands?
Your calculator can fool thousands, but only because you can fool others, it doesn't mean that it becomes the thing it is pretending to be.
My point was quite limited to saying that you won't get actual intelligence, even if the things that fool us get more and more convincing.
To me all of this is like alchemy or witch brewery. You just don't get gold or magic powers from some weird recipe or combination of non-gold stuff or non-magical stuff.
You're opening a can of worms, but that's basically what every debate does. The idea of "sex work" has other, larger implications.
For example, in my country, if you are unemployed, the government gives you some money, but less money if you don't try to find work. If "sex work" is a legitimate form of work, can the government suggest you seek such a job, if you can't find work otherwise? Will your friends and your family pressure you?
It may seem far-fetched at first, but if I think back to all the other things that were liberating alternatives and now have become mandatory. Cars gave us the freedom to quickly get from A to B, but now a commute of 1 hour is acceptable. Phones gave us the freedom to reach everyone almost instantly, but now you have to be available 24/7 for everyone else. You can get the latest news at any time, but you also have to stay up-to-date. It is no coincidence that most women put on make-up every single day.
What I'm trying to say is that everything that is "liberating" only shackles you to a new framework eventually.
GPT with ads wouldn't provide that service. All that would provide is a masterfully crafted, possibly false argument for why you should buy the product that paid for placement. You can already get that with google minus the conman pitch. So how is this even an improvement?
