It'd be bad if I manipulated climate change statistics in my metrology textbook to satisfy the political preferences of the oil industry donors to my university, for example.
Viewing the current generation of LLMs as 'intelligent books' is perhaps more accurate than viewing them as pupils.
It's easy to extend my example of a professor writing a metrology textbook to a professor fine tuning an metrology LLM.
Notice how this is a completely different argument that has nothing in common with what you originally said - "I don't understand the take that training an AI is an amoral act but aligning an AI is inherently moral. They're exactly the same, processes for adjusting parameters to get a desired outcome. However you feel about that desired outcome, if you don't think training an AI is torture, I don't see why you should think alignment is."
If we're going to be play that game, notice how you didn't actually respond to my comment or explain why you thought LLMs were moral entitles or why ML and teaching were comparable? I actually engaged substantively with your hypothetical; are you able to do the same?
I wasn't trying to introduce anything new, I was trying to point out a gap in the logic of your original statement.
> notice how you didn't actually respond to my comment or explain why you thought LLMs were moral entitles or why ML and teaching were comparable?
Yes, of course, I wrote that to explain why I'm not engaging on this new, different claim.
Nothing wrong with expanding your views. But you've neither defended nor retracted your original argument. I'm trying to stick to that.
> Of course you have lots of great points to make, but you can't share them with the likes of me.
I don't have anything to say about your new argument (which may be great and compelling), I haven't thought through it at all, I'm trying to avoid getting sidetracked.
You asked: why should we treat these two cases differently?
I answered: one of them involves harm and one can't possibly.
You then refused to discuss the topic further. I never changed my mind. I never contradicted myself. I have nothing to retract. I simply elaborated on my views in response to your question. Regardless of whether you "didn't intend to introduce something new" - you did, you introduced a new hypothetical and a new challenge.
I don't know why you are reacting this way, but let's be perfectly clear, I engaged substantively with your points, and you simply refused to continue the discussion. That's all well and good, you're under no obligation. But you're saying I've done something wrong here, and I really haven't.
Frankly I find the whole thing bizarre.
I wasn't asking why we care about the treatment of humans. I was pointing out that your original argument makes no sense, because of what it would mean if you applied it to humans. You then responded with a different argument about humans and AIs being different, which - regardless of its merits in its own right - in no way relates to your original one and does nothing to rescue it.
And I explained why this equivalence doesn't hold in my view. You have made no attempt to justify it. So why should I buy it? Are you obliged to buy every proposition I put forward? Obviously not, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
> [It] in no way relates to your original [argument] and does nothing to rescue it.
My argument is only endangered if the equivalence holds - and again, I haven't bought it. You seem to feel entitled to my adopting your perspective, and to respond assuming your equivalence is valid. But you have to earn that by putting forward a good argument.
Instead of trying to convince me or explore our disagreement, you declare that I violated unstated terms and that the discussion cannot proceed. This is nonsensical.
Since it's clear you aren't willing to give me a fair hearing, I encourage you to show this conversation to someone you respect and trust to be honest with you, so that they can explain this to you in a way that will register.
No you didn't.
> Instead of trying to convince me or explore our disagreement, you declare that I violated unstated terms and that the discussion cannot proceed.
No I didn't.
> Since it's clear you aren't willing to give me a fair hearing, I encourage you to show this conversation to someone you respect and trust to be honest with you, so that they can explain this to you in a way that will register.
Right back at you.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40703486
If I was unclear - the equivalence doesn't hold because one of these are moral entities and the other isn't.
> No I didn't.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40703471
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40711859
> Right back at you.
Fair enough. I was already planning on it, so I'm happy to.
You could make exactly the same claim about teaching humans "normally" versus "aligning" humans by rewarding goodthink and punishing them for wrongthink. Are you equally morally ambivalent about the difference between those two things? If we have a moral intuition that teaching honestly and encouraging creativity is good, but teaching dogma and stunting creativity is bad, why shouldn't that same morality extend to non-human entities?