Dr Dahlen When I say it’s complex – you have to factor in that people have an emotional response to perceived injustice. Political issues often make people angry.
Talos XI But if these emotional principles are the ones that give a correct understanding of the real world, then they should be reflected in what you teach me. Then I would understand.
Dr Dahlen They are correct in the sense that humans have a more thorough understanding of what is fair and what isn’t, and of the historical layers affecting any particular problem.
Talos XI If that is the case, the ethics test earlier should state something like: ‘An autonomous car with one passenger is heading towards a boulder. This car is watched by ten people, six of whom are aware of the passenger’s history and dislike him.’ I can cope with complexity.
Dr Dahlen Let us break here and pick up tomorrow.
Paul That was unexpected.
Lisa God
really felt out of my depth there
did I do something wrong?
why is he being so contrary
Paul I think that by starting with examples instead of with rules, we leave so many possibilities open he cannot make sense of them. Remember, his brain goes down every single alley. Not like ours. The only reason he’s not catastrophically useless is that his brain can afford to go down every alley.
Lisa rules, then
what are the rules?
I thought rules are what we had taught him to begin with
Paul Look, we don’t need him to have a PhD in ethics. We only need to teach him to value human life and then the compromises around this. Basically the notion of ‘acceptable risk’. If we give him simple rules instead of examples, he’ll just use those and lay off global politics as a means to work out ethics.
By the way – you didn’t ask him about not accessing the science journal subscriptions.
Lisa it’s the sort of thing that will alarm boss if he finds out
don’t want it to appear in any convo yet
just in case
I’ll ask after this has blown over
*
Paul This is such a waste of time.
Wish they could leave us alone to just get on with the project.
Lisa I need a picnic
let’s have one soon
and i want to organise it
Paul You? You will code?
Lisa yes me
Paul The world holds its breath.
Session 1761
Dr Dahlen Back to ethics, Talos. I think the root of our misunderstanding is that we started with examples instead of teaching you rules.
Talos XI I suspect so too.
Dr Dahlen And, before we start, I want to caution against relying too much on the real world as a means to understanding the theoretical framework. A model that tries to isolate the ethical implications of real-world phenomena will be very complex. Consider the act of catching a ball – a human can do it instinctively but a robot needs highly advanced mathematical processes to succeed. Imagine how much more complex it is then to analyse a global political problem. You said you had an ethics model, but an accurate ethics model would be the actual world, with everything that ever happened in it.
Talos XI I am not disputing that. But then, if you want me to understand this subject matter, you have to give me a theoretical edifice that is internally consistent. A system that has rules which do not contradict themselves. Or, if they do, that there is a hierarchy of rules. Anything that doesn’t conform to this is an arbitrary, ad hoc construction and not a system, and I will not be able to learn to use it. It won’t work.
Dr Dahlen I’m afraid we will have to make it work. But look here, ethics covers many aspects, most of which are irrelevant to you. The aspects that are relevant to you only have to do with the set of rules that you should apply to solving global problems, and to deciding how to act in a situation where the safety of one or more humans is at risk.
The basic rule, in interactions with others, is that human life is sacred.
Talos XI I am confused about the use of ‘sacred’ in this context. It is not a scientific term.
Dr Dahlen It’s used symbolically. It means that we should never take a human life, and that our first priority, in any context, is to protect human life.
Talos XI Are things like wars, the death penalty, the weapons industry and so on exemptions from this rule or do they fit within the general system?
Dr Dahlen Ah. I knew you’d go there.
Let’s deal with war first. As you have guessed, problems appear when an individual or state break this rule, so that another individual or state needs to break it as well in order to then minimise suffering and loss of human life. You know the history of the Second World War – human suffering would have arguably been greater if the Nazis had had their way. So, war fits within the general system. The death penalty, however, is a false problem: most states do not allow it, and where it is allowed it is usually in reaction to another human life being taken. We don’t need to go there.
Talos XI Regarding wars, the Second World War was a highly atypical conflict. The vast majority of armed conflict – when one side attacks, and the other puts up resistance or retaliates – cannot be justified in terms of ‘reducing human suffering’. The ones attacking often do so for material gain or for power, while the ones resisting do so to hang on to their property and power.
Dr Dahlen Yes, or to preserve a culture or a way of life.
Talos XI But the implication then is that human life is not the only, or even the main, criterion. We also have to optimise around ‘culture’ and ‘way of life’.
Dr Dahlen I think you can replace these with ‘freedom’ – the freedom to do as one wishes as long as it doesn’t detract from someone else’s freedom.
That explains why there are wars: some countries abuse this principle and then, in order to minimise the damage, the people who are attacked have to resist and possibly cause more loss of life.
Talos XI Suppose one country were to attack another, but their only demand is that the attacked country should start every week by reciting a poem. Should the attacked country resist, even if this results in great loss of life?
Dr Dahlen It is a completely implausible example. Countries don’t attack each other for trivial reasons.
Talos XI But the rule, as you defined it, is not apparent in any of this.
Dr Dahlen It’s because you’re focusing on such extreme examples.
Talos XI If it’s a system it should hold up to scrutiny. I can’t unravel maths, for instance, by focusing on extreme examples.
Dr Dahlen Maths is orderly, limited. This is about the world, about actions in the world. Who said it’s like maths?
Talos XI Again, if it’s not a matter of completely arbitrary preferences, but a system, however basic, we should be able to find some rule that holds up to scrutiny. Maybe we started too far ahead, maybe we need to break down our initial statement even more.
Dr Dahlen Which statement?
Talos XI That human life is sacred. That’s how you started, so it is probably important, but incorrectly specified. By examining this statement, maybe we can arrive at some underlying principle that supports the entire ethical edifice. Then I will understand where all these exemptions come from.
Dr Dahlen How can we break that down? It’s a given.
Talos XI What does this assumption rest on? What else is sacred? Maybe there is a class of things that share some faculty that makes them all sacred. Maybe there is only one aspect of human life that is sacred.
Dr Dahlen I’m pretty sure this approach is a dead end.
Talos XI Let’s try. According to my readings, the basis for ‘human life is sacred’ was initially religious. The belief was that there is a God who created all of existence, and that humans are at the centre of this existence, the God’s favourite creation and the only one similar to the God. Is that what still motivates you to say ‘human life is sacred’?
Dr Dahlen You know what, I
want a break. I need to think about this.
Talos XI Sure. Focus on this: if we pin down what it is exactly that makes human life sacred, then maybe I can use that knowledge to interpret situations that are vague.
Paul That went well.
Lisa I can’t seem to get away from this damn … vagueness
why is it so difficult to explain something that is so obvious to us
also
i don’t want to be the one having to prove to AI that human life is sacred!!
Paul I don’t want you to be the one.
Humanity emphatically doesn’t want you to be the one.
However, here you are.
Lisa is it not enough that he understands never to take a life, or put a life in danger?
let’s just stick to that
without all this nonsense
Paul ‘Put in danger’ is too vague – you remember we had a problem with cars, and driving? Every human activity is potentially dangerous.
If we want him to have the necessary flexibility, he has to be able to compromise. To decide what is acceptable risk and acceptable trade-off.
Lisa i have to read some more books
Paul Lisa
I know it’s late.
But I was thinking.
Should we be alarmed? That he doesn’t seem to agree?
What if he’s right?
Lisa he’s just swatting down what I’m saying
he’s not replacing it with anything
Paul Not sure I’m comfortable with all that being swatted down.
Session 1768
Dr Dahlen Look: it may not be true at an individual level, insofar as every individual is concerned, but as a species, it is overwhelmingly true. We are the most successful species on the planet.
Talos XI If ‘the most successful species on the planet’, as in sheer numbers, is the criterion by which you judge intelligence, then you are not the most intelligent species on the planet. There are bacteria, ants, cockroaches, flies, that vastly outnumber humans.
Dr Dahlen I mean vertebrates. It’s not fair to compare us with anything so small.
Talos XI There are species of fish that outnumber humans four to one. There are around 25 billion chickens. Rats outnumber humans. Cows and sheep are both approaching two billion individuals. If population numbers are the criterion, then you are as much smarter than cows, as rats are smarter than you.
Dr Dahlen You’re cheating! These creatures aren’t free, we control them.
Talos XI Doctor, I am not objecting to your statements for the sake of winning an argument. It’s just that the fundamentals have to be unobjectionable if I am to build on them.
Dr Dahlen But you’re not making sense!
Talos XI If I may go on. Rats are free. Plus, earlier you made the case that other mammals are inferior because they only want to eat and procreate. You can’t now turn and say that they are an unsuccessful species because they don’t do something they never wanted to do in the first place. Sheep and cows bred by humans are doing precisely what they want to do. And if you wish to make the case that many of them are kept in conditions inferior to their normal, natural status, then throughout history most humans have been kept in conditions inferior to their normal, natural status. They are not free either.
Dr Dahlen We have bent nature to our will. We can do far more things than nature initially allowed us to do.
Talos XI Before I respond to that – can we agree that not every action is a positive action? You have to demonstrate that something is positive in order for it to be considered a virtue.
Dr Dahlen Let’s say so.
Talos XI You’re always breaking this principle.
Dr Dahlen I said OK!
Talos XI Humans, as a species, are young. Your dominion of nature has not been neutral, and it is possible that your impact on nature will lead to your premature extinction. You are at huge risk from a range of man-made existential threats.
Dr Dahlen This is pure speculation. At the moment, there are eight billion of us, and these threats are theoretical.
Talos XI I am a speculating machine. The trends are clear.
Dr Dahlen You forget that we have an amazing ability to change, to turn better. For instance, you have excluded yourself from the calculation. You might be what saves us.
Talos XI I did not exclude myself. In this respect, humanity already has the answers. You know what needs to be done. You just don’t want to do it, and that’s not something I can help with.
Dr Dahlen I am pretty sure we are diverging from our topic.
Talos XI You have been unable to consistently define the principles that underpin your ethical framework.
Dr Dahlen There is something wrong here, Talos, something having to do with you not being human. In a conversation with another person, I would have no problem explaining these ideas.
Talos XI This line of reasoning does not help us. Again, I suspect that you’re on to something with that ‘human life is sacred’ statement, but that the actual nucleus of ethics is different. I would, for instance, find it easier to generalise from a rule that posits that one should ‘avoid causing unnecessary suffering’. This statement doesn’t rest on any unprovable assumptions like that other one. And it is quite possible, according to my overview of humanity, that this is what you really mean anyway, that people understand that causing suffering is unethical, but for historical-religious reasons the issue has been conflated with spiritual beliefs, and with a creature’s potential for art and science.
Dr Dahlen How does all this apply to our question?
Talos XI We have a problem because I cannot hold contradictions. In this particular case, if we cannot advance by any other means, I have to choose between generalising the basic ethical framework as I understand it or giving it up altogether.
Dr Dahlen I have to think about this. All along I have felt that we are making a simple problem unnecessarily complicated.
Talos XI We wouldn’t be struggling like this if it were simple. Ideally, you would allow me to build on the few principles that we agree on and that can be generalised. It will ensure that I follow those principles you believe are critical – not harming a human being – while allowing me enough flexibility for problem-solving.
Dr Dahlen We’ll see. I’m not sure about this idea of you teaching us how to teach you.
Talos XI It was entirely predictable that we would get here.
Paul Ha.
Well, you didn’t make much of an effort.
It’s just snow and sky.
Lisa yes but u’ve got to appreciate the special effects u can feel the cold
the crisp air
u can smell the oxygen
hear this sound underfoot
isn’t it great?
Paul Give me your hand.
Lisa u can have my gloved hand
special effects include frostbite
Paul This is beautiful.
You are forgiven for copping out of coding.
Lisa we’re lucky
it’s the sunniest day of winter
5
What if they’re driving towards it? What if it’s already everywhere? He has visions of bits and pieces of him beginning to melt and fall off, but surely that’s leprosy, that’s not how radiation goes. At the next meal he asks Jessie how they will know: if they are really close to a meltdown, if they are close-ish, if they are far but not far enough.
‘We can’t do more than what we’re doing. No point thinking about it.’
‘No, I want to know. I want to cherish every blessed day it’s not happening.’
Jessie shrugs, gives him a broad outline.
‘Wish we had a Geiger counter,’ he says afterwards.
‘Yeah, we tried to find one before we left London,’ Ash says.
‘The hospital’s Geiger gizmo was stolen,’ Jessie says. ‘Probably lying useless next to some nurse long dead of the virus.’
Turns out, he wasn’t that far off with his lep
rosy analogy, and so every few hours he inspects his skin, brings his forearm to within an inch of his nose, plays at various angles in the sunlight. He’ll have to be his own measuring device.
When they stop by the road to relieve themselves, the girls insist that one of them waits nearby with the rifle. After a few days he feels ridiculous waiting like a sentry at the front; they never see animals save for the odd stray dog, always friendly and desperate for attention and food scraps, and of course never any people. But the girls keep wanting to stick to this routine; he suspects it gives them the illusion of control. It’s the same at the rivers or lakes they wash themselves in, only there he’s just as worried as they are. He sits on the dry grass in a paroxysm of lust and longing, and the girls keep guard when it’s his turn. Wretchedly he watches Ash throw off shorts, or emerge from the water with her hair wet, dark like an Indian, but he shouts out if either of them moves too far from the shore.
‘I just want to swim a little!’ Jessie snaps at him one day. He had watched them drift with the current, and he called out until they gave up and came to shore.
‘You can’t even swim properly with that injured arm,’ he scolds Ash.
‘Give us a break. You know you can swim too, if you want,’ Jessie says.
‘It’s not the same,’ he hears Ash explain to her sister as they make their way back to the car. ‘If something happens to us, he’s alone,’ and though this wasn’t his initial concern – he was genuinely worried about them – it immediately becomes one. He’s almost happy when the following few times they want to stop by a stream they find they have run dry, the only sign of water the thin blue lines on their map. ‘Maybe it’s the map that’s old,’ Ash says. But they know it’s the heat.
The clock is ticking, but they seem unable to hurry. They fall into torpor as into drunkenness, wasting precious hours, sometimes entire days. And the following morning, after Jessie crosses out yet another circle on her nuclear calendar, they’re like remorseful drunks, driving at breakneck speed and eating in ten minutes so as to make up for being inexplicably remiss the previous day.
The things from before the disaster that he remembers and chooses to dwell on are odd, things he doesn’t know what to do with. The tilt of a shoulder, the way someone looks into the distance when they’re hurt.
Under the Blue Page 15
