to learn how to develop its own "objectives" and comply with those operational goals in order to function at or above the level of human metacognitive performance (e.g. normative eusociality³). — 180 Proof
We are (e.g. as I have proposed ↪180 Proof), and I expect AGI will learn from our least maladaptive attempts to "say what is and is not moral"³. — 180 Proof
More approaches come from explicitly combining two or three of the approaches which you've mentioned in various ways. In my case, 'becoming a better person' is cultivated by 'acting in ways which prevent or reduce adverse consequences' to oneself and others (i.e. 'virtues' as positive feedback loops of 'negative utilitarian / consequentialist' practices). None of the basic approaches to ethics seems to do all the work which each respectively sets out to do, which is why (inspired by D. Parfit) I think they can be conceived of in combinations which compensate for each other's limitations. — 180 Proof
Why do you assume there is any relation between "sentience" and "morality"?If AGI is not sentient and sentience is required for Morality then surely you can see the conundrum here? If Morality does not require sentience then Moral Realism is correct ... — I like sushi
Well, the latter (re: pragmatics) afaik is a subset of the former (re: semantics).I was more or less referring to Moral Realism not Moral Naturalism in what I said.
Why do you assume there is any relation between "sentience" and "morality"? — 180 Proof
Well, the latter (re: pragmatics) afaik is a subset of the former (re: semantics). — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.