Comment by lmm
18 days ago
> The nerve of me, to expand on my views as a discussion develops.
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.
Let's just be perfectly clear here.
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.
> You asked: why should we treat these two cases differently?
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.
> I was pointing out that your original argument makes no sense, because of what it would mean if you applied it to humans.
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.
2 replies →