Hide table of contents

Partially adapted from an old old Discord rant

On this past April’s eve, I was visited by the ghosts of several superintelligent beings from throughout spacetime[1], to help me answer a question of great import and difficulty. Even if we know what can harm and benefit a being, how can we know when a being we could benefit or harm even belongs in our moral circle to begin with? Excitingly, I feel that I got much cleaner explanations for why animals shouldn’t be of concern to morality than I’ve heard before! Below are samples of some explanations provided by these wise minds:

Supervenium the Self-Aware:

“How can the humans have any worth, they can’t even conceive of the operation of their own minds fully, they rely on words like “reasons” and “beliefs” and “intuitions”, they don’t even understand the full underlying process of their own neurons, how can they claim to have interests they don’t comprehend?”

Omnispawn the Infosphere:

“How can the humans have any worth, they don’t understand reality as it really is, why, without aids they can’t even tell what’s happening right behind them at any given moment. Their view of reality is entirely self-contained, so how can they hold any sincere values?”

Pinea the Singulasingularity:

“How can the humans have any worth, their “selves” are conceivably devisable, you could replace every neuron in their brains one by one and they would never notice the difference, there is no single replacement or removal that makes them altogether someone else. If you have no absolute underlying self, How can you have a legitimate sense of dignity?”

Prebangor the Elder:

“How can the humans have any worth, they are mortal, one day they will just be gone forever and there was a time before they were born. Anything that is done to them is done to a single blip in the history of everything, how can it have any importance?”

AaaaaaackOoooooooh the Torment Nexus:

“How can the humans have any worth, their capacity to feel has physical limits, they are incapable of the highest forms of superhappiness and the worst forms of supersadness. Even if we can benefit them more than one of our own, they would never appreciate the larger context of this benefit, so how can they truly value it?”

Binklx the Intelligently Designed:

"How can humans have any worth, you can follow their lineage by degrees all the way back to weird molecules in pools of water. Sure humans are cute, but if we give them consideration, where does it end? We would have to give moral consideration to everything!"

Janveson the Definer:

"How can humans have any worth, morality is about social contracts. They can't manipulate their brains to adopt the equilibrium utility function of the social unit, they can only make a few unreliable trades and agreements at a time, and anything else is at best hypothetical. By definition they aren't part of "ethics"!"

Having recorded the wisdom of the superior minds, I prepared to go to sleep. But I heard another voice then, lying in bed.

Jala the Glittering:

"I am all of the parts of the universe, confused and lost in myself, which fleeting joys and fleeting horrors pass over, lighting little bits up out of the dark. I care, and I care about my caring, every fleck of it, no matter how little and fragile and confused, every bit I see as it is lit up in its own light. I love myself."

And in the cold and the dark of my bedroom, I for a moment felt an unexplainable urge to whisper back “I love you”, as though I could never be warm again until I said it.

But forumeers! I’ve written this up to get your feedback, what do you make of the overminds' advice?


    1. Something something acausal something. ↩︎

Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I'm a Definooooor! I'm gonna Defiiiiiiine! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I like circles, though my favorites are (of course) boxes and arrows.

Pinea did complain about how many dimensions I wanted in my ethics...

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
calebp
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Need help planning your career? Probably Good’s 1-1 advising service is back! After refining our approach and expanding our capacity, we’re excited to once again offer personal advising sessions to help people figure out how to build careers that are good for them and for the world. Our advising is open to people at all career stages who want to have a positive impact across a range of cause areas—whether you're early in your career, looking to make a transition, or facing uncertainty about your next steps. Some applicants come in with specific plans they want feedback on, while others are just beginning to explore what impactful careers could look like for them. Either way, we aim to provide useful guidance tailored to your situation. Learn more about our advising program and apply here. Also, if you know someone who might benefit from an advising call, we’d really appreciate you passing this along. Looking forward to hearing from those interested. Feel free to get in touch if you have any questions. Finally, we wanted to say a big thank you to 80,000 Hours for their help! The input that they gave us, both now and earlier in the process, was instrumental in shaping what our advising program will look like, and we really appreciate their support.