Why is it not considered normative? It follows rules of arithmetic. The operation should be carried out according to "correct" procedure and failure to do so results in something "wrong". So why no count as normative?
Can you tell me where "normative behaviour" and "typical behaviour" have been conflated because I'm very sure that's a big no no even in social/psychological sciences
would ontological statements which can't be proven by observation also count as normative statements? e.g. I am real, the world is real, I am not real, the self is not real etc.
Isn't there something about agency in community building and ai alignment that they share in common? Are all notions of agency unified by some underlying concept or are they fundamentally distinct? Or do we simply not know enough to say one way or the other?
Isn't an acausal norm equivalent to a goal-directed norm? If not, then what's the difference?
Yup
Do "must" and "may" imply a should?
Why is it not considered normative? It follows rules of arithmetic. The operation should be carried out according to "correct" procedure and failure to do so results in something "wrong". So why no count as normative?
Can you tell me where "normative behaviour" and "typical behaviour" have been conflated because I'm very sure that's a big no no even in social/psychological sciences
would ontological statements which can't be proven by observation also count as normative statements? e.g. I am real, the world is real, I am not real, the self is not real etc.
Isn't there something about agency in community building and ai alignment that they share in common? Are all notions of agency unified by some underlying concept or are they fundamentally distinct? Or do we simply not know enough to say one way or the other?