LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

[stopper40]

Would you save any person over any cat?

Absolutely not.

With Meow as your name, I'd hope not

[PensFanInDC]

Would you save any person over any cat?

Absolutely not.

I would.

[Gaucho]

if it was you in the building vs a cat, would you tell the saver to save the cat over you?

No. Is this a trick question?

[Gaucho]

Would you save any person over any cat?

Absolutely not.

I would.

Faced with the actual decision, I'd probably do it, too.

[redwill]

AI is artificial intelligence. Are we assuming that creative thought is part of intelligence? Is it even possible to generate such a thing (creativity) artificially or does 'artificial' discredit any and all creativity?

The computer program AARON has been around for decades churning out "original" works. Is it art? Is it original art? I'm simply undecided. Is it creative? Hmmm...

AARON cannot learn new styles or imagery on its own, each new capability must be hand-coded by Cohen, but it is capable of producing a practically infinite supply of distinct images in its own style. Examples of these images have been exhibited in galleries worldwide, the exhibitions serving as an artistic equivalent of the Turing test. It does seem however that AARON's output follows a noticeable formula (figures standing next to a potted plant, framed within a coloured square is a common theme).

Cohen is very careful not to claim that AARON is creative. But he does ask "If what AARON is making is not art, what is it exactly, and in what ways, other than its origin, does it differ from the 'real thing?' If it is not thinking, what exactly is it doing?" However, it could be argued that AARON is simply following procedural instructions and that the real artist behind each piece is AARON's creator, Cohen. Adding further weight to this argument is AARON's seemingly narrow 'library' of human form variations, poses and scene compositions and the requirement of hard coding to add new 'styles'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARON

Examples of AARON's work:

Spoiler:

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

if it was you in the building vs a cat, would you tell the saver to save the cat over you?

No. Is this a trick question?

No.

I'm trying to decide at what point I wouldn't sacrifice myself. Like, if it was another human being (that wasn't a murderer/rapist) I would definitely sacrifice myself. But if it was an animal would I say "screw that noise"? I have no idea.

[PensFanInDC]

each new capability must be hand-coded by Cohen

This, to me, means it is not creativity. It's a glittery version of trial and error.

[shmenguin]

But if it was an animal would I say "screw that noise"? I have no idea.

spoiler alert...the answer is yes. and you are very aware of this.

[columbia]

I'd save my dog over a lot of people; probably most.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

would you save it over yourself?

[columbia]

Maybe?

[redwill]

AI is artificial intelligence. Are we assuming that creative thought is part of intelligence? Is it even possible to generate such a thing (creativity) artificially or does 'artificial' discredit any and all creativity?

each new capability must be hand-coded by Cohen

This, to me, means it is not creativity. It's a glittery version of trial and error.

So did you answer your question?

[PensFanInDC]

Maybe? It shows me that this particular AI cannot be creative.

[Kraftster]

redwill, you believe in evolution correct? I know nothing about your thoughts on it so I'd like to ask if you think we developed incisors because we were eating meat out of necessity? Incisors have little value in an all veggie diet.

Well, evolutionary vestiges probably shouldn't dictate morality.

So morality is outside the spectrum of physical evolution. I would think that if millions of years of evolution granted me with the perfect tools for tearing flesh with the sole purpose of eating it then it would probably be in my best interest to do so considering the length of time it took to get this way.

Certainly our current state, arrived at via evolution, impacts the moral decisions that we make, but I think we ought to make moral decisions through use of reason. And we ought to try to be consistent in doing so.

I was more getting at where you guys covered in that we (most Americans, at least) no longer need to eat meat (to the extent that we ever did). If the thinking was, I have this thing that seems like its made for this so I should probably do it, that's more what I was taking issue with.

[Kraftster]

I can see this going down some road of logic that I'd rather not go down. I made a snap decision reading the question, and one that I think most people would make when posed with the question. I guess I really should have seen it coming in the philosophy thread. I value a cat's life over a piece of artwork, and I eat burgers. If that makes me a hypocrite, I'll smile as I'm eating my double bacon cheese burger and bid you a good day.

To the extent I played a part in this, I wasn't really looking to make stepping into the philosophy thread something to avoid. As you said, this is the philosophy thread and surely you understood that there was more to redwill's hypothetical than polling LGP for data.

[Kraftster]

To add to that, the sort of "I see where this is going, you're about to make me think about whether what I said makes sense logically, and no thank you" has never been one that I can say that I have had. I really do try to welcome opportunities to view my decisions/viewpoints in a critical way and from a fresh perspective. The thought of being a logically inconsistent moral bebopper is rather icky to me.

[Hockeynut!]

Would you save any person over any cat?

Absolutely not.

I would.

What is the person is an 80 year old death row inmate who is 100% guilty and is scheduled to die tomorrow and the cat is a 1 month old kitten with its life ahead of it?

[PensFanInDC]

Would you save any person over any cat?

Absolutely not.

I would.

What is the person is an 80 year old death row inmate who is 100% guilty and is scheduled to die tomorrow and the cat is a 1 month old kitten with its life ahead of it?

No change

[Hockeynut!]

[PensFanInDC]

If stated it before somewhere on LGP. I value all human life, no matter who the human is, above all other life on the planet. The "worst" person on the planet is worth more (albeit a fraction of the width of a hair more) than the best of the best non-human.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

so you'd save Hitler over Lassie?

[PensFanInDC]

Yep

[redwill]

If stated it before somewhere on LGP. I value all human life, no matter who the human is, above all other life on the planet. The "worst" person on the planet is worth more (albeit a fraction of the width of a hair more) than the best of the best non-human.

*cough* Ovechkin *cough*

[stopper40]

so you'd save Hitler over Lassie?

Actually lassie would save himself, and probably you and Hitler. Heck, Lassie probably would've been the one to call 911

[redwill]

[youtube][/youtube]