Actually my model of ethics is that there is no rational or absolute model of ethics. Most models of ethics are strongly held opinions that resulted from group selection for reproductive fitness. I don't believe in imposing any particular model on others because that usually leads to conflict. For example, even people who agree that killing is wrong disagree on whether murderers should be executed. Both sides argue that their model is rational.
We evolved to fear death and die. But basing a model of ethics on this fact leads to absurdities. For example, we could eliminate death by copying out minds to AI by training an LLM on years of personal surveillance and then killing out physical bodies. Or we can remove the fear of death by removing the amygdala. But I suspect that most people would oppose both of these options. So I would not seek to forceably impose them. -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] On Thu, Oct 22, 2026, 7:34 PM James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > Consent has become a dirty word among The Great and The Good. > > Indeed, it has been thus for some time now: > > https://fairchurch.org/AProtestantInstauration.pdf > > That The Great and the Good also have succeeded in getting us all to see > "separatists" as "supremacists" even when the "separatists" are trying to > separate themselves from the manifest supremacism of The Great and The Good > is evidence of a successful program of mass memetic vaccination of against > intellectual integrity that has been not only imposed but executed by The > Great and The Good. > > Why would anyone want to separate themselves from The Great and The Good? > > Take, for example, the proposals for mass forced amygdalectomy suggested > without even a hint of irony by at least one of Diamandis's coterie, and > echoed in this very forum by Matt Mahoney. > > But there are more obvious reasons for wanting such separation from such > supremacists: > > The Great and The Good are militant ignoramuses about their own > macrosocial dynamical theories -- they are so certain of their social > theories that even though they position themselves at the center of the > very technology that should enable objective macrosocial model selection to > think critically about their own interventions, they deny such model > creation and selection technologies exist. > > So people become suspicious of them -- especially when global transport > creates the risk of spread of memes and genes that are a threat to the > communities in which people want to raise their children. People are not > permitted by The Great and The Good to sort themselves into human ecologies > with which to test their social theories. Why? Because The Great and The > Good just KNOW that The Great and The Good are Good to the point that they > don't need self-examination of their own macrosocial theories. > > People aren't permitted to exclude from their communities "confounding > variables" that may threaten their children. > > They are instead subjected to "interventions for their own good" by The > Great and The Good -- interventions like vaccines -- vaccines against > sanity. > > This is the kind of abject fanaticism on behalf of The Unfriendly AGI that > is otherwise know n as "The Global Economy" that is going to get The Great > and The Good guillotined. > > https://github.com/jabowery/HumesGuillotine > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + > delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> > Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Te59bc90acbee0c99-M746810ebc087078b245026c7> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Te59bc90acbee0c99-M4a60f2d7d493bf88496e5b1d Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
