People absolutely "torture" babies for their own enjoyment. It's just "in good fun", so you don't think about it as "torture", you think of it as "teasing". Cognitive blind spot. People do tons of things that are displeasant or emotionally painful to their children to see the child's funny or interesting reaction. It serves an evolutionary purpose even, challenging the child. "Mothers stroke and fathers poke" and all that.
People smother their infants to stop them from crying in order to have some quiet. Causing physical harm for their own satisfaction. I mean shit, if we're going there, people sexually abuse their children for their own gratification.
While I don't subscribe to universal "moral absolutes" either, I think this doesn't counter the argument. I don't think even the people you describe would claim their own acts as moral.
But if only one person feels that way, wouldn't it no longer be universal? I genuinely believe there has to be one person out there who would think it is moral.
(I'm just BSing on the internet... I took a few philosophy classes so if I'm off base or you don't want to engage in a pointless philosophical debate on HN I apologize in advance.)
There will always be individual differences, whether they be obstinate or altered brain chemistry, so I'd probably argue that as long as it's universal across cultures, any individual within one culture believing/claiming to believe different wouldn't change that. (But I'm just a hobby philosopher as well)
> I think there are effectively universal moral standards, which essentially nobody disagrees with.
...
> I don't think you are using "torture" in the same sense as I am.
Just throwing this out here, you haven't even established "Universal Moral Standards", not to mention needing it to do that across all of human history. And we haven't even addressed the "nobody disagrees with" issue you haven't even addressed.
I for one can easily look back on the past 100 years and see why "universal moral standards, which essentially nobody disagrees with" is a bad argument to make.
They're all about saying things that apply broadly enough, in a way that makes them seem specific, in order to make people go "Wow, that's dead-on!" An example:
You’ve recently been feeling a quiet tension between wanting stability and craving some kind of change. On the surface, things look mostly under control, but there’s a sense that one small adjustment—something you’ve been postponing—could shift your mood more than you expect.
See also: Cold Reading
(What I'm saying is calling 30-35 "dead on" makes you look like somebody who is easily impressed by parlour tricks)
I only asked ChatGPT to guess my age because I'm assuming OpenAI is going to have the LLM assume your age going forward, which is an interesting use of the technology. Rather than ask up front, it just guesses based on the utilization of the tool. I understand "dead-on" may have been the wrong use of the term, let's just say it was fairly accurate...
I probably would be impressed by a good parlour trick or an accurate horoscope. Lmao
> I'm constantly surprised at how many cultural conventions are mysteries to modern generations.
Some of my law students are only dimly aware of Jerry Seinfeld. And when I play a bit of the organ solo from Procul Harum's 1967 Whiter Shade of Pale (to illustrate a copyright-royalties point), I'm lucky if one person recognizes it.
It’s often surprising what we discover younger people have no idea about. I had a twenty-something co-worker in 2018 who was a self-professed aficionado of submarine movies who had never seen Yellow Submarine (I can’t remember now if he’d heard of it at least or if even that was beyond his ken). My profile picture on my gmail account is a picture of Harpo Marx because I occasionally use Harpo as a nickname thanks to my first name having become undesirable a decade ago and I had a recruiter that I was working with ask me who the picture was, apparently having never seen a Marx brothers movie or even heard of them.
I still remember (years ago now) my coworker telling
me her family stayed in a motel on a trip and her children asking her how the phone worked. They had never seen a dial phone before and when asked, tried putting their finders in and out the holes to see if that would dial.
There was a somewhat lame Kevin Kline/Tom Selleck movie, called In and Out (1997), where one of the characters is this vacuous model (Shalom Harlow), who tries using a dial phone in that manner.
"We found no difference in vital functions between someone who had a 100 pound versus a 200 pound weight dropped on their heads. We conclude that heavy blunt impact is not linked to death!"
We would of course need to specify the behaviors to test for. The more precisely we specify these behaviors, the more complexly our end product would be able to behave. We might invent a formal language for writing down these behaviors, and some people might be better at thinking about what kind of tests would need to be written to coax a certain type of end result out of the machine.
But that's future music, forgive a young man for letting his imagination run wild! ;)
If we consider other fields such as biology, behaviors of interest are specified but I'm not sure a formal language is currently being used per say. Data are evaluated on dimensional terms that could be either quantitative or qualitative. meta analysis of some sort might be used to reduce dimensionality to some degree but that usually happens owing to lack of power for higher resolution models.
One big advantage of this future random walk paradigm is you would not be bound by the real world constraints of sample collection of biological data. datasets could be made arbitrarily large and cost to do so will follow an inverse relationship with compute gains.
