Intelligence isn't the important factor there - consciousness is. Does it feel like something to be those entities in the simulation? If yes, then I'd argue that ending the simulation is like killing a person painlessly in their sleep.
I personally don't think ending the simulation is even the most troubling part. We could unintentionally create a simulation that's effectively a hell and then populate it with entities that have subjective experiences we don't realize exist. The only thing worse than ending a life is creating one just for it to suffer through its entire existence.
We could unintentionally create a simulation that's effectively a hell and then populate it with entities that have subjective experiences we don't realize exist. The only thing worse than ending a life is creating one just for it to suffer through its entire existence.
And this is basically the plot of the TV series Severance. Has me wondering how they intend to address it.
Didn't scientists train brain cells to exclusively play Doom? It's like their whole conscience is stuck in a video game version of hell through a brain in a vat experience.
Not really. It's not nearly enough cells to have any kind of consciousness as we know it. A few neurons learning to play a game is a far cry from tying a being into a simulation of hell.
Just turn down the simulation speed real low and run it at one tick per 20 years, then you can technically keep it going without such great expense. The people inside won't notice the difference.
the simulacrants wouldn't realize the simulation is ever not running.
Kurzgesagt made a video about how in a dying universe (from heat death) civilizations that uploaded their consciousness into a simulation could live forever, by intermittently running the simulation and pausing it for greater and greater amounts of time as expendable energy in the universe diminishes. The consciousness would not perceive the time the simulation isn't running and to them things just go on and on for eternity.
What I find interesting is how we abstract away the actual work needed to keep either scenario running reflects how billionaires justify their own extremes. The heat death being a most extreme example as there is no "spare" energy for other organism to be conscious. The uploaded consciousness is detached from reality, living in a dieing universe, and still insists it has a right to exist at the cost of new venues of consciousness.
Now imagine an eternal being sitting in a cold planet and seeing the stars fade one by one, until there is nothing to see... And then be there, conscious forever. Alone. In the dark.
If this is a way for our simulation creator to decide to pull the plug without guilt, I guess just go ahead and do it. I was holding out hope that this was all real, but it has been getting more clear that it's not.
I'd say that whether or not it's in a simulation doesn't matter. If the beings you created were recognizable as people (human or otherwise) then they have rights and you'd be trampling those rights if you ended their existence. The creation of such life should not be done without an appropriate sense of responsibility.
Why? I'm not trolling, I just really think it's interesting where people think "rights" come from. Some people think they come from God. Which is great, because in this scenario we are God. So anything we do is ethical because we did it.
I contend they come from States. Because I notice that rights are different in different States. And I don't think a god would obey jurisdiction.
Another way of saying this is that the beings themselves have to recognize and demand rights. Because a state is just people deciding things after all.
So where do the rights come from? Are they a legal/socail construct, or inherent in the universe some how? Some third thing I didn't think of?
People forget how scary the real world is. We are the only creatures to create this concept of rights. You think that grizzly bear cares about your rights? Got some news for you....
And shit, even we don't respect other people's right to exist.
:: gestures very very briefly to.... EVERYTHING going on right now::
You think the asteroid that ended 90+% of life on earth cared about the dinosaurs' rights?
All that being said, I wouldn't be able to pull the plug.
I wouldn't want to shut down the simulation, but it would depend on the energy expenditure. A hospital could theoretically save more people if they allocated fifty million dollars per patient. A person's right to life is contingent on the cost to maintain it.
I am of the opinion that rights come from understanding, that recognizing and respecting them is a hallmark of advancing human understanding. States/religions/whatever that lack rights are either less advanced in understanding or motivated to avoid recognizing/respecting them.
The old question right? Does a simulated (or rather emulated) brain actually think and feel? Or does the computer just output what it would be if it was alive?
I think before I am, but I can't prove that I'm self aware and not just "pretending" to do so. But because you are a human being like me, I understand that you do too. But that assumption is broken when you are not a physical organism but software running on a computer.
One of the Minds in Ian M Banks' last novel, The Hydrogen Sonata, faces and addresses exactly this problem. Much is at stake, so it's a meaningful discussion.
You may be referring to the hells, but he had a discussion about having a Mind simulating a particular situation to the point where the participants were basically sentient. In that instance, I do not think it is ethical to end the simulation, but I think it would be ethical to freeze the simulation. If the whole simulation was paused and stored with the potential to be restarted, then no perceivable harm would come to the participants.
No this was the simulation of the entire group that was about to subsume as to how they would react to finding out their very important religious document was actually an alien experiment. I think the mind was the Mistake Not... .
It's hard to describe what it's about without spoiling it, because the mystery of that universe is part of what draws you in. In a way, the comment you replied to is a major spoiler since you don't
::: spoiler spoiler
find out you're in a "simulation" until near the end of the game.
:::
But it's an incredible game that I recommend to any JRPG fan.
I'm only half way through, and don't you dare hit that spoiler!
This game is beyond quips. It's beautiful, with great music, and an absolutely bat shit story that you have to experience for yourself. The introductory 15 minutes drug some moisture from my eye holes.
And nothing against jrpgs, I have big final fantasy nostalgia, but the French insanity felt like a breath of fresh air.
This is a tough question, I think to answer it you have to know if those simulated beings have actual consciousness / sapience or if that is just simulated.
There is a tv film, i don't know the title, related about this topic.
The plot was :
a group of scientists made a living simulation, and go in the simulation to operate fixes and prevent making simulation. On day, one the scientific was killed, and left a message in the simulation for their coworkers. The message was : "take a road and follow no direction", a guy in the simulation followed the instruction and discovered that he was in a simulation, but the message were for the scientists who are in a simulation too.
I've seen it a long time ago, and if I remember well, they have to prevent the simulation people to build a simulation, otherwise the hardware will not be able to keep up.
And big part of the plot, the scientists can load in the simulation.
The fun thing about ethics is that not everyone shares the same rules. Personally, I would probably say it is. (Though is more worse than what we do to cows? Or what we do to other humans in war?) However, others may say they aren't real, and only an illusion manufactured by the simulation, so it's fine. There are other arguments I'm sure someone could make too. It's up for you to decide what your ethics are, not others. There is no universal code of ethics just as there is no universal morality.
[Alt text: this is Bob. Bob is a figment of you imagination. When you leave, Bob will leave too. "Don't leave" says Bob]
The Bob in your head is intelligent, it can communicate in English. Is it unethical to stop thinking about Bob? Was it unethical of me to show you this picture, creating a "Bob" in your head? Is any story unethical to tell?
How do you define intelligence? In any case, I think it's irrelevant. What's relevant is whether the beings are self aware or if they exist having notions and concepts of fear of death. For this reason, I deem it unethical to slaughter - for instance - animals in a setting in which their peers are aware of the moment of death of their peers. Seeing, for instance, a cow agonize about their peer in front of them being shot to death is heart-wrenching. For this reason, my answer to your question is "yes". Yes I eat meat. :3
You got me curious, you seem to feel some way about slaughtering animals, but that doesn't seem to translate into your actions being aligned with your feelings.
Would you care to talk about it?
I'll be honest I have reduced my meat/dairy/egg consumption significantly, but every once in a while I'm not the one cooking at home and I don't really feel able to go on a side quest while hungry.
It's not that complicated in my case. Ideologically, I want us - humanity - to move toward vegetarianism. First and foremost because of how unethical I find the production of animals, and secondary for the sake of the environment. I'm just too lazy to actually act on this. I had a two year vegetarian streak when I lived in Japan. I ate meat only if and when I ate out, mainly because Japanese restaurants are not quite informed on vegetarianism and seem to believe that the meal is vegetarian as long as it doesn't consist of a chunk of meat - which is sad, because Japan has a long history of veganism in their various Buddhist offshoots, but that's another story. At home, I only cooked vegetarian, although not vegan. It was cheap and easy to find meat replacements, mostly soy based.
Funny, I'm somewhat in the opposite position, when I eat out I always order vegan/vegetarian since it's usually cheaper and doesn't require any special effort on my part, but when cooking I might still eat animal parts once in a while since I don't cook only for myself and can't always cook twice.
Instead of a Dark Lord, you would have a queen, not dark but beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Tempestuous as the sea, and stronger than the foundations of the earth! All shall love me and despair!
I'd imagine there could be an ethical way to do so through a sunset protocol similar to the concept of rapture (the religious kind, not the Bioshock city) - freeze simulation, move all the beings' minds to "heaven", shut down physical universe simulation (lowering operation costs by at least five orders of magnitude, I'd imagine), and let them enjoy afterlife until they get tired of existing, reach nirvana, or something like that.
That reminds me, I should really get back into AI research.
If you are a human, human ethics of not killing "alive" stuff still applies to you no?
Thinking more into rules of ethics, if those simulated beings came up with their own morals like "don't try calculating all digits of pi in large groups because it causes lag" that would not really apply to you.
Basically different beings have different rules of ethics IMO and you can't simply end the simulation more so because you are a human than anything.
The answer could change in same exact scenario if you are some kind of eldritch being instead of human.
The ethics which we use today evolved out of practical ethics - that is to say, it's evolved out of a need for a set of rules meant to be applied in order dictate the conduct of humans amongst one another. Because of this, I think most ethical frames of reference are ill-suited for trying to answer this question soundly.
It seems analogous to trying to apply traditional physics to a quantum reference frame. It's outside traditional Physics's wheelhouse. A different set of tools likely needs to be applied, which has a different starting paradigm.
That being said, your answer is really going depend on what this new ethic's paradigm is, which is arguably completely arbitrary in this specific case.
That's about my thought if a program became actually sentient then yes turning it off would be awful. Plus obviously the first sentient artificial life form who knows if it'd happen again. I guess it could be debated if it was a simulation and tons were sentient and had no life outside of such.
I still go with my first answer though, any sentient life observed outside natural biology would be a huge thing. I'd still want to give it a limited sandbox to work with so didn't go all Hal or Deus Ex to achieve some random goal that wasn't apparent. Least for awhile.
Would they feel any pain or suffering if you shut the simulation down? If not, which seems like the intuitive answer, then it is ethical.
Killing people in a traditional sense is unethical because you inevitably subject them to suffering agony. Also, the killed one won't be your only victim, as any people related to them would be subjected to psychological trauma.
Whether plugging off simulated consciousnesses is moral is another question tho.
Edit: since he's not picking up, I'll raise what I think his point might be.
He sees ethics applying to his equals or betters. In that case, even if a more advanced race comes along, it would still apply to him, because he made himself the measuring stick, so he would oppose torturing of, at least, some humans.
Where our dimwitted friend failed to follow the reasoning is that, if value (in the case, being worthy of ethical concern) is in the eye of the beholder, a more advanced race then would see our dimwitted friend as a lesser animal and butcher him with no qualms.
That's a dangerous line of reasoning. Depending on who you ask, people won't consider a lot of things "equal or better".
In no particulary order, a lot of people would not apply ethics to: Animals in general, pets, children, woman or all people of different ethnicitiy, religion or even political views.
I'd argue that ethics should be applied to all living things. Well, at least all things capable of suffering, but that keeps people arguing again - doctors even used to think that human babies aren't fully capable of that.
Regarding the original question: The simulation isn't alive. Stopping it won't 'kill' it, assuming it can be resumed. Deleting it, however, argubly is be unethical, yet it does not cause suffering at the very least.
I'm making this distinction because the post he's replying to said they "only applied ethics to their equals or betters", which is appalling: it's not even concluding that something bad is ethical, it was just outright denying that ethics even applied to "lesser beings".
Regarding your point, I think it's widely consensual that killing for sustenance, if no other choices exist, is ethical - even vegans agree with this, and by nature, they don't tend to agree with much (haha joke, calm down vegans!).
Where it gets more debatable is killing animals, who are very much capable of suffering and do possess a measure of self awareness and intelligence, when alternatives exist.
Since "veganism" is the rejection of exploitation of animals by Man, I'm not sure most vegans would say it's ethical even when there's no other option, but they probably wouldn't judge either way.
It is the rejection of exploitation of animals as far as is possible and practicable, as per the vegan society's definition.
I'm sure individual opinions can differ and that others might hold more restrictive views, but like you said, in extreme circumstances people would probably not judge, we're in agreement 🤝
I'm vegan. Even if you argue that plants can suffer - it's the least amount of suffering I can cause without starving myself.
Also "applying ethics" does not mean it's automatically unethical - just that I think about it beforehand instead of categorically thinking "it's okay because I'm something better".
136 Comments
Iconoclast@feddit.uk · 56 pts · 143d
Intelligence isn't the important factor there - consciousness is. Does it feel like something to be those entities in the simulation? If yes, then I'd argue that ending the simulation is like killing a person painlessly in their sleep.
I personally don't think ending the simulation is even the most troubling part. We could unintentionally create a simulation that's effectively a hell and then populate it with entities that have subjective experiences we don't realize exist. The only thing worse than ending a life is creating one just for it to suffer through its entire existence.
zikzak025@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 143d
And this is basically the plot of the TV series Severance. Has me wondering how they intend to address it.
ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · 8 pts · 143d
Didn't scientists train brain cells to exclusively play Doom? It's like their whole conscience is stuck in a video game version of hell through a brain in a vat experience.
LurkingLuddite@piefed.social · 3 pts · 143d
Not really. It's not nearly enough cells to have any kind of consciousness as we know it. A few neurons learning to play a game is a far cry from tying a being into a simulation of hell.
ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · 2 pts · 143d
I dunno. Some life forms have only a few brain cells. It could mean their whole world for those little cells, wouldn't it?
LurkingLuddite@piefed.social · 4 pts · 142d
It is definitely their entire world, but the point is it takes far more than a few cells to create actual human-relatable sentience.
That's coming from someone who fully understands and knows that many more animals than most humans care to admit also have sentience.
Those petri dishes are not sentient nor conscious.
tomi000@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 119d
Doom, not Far Cry
Trigger2_2000@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 143d
exclusively play Doom?
How dare they take away their right to variety! /s
brrt@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 143d
Antinatalism entered the chat
AstralPath@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 143d
Or maybe just well reasoned morality?
PHLAK@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 143d
USS Calister
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub · 30 pts · 143d
Somewhere in a box in your childhood home, a Tamagotchi is slowly dying...
LurkingLuddite@piefed.social · 9 pts · 143d
Slowly? Those things would 'die' in under 24 hours!
SelfHigh5@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 143d
What the fuck is a Tamagotchi
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 22 pts · 143d
Just turn down the simulation speed real low and run it at one tick per 20 years, then you can technically keep it going without such great expense. The people inside won't notice the difference.
LORDSMEGMA@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 143d
"Now playing human music, on Earth Radio"
Eheran@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 143d
Hahahaha. Eat apple!
Hacksaw@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 143d
If you take the limit of that you'll realize that people won't raise if you turn it off either.
raman_klogius@ani.social · 17 pts · 143d
the simulacrants wouldn't realize the simulation is ever not running.
Kurzgesagt made a video about how in a dying universe (from heat death) civilizations that uploaded their consciousness into a simulation could live forever, by intermittently running the simulation and pausing it for greater and greater amounts of time as expendable energy in the universe diminishes. The consciousness would not perceive the time the simulation isn't running and to them things just go on and on for eternity.
zbyte64@awful.systems · 3 pts · 143d
What I find interesting is how we abstract away the actual work needed to keep either scenario running reflects how billionaires justify their own extremes. The heat death being a most extreme example as there is no "spare" energy for other organism to be conscious. The uploaded consciousness is detached from reality, living in a dieing universe, and still insists it has a right to exist at the cost of new venues of consciousness.
bufalo1973@piefed.social · 2 pts · 143d
Now imagine an eternal being sitting in a cold planet and seeing the stars fade one by one, until there is nothing to see... And then be there, conscious forever. Alone. In the dark.
you_are_dust@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 143d
If this is a way for our simulation creator to decide to pull the plug without guilt, I guess just go ahead and do it. I was holding out hope that this was all real, but it has been getting more clear that it's not.
Captain_Stupid@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 143d
Couldn't they just make us all infertile and let us die naturally or something?
davidhun@lemmy.sdf.org · 11 pts · 143d
Depends on the AWS spend.
LurkingLuddite@piefed.social · 5 pts · 143d
Anything above 0 is already entering unethical territory, so...
SarahValentine@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 143d
I'd say that whether or not it's in a simulation doesn't matter. If the beings you created were recognizable as people (human or otherwise) then they have rights and you'd be trampling those rights if you ended their existence. The creation of such life should not be done without an appropriate sense of responsibility.
yesman@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 143d
Why? I'm not trolling, I just really think it's interesting where people think "rights" come from. Some people think they come from God. Which is great, because in this scenario we are God. So anything we do is ethical because we did it.
I contend they come from States. Because I notice that rights are different in different States. And I don't think a god would obey jurisdiction.
Another way of saying this is that the beings themselves have to recognize and demand rights. Because a state is just people deciding things after all.
So where do the rights come from? Are they a legal/socail construct, or inherent in the universe some how? Some third thing I didn't think of?
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today · 11 pts · 143d
People forget how scary the real world is. We are the only creatures to create this concept of rights. You think that grizzly bear cares about your rights? Got some news for you....
And shit, even we don't respect other people's right to exist.
:: gestures very very briefly to.... EVERYTHING going on right now::
You think the asteroid that ended 90+% of life on earth cared about the dinosaurs' rights?
All that being said, I wouldn't be able to pull the plug.
BygoneNeutrino@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 143d
I wouldn't want to shut down the simulation, but it would depend on the energy expenditure. A hospital could theoretically save more people if they allocated fifty million dollars per patient. A person's right to life is contingent on the cost to maintain it.
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 143d
Good call, I didn't consider power consumption. I agree with you.
SarahValentine@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 143d
I am of the opinion that rights come from understanding, that recognizing and respecting them is a hallmark of advancing human understanding. States/religions/whatever that lack rights are either less advanced in understanding or motivated to avoid recognizing/respecting them.
webp@mander.xyz · 9 pts · 143d
If you set the simulation to end before it has begun, do you dodge the question of ethics?
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 143d
Only if it makes a trolley kill someone first.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 143d
Long story short, no, depending on certain conditions.
sefra1@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 143d
The old question right? Does a simulated (or rather emulated) brain actually think and feel? Or does the computer just output what it would be if it was alive?
I think before I am, but I can't prove that I'm self aware and not just "pretending" to do so. But because you are a human being like me, I understand that you do too. But that assumption is broken when you are not a physical organism but software running on a computer.
notastatist@feddit.org · 1 pts · 143d
I mean, I get that a software on a computer is something.else. But why is the asumption broken?
RecursiveParadox@piefed.social · 8 pts · 143d
One of the Minds in Ian M Banks' last novel, The Hydrogen Sonata, faces and addresses exactly this problem. Much is at stake, so it's a meaningful discussion.
Dadifer@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 143d
You may be referring to the hells, but he had a discussion about having a Mind simulating a particular situation to the point where the participants were basically sentient. In that instance, I do not think it is ethical to end the simulation, but I think it would be ethical to freeze the simulation. If the whole simulation was paused and stored with the potential to be restarted, then no perceivable harm would come to the participants.
RecursiveParadox@piefed.social · 2 pts · 142d
No this was the simulation of the entire group that was about to subsume as to how they would react to finding out their very important religious document was actually an alien experiment. I think the mind was the Mistake Not... .
spittingimage@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 143d
Wasn't that in Surface Detail?
RecursiveParadox@piefed.social · 3 pts · 142d
@dadifer@lemmy.world is talking about Surface Detail, while I was talking about the Hydrogen Sonata.
Mrkawfee@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 142d
Yes because then your car battery won't start
Randelung@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 143d
Play Expedition 33 and let us know what you picked and why.
manmachine@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 143d
or SOMA
echodot@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 143d
Oh is that what it's about. I thought it was the horror game or something. The advertising for it was so ambiguous I never really looked into it
pm_me_your_puppies@anarchist.nexus · 2 pts · 143d
It's hard to describe what it's about without spoiling it, because the mystery of that universe is part of what draws you in. In a way, the comment you replied to is a major spoiler since you don't ::: spoiler spoiler find out you're in a "simulation" until near the end of the game. ::: But it's an incredible game that I recommend to any JRPG fan.
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 143d
I'm only half way through, and don't you dare hit that spoiler!
This game is beyond quips. It's beautiful, with great music, and an absolutely bat shit story that you have to experience for yourself. The introductory 15 minutes drug some moisture from my eye holes.
And nothing against jrpgs, I have big final fantasy nostalgia, but the French insanity felt like a breath of fresh air.
SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 143d
This is a tough question, I think to answer it you have to know if those simulated beings have actual consciousness / sapience or if that is just simulated.
WindyRebel@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 143d
Did you just watch “Plaything” on Black Mirror?
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 142d
Sometimes I think of that episode when I play Rimworld and start harvesting blood and organs from a prisoner
snake@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 143d
I was thinking the microverse battery from Rick and Morty!
slazer2au@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 143d
no, because if you dont use the kill switch you get The Ring happening.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 143d
Is that "the ring" cannon or are you just yes anding?
NachBarcelona@piefed.social · 4 pts · 143d
"cannon"?
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 143d
Uhh, like part of the story.
HuudaHarkiten@piefed.social · 4 pts · 143d
Cannon is a thing you shoot big lumps of exploding metal to the distance of tens of kilometers.
Canon is the thing with the plots and stories. Also, a camera.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 143d
Ohh, I can see how you could be totally confused becuase im the dumb one.
HuudaHarkiten@piefed.social · 3 pts · 143d
Don't worry about it. From what I've seen, about 75% of people make the same mistake lol.
Rhaedas@fedia.io · 4 pts · 143d
In my experience it's far higher. That and "rouge" seem to be very common misspellings.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 143d
Im not worried about it. Obviously.
NachBarcelona@piefed.social · 4 pts · 143d
That's canon.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 143d
Yeah, cabin. Like I said.
NachBarcelona@piefed.social · 4 pts · 143d
Exactomudo, knishy.
Asetru@feddit.org · 2 pts · 143d
Chekhov's cannon.
slazer2au@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 143d
that is the premise of the books that the film was based on.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 143d
Hmm. I thought samara was behind it all. Interesting
notsure@fedia.io · 6 pts · 143d
...I hear Tuvix calling in the wind...
Ceruleum@lemmy.wtf · 2 pts · 143d
"Leooooolaaaaaa rooooot ...."
notsure@fedia.io · 2 pts · 143d
...leola root is potatoes...i cannot be wrong
Labna@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 142d
There is a tv film, i don't know the title, related about this topic.
The plot was :
If someone can find the movie, it could be great.
osanna@lemmy.vg · 3 pts · 142d
this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor
topherclay@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 142d
Yeah that's a pretty good sell. I'll check it out.
osanna@lemmy.vg · 2 pts · 142d
i liked it, but I like almost everything, so that's not much of a sell.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 142d
Pardon?
Labna@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 142d
I've seen it a long time ago, and if I remember well, they have to prevent the simulation people to build a simulation, otherwise the hardware will not be able to keep up. And big part of the plot, the scientists can load in the simulation.
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 143d
The fun thing about ethics is that not everyone shares the same rules. Personally, I would probably say it is. (Though is more worse than what we do to cows? Or what we do to other humans in war?) However, others may say they aren't real, and only an illusion manufactured by the simulation, so it's fine. There are other arguments I'm sure someone could make too. It's up for you to decide what your ethics are, not others. There is no universal code of ethics just as there is no universal morality.
noughtnaut@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 142d
I don't know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility
echodot@feddit.uk · 6 pts · 143d
Depends who they've elected as leader.
Tudsamfa@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 142d
You can "simulate" life inside your brain, too.
[Alt text: this is Bob. Bob is a figment of you imagination. When you leave, Bob will leave too. "Don't leave" says Bob]
The Bob in your head is intelligent, it can communicate in English. Is it unethical to stop thinking about Bob? Was it unethical of me to show you this picture, creating a "Bob" in your head? Is any story unethical to tell?
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 142d
Hmm. I also imagined a new bpb that says, "its ok to leave i will be ok".
emotional_soup_88@programming.dev · 4 pts · 143d
How do you define intelligence? In any case, I think it's irrelevant. What's relevant is whether the beings are self aware or if they exist having notions and concepts of fear of death. For this reason, I deem it unethical to slaughter - for instance - animals in a setting in which their peers are aware of the moment of death of their peers. Seeing, for instance, a cow agonize about their peer in front of them being shot to death is heart-wrenching. For this reason, my answer to your question is "yes". Yes I eat meat. :3
mitram@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 143d
You got me curious, you seem to feel some way about slaughtering animals, but that doesn't seem to translate into your actions being aligned with your feelings.
Would you care to talk about it?
I'll be honest I have reduced my meat/dairy/egg consumption significantly, but every once in a while I'm not the one cooking at home and I don't really feel able to go on a side quest while hungry.
emotional_soup_88@programming.dev · 1 pts · 143d
It's not that complicated in my case. Ideologically, I want us - humanity - to move toward vegetarianism. First and foremost because of how unethical I find the production of animals, and secondary for the sake of the environment. I'm just too lazy to actually act on this. I had a two year vegetarian streak when I lived in Japan. I ate meat only if and when I ate out, mainly because Japanese restaurants are not quite informed on vegetarianism and seem to believe that the meal is vegetarian as long as it doesn't consist of a chunk of meat - which is sad, because Japan has a long history of veganism in their various Buddhist offshoots, but that's another story. At home, I only cooked vegetarian, although not vegan. It was cheap and easy to find meat replacements, mostly soy based.
mitram@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 143d
Funny, I'm somewhat in the opposite position, when I eat out I always order vegan/vegetarian since it's usually cheaper and doesn't require any special effort on my part, but when cooking I might still eat animal parts once in a while since I don't cook only for myself and can't always cook twice.
KombatWombat@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 143d
Found God's account
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 142d
Instead of a Dark Lord, you would have a queen, not dark but beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Tempestuous as the sea, and stronger than the foundations of the earth! All shall love me and despair!
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 143d
Only if they have a consciousness.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 143d
Lol @ the AI telling on itself.
MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 142d
I'd imagine there could be an ethical way to do so through a sunset protocol similar to the concept of rapture (the religious kind, not the Bioshock city) - freeze simulation, move all the beings' minds to "heaven", shut down physical universe simulation (lowering operation costs by at least five orders of magnitude, I'd imagine), and let them enjoy afterlife until they get tired of existing, reach nirvana, or something like that.
That reminds me, I should really get back into AI research.
Jankatarch@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 143d
If you are a human, human ethics of not killing "alive" stuff still applies to you no?
Thinking more into rules of ethics, if those simulated beings came up with their own morals like "don't try calculating all digits of pi in large groups because it causes lag" that would not really apply to you.
Basically different beings have different rules of ethics IMO and you can't simply end the simulation more so because you are a human than anything.
The answer could change in same exact scenario if you are some kind of eldritch being instead of human.
DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 143d
Only if they're conscious of the simulation.
backalleycoyote@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 143d
Username checks out.
thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 143d
Number one tell no one, number 2...
JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org · 3 pts · 143d
The ethics which we use today evolved out of practical ethics - that is to say, it's evolved out of a need for a set of rules meant to be applied in order dictate the conduct of humans amongst one another. Because of this, I think most ethical frames of reference are ill-suited for trying to answer this question soundly.
It seems analogous to trying to apply traditional physics to a quantum reference frame. It's outside traditional Physics's wheelhouse. A different set of tools likely needs to be applied, which has a different starting paradigm.
That being said, your answer is really going depend on what this new ethic's paradigm is, which is arguably completely arbitrary in this specific case.
zbyte64@awful.systems · 2 pts · 143d
We can probably simulate a snail but me killing that wouldn't make my wife scream at me for killing a snail.
FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 140d
Depends, are they sentient? If they are conscious beings, yeah I think it would be unethical to mass murder them
reksas@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 143d
only way to know would be to enter the simulation and see for yourself.. wait a minute..
dasrael@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 143d
It would be unethical to start the simulation in the first place.....
DudeImMacGyver@kbin.earth · 2 pts · 143d
If they're sentient? Yep.
orbitz@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 143d
That's about my thought if a program became actually sentient then yes turning it off would be awful. Plus obviously the first sentient artificial life form who knows if it'd happen again. I guess it could be debated if it was a simulation and tons were sentient and had no life outside of such.
I still go with my first answer though, any sentient life observed outside natural biology would be a huge thing. I'd still want to give it a limited sandbox to work with so didn't go all Hal or Deus Ex to achieve some random goal that wasn't apparent. Least for awhile.
ChetManly@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 143d
RoddyStiggs@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 143d
No.
CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 143d
Would they feel any pain or suffering if you shut the simulation down? If not, which seems like the intuitive answer, then it is ethical.
Killing people in a traditional sense is unethical because you inevitably subject them to suffering agony. Also, the killed one won't be your only victim, as any people related to them would be subjected to psychological trauma.
Whether plugging off simulated consciousnesses is moral is another question tho.
ji59@hilariouschaos.com · 1 pts · 143d
Let's see the people split into pro-simlife and pro-simchoice camps.
finallymadeanaccount@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 142d
Ask them.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 142d
They say, "yes".
Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org · 0 pts · 143d
Even my Arduino had intelligence, but I switched off the power.
username_1@programming.dev · -4 pts · 143d
mech@feddit.org · 13 pts · 143d
The ethics of a slave owner.
ByteJunk@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 143d
So if a more advanced alien race came over and started torturing and butchering humans, by your logic you'd be perfectly OK with that.
username_1@programming.dev · -5 pts · 143d
ByteJunk@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 143d
Do explain then.
Edit: since he's not picking up, I'll raise what I think his point might be.
He sees ethics applying to his equals or betters. In that case, even if a more advanced race comes along, it would still apply to him, because he made himself the measuring stick, so he would oppose torturing of, at least, some humans.
Where our dimwitted friend failed to follow the reasoning is that, if value (in the case, being worthy of ethical concern) is in the eye of the beholder, a more advanced race then would see our dimwitted friend as a lesser animal and butcher him with no qualms.
NachBarcelona@piefed.social · 2 pts · 143d
He can't, he's merely an unprincipled edgelord.
NachBarcelona@piefed.social · 4 pts · 143d
You're either a psychopath or an edgy teen (overlapping affairs though).
De_Narm@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 143d
That's a dangerous line of reasoning. Depending on who you ask, people won't consider a lot of things "equal or better".
In no particulary order, a lot of people would not apply ethics to: Animals in general, pets, children, woman or all people of different ethnicitiy, religion or even political views.
I'd argue that ethics should be applied to all living things. Well, at least all things capable of suffering, but that keeps people arguing again - doctors even used to think that human babies aren't fully capable of that.
Regarding the original question: The simulation isn't alive. Stopping it won't 'kill' it, assuming it can be resumed. Deleting it, however, argubly is be unethical, yet it does not cause suffering at the very least.
Asetru@feddit.org · 1 pts · 143d
So what do you eat then?
ByteJunk@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 143d
Applying ethics isn't saying that it's unethical.
I'm making this distinction because the post he's replying to said they "only applied ethics to their equals or betters", which is appalling: it's not even concluding that something bad is ethical, it was just outright denying that ethics even applied to "lesser beings".
Regarding your point, I think it's widely consensual that killing for sustenance, if no other choices exist, is ethical - even vegans agree with this, and by nature, they don't tend to agree with much (haha joke, calm down vegans!).
Where it gets more debatable is killing animals, who are very much capable of suffering and do possess a measure of self awareness and intelligence, when alternatives exist.
Asetru@feddit.org · 3 pts · 143d
Makes sense, misunderstood you there.
mitram@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 143d
Since "veganism" is the rejection of exploitation of animals by Man, I'm not sure most vegans would say it's ethical even when there's no other option, but they probably wouldn't judge either way.
ByteJunk@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 143d
It is the rejection of exploitation of animals as far as is possible and practicable, as per the vegan society's definition.
I'm sure individual opinions can differ and that others might hold more restrictive views, but like you said, in extreme circumstances people would probably not judge, we're in agreement 🤝
De_Narm@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 143d
I'm vegan. Even if you argue that plants can suffer - it's the least amount of suffering I can cause without starving myself.
Also "applying ethics" does not mean it's automatically unethical - just that I think about it beforehand instead of categorically thinking "it's okay because I'm something better".
NachBarcelona@piefed.social · -1 pts · 143d
Dead things.
NachBarcelona@piefed.social · 1 pts · 143d
How do you get to the point where you consider someone to be inferior to you?
username_1@programming.dev · -3 pts · 143d
mitram@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 143d
Would killing babies or elderly people be okay then? They can both be much more ignorant than the average person.
username_1@programming.dev · -1 pts · 143d
mitram@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 143d
I mean they are "stupider", at least the babies. Wouldn't that be enough to be considered inferior in your book?
username_1@programming.dev · -1 pts · 143d
mitram@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 143d
You were referring to non-human animals then?
NachBarcelona@piefed.social · 1 pts · 143d
So nobody ever has to worry? Good to know.
lol
Jankatarch@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 143d
Thoughts on disabled people?