Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Minsky's new article
Message-ID: <CzqG7r.yA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <CyyC64.M5t@world.std.com> <CzFqon.94L@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <jqbCzH3H1.AKA@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 18:19:03 GMT
Lines: 58

In article <jqbCzH3H1.AKA@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>In article <CzFqon.94L@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
>Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <CyyC64.M5t@world.std.com> btarbox@world.std.com (Brian J Tarbox) writes:
>>>|> gyro@netcom.com (Scott L. Burson):
>>>|> >I think that Clarke and Kubrick in _2001_ tapped into a very
>>>|> >profound truth: if a machine is placed in charge of anything,
>>>|> >it will screw up.
>>>|> 
>>>|> Not a profound truth, but an ludicrously ignorant prejudice.
>>>
>>>Actually, HAL didn't screw up, he/it was lead astray by bad instructions
>>>from  its _human_ creators (as described in the 2nd and 3rd books). 
>>
>>Ok.
>>
>>>HAL acted reasonably given the orders he was given.
>>
>>He did?  It was reasonable to kill people?
>
>What is unreasonable about killing people, other than that it normally brings
>punishment? 

An interesting ethical position.  

> Do you know what "reasonable" means?  Do you understand the
>is/ought dichotomy?

Do you never tire of such stuff?  You seem to be (I hope it's not
true) one of the most arrogant people I've ever encountered on the
net.

>    Even if we accept an ethical statement such as
>"killing is bad" as if it were a logical axiom,

Which I never suggested.  The context is: HAL acted reasonably given
the orders he was given.  That's what I'm replying to.  Given the
orders he was given, was it reasonable to kill people?  I'd be
interested in answers either way.

>   we still have questions of
>whether capital punishment, euthanasia, self defense, and warfare can be
>"reasonable". 

Sure, and what was Hal's justification?  Was it sufficient, IYHO?

"HAL acted reasonably given the orders he was given".  Are the
orders enough to make what he did reasonable?

> Is a shrill question like "It was reasonable to kill people?"
>really the deepest level of thought we can operate at?

Shrill?

I note that you've offered no argument that what HAL did was
reasonable.  Not interested in setting a good example, I guess.

-- jd
