Max Clarke
Posts 4
Comments88
Yes, I agree with that statement. However, answer is related to "stability under reflection" - specifically I think you're either in or out of an alignment basin (or, that might not be possible). I think if you're in it, it's not correct to say "partially aligned" - what you've got is something that's aligned. And if you're out of it (or there's no such thing), then what you've got is not aligned. Partial alignment to me means preserving some value only under repeated reflection, which I think is plausibly possible but exponentially unlikely (I'd pick a 99.999% disagree option if it was there, basically)
AI alignment to humans will in practice avoid moral catastrophes to animals
Alignment requires a mechanical understanding of good and bad, and it will be clear how to apply it to animals. Note that wild animal suffering arguments imply that the status quo is likely a moral catastrophe. I believe an aligned entity or system would attempt to change that.
I half agree with this, so let me lay out my position. I basically agree with most or not all of your opinions on concrete failings of animal welfare (or IME, mostly animal rights) culture, including that the emphasis on being vegan is currently overdone in advocacy. But I don't agree that nobody should be convinced to be vegan, nor that we should taboo the word (which simply represents the ideal point on a diet continuum, although that itself will trigger many v*g*n people) because if the arguments for animal welfare actually convince people, then a lot of people being vegan (or, you know, close to it) is just what the result looks like. So we shouldn't taboo the word, we should stop treating it as all or nothing.
Let's start with some basics. Factory farms exist right now and cause enormous suffering. Now imagine a world where they don't exist. Why don't they exist in that world? Well, either because there's no demand for animal products from suffering animals, or there's no supply of them. Both of those run through people being convinced of the arguments - demand drops when people choose to eat differently, and supply gets restricted when there's enough political will to regulate it away.
Take the supply side first, because I think it's the strongest case for the author's view. I'm sympathetic to a welfarist position here. I can imagine a farm with genuinely good living conditions, enriched environments, animals living good lives and being euthanized as peacefully as possible, and personally I think that would be morally acceptable. Many people here would disagree, but grant it for a second. Even that world needs strong political buy in, because the cost incentives always push welfare down and only sustained public pressure holds the line. Buy in comes from people agreeing with the arguments. People agreeing with the arguments comes from someone convincing them. So the convincing has to happen either way. Not everyone has to do it, and I don't think it's hypocritical to pay other people to do it, but it has to get done. And it is my opinion that the person doing the convincing is more credible if they have committed themselves to eating less meat, for example by committing to the ideal of being vegan. It's a costly signal that they believe what they're saying.
As an aside, I suspect that even in that high welfare world, meat raised to that standard would be expensive enough that most people would basically be flexitarian by default anyway.
Advocacy that says "vegan or nothing" (or more likely implies it through many "microagressions") is bad, and marginal changes is a better narrative. But it's obvious to everyone that vegan is the ideal, and avoiding saying that doesn't really make sense to me. And I think in practice many people should uphold that ideal personally, for the practical benefit of the costly signal.