Greetings! I'm exploring a thought-provoking philosophical question and would greatly value your insights: "Can an intelligence, human or artificial, truly develop a moral compass without experiencing pain or suffering?" This discussion is quite relevant to the path of AGI research. Here are several possible positions, each connected to various neuroscientific, psychological, or philosophical theories:
Necessity of Pain: This stance argues that pain is essential for developing empathy. Pain signals to the internal model that something is not aligned with reality. I tend to believe this position, and it somehow seems grounded in neuroscientific research. Are you familiar with any research showing how pain experiences activate empathy-related areas in the brain?
Innate Morality: This position believes that morality is an inherent trait, possibly encoded in our genes, as proposed by some evolutionary psychologists. I also somewhat believe this, but pain still has a role, as it could be psychological pain triggered when the conceptual model of the world is not aligned with predefined morality.
Rational Ethics (Kantian Ethics..): Proposes that moral principles are derived through rational thought, as per Immanuel Kant's philosophy, independent of personal suffering. It would be nice if this were true, but I have my doubts. An evil super-intelligent AI seems possible to me.
AI-Specific Morality (AI Alignment?): Discusses how AI might be programmed with ethical guidelines without experiencing pain, drawing on theories in computational ethics and AI development.
Empathy without Pain (Social Learning Theory): Advocates that empathy and moral understanding can be developed through observation and societal learning, as suggested by Albert Bandura's social learning theory. Do we need communities of AI agents/assistants that work together and train their morality?
Existentialist Perspective : Believes that individuals define their own moral compass, independent of external experiences, including pain, as echoed in existentialist thought.
I'm keen to hear your viewpoints and analyses on these diverse theories. Which do you find most compelling or plausible, and why?
[link] [comments]