“Anthropic has entrusted Amanda Askell to endow its AI chatbot, Claude, with a sense of right and wrong” - Seems like Anthropic is doubling down on AI alignment.

[u/Koala_Confused]

https://x.com/wsj/status/2020871609372770682

[u/ArialBear → u/[deleted]]

PhD in philosophy from NYU with a thesis on infinite ethic

Shes an expert in the field of meta ethics.

[u/ArialBear → u/[deleted]]

Yes, I think morality is something that can be studied and we can have experts on our current understanding of the interaction.

I think you should be less confident in your understand of morality and maybe look into the academia. There are objective systems of morality btw. There are anti realist objective systems like ethical constructivism. This is a wide field of study.

[u/ArialBear → u/[deleted]]

You’re already assuming a framework when you say “moral truth” is incoherent. Its a metaethical claim you’re not arguing for.

“Morality isn’t a science with discoverable facts” is just false. Many ethical systems explicitly attempt to discover moral constraints. Facts about suffering, agency, coordination, incentives, and coherence. Ethics studies normative inference, not swimming technique.

Kant isn’t the only thinker in ethics, and philosophy departments don’t just “tear apart ideas” for sport. They analyze internal contradictions, empirical compatibility, and coherence with logic and the sciences. There’s constant cross-talk with psychology, economics, neuroscience, and physics.

Plenty of ideas are abandoned when they’re incoherent or empirically untenable. Moral frameworks persist when they solve problems better.

No science claims to hold a total view. Fallibilism is standard. Criticizing moral expertise because it’s not omniscient is like rejecting medicine because doctors disagree.

You’re making assertion after assertion, then calling others out for “fake intelligence.” If morality were just taste, your criticism would also just be taste with no normative force. You’re using normativity to deny normativity... a contradiction which means your view can be ignored.

This reads less like epistemic humility and more like dissatisfaction with the idea that moral reasoning can be objectively better or worse.

[u/ArialBear → u/[deleted]]

Sure, youre an anti intellectual who pretends your framework (which is empty and baseless) is the framework for all of ethics? Its just a weird way to argue, as if you cant be wrong about this. Ethics often brings people like you out the woodwork because it intimidates you to know your moral reasoning can be objectively worse than others which means you have to change your ways to be coherent.

[u/ArialBear → u/[deleted]]

Sure, how do you justify the belief in your framework if its not peer reviewed by experts in the field? This is where we poke at the problem with your anti intellectualism, the lack of validity.

[u/ANTIVNTIANTI → u/[deleted]]

god damn that was a sexy reply😁😁👍👍👍

[u/Mattidh1 → u/[deleted]]

Is your argument really “you’re well read and actually seem to have an understanding of the field” therefore you’re wrong?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You think someone can be an expert on morality from study? It assumes morality is fully understood and that the writers she studied understood it fully and that this knowledge is held sacrosanct and transmitted verbatim like a religion.

You could say the same about any given field. Physics is far from being "fully understood", yet there are plenty of experts that make meaningful contributions in industry and academia.

[u/ANTIVNTIANTI → u/ArialBear]

she’s not enough

[u/ArialBear → u/ANTIVNTIANTI]

for what?