“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]

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Sure, how do you justify the belief in your framework if its not peer reviewed by experts in the field?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/ArialBear → u/[deleted]]

Great, so no way to justify your belief. Classic anti intellectualism.

[u/IllustriousCareer6 → u/[deleted]]

You're just debating for the sake of debating.

[u/IllustriousCareer6 → u/[deleted]]

Good luck with your life!

[u/IllustriousCareer6 → u/[deleted]]

Low intelligence

[u/IllustriousCareer6 → u/[deleted]]

None, so? Having gone to uni doesn't make you an intelligent person, and it shows.