I like that debate topics arenāt overly operationalized.
I agree, but there are better and worse ambiguities to spend our time discussing. For example āWhat is AGIā is a rabbit-hole, but ultimately not that interesting/ā action-relevant.
āSentient beingsāāHere I think the discussion should be contained to nonhuman animals because the other case seemed to be handled in the previous AI welfare debate.
Iām definitely leaning this way too.
I think that an operationalization which is too close to peopleās actual decisions may cause more people to defend their existing views or to take a stance based on whatās more salient.
Yes, my ideal would always be that someone discusses a crux, arrives at an answer, and only then realises that it should influence their cause prioritisation.
Thanks Edo!
I agree, but there are better and worse ambiguities to spend our time discussing. For example āWhat is AGIā is a rabbit-hole, but ultimately not that interesting/ā action-relevant.
Iām definitely leaning this way too.
Yes, my ideal would always be that someone discusses a crux, arrives at an answer, and only then realises that it should influence their cause prioritisation.