But in that case there shouldn't be any invalid moves, ever. Another tester found gpt-3.5-turbo-instruct to be suggesting at least one illegal move in 16% of the games (source: https://blog.mathieuacher.com/GPTsChessEloRatingLegalMoves/ )
I don't think things are as simple as that. Maybe for example there are some technological or scientific breakthroughs with cross-domain application that come as a result of work that at present is practical only with the resources of giant companies like Google/Facebook/Microsoft. I think it's fair that engineers and scientists get to work for whatever employer they choose, doing what they do best and advances their expertise, without being judged negatively. I think the acquired experience and knowledge itself will leak, one way or the other, in applications that bring a net positive, even if the activities of the specific employer are not directly positive. Morally-wise, I think the onus shouldn't be on the workers any more than it should be on the consumers, so someone working in the fossil industry shouldn't be considered more responsible to the climate change than someone consuming fossil fuel.
someone working in the fossil industry shouldn't be considered more responsible to the climate change than someone consuming fossil fuel
right, they shouldn't directly be more responsible than consumers, but they should be responsible for the influence that they do have at their job.
obviously consumers are responsible for the pollution they create. just today my son had a fit because a friend tried to use plastic to start a fire. this may not have been the right response, but he knows that burning plastic is bad, and he acted on that.
i have more sympathy with the oil workers because their options most likely are to quit and be out of work. but anyone who studies to work in the oil industry is making a questionable moral choice. (depends on their attitude, maybe they are trying to contribute improvements to make the impact of fossil fuels less damaging. that would be good)
The reality is that fossil fuel is still necessary, choosing to not work in the oil industry doesn't change that. If suddenly no people chose to work in the business under some belief that it would be morally wrong, then what would happen? Wide spread energy crises, affecting everything from heating to transportation/travel and all production chains.
I don't think anyone except the most hardcore climate activists would be willing to accept that cost, so I don't think it's consistent for anyone except these to judge negatively people who choose to work in this industry. This doesn't change that we as consumers should try and use as little fuel as possible, opt for renewables where possible etc., that's the only way to guide the change. If we do that, the market will take care of the rest as the conditions allow it.
If suddenly no people chose to work in the business under some belief that it would be morally wrong, then what would happen?
salaries would rise, making it more costly, but motivating a few people to continue working there. in the long run it would contribute to make oil more expensive, which is really the only way to stop people from using it.
salaries would rise, making it more costly, but motivating a few people to continue working there
Sure, and they wouldn't be wrong to do so, just like they're not wrong now. We can't admit that on one hand we need something because there is no viable replacement and on the other consider that those that choose to work on that make a morally questionable choice.
well, we wouldn't need it had we focused on cleaner energy earlier. we already predicted climate change half a century ago ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34358759 ). had we acted right then, we would not be depending on oil now. therefore already 50 years ago someone made a morally questionable choice.
hm soldiers are only expected to follow orders that to the best of their knowledge are lawful, and are held accountable for following unlawful ones. The law actually covers a lot of the cases that are very clearly wrong (i.e. torture or execute prisoners).
That leaves ambiguous situations where for example there is an order saying "get satellite data from that location". In this case, if the data end up used for something unlawful, I think the responsibility doesn't lie with the soldiers at the bottom of the chain, no.
Now for the case that best serves your comparison, generally serving in an army that very clearly wages a war of aggression. In this case yes I think soldiers carry the responsibility to not help in any way (which realistically would mean stop being soldiers). The difference in this case is that we can't compare an army waging an aggressive war, which is as clear an evil as we can imagine and is in fact considered a crime internationally, with a company that analyses data collected by consent, where the question is whether the mechanism for obtaining consent is good enough or not.
In general I dislike advertising industry, just like I dislike the banking industry, or the gambling industry, but I think the comparison to a crime syndicate is not a good one. The difference is that the existence of both is within the boundaries that are specified by law, which is the most objective mechanism that we have to define something as honest. I don't think the law is always right, but it's got to count for a bit more than each individual's subjective morals. Because in principle it tries to break down things and isolate exactly what is problematic, which is something we're not doing when we pass general judgement in the form of an opinion.
Wouldn't you agree for example that collecting and analysing user data for purposes of displaying relevant advertisements doesn't have to be dishonest, if the users consented to it? Maybe then the problem becomes that some methods of obtaining user consent are not honest -which would mean that there could be methods that are honest, and companies that can follow them.
And if the subject is so nuanced then maybe it's not fair to say that an employee that simply wants to work in their domain of expertise doesn't do honest work, just for failing to set more strict standards than the law with regards to their employer's activities.
i didn't mean to equate advertising with a crime syndicate, just that dishonest is dishonest, and obviously there are different degrees of how bad something is.
there may be some honest and fair advertising, but a lot is deception, and maybe an ad platform isn't dishonest by itself but they are enabling deceptive advertisers.
Wouldn't you agree for example that collecting and analysing user data for purposes of displaying relevant advertisements doesn't have to be dishonest, if the users consented to it?
no, because the majority of people do not understand what they are consenting to and when they consent they have no way to verify that the data is actually used in a fair and honest way.
to elaborate:
people need to be protected from sharing personal data against their own will. say for example you share your address. and then somewhere on a public forum you indicate that i am your neighbor. suddenly you shared my address too, against my will. therefore i have an interest to stop you from sharing your address. people do not and can not understand the consequences of consenting to share their data, because the ways to abuse that data are way to complex and subtle.
hehe I'll repeat a cliche, that everyone's either working for one boss or working for multiple bosses. From my experience, working for a good boss can generally give more perceived freedom than working to satisfy investors or customers. When I was freelancing I felt like I was working to satisfy multiple bosses, having to do things that I didn't enjoy (i.e. customer communications, accounting) plus that I was forced to become the boss of myself, which wasn't fun. Whereas as an employee I've always been lucky to have bosses that act essentially like secretaries with executive power, shielding their staff from everyday nonsense, filtering what's relevant, helping prioritize and getting you what you need. Things can feel totally different if you have a bad boss, but at the very least, my take is that good bosses are out there and are worth trying to find.
I think they mostly earned their market dominance by aggressive marketing -i.e. pestering the search engine users to install Chrome, or bundling it with most Android devices. I feel that any browser that was good enough (and Firefox was) could have gained the dominant position on the market if they had the same promotion platform.
Can, needs or should, I would add. My perspective doesn't seem to be very popular, however I could never understand how laws that are intended to protect us only from ourselves are compatible with the philosophy of law that we're supposingly embracing in the west.
The only rational argument for these laws would be the burden on the national-health system for injuries sustained on the head during riding a bike. This could be solved by allowing people to opt-out of the free national health system coverage explicitly in these instances of injuries, if indeed statistics show that there is a significant burden imposed on it. And still there is the counter-argument that this would be biased -what about people who are engaging into leisure activities with higher-risk, "extreme-sports" and such. I wouldn't be surprised if even the cost of treating normal sports-related injuries is higher than the cost of head-related injuries of bikers riding with no helmet. Why not enforce wearing full protective gear when engaging in every sport?
If we start with this mentality, it's only a slippery slope that would lead us in a place we don't want to be.
Same as with smoking taxes. It started with the justification that it's fair to counteract the increased cost that smokers have on the national health system. A perfectly fair reasoning. But by now these taxes have increased so much that this justification is no longer convincing -instead they are widely accepted as a sort of "luxury tax" that smokers pay, no longer to cover the cost of the medical treatment they are more likely to receive on average, but just "because that's how it is". This income is not even earmarked for the health system in many cases. They also started covering things that evidence don't support they pose any or as much of a risk as cigarette smoking (Vaping), and in some cases -Italy, IIRC-, even with official lawmaker justification that these products deprive the state from tax income that they would receive through the smoking tax. A completely illogical argument that I was surprised to see it made nobody blink twice.
So I think such laws are really a demonstration of government acting as a for-profit entity, squeezing money from whatever they think they can get away with.
Oh, there are scores of risky activities that can result in medical costs that some people (libertarians?) would prefer that we didn't socialize.
Incorrect use of OTC drugs; crossing the road while diddling a mobile phone; drinking alcohol; hell, pushing your toddler on a swing in a playground. Perhaps socialized medicine should refuse to treat people who have declined vaccination, or declined a bowel cancer screening. Maybe climbing a ladder should close you off from socialized medical care. Perhaps you shut yourself out if you ever hang out with sick people.
Obviously, I'm not serious.
For me, the big thing about socialized medicine is that it's universal. It's a massive benefit to everyone, if people with people with infectious diseases like TB, diphtheria and cholera can get treatment for free, without producing ID or proof of entitlement. And that's true whether or not they have legal status, as immigrants or whatever.
I agree, I was trying to follow the only line of reasoning I can think of that would rationalize the existence of such laws in a way that doesn't break the concept that we should be able to choose for ourselves the amount of risk we want to be exposed in (which is generally accepted in other cases of everyday life).
> doesn't break the concept that we should be able to choose for ourselves the amount of risk we want to be exposed in
I'm not sure that this right to regulate one's own personal risk environment is actually a thing. It sounds rather vague; you could use it to justify almost any act. "I think you're a threat; I choose not to expose myself to the risk you pose, so I eliminate you".
Perhaps I didn't phrase it properly. I meant, "the concept that we should be able to choose the amount of risk we want to expose ourselves in". Which is generally accepted as a personal right, based on the premise that we, and nobody else, owns our body. But every now and then we see some laws that seem to break that (such as in this case). If we didn't accept this principle, then would have to agree to also punish suicide attempts, or a number of other things that would sound absurd.
Ah, I guess I'll just lie and if they somehow lock me out or give me trouble, let's just say it's their loss more than mine. Streaming services should remember they keep customers by offering convenience and the feeling of doing the right thing at a reasonable cost, not because they managed to enforce exclusivity of their content. That's a battle they never won.
hehe yeah, though it doesn't have to be a bad thing. There are quite a few brilliant mavericks that never have and never would be able to fair well doing that -it would crush their soul or drive them mad. They just do what they love and everyone's better off for it. I think in time they tend to stop being permanently irritated/critical/disgusted about these things, and learn to accept and ignore -for their own sanity.
