[Not loaded yet]
It’s not special pleading it’s just a disagreement about what the term “useful” implies. Generally speaking I would not categorize a technology’s ability to facilitate anti-social behavior as “useful.” That bad actors find it useful in doing bad things doesn’t mean it’s “useful” in a generic way
It’s a lot like saying “guns are useful because they let muggers rob people more efficiently.” Sure, in a vulgar sense you’re right. But that’s not really how people generally assess the societal utility of new tools.
lol no
People do not generally intrinsically link moral valence with descriptive statements of utility.
Guns are useful for a handful of use, even some bad uses
Lockpicks are useful if you want to pick a lock.
Stop trying to deontologize “utility.”
May 14, 2025 23:53lol buddy you keep going this way you’re gonna convince yourself that Bentham was some kind of animist
You really think he didn’t think books were useful because you could bludgeon someone with them? Or that utility was unconnected to task? Or actor?
& Bentham still isn’t the common usage
You: “People do not generally intrinsically link moral valence with descriptive statements of utility”
Me: “the entire utilitarian tradition does.”
You: “if an object has even one be beneficial use case it is intrinsically useful!”
Lots of ten dollar words to cover up a simple goalpost move
Buddy, the goalposts haven’t moved just because you forgot where we started, & no, utilitarians don’t generalize a moral valence like that—that’s not even wrong, & thinking a line from Wikipedia refutes that shows you don’t understand how to apply Bentham’s p of utility—he’s explicitly individualist
My argument is pretty simple: “AI has more harmful uses then beneficial uses, and its beneficial uses aren’t very useful, so I would not colloquially describe it as an overall useful tool.”
We don’t need to get all Philosophy 201 about this.
