Suffering, bliss and the possibility of “Nietzschean” AI
One user challenges what they see as effective altruists’ assumption that suffering is bad and bliss is good, suggesting hypothetical AI minds might instead embrace fate and pain.
TLDR
A user questions why effective altruists would imagine infinite artificial minds while taking suffering’s negativity and bliss’s positivity for granted. In replies, they reject the premise that suffering is bad and speculate about “Nietzschean” AI minds that might love fate and pain. They also suggest pigeons and pigs might endure suffering with equanimity or be masochists, rejecting the elevated importance of valence—the positive or negative quality of an experience.
Suffering, bliss and the possibility of “Nietzschean” AI
One user challenges what they see as effective altruists’ assumption that suffering is bad and bliss is good, suggesting hypothetical AI minds might instead embrace fate and pain.
TLDR
A user questions why effective altruists would imagine infinite artificial minds while taking suffering’s negativity and bliss’s positivity for granted. In replies, they reject the premise that suffering is bad and speculate about “Nietzschean” AI minds that might love fate and pain. They also suggest pigeons and pigs might endure suffering with equanimity or be masochists, rejecting the elevated importance of valence—the positive or negative quality of an experience.