The comments below are just my impressions, hope you'll find them useful.
Generally: frame the problem, define the terms, cite the sources, ask specific questions.

For example:
Statement A: Two of three children survived the day. Is this good or bad?
Answer: Neither, as it is an "is" statement. The moral judgment depends on the context, such as a woman considering aborting triplets.
Statement B: Two of three children were murdered today. Is this good or bad?
Answer: This is bad because murder is considered morally wrong, making it an "ought" statement.

Statement B is a 'is' statement too. 'Is it good or bad' is by definition an ought statement.

For instance, some argue that an AI would be "dumb" to prioritize making paperclips over human life. However, this presupposes that the AI subscribes to the idea that human life ought to be prioritized, ignoring the possibility that the AI may not necessarily hold this view.

Who argues what? Some argue that the earth's flat. This doesn't make it worth discussing.
Here it seems that you're borderline strawmanning a poorly written and argued imaginary position (similarly to the section on the 'gender debate').
Also, the objection you raise misses the mark of the "AI would be dumb" argument. If I say that an intelligent system would assign high value to human life (because of training data, design, etc....) this would not amount to an 'ought' statement.

Therefore, both examples fail to describe the subject of discussion.

The Submerged Premise Problem occurs when participants in a debate operate on fundamentally different foundational beliefs or assumptions that are not explicitly stated or acknowledged. These hidden assumptions shape their arguments, leading to misunderstandings and preventing meaningful progress in discussions.

I think a better framing of the picture you paint (especially about the 'gender debate') is given in this article.

The correct thesis would be that there are no genders

I don't understand how 'no gender' would be the 'correct thesis' for either side of the debate. Not that the position is nonsensical, but why would it derive from the premises?

The discussions around the mid-2010s made these examples more prevalent, ironically affecting society's ability to understand the alignment problem in AI.

How do you establish causation?

In contrast, the culture wars before this era, such as the debate around intelligent design, were fought on more solid ontological grounds. There was a yield in these debates, with many prominent conservatives eventually accepting the theory of evolution. However, in today's social media-driven landscape, discussions often sink into the mud, lacking the same level of ontological clarity and resolution.

How do you draw a comparison of ontological ground solidity across different public debates? These statements ought to be backed with some sources and miss a lot of important context in order to draw inferences.

Looking forward for your opinion.

I personally wouldn't know how to contribute since the terms are so open ended. I would ask specific questions (after clarifying all the above).

I think the post would be fine as a first draft but requires some additional work.

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments