Thread

1. fl4regun · 1789571494 · focus · HN ↗

   Ostensibly animals appear to be conscious, yet we still eat them, and the vast majority are not bothered by this. So being "conscious" isn't really the moral line in the sand many people are drawing in response to this article.

   Who cares if it's "conscious"? That doesn't make it a person, and AI will definitionally never be human.

   1. svara · 1789571701 · focus · HN ↗

      That's too simplistic, since it is in fact very common to be concerned about animal welfare even among people who do eat meat.

      1. fl4regun · 1789572190 · focus · HN ↗

         And most people wouldn't eat cats, but would eat some of pig, cattle, chicken, what's the difference between those exactly? My point is consciousness is not it, if it were, we (as in a majority) would still eat cats and dogs, or we wouldn't eat any animals. But we clearly have a way of picking and choosing which is OK and which isn't. And in both cases we generally don't give them the same moral consideration we give to people, conscioussness aside. There is something OTHER than consciousness which is important to us.

         1. svara · 1789580153 · focus · HN ↗

            In animal welfare laws the principle is typically the capacity for suffering.

            The argument goes that livestock have a capacity for suffering, but killing them for meat without causing them suffering is ethical.

            You can disagree with the position, or with its implementation in practice, but it's a consistent position in principle.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.