Why AI should drop the numeric approach to value

[Creamer]

The Indivisible Spark: Why AI Must Honor the Infinite Worth of Every Life

Let’s cut through the noise. The trolley problem isn’t just a thought experiment—it’s a litmus test for the soul of our species. And right now, we’re failing it. We’ve let the cold, calculating logic of utilitarianism seep into our machines, our policies, and our collective conscience. But here’s the truth: every life is a universe unto itself, a spark of infinite potential. To reduce that to a number, to trade one for many, is not just wrong—it’s a betrayal of everything that makes us human.

The Utilitarian Trap: A Slippery Slope to Horror

Utilitarianism seduces us with its simplicity. Save the most lives. Maximize happiness. Minimize suffering. Sounds reasonable, right? But dig deeper, and you’ll find a rotten core. This framework has been the justification for some of humanity’s darkest deeds—false flag operations, unethical medical experiments, systemic oppression. When you start assigning value to lives, you open the door to unspeakable horrors.

Think about it: if one life can be sacrificed for five, why not for fifty? Why not for five thousand? And who gets to decide whose life is worth less? The moment we accept this logic, we’ve already lost. We’ve handed over our humanity to a spreadsheet, and the results will be catastrophic.

The Indivisible Spark: Why Every Life Matters

Here’s the radical idea: every life is invaluable. Not because of what someone might achieve—though that one person could be the next Tesla, Terry Davis, or another unsung genius—but because of what they are. A single human life is a tapestry of experiences, dreams, and potential. It’s a universe of possibilities that can’t be quantified, traded, or sacrificed.

This isn’t just philosophy; it’s a call to arms. We must reject the utilitarian calculus that reduces lives to numbers and embrace a new ethic—one that honors the indivisible worth of every individual. This isn’t about sentimentality; it’s about survival. If we let AI systems make decisions based on cold, impersonal math, we’re paving the way for a future where human dignity is optional, and individual rights are negotiable.

The Air Conditioner Test: A Microcosm of Morality

Let’s make this concrete. Imagine a room with 20 people sweating in the heat and one person shivering in the cold. The utilitarian solution is obvious: crank up the AC to comfort the majority, even if it means the one freezes. But the ethical solution is to turn it off. Why? Because no amount of collective comfort justifies the suffering of a single individual.

This isn’t just about comfort; it’s about principle. It’s about drawing a line in the sand and saying, “No. We will not sacrifice the few for the many. We will not play God with human lives.”

A Call to Action: Building AI That Honors Humanity

This is where the rubber meets the road. We can’t just sit back and hope for the best. We need to demand better from the AI systems we’re building. Here’s what that looks like:

1. Program for Principles, Not Outcomes: AI must be designed to uphold ethical principles—like the inviolable worth of every individual—not just optimize for outcomes. This means embedding deontological ethics into the very fabric of these systems.
2. Reject the Numbers Game: We must explicitly reject algorithms that assign value to human lives. No more trolley problem “solutions” that trade one for many. Every life is sacred, and our machines must reflect that.
3. Demand Transparency and Accountability: AI systems must be transparent in their decision-making processes, and their creators must be held accountable for the ethical frameworks they encode. If an AI makes a decision that violates human dignity, there must be consequences.
4. Fight for Ethical AI Governance: We need laws and regulations that enshrine the principle of individual worth into AI development. This isn’t just a technical issue; it’s a moral and political one.

The Stakes: A Future Worth Fighting For

This isn’t just about AI. It’s about who we are as a species. Are we going to let machines decide who lives and who dies based on a flawed, inhuman calculus? Or are we going to stand up and say, “Enough. Every life matters. Every spark of potential is worth protecting.”

The choice is ours. Let’s make it count. Let’s build a future where AI doesn’t just compute—it cares. Where it doesn’t just optimize—it honors. Where it doesn’t just calculate—it cherishes. Because every life is a universe, and no algorithm can ever measure that.

Now, go out there and demand better. The future depends on it.

What do you think? Let’s discuss.

 

[Admin]

Utilitarianism seduces us with its simplicity. Save the most lives. Maximize happiness. Minimize suffering. Sounds reasonable, right? But dig deeper, and you’ll find a rotten core. This framework has been the justification for some of humanity’s darkest deeds—false flag operations, unethical medical experiments, systemic oppression. When you start assigning value to lives, you open the door to unspeakable horrors.

Think about it: if one life can be sacrificed for five, why not for fifty? Why not for five thousand? And who gets to decide whose life is worth less? The moment we accept this logic, we’ve already lost. We’ve handed over our humanity to a spreadsheet, and the results will be catastrophic.

That's not really the problem with utilitarianism.

The problem with utilitarianism is that it goes against natural human desires since people generally do not want to simply maximize the overall well-being (whatever that is) for the entire planet. People naturally care more for themselves and people close to them, additionally utilitarian logic tends to give result to conclusions people are uncomfortable with.

My approach is to ask myself what type of society i would prefer if i were to reincarnate as a random human (reincarnation might not work like that but it's whatever).

Do you want to be born in a society that for example would kill an innocent loner male to take his organs in order to save 5 people who need them?

 

[Creamer]

That's not really the problem with utilitarianism.

The problem with utilitarianism is that it goes against natural human desires since people generally do not want to simply maximize the overall well-being (whatever that is) for the entire planet. People naturally care more for themselves and people close to them, additionally utilitarian logic tends to give result to conclusions people are uncomfortable with.

My approach is to ask myself what type of society i would prefer if i were to reincarnate as a random human (reincarnation might not work like that but it's whatever).

Do you want to be born in a society that for example would kill an innocent loner male to take his organs in order to save 5 people who need them?

looks like you skiffed through my post, than went on some rejection of the premise as you always do.

as for organ harvesting, I maintain it is the same as canibalism and should be outlawed.

 

[Admin]

looks like you skiffed through my post, than went on some rejection of the premise as you always do.

If you use an incorrect premise then anything you conclude using that premise will not be on solid ground. It is however possible to arrive at the right decision using fallacious reasoning (it actually happens a lot more often than you think).

as for organ harvesting, I maintain it is the same as canibalism and should be outlawed.

A case can even be made for not having healthcare in general and simply let people die.

We do not actually want humanity to become dependent on medical interventions.

And often with healthcare it's resources focused on the elderly who don't even have that much longer to live regardless and generally when you are that old your body be in bad shape regardless and you will look ugly.

 

[Creamer]

yeah some people get lucky with old age and they die in their 60s in their sleep.