12.4 Ethical Synergy 217
Epstein Suite indexes the text; the original document lives at its official source. We don't host the original file — view it on the official release to read it in full.
View the original on the official releaseDocument text
Text is machine OCR and may contain errors. Confirm against the original source above.
12.4 Ethical Synergy 217
Stage Characteristics
Pre-ethical
e Piagetan infantile to early concrete (aka pre-operational)
e Radical selfishness or selflessness may, but do not neces-
sarily, occur
@ No coherent, consistent pattern of consideration for the
rights, intentions or feelings of others
e Empathy is generally present, but erratically
Conventional Ethics
e Concrete cognitive basis
e Perry’s Dualist and Multiple stages
e The common sense of the Golden Rule is appreciated,
with cultural conventions for abstracting principles from
behaviors
@ One’s own ethical behavior is explicitly compared to that
of others
e Development of a functional, though limited, theory of
mind
e Ability to intuitively conceive of notions of fairness and
rights
e Appreciation of the concept of law and order, which may
sometimes manifest itself as systematic obedience or sys-
tematic disobedience
e Empathy is more consistently present, especially with
others who are directly similar to oneself or in situations
similar to those one has directly experienced
e Degrees of selflessness or selfishness develop based on eth-
ical groundings and social interactions.
Table 12.4: Integrative Model of the Stages of Ethical Development, Part 1
logical inference step to take in thinking about applying the notions of rights and fairness to a
given situation.
Gilligan’s stages correspond to increasingly sophisticated control of empathic simulation —
which in a CogPrime-type AGI system, is carried out by a specific system component devoted
to running internal simulations of aspects of the outside world, which includes a subcomponent
specifically tuned for simulating sentient actors. The conventional stage has to do with the raw,
uncontrolled capability for such simulation; and the post-conventional stage corresponds to its
contextual, goal-oriented control. But controlling empathy, clearly, requires subtle management
of various uncertain contextual factors, which is exactly what uncertain logical inference is
good at — so, in an AGI system combining an uncertain inference component with a simulative
component, it is the inference component that would enable the nuanced control of empathy
allowing the ascent to Gilligan’s post-conventional stage.
In our integrative perspective, in the context of an AGI system integrating inference and
simulation components, we suggest that the ascent from the pre-ethical to the conventional
stage may be carried out largely via independent activity of these two components. Empathy
is needed, and reasoning about fairness and rights are needed, but the two need not intimately
and sensitively intersect — though they must of course intersect to some extent.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013133
Have a question about what this document contains?
Ask the documents