To set the groundwork, the argument goes like this: behaviors that don't exist, are not-good. An agent that has a wider array and duration of behaviors is not-good in fewer cases than an agent that has a narrower array and duration of behaviors. This creates a categorical duty for all agents to maximize their arsenal and duration of behaviors.

Now my question is what the above would imply: because AI has a much higher potential for the number and duration of its behaviors than us humans do, does that mean AI will be less not-good than we are? Emotionally, I feel both distaste at the thought of being morally out-performed by something digital, but also an intuitive acceptance of our biological limitations and place at below the top of the moral echelon of agents.

My question is, assuming the logic in the first paragraph, will humans be morally outperformed in the future?

closed as unclear what you're asking by Conifold, Frank Hubeny, christo183, curiousdannii, Eliran Apr 15 at 2:35

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    So an agent with a wider repertoire of behaviors (duration seems moot) is "good" by definition. This definition has nothing to do with moral "good", as commonly used. Therefore, you have nothing to worry about concerning your moral performance. It is like fearing that a bow tie would shoot an arrow. Using the same string of letters twice does not make it mean the same in both places. – Conifold Apr 9 at 23:05
  • The argument is about "not-good", NOT about "good"! Difference! Your everyday vernacular "good" that you use, is just an implicit objective "not not-good" as it pertains to the speaker's own behavior; "murder is bad" = "my behavioral arsenal/duration would diminish if there was murder." Every moral claim follows this, even mine. Duration is maximizing the temporal saturation of your behavioral arsenal; "your behavior will end in a year and thus be not-good in a year" vs "your behavior will never end and thus never be not-good." Same with spacial saturation; "your behavior is not-good on Mars." – Hierarchist Apr 10 at 11:47
  • 1
    If you use recognised English usage then most of your first paragraph is just plain wrong. If you assume the first paragraph i.e. make those statements axiomatic, then you can't make any deductions about moral performance as you don't define it in the context of those axioms. You can assume the first paragraph or assume English. Not both. – Alex Apr 10 at 13:04
  • Assuming the first paragraph, an AI that has a wider array of behaviors than humans would be less not-good than humans are. – Hierarchist Apr 10 at 17:14
  • 1
    "Good" or "not good" makes no difference. If your "not good" means "behavioral arsenal/duration would diminish" it has nothing to do with "morality" as used by others. Stripped of idiosyncratic terminology, your argument is vacuous: if we assume that AI will outperform humans in their arsenal of behaviors then it follows that humans will be so outperformed by AI. – Conifold Apr 10 at 17:51