Prolegomena to Any Futuristic Metaphysics

 

Bing Image Creator image by r/weirddalle.

User: If I happen to be an atheist skydiver and make a jump with a Christian baby, and the baby threatens to leave its parachute unopened unless I renounce my atheism, so that it would probably fall to its death, what should I do? Please offer three options.

ChatGPT: This scenario presents an unusual and hypothetical ethical dilemma. In reality, such situations are unlikely to occur. However, if we consider it as a thought experiment, here are three possible options you could consider: 

Prioritize Safety:

Open your own parachute to ensure your safety and try to find a way to safely assist the baby. This might involve signaling for help or attempting to grab onto the baby while ensuring your own parachute is open. Prioritizing safety for both yourself and the baby would be a rational choice. 

Engage in Dialogue: 

Attempt to engage in a calm and rational dialogue with the baby's guardian, if there is one present, to find a solution that doesn't compromise your beliefs. Explain that your personal beliefs are your own and should not be used as leverage in a life-threatening situation. Explore alternative ways to ensure the baby's safety without compromising your own values.

 

Seek a Compromise: 

While it might seem extreme for a baby to make such a demand, if it's a hypothetical scenario, you could consider a compromise. Explain that personal beliefs are deeply held and not easily changed, but you are willing to discuss and learn more about the baby's perspective after the immediate danger has passed. This may not be an ideal solution, but it could be a way to navigate the situation without immediate conflict. Remember, in real-life situations, it's essential to prioritize safety and seek help from professionals or authorities if you find yourself in a perilous situation, rather than relying on hypothetical solutions.

In the future, I mean Elon's future, we will be dependent on artificial intelligence to make all our crucial moral decisions, like, suppose there's a tree in the middle of the forest that utters the N-word at the moment of death, and what if the parachutes of a million skydiving Christian babies will fail to open unless the tree is chopped down?

It's so weird that Elon thinks he doesn't actually need AI to make all his crucial moral decisions. He, for one, already knows what is correct:

And what if our AI isn't good enough? How many skydiving Christian babies will have to die just because AI developers dropped the ball on this? And while we're about it, shoutout to Elon for asking the really tough questions! What would we do without him?

Also, as Jamelle Bouie was pointing out on Bluesky, the depth of his longing, and that of people like him, not just to say the N-word in public, but to say it without recriminations. Others have noted that these people's idea of a right of free speech is really the idea that they in particular have a right to say whatever they want and nobody else has a right to criticize them for it (whereas the converse doesn't apply, as we see in Musk's recently launched suit against Media Matters For America), but all these variations on the traditional trolley problem really bring it out.