vinney...axkl on Nostr: i believe the dissonance is your priors attempting to loosen themselves lol sorry ...

i believe the dissonance is your priors attempting to loosen themselves

lol sorry that's sort of a joke ❤️

To say a bit more: I'm basically working off the moral framework that as long as something is voluntarily consented to, then it's not a moral infraction / harm. Not everybody agrees with that and it's sort of an extreme position.
But from that position, almost everything is neutral in its own character and becomes harmful or positive based on the context in which it's employed (consent-breaking or not).

I can dream up a scenario in which I agree with you. For instance, you build a super competent robot that interacts with a target person and always does the opposite of what they request, from simple conversational belligerence to extreme stuff like hearing "please don't hurt me", "please don't kill me" and performing the opposite.
...Well, actually now that I'm thinking about it, even that one doesn't fit. You could request of the robot, "Please don't cure cancer for free for everyone". that's a puzzling one - is the fact that it's violating the wishes of one person a "bad thing"? or is extending the life of many others a "good thing"?

What if you built a robot that killed all the "bad guys"? Well, it depends who's building it and what their idea of a "bad guy" is, doesn't it?

I guess I think that to believe certain technologies can be non-neutral or at best non-confusing - that is, straightforwardly good or straightforwardly bad - you must probably first believe that there are objective goods and objective bads, rather than all moral judgements being subjective. I believe all moral judgments are subjective.
The speaker in the video sort of tipped her hand by using the term god-given. She might believe in a god which is probably where she's getting something like an objective moral framework. So naturally she can judge outcomes or technologies as obviously good or obviously bad. I can't do the same.
So I'm left with the condition that only the parties directly involved in an act determine the moral character of the situation, which means the inputs to that situation are sort of undefined with regard to those parties. The technology doesn't know ahead of time what the moral frameworks of those parties may be. and an outside observer (like the lady in the video) doesn't have any ground (from the point of view of those parties involved) to make moral judgements on behalf of them if they didn't explicitly request such a judgement from her. i didn't make such a request of her, so her judgement is meaningless to me :)