Joanna Rutkowska

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

What are good pictograms to represent (the essence of) computer program without appealing to present implementation technicalities (code, screens, other hardware)? Same Q for mind w/o using the brain symbols? Same symbol would do for both ;) — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

@commandline_be @mdowd ? — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

RT @QubesOS: The Insurgo PrivacyBeast X230 has passed Qubes 4.0 Hardware Certification and is now a Qubes-certified Laptop! https://t.co/j… — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

RT @mdowd: Now that Alan Turing is on the 50 pound note, they should rename ATMs to “Turing Machines” — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

@xomputer Heh ;) Surely, that's a legit advise, most of the time. — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

@StimulusRespon1 Whether a trained neural network or some other implementation underneath, it's just that -- an implementation. When investing General Relativity we're not so interested in the shape of the Einstein's neural network (on which it originally "ran"), right? — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

@Natanael_L Surely it's a challange for a person to extract essential "axioms" of their ethical system. Clever apps asking us questions (& perhaps even observing our, say, Twitter posts) might be of help. — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

@hyperfekt My experience as well ;) — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

@barry_dp @Natanael_L "Universal" is only in the name. As you just wrote yourself, they apply to humans only. What about other (hypothetical) conscious beings? Animals? Future computers? Other forms of *being*? — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

@Natanael_L @barry_dp And how is this relevant? — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

(12/12) …but might help us understand why we don’t agree with others on these fundamental matters. Perhaps this might be a good start for building societies around similar axiology descriptors (instead of geographic location), easing the need of violence and war? — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

(11/12) I sincerely believe such an approach might help eliminate lots of negative emotions in societies. It will *not* provide answers “what is THE RIGHT thing to do” to which all would agree, or course. Because there is no one, "objectively true" ethics. — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

(10/12) The resolver will likely *not* return a ready answer, but rather pinpoint the actual property(ies) responsible for lack of agreement. In case of the “abortion” question above, this might perhaps be the property: “mind.cartesian_ego”, possibly other properties. — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

(9/12) Now we could move on and have largely automated ways of resolving disputes between two persons. The resolver would take as input descriptors of the 2 debators, plus the statement being discussed (“should abortion be legal?”, “should gays adoption rights?”)... — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

(8/12) Such ethical descriptors would likely comprise many tens of properties, producing very large space of possible ethical systems. By convention some constellations in this space might be labeled as e.g. “communism”, “western liberalism”, etc. This would be optional, however. — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

(7/12) We could then have tools (apps!) for helping persons to build a descriptor representing *their* own ethical system. As a bonus feature they would do a quick automatic check for any *inconsistencies* in such a descriptor (how cool is that!) — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

(6/12) The first task could be approached by creating some kind of an “ethical descriptor” which comprises a number of properties. E.g. of some boolean properties: mind.dualism = true|false, mind.cartesian_ego = true|false, personality.temporal_continuity = true|false, etc. — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

(5/12) Such decomposition should include: 1) coming up with an objective way to describe the ethical system any given person believes in, and 2) *explicit* “type converters” and automated “resolvers” used for comparing values between such *different* systems. — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

(4/12) If we could somehow decompose that process of value comparison between different ethical system, we might remove lots of unnecessary negative emotions that otherwise seem indispensable in this area - “How can you be SO {cruel, cynical, BAD}?” — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

(3/12) As in computer languages, whenever one starts playing with implicit type casting (as infamously in C), things usually do not end up well… Such is the case when e.g. a Marxist wants to discuss normative ethics with e.g. a Christian. — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

(2/12) Now, because this is all axiology, so assigning a *value* to acts, persons, ideas, creations, we naturally start making comparisons between “how good/bad” a given act or person is. And we use *implicit* “type casting” from the other person’s systems to our own... — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

(1/12) Lots of clashes in society seem to be caused by *implicit* assumption that other persons should subscribe to the same ethical system as we do (and more generally to the same axiological systems). — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

I’d like to share below a few thoughts on meta-/normative-ethics and how its challenges might be similar to some well known problems of computer programming languages and — consequently — how similar solutions might perhaps be applied: (0/12) — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

@CalebMaclennan Not sarcasm. — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

It occurs to me that lots of clashes in society are caused by mechanisms similar to those responsible for software bugs due to type confusion. Different persons believe in different axiology systems, e.g. ethical systems, which can be imagined akin to variable types. (1/) — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

RT @bunniestudios: If we believe technology is magic, we risk becoming slaves to it. Watch @BitmarkInc's video on why I'm passionate about… — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

I think In the future the concept of gender will get largely deprecated. There won’t be males & females, but (liberated) minds, running on heterogeneous {meat,hard}ware. Today, you can join the revolution as an early adopter and use singular “they” as this NYT piece advocates. — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

@moxie Heh :) — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

This (via https://t.co/ByK9RNzXX2): https://t.co/wQYouvzqqB — PolitiTweet.org

Joanna Rutkowska @rootkovska

@dinodaizovi @BlackHatEvents Congrats! <3 — PolitiTweet.org