One day, a philosopher was walking down the street, when a monster jumped out.
Despite its terrifying fangs, it was actually more polite and articulate than expected.
“I want to eat you, please,” the monster said.
“Sorry, but I’d prefer not to be your lunch,” the philosopher replied, and moved to keep walking.
“Wait,” said the monster, holding up a clawed finger. “What if I could present you with a sound argument?”
Armed with tenure and a TED talk, the philosophy professor very much doubted that any monster could be so persuasive, but was nonetheless intrigued.
“Proceed,” the philosopher said.
A few minutes later, the monster stomped away, with a dead professor in its belly.
This theoretical beast, called a “utility monster”, is a philosophical thought experiment, originally proposed in the 1970s. To reject its argument and stop it eating you, it asks you to discard a widely held and intuitive principle about how to weigh up right and wrong.
Long regarded as unlikely, if not impossible, the utility monster is usually considered the stuff of fanciful imagination.
However, according to some researchers, we could be on a trajectory to building one – but it’ll be made of silicon, rather than flesh and claws.
If they are right, we could soon have some tough choices to make if we want to avoid being eaten.
No comments:
Post a Comment