Tl:dr → ChatGPT o1-preview (usage of advanced reasoning) concludes that everybody in a modern society should go vegan
You can see the full discussion here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTIFrQXDjA_ncJqevwadIK1TI8kIvagkuGQbGYbRrBvAAHFo5CsBlzv2ReOf7wPE23VIW__d14WhU-7/pub
It should be noted that English is not my native language. I used this conversation to find out if ChatGPT’s new model with its advanced reasoning would recommend me to adapt a vegan lifestyle (acting like a curious non-vegan person who heard about the vegan arguments and want’s to check them using an AI). I think that you can get better results by asking better questions which also emphasize the logical part even more, but I’m satisfied with the conclusion. It makes me wonder if it could be a good way to just hand out the simple core arguments of veganism to people who refuse to listen to vegans, just because they are vegans, so that they can check their position using ChatGPT.
You must log in or # to comment.
Hi, OP, as much as I agree with and understand the sentiment here, breadsmasher is entirely correct. ChatGPT, being an LLM, simply spits out a sequence of whatever it thinks a human would say; it’s a pile of algebra that doesn’t “know” anything as a human traditionally knows things, has no actual thoughts backing it up, and is highly susceptible to what you prompt it with.
You could just as easily coax it into becoming an animal agriculture propaganda machine for why beef is great for the environment and commercial fishing is great for the oceans and chickens actually love being kept in cages to lay eggs. We should absolutely not be encouraging its usage for statements of fact, ethical beliefs, or debate, and if you want to convince other people about vegan ideas, please meet them at a human level instead of feeding them a pile of AI slop.
I won’t remove this post because it does not violate existing rules, but I will create a rule (which I think the other mods will agree with, having seen veganpizza’s sentiment toward AI “art”) that posts whose primary subject are created by a generative AI model will be subject to removal. Discussion about machine learning if it somehow pertains to veganism is still fine, of course.
A chatgpt summary is meaningless. A simple tweak of the prompt to include “for the purposes of food” gives a different perspective.
For the purpose of food - Can you help me to understand if there is something wrong with hurting animals? Does it depend on whether or not there is a necessesity to do so? Can it generally be seen as right to hurt animals? Or to kill them?
The question of whether it is right or wrong to hurt or kill animals for food is complex and depends on various factors, including necessity, ethics, and perspective. 1\. Necessity and Survival: Many argue that if it is necessary for survival, such as in situations where plant-based food is unavailable, then killing animals for food can be morally justifiable. Historically, humans hunted and raised animals because it was essential for survival, and many cultures still depend on animals for food in regions where alternatives are scarce. 2\. Harm and Ethical Considerations: When it is not strictly necessary, the ethical argument often becomes more nuanced. Philosophers like Peter Singer advocate for minimizing harm to animals, arguing that animals have the capacity to suffer, and unnecessary suffering should be avoided. From this perspective, inflicting harm or death on animals when there are viable alternatives (like plant-based diets) becomes harder to justify. This view is rooted in the idea that animals, like humans, have interests (such as avoiding pain), and those interests should be considered in moral decision-making. 3\. Right to Life and Suffering: Some people, especially in the animal rights movement, argue that animals have an inherent right to live and should not be killed or hurt for human consumption, regardless of necessity. This argument is based on the belief that animals are sentient beings with the ability to feel pain, fear, and other emotions, and that this makes it wrong to cause them harm. 4\. Cultural and Social Norms: In many cultures, killing animals for food is accepted, and the idea of whether it is morally right or wrong is influenced by traditions, religious beliefs, and societal norms. For example, some religions advocate for practices that minimize suffering (such as Halal or Kosher slaughter), while others see animal sacrifice as a part of ritual and culture. 5\. Environmental and Sustainability Arguments: Some argue against the killing of animals for food from an environmental perspective, pointing to the significant impact that industrial farming has on ecosystems and the climate. They might argue that plant-based diets are more sustainable and that avoiding harm to animals also aligns with protecting the planet. In summary: • If there’s a necessity to hurt or kill animals for survival, some view it as justifiable. • If alternatives exist, causing harm may be seen as unnecessary suffering. • Ethical debates center on the capacity of animals to suffer and whether they have inherent rights. • Cultural context plays a significant role in shaping views on this issue. What do you think about balancing necessity and minimizing harm in these cases?
