Conservation Groups Melbourne
Join Melbourne's conservation meetups and explore nature
AI and the Limits of Human Judgement
Mon, Aug 17, 8:00 AM**Skeptics Café will be held in the Function Room at [The Stolberg Hotel](https://stolberg.com.au), 197 Plenty Road Preston. The 86 tram route is close, and Bell train station – situated on the Epping line – is a short walk away. It will also be a virtual event accessible via Zoom, as per the details [here](https://vicskeptics.wordpress.com/events/).** **Start Time:** 6:00pm for dinner and a chat. Talk and Zoom session starts at 7.30pm. We aim to wrap up after 9:00pm. **More Moral Than Us?** *Why the question matters for alignment, moral progress, and long-term flourishing* **TL;DR:** On some measurable moral tasks, today's AI already looks competitive with humans, or better, and the alignment community is oddly quiet about it. But moral capability is not the same as moral motivation: a system can compute the right answer without being moved by it. Pulling apart knowledge, reasoning, judgement and motivation is what makes the question tractable, and what makes the honest answer uncomfortable. Caveats attached, in quantity. Almost nobody working on AI alignment wants to say this out loud, at least not about current systems. So let's say it: AI might already be [more moral than us](https://www.scifuture.org/more-moral-than-us/), in some measurable respects. Two questions fall straight out of that: * Why does it feel like a dangerous thing to claim? * And is human moral reasoning really a standard worth bragging about as an alignment target? The provocation isn't idle. In a modified Moral Turing Test, people rated a large language model's moral reasoning as better than other humans' on almost all measured dimensions - see [paper Attributions toward artificial agents in a modified Moral Turing Test](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-58087-7) + associated [interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quNwpv0zhtM) and [talk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuLmzDUPhVo) with lead author Eyal Aharoni.[1] Findings like that are easy to over-read and easy to wave away, which is most of the problem. Provocative questions? Yes, and they are backed by empirical research. In a modified Moral Turing Test, people rated GPT-4's moral evaluations as better than other humans' on almost every dimension, though they could still tell which was the machine ([Aharoni et al. 2024](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-58087-7); I [interviewed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quNwpv0zhtM) and [hosted a talk by](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuLmzDUPhVo) lead author Eyal Aharoni).[1] The result has since been [contested](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-25046-9) and [defended](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-25047-8), which is exactly the kind of thing this evening is for. Findings like that are easy to over-read and easy to wave away, which is a problem that may obscure appropriate interpretations. The claim gets tabooed for reasons that aren't stupid. Premises do get smuggled in unnoticed. Morality is bound up with identity and tribe, so "AI is more moral" can land as an attack rather than a hypothesis. And it sits close to AI-worship, or to motivated reasoning looking for an excuse to defer to the machine, and deferring to AI on moral questions is genuinely epistemically risky. So the caution is understandable. The trouble is that it has hardened into a taboo, and the taboo now costs more than it protects. Most of the bad arguments, on both sides, come from running four different things together: * Moral knowledge: knowing the facts that bear on a decision. * Moral reasoning: drawing sound inferences from values to conclusions. * Moral judgement: applying principles well in a messy particular case. * Moral motivation: actually being moved by moral considerations, not merely computing them. Group the first three as epistemic competence: marshalling the relevant knowledge, drawing sound inferences, judging the particular case. Now grant, purely for argument, that AI already does all three better than we do. Notice what happens to the alignment problem. It doesn't dissolve. It relocates, wholesale, onto the fourth thing: whether the system is actually moved by any of it. Concede every epistemic point and the hard question is untouched. That gap, between knowing and caring, is where alignment actually lives. A system could plausibly beat humans on the first three while having nothing resembling the fourth. Keep them apart and the conversation becomes tractable. Collapse them and you get overclaiming and underclaiming in the same breath, which is roughly what the current debate produces. There's also a real risk in how the framing gets used. Point it one way and it justifies handing AI authority over human decisions. Point it the other and it's ammunition for painting alignment researchers as unhinged techno-utopians. Both feed motivated reasoning. Worth naming out loud, not a reason to stop. None of this settles the answer, and the evening won't pretend to. The narrower claim is enough: once a serious community stops itself from asking whether AI could have better-grounded moral reasoning than humans, the taboo has become the expensive thing. It's a question worth putting on the table, with every caveat attached. Come and help pull it apart. Also see: **- [More Moral than Us](https://www.scifuture.org/more-moral-than-us/)** **- [Why Are We Afraid to Ask Whether AI Could Be More Moral Than Humans?](https://www.scifuture.org/why-are-we-afraid-to-ask-whether-ai-could-be-more-moral-than-humans/)** [1] AI didn't pass as human, it was rated as better than human. The same study found that when participants were then asked to identify which evaluation came from a machine, people performed significantly above chance levels. So GPT-4 didn't fool anyone. The authors' reading is that people could pick the AI out not because it reasoned worse but because it seemed to reason better, i.e. its perceived superiority was the tell.
Engineering Machine Consciousness Monthly Meetup
Thu, Aug 27, 8:30 AMThe discussion topic for this meetup will be identity and whether or not history is a necessary condition for consciousness as Dretske proposed. James
Werribee Gorge and Long Forest
Fri, Aug 14, 11:00 PM
Bellydance Classes in Reservoir
Wed, Aug 19, 6:00 AMWomen only class Open level. Beginner friendly Address provided when booking in $15 first time. $20 casual. cash Full-body workout: Tone your core, improve posture and learn the vibrant movements of Egyptian bellydance. classes are welcoming and fun for all fitness levels. To book please text or call 0407770164 Eugenia has 15+ years of teaching experience and also runs a studio in Fitzroy
August ice cream and catch-up
Sun, Aug 16, 2:00 AMCatch up at the unofficial TLYCS Melbourne HQ: the Fluffy Torpedo ice cream shop (they give 50% of profits to effective global charities). Talk with like-minded hard-thinking do-gooders about cataracts, iron fortification, education initiatives and all the other effective ways to use our relatively abundant resources to do good in this world.
The Devonshire Society
Sat, Aug 15, 2:00 AMTrusted by millions worldwide
Popular groups
Melbourne Brites
Footscray Historical Society
Wildlife walks Meetup Group
The Life You Can Save Melbourne meetup group
Oot and Aboot Outdoors
12345
Mindful Hiking in Melbourne
Great Ocean and Phillip Island
Frequently asked questions
Related content
Discover more groups and events that match your interests