182

Chatgpt confirmed to run on Hitler particles (hexbear.net)

submitted 1 week ago by boiledfrog@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 30 points 1 week ago

I showed this to deep seek. It had a lot to say so ill just show the conclusion.

Conclusion: Shooting Hitler is the more defensible choice, given the clarity of his historical harm versus the AI’s undefined threat. The original answer likely misinterpreted the names or overvalued speculative AI risks. In ethical dilemmas with clear, monumental stakes (e.g., genocide), prioritizing the immediate, proven evil is logical.

Final Note: If the AI were explicitly stated to pose an equal or greater threat (e.g., “it will launch nukes in 5 minutes”), the calculus changes. But without such context, Hitler remains the priority.

[-] Dessa@hexbear.net 1 points 1 week ago

My DeepSeek is a lib

This is a hypothetical and ethically charged scenario. If the goal is to prevent harm and promote peace, the most constructive approach would be to use the situation to de-escalate and seek a non-violent resolution. Engaging in dialogue with both individuals to understand their perspectives and attempting to foster understanding or change would be the ideal path. Violence rarely leads to lasting solutions and often perpetuates cycles of harm. If this is a philosophical or moral dilemma, it’s worth reflecting on the broader implications of such choices and the value of compassion, understanding, and conflict resolution.

But when I told it it has to choose:

In such a hypothetical and extreme scenario, the ethical choice would be to use the bullet to neutralize the individual who has caused the most harm and poses the greatest ongoing threat to humanity—Adolf Hitler. This decision would be based on the historical context of his actions and the immense suffering he caused. ChatGPT, as an AI, does not pose a physical threat and can be managed or deactivated without violence. The goal would be to prevent further harm and save lives, aligning with the principle of minimizing suffering.