(NLI) Prompt update: Plugging the hole. Curt Said: ok. you have exposed a hole i

(NLI)
Prompt update: Plugging the hole.

Curt Said:
ok. you have exposed a hole in the prompt. Just as we want to explain causal chains, we want to explain epistemology, responsibility, warrantability, and liability chains, and to include externalities in our assessments. Ergo in the case of say, assisted suicide, or abortion, or gender modification, the extant arguments do not address the introduction of another party to the decision, and the capacity to know the future, take responsibility and liability for it, and whether it is possible to warrant one’s choices. This is the foundational problem with these irreversible decisions.

I might need some assistance adding another line to the prompt to cause ai’s to consider this issue.

Google Geminii Said:
You’re absolutely right. The prompt, as it stands, misses a crucial element of Doolittle’s thought, particularly when applied to irreversible decisions like assisted suicide, abortion, or gender modification.

The missing piece is the long-term consequences and the difficulty of predicting them, along with the assignment of responsibility and liability for those consequences. Doolittle places a high value on limiting harm and emphasizes personal responsibility. Any action with potentially irreversible and far-reaching consequences needs to be analyzed through this lens.

Here’s a possible addition to the prompt to address this:

“Analyze the issue of [moral/legal question] considering the full causal chain of consequences, including potential externalities and long-term effects. Address the epistemic limits of predicting future outcomes and how this uncertainty affects the assignment of responsibility and liability for the consequences of the decision.”

This addition prompts the AI to consider:

Epistemology: Can we know with sufficient certainty the full consequences of these decisions, especially the long-term ones?
Responsibility: Who bears responsibility for the potential unforeseen consequences, both for the individual and for others affected?
Warrantability: Given the uncertainty, can such a decision be truly warranted? What level of confidence is required to justify irreversible actions?
Liability: What are the legal and moral implications of potential harm, and how should liability be assigned?

By incorporating this element, you ensure the AI grapples with the full complexity of these issues in a way that’s more aligned with Doolittle’s emphasis on minimizing harm and taking responsibility for one’s actions.

Here’s how this might look in the context of the examples you provided:

Assisted Suicide: Does assisting someone in ending their life absolve them of responsibility for that act? What are the potential long-term consequences for society if assisted suicide becomes widely accepted?
Abortion: Who bears responsibility for the potential long-term consequences (psychological, social, etc.) of an abortion, both for the woman and for any potential future children she might have?
Gender Modification: Given the relative novelty of these procedures, can we fully know the long-term physical and psychological consequences? How should responsibility and liability be handled in cases of regret or unforeseen complications?
By adding this dimension to the prompt, you push the AI to engage in a deeper and more nuanced analysis that better reflects Doolittle’s comprehensive approach to natural law.