Manheim: saying consequences justify breaking NDAs is an appeal-to-consequences fallacy
davidmanheim · x · 2026-11-15
David Manheim pushes back on Tim Colbourn: you're effectively saying deontological constraints stop binding once someone deems consequences serious enough, which is unconvincing. He calls it an appeal-to-consequences fallacy — rules shouldn't be ignored even when breaking them doesn't actually help, likening it to claims that true AI-risk believers should turn violent when violence wouldn't help.
More from AGI Musings
- 'Wordcel' Celebrates Using Plain-Language Poetry to Command Computers — StewartalsopIII · 2026-11-15
- "Most People Caring About AI Safety Really Mean Caring About Being in Control" — nptacek · 2026-11-15
- Manheim: narrow exceptions don't negate deontological constraints — davidmanheim · 2026-11-15
- Open models aren't inherently safer—just 4-7 months behind closed ones, argues new post — BlackHC · 2026-11-15
- Manheim: honoring commitments is deontological — and consequentialists benefit too — davidmanheim · 2026-11-15
- Guidelight AI catalogs ten misaligned AI behaviors signaling loss-of-control risk — AccBalanced · 2026-11-15