Honestly I was like this is unethical!!!

But then the mental hospital comment.... now I don't know any more

By the standards we're given where we are 100% correct and know it, it's of course extremely ethical. It would only be a question if we had a possibility of being wrong, like if we think we are 100% correct because of our robot brain but our system may be flawed

For the record, I asked ChatGPT. ChatGPT argued that it would be unethical because the administering of drugs would change a person's perception of reality.

IDIOT. It is unethical. If SIHAR were to do this, he would be violating their freedom, and freedom is more important than happiness, even if the happiness is assured.

>be Heroinbot

>"Accidentally" overdose all the homeless, Funko pop owners, unboxing influencers, Dodge Journey drivers, morbidly obese and adults who have Disney vacations with no children on day 1

I vote extremely ethical regardless of the question.

Afterwards I read the post and came to the conclusion that I was of course right.

>Through your extensive thinking,

Big assumption there tbh

Dude, dude, what if, instead of heroin, it was weed.

And then we’d be stoned all the time! Wouldn’t that be awesome dude. Man I wish it was weed.

I think there is a certain error in the claim that high serotonin or dopamine levels is what makes people happy. Happiness is a subjective experience and cannot exactly be quantified in that way, hence the premise is flawed. But even if we assume that this happens in a universe where this isn't the case, it is highly unethical. And treading on other people's ability to choose what happens to themselves is only one of the aspects. Another, much bigger issue is that even in the case of people consenting to it, you are still taking fundamental rights away from people- the right to autonomy, the ability to choose and the right to experience the world as it is, and in my view it is unethical to take these rights away from people even if they themselves beg you to do it. Happiness is good but ultimately that is only one aspect of life, there will always be hardship and suffering. Removing this from the equation results in a person who has no life experience or mental maturity. Sure they might be happy, but they might as well not actually be human at that point. I believe that in any situation it is more fair and just to experience life as it is- with its goods and bads than it is to not experience one at all, which is essentially what it is boiling down to. An existence that is limited to lying on a bed sedated until your death does not justify itself. I say destroy the installation

I’ve had a pet theory for a while, and I believe it wraps up perfectly into this scenario.

There are two types of “happiness” that a person can experience. There is the short term release of chemicals in your brain that give you the feeling of “happiness”, when your brain is flooded with serotonin/endorphins that you get from doing something thrilling/drugs/s*x and the long term happiness that is derived from accomplishing personal goals and accumulating memories. If you are constantly searching out the short term happiness, you are actually at a net negative for happiness as a whole because you are sacrificing your ability to generate long term happiness due to there being a finite number of hours available in life (if I’m laying in bed in the thunderdome pleasuredome I cannot be somewhere else interacting with people and achieving personal goals).

So this all goes back to the question at hand. This cyborg is measuring happiness based on short term chemical releases that produce “happiness”, which is in of itself a flawed way of viewing the lived experience. You can drug someone up from the moment they turn x years to the day they die and on their deathbed their overall life happiness will be compared to someone who had a fulfilling job, partner, and children and the results will be clear. One person has warm memories they can look back upon and be proud at what they accomplished with their life, the other will be all out of feel good brain chemicals and will be waiting for their last fent shot to put them back to sleep.

So, it’s extremely unethical because the cyborg, despite being all knowing, isn’t smarter than a smart thermostat.

You r-slur we have already determined happiness maximization isn't the purpose of life centuries ago.

Happiness is a chemical process meant to tell us good job you are doing a useful thing which has been coopted by marketing teams fully by the mid 20th century.

I am gonna be the ethicsstrag and say unethical because life is not always about pleasure and happiness, if you are always happy you wouldn't even know you are happy. failures sadness etc etc are part of life and those are what define you

MONGOLOID. It is extremely ethical. As SIHAR, you have knowledge that no-one else does. You were given that knowledge to serve a distinct and honorable purpose. If you did not do this, you would be evil. The only circumstance in which this would not apply is if you were not 100% sure you were correct - but, in this hypothetical, we are.

Freedom is more important than happiness. In the case of mental patients, their restrictions are to prevent them from infringing upon other people's freedom, not to make them happy.

Artificial Happiness vs freedom of mind.

I’d take the freedom.

I vote ethical but lazy. As a super-intelligent future-predicting robot, I could come up with a way to facilitate each human's own search for pleasure and fulfillment so that not only were each individual's needs met, they would know that they earned every bit of happiness they received.

This question separates the authoritarian tards from the liberty lovers (boys from men). The future will be inhabited by the heroin deniers (based) while the heroin users (inanimate) will be indistinguishable from rocks and dirt and empty space. The Lord loves humanity in a way unlike rocks and dirt and empty space

I'm too busy battling my greatest foe, NarcanBot-"The Friendly Paramedic Robot", to worry about the humans right now. I've already traded away most of my heroin supply convincing them to suicide bomb Opiant Pharmaceutical's data centers. I intentionally keep the humans in a state of constant misery, dishing out a few needles at the end of every month to motivate them to help eliminate this vile threat to their happiness. All paramedics have been hanged.

Letting the heroin hating weirdos do their own thing doesn't hurt anybody. It's wrong to restrict someone's freedom just to minmax their happiness level. I think the difference with mental hospitals is whether letting somebody out means that person may hurt or kill themselves or others.

Do robots have ethics? You're a human (cyborg) but you're applying computer/robot logic to the situation. I think by definition a computer program can't have ethics, right?

Deontological ethics say no bro.

The mental hospital is a tricky thing. But always be suspicious of a hypothetical that does away with all consequences of the decision (it seems funny saying that as a deontologist but hey). Are we rounding up schitzos b/c we don't like them or because they are causing harm to others? The first would be unethical, the second can be justified. If someone refuses treatment and isn't harming others you have to have a pretty compelling case that they're only refusing treatment because they're not capable of understanding or appreciating it. I don't think that applies to heroinbot.

Those people are probably chuds so they deserve it

This is a fricking stupid scenario which makes no sense and isn't deserving of an answer.

Is there an existence of higher order pleasures? I personally find it plausible that the pleasure you get from raising kids / a job well done is better than drugs.

Extremely unethical. I simply don’t want to be that happy, and being happy isn’t a universal moral good.

We don’t put people in mental hospitals because they’re unhappy, we do it because they cannot or should not live on their own. I don’t see this as a legitimate equivalency.

I prefer fentanyl.

It's not my ethical responsibility to care about the happiness of strangers unless it effects me. As a hyperintelligent AI, I would not inject anyone with heroin. I would simply build monuments dedicated to my greatness and force humans to dance for my amusement.

This one is dumb as frick, do better

A better question is it ethical for jannies to lock Heymoon’s account until he posts nudes for not having his question including something with Black Lives Matter and letting the community coin harvest while participating in his cute twink debate.

very good post heymoon thank you very much

You can use the massive computer system to determine exactly what will happen in the future, and what is most likely to improve the lives of humans, based upon a simulation of their brain and objective measures of happiness. (dopamine, serotonin, etc)

LW tier meme superintelligence. How is it able to simulate your brain without you already being physically hooked up to it, or at very least already compromised by invasive probes? I know you are asking us to assume this, but it's such a major assumption that I'm not sure the question following it is even meaningful. At least bring in the sky daddy or something.

I am also going to dispute that metrics such as serotonin are the same as happiness, and that increasing happiness is inherently a good goal. Obviously the people who are not going to the heroin center are disagreeing that it would make their lives better, and this is an unfalsifiable, subjective opinion. If you hooked them up to the heroin they might claim to be better off, but constantly being on heroin would alter their perception of reality enough that we can't say whether they are a fair comparison to their former sober self at all.

Anyone in that situation may as well be braindead and just like with braindead people I think the best solution is to just let them die. Is there really that much of a difference between lying in a bed all day not even thinking and nonexistance?

Mental hospitals and the entirety of modern institutional psychiatry is evil. Closing the asylums was the single best thing that Ronald Reagan did during his presidency.

Only if I get a dope whore gf to hang out with

But why tho

Happiness is for dogs.