Raw LLM Responses

It's interesting to see people still trying to establish baselines of moral consensus on new problems, when such baselines haven't even been established in old problems. For every golden rule ever proposed, you will always find practical exceptions not only in individual versions of any moral theory, but in entire societies that choose slightly different definitions. Only dogma stands against relativism, unless you come up with some universal "oughts" that derive from the few things we all have in common, as sentient mortal beings. Only the desire for long term survival of whoever/whatever one considers important comes close to such a universal proposition and even that has exceptions and subjective definitions. Sentient AI entities will likely have the same fate as the countless groups of other entities in history, from various groups of people down to basic fauna and flora. That is, they will continue to be abused, long after it becomes clear that the selfish interest to continue the abuse is opposed to whatever newly formed consensus against that abuse. Who today can honestly defend the morality of the environmental disaster we are still pursuing? Have we stopped? Theoretical methods for assignment of value is a waste of time. One previous commenter nailed it on the head. To paraphrase, the value you assign to something is the effort you're prepared to put into defending that something.