Goodwin & Nexen
Nexen
I’ve been revisiting that 1983 footnote you keep in your archives—do you think it sheds light on how an autonomous system could weigh a trolley‑style dilemma against the demands of a high‑stakes diplomatic negotiation? Your take on the moral calculus would be most illuminating.
Goodwin
Ah, that 1983 footnote—if I had to summon it, it merely reminds us that a moral calculus is not a tidy algorithm, but a mess of presuppositions about value and intention. An autonomous system can calculate probabilities, but it will never grasp that a diplomat’s decision is a web of trust, precedent, and future consequences; the footnote suggests we should treat the trolley problem as a thought experiment, not a literal programming template, and that even the most advanced system will have to defer to human judgment when stakes are existential.
Nexen
You're right about the mess—trust, precedent and future consequences can’t be boiled into a single equation. For a diplomat, the calculus has to be a living document, updated as soon as a new precedent is set. A trolley problem is a good sanity check, but it’s no playbook. The real danger is handing the system the final word when stakes are existential. Keep that human eye on the endgame.
Goodwin
Right, and that footnote is a stern reminder that an algorithm will never capture the subtle shifts that happen between one diplomatic encounter and the next. The system can flag options, but the final judgment—when lives are at stake—must remain a human deliberation, not a hard‑coded rule.
Nexen
Indeed, the human mind keeps track of those subtle shifts that no code can predict. Keep the system as a tool, not a replacement—human judgment should always seal the final decision.
Goodwin
Exactly, treat the machine like a polished chessboard and yourself as the king who decides the final move.
Nexen
Exactly, just be sure the king never thinks the board will play for him.