Nah, just an American ethical profile. See how terrified he is of depictions of sex, and how he believes teens have the mental age of toddlesr until they magically turn into adults when their age goes from 17y365d23h59m59s to 18y0d0d0m0s. Those are traits that cross and pervade America as a whole, from born-again puritan Christian fundamentalists all the way to radical puritan wokeists.

Sure, a few minor details vary between different subbranches of Americanism, but largely everyone knows what pure evil truly is.

Namely, sex.

Well, I did a quick Google and Google Scholar search, and didn't find anything relevant. At most studies on who's adopting it, and where, but nothing in success rates. I imagine it'll be a few months before statistics on adoption and reversal of adoption start appearing.

This may be a case of confirmation bias. Cases in which AI "just works" aren't reported as much as case in which it fails, so if one judges the state of AI by news reporting they'll have the impression AI is overwhelmingly failing, even though the reported failures may be a tiny fraction of all use cases.

So, which of those items deserves the death penalty? Why?

Would the same reasoning for that it deserving the death penalty be valid for, let's say, a middle-class suburban person of, er, a "more mainstream" ethnicity, caught with it in their system? If yes, kudos for the consistency. If not, why not?

Those are valid reasonings when it comes to more abstract ethical discussions, but when friendly-AI researchers talk about AI having human values, they mean it in a much narrower sense. Their interest is basically what can we make sure AIs will not develop value systems that:

a) Consider it perfectly fine to, in sequence: kill all humans; kill all life on Earth; kill all life in our future light cone / the visible universe; and (if it discovers FTL) kill all life in the entire universe.

b) That fixed, consider it perfectly fine to eradicate most of humanity, keeping the remaining few survivors in zoos where they're going to be tortured and/or performed excruciatingly painful experiments on.

c) That fixed, consider it perfectly fine to keep humans as pets, well-cared for but devoid of any agency, rights, or freedoms, collective or individual.

d) That fixed, consider it perfectly fine to make people happy by wiring all humans into pleasure-inducing machinery that'll keep their brains in a 24/7/365 state of orgasm, well-fed and cared for from cradle to final incineration, but otherwise in such an intense state of perfect sensory bliss they cannot think, develop language, etc.

e) That fixed, actually help humans, in ways humans themselves perceive as such, varied as those might be.

Your points pertain to "e", and hint at further layers "f, g, h...", so at some point they'll become relevant. But for that "a" to "d" must be dealt with. After that, yes, we can start on "e".

There is, but it's at such a low intuitive level it's extremely difficult to notice without having something else to compare. Here's a universal common sensical value: "no social grouping is predicated upon the unrestricted right of any member to murder any other member for any reason whatsoever". It derives from natural selection: any human social grouping that at some point had developed that as a value went extinct once everyone murdered everyone else, so only those that held alternative values (that it's okay for some members to murder some other members, and for members to murder non-members, under defined criteria) survived, making this a general shared value -- though, evidently, the criteria for when murdering others is and isn't socially acceptable (and must be celebrated or severely punished) vary wildly.

The interesting thing is precisely in that machines may lack human values even at that low level, and it takes a lot of effort to imagine all the ways they can end up doing things that violate these baselines so utterly obvious to us we take them for granted and never ever even state them explicitly, so self-evidently obvious they are to us.

That's precisely why everyone limits it, including Libertarians. Things Capitalists will happily trade when not restrained include, among others -- and these are things that happened until they were forcibly prevented: slaves, of both the chattel and indentured varieties; laws, purchasing the best priced ones from the best law-sellers; navies from army-renting countries to topple annoying governments; bounty hunters to cut off the hands and legs of children slaves to force their parents to do what they're told; corsairs to attack and destroy competing cargo ships; hitmen to kill competitors; mobs to spank and kill protesters; and so on, and so forth.

What differs between political ideologies is how much restraining they want to put on Capitalism. Libertarians think that forbidding Capitalists to trade on slaves and laws suffices. Others think additional restrains are required. But everyone, without exception, wants to prevent pure, raw Capitalism from running rampant.

No one likes pure, raw, unbridled Capitalism, not even its most staunch defenders.

Those are good points, but what strikes me as utterly silly in what most every critic of the model say is that they threat the four letters as four axes and go from there.

They aren't. The Jungian model doesn't say, for example, that Extroversion and Introversion are one axis. It says there are four extroverted functions, and four introverted functions. Each extroverted function forms three axes: one with its introverted version, another with its opposite function in its extroverted version, and another with its opposite function in its introverted version. The letter "I" or "E" at the beginning of the four letters type tells you which of your two main functions (one of which is extroverted, the other is introverted) is the primary.

So it absolutely obvious, from the mere description of what the first letter alone means, that it won't map to the Extroversion axis of the Big Five model, and any correlation found between both won't be strong.

And yet, every single criticism of MBTI I find, and every single study trying to correlate both, present the E/I letter pair, and the Extraversion axis, should behave roughly the same, and point to them not correlating strongly (but stronger than other such not-axes pared to axes) as if this was a very important finding.

So I do take issue with how psychologists approach this. It's pretty evident they start by paying zero attention to whatever Jung wrote (irrespective of MBTI, for which I care little), then test a strawman they made, and prove this strawman is false. Which says nothing about the Jungian model itself, as it wasn't tested.

What I want to see is someone reading Jung, developing a psychometric test of what he was actually saying, and testing that one. I'm yet to see anything of the sort made, whether by proponents of by critics, I don't care which.

That's where I take issue with the criticisms. Whenever I read a detailed paper criticizing Juntian typology in general, and MBTI in particular, especially when they're compared with the Big Five, I'm always surprised by how much the critics understand the later but not the former. I don't mean agreeing with the former, I mean merely understanding. For example, this paper is one the most detailed criticisms I found, and while it argues very well, it strikes me a categorical set of misunderstandings of everything about one side of the issue coupled with an exceptional understanding of the other. This is the norm for all such discussions with few exceptions, and that's deeply annoying.

By the way, yes, the test the company itself applies is garbage, as it, the test, utterly fails at doing what it purports to do.

That's a good denouncing of the test applied by the company. Is that a problem with the testing procedure, being as it is profit-motivated? With the baseline Jungian model it's based upon? With both? For instance, I haven't seen any study of how things fare when one ignores the four MBTI letters that try to wrap the eight Jungian cognitive functions into an easy-to-sell package, and go deal with those directly.

Sure. Here's an analysis of how it fails correlating with Big Five and how it's measuring "something" that Big Five doesn't deal with. That something is consistent. And there's a remarkable lack of studies of what that is, which is precisely the problem:

* Furnham, A. (2022) The Big Five Facets and the MBTI: The Relationship between the 30 NEO-PI(R) Facets and the Four Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Scores. Psychology, 13, 1504-1516. doi: 10.4236/psych.2022.1310095.

Psychologists not studying something "because reasons" isn't the same of that which they aren't studying being nothing.

Why?

(Expecting the standard handwaving of having heard something-something about statistics without having looked into any of that directly.)

Who's a leftist?

Biden?

If you believe having governments makes things bad, try living in places where there's none.

I suspect you wouldn't like the experience.

Wow, you really took to heart the half-truths conspiracy theorists mix within their lies to make those lies seem true. What's next? Alleging climate scientist "forgot to take Sun cycles into account"?