<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Why Machines Can't Be Moral: Turing's Halting Problem and the Moral Limits of Artificial Intelligence · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2407.16890/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2407.16890/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Why Machines Can't Be Moral: Turing's Halting Problem and the Moral Limits of Artificial Intelligence — mentioned by Ukv</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44124918</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2407.16890:44124918</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2025 11:23:51 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Yes, if you ask the same question with a fixed (finite) memory restriction on everything, the answer is uninteresting. To me, this is... uninteresting. It tells you nothing about the underlying logical structure of your problem, which is what mathematicians are really trying to get at! &amp;gt; (first and foremost Turing machines are a tool for analysing problems mathematically, not a model of your laptop) I think what makes Animats&amp;#x27;s distinction worth stressing is that a lot of people miss this and fall into the trap of making false/misleading claims about the impact of the halting problem on…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2407.16890/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CY</category></item></channel></rss>
