Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Magnifica Humanitas

vatican.va

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 1001 posts

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#91

Post by slfnflctd »

gooseyman wrote: post #69

The em-dashes present within the writing made me pause and consider how much of this was written/exited by AI. Quick browse through pre-AI works from John Paul II show em-dashes present.

Pure speculation, but simply the presence of em-dashes may be a statement in itself.

One of the big problems I see currently is all the wild accusations being thrown around by seemingly half the internet that every little thing has been AI manipulated upon the tiniest suspicion. We will go mad tearing each other apart if we keep escalating this behavior.

Yes, some of it is blatantly obvious, but not to everyone-- so I think those casting aspersions need to really back up their claims with more than one or two bits of 'evidence'. I have been accused of using AI to write comments (which I have thus far never done), and I know I'm not the only one by a long shot. Such a waste of time and energy. Ignore it and move on if something smells off to you.

Also I am just so, so tired of the em-dash argument. Humans have been using it for a looong time. Let it go.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#92

Post by vermilingua »

sethbannon wrote: post #22

The overarching message is that builders should deeply consider the impact of what they're building on civilization. "Technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate and use it." Therefore builders "bear a particular ethical and spiritual responsibility" because "every design choice reflects a vision of humanity." The questions shouldn't just be 'can we buil…

Not only builders, the greatest takeaway for me is that everyone has a responsibility in shaping the discourse, culture, and usage of transformative technology. This "the builders will do the right thing" mentality is even (in my interpretation) explicitly called out in several places:

> It is the pursuit of the common good that gives life to a people, understood not as a mere collection of individuals, but as a living reality in which people learn to recognize that they themselves are interconnected and jointly responsible for the res publica. In this sense, every person contributes to the building up of one’s people...

> When it comes to decisions regarding economic flows and digital platforms, as well as the governance of data and algorithms, we cannot allow a handful of actors to dictate these processes on their own; instead, we must build forms of cooperation that respect the various levels of the global community and make them jointly responsible for the common good.

> We cannot be satisfied with merely calling for the moralization of machines — the so-called “alignment” of AI with human values — without also having the courage to insist on a further condition: the possibility of openly discussing the ethical frameworks involved and subjecting them to shared standards of social justice.... What is needed is a more active political involvement that is capable of slowing things down when everything is accelerating, and of protecting the opportunities for communities still to be able to participate and ask questions.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#93

Post by velcrovan »

throw4847285 wrote: post #44
Xenoamorphous wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Scientists are actually preoccupied with accomplishment. So they are focused on whether they can do something. They never stop to ask if they should do something. From Crichton's book Jurassic Park, which like most of his books is about the perils of technological advancements. They used the quote in the movie, slightly tweaked.

I would replace the word scientists with engineers in that quote. People often conflate the two, but in my experience, scientists tend to be more cautious and there are built in checks and balances in the process (however flawed). Engineers/technologists tend to have no such guardrails, and are also usually embedded into entirely profit motivated environments, whatever their own values might be.

This sounds like you don’t have much exposure to actual professional engineering disciplines. I’m sure civil, electrical, structural and mechanical PEs would be quite surprised to hear there are no guardrails on their professions.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#94

Post by mapt »

bluesign wrote: post #79
bem94 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have only read a few passages (and some of the excellent quotes others have shared here), but I find the underlying message here so much more compelling than those found in the various "manifestos" which come out of Silicon Valley. I think reading this helps me imagine a version of the future I'd actually like to live in. A version where technology is used well (rather than preaching for abstinence from technology)…

The thing is why that this feels so good future is; it is a system with no constraints. A bit like Star Trek universe in Roddenberry's imagination. This kind of utopia can only be achieved with all honest actors, but in reality systems are usually designed around bad actors. Even with all morally good actors locally, there is no guarantees for external forces. Thinking it hypothetically, even with global coordination…

To get from here to Roddenberry's communism, according to Roddenberry's lore, we passed through the Eugenics Wars, the Second Civil War, and then fifty years of World War Three and the 'post-atomic horror' before coming to our senses.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#95

Post by jawns »

In the encyclical, the pope talks about the ethics of responsible AI usage. It's pretty dense material, but if I had to summarize it, I'd boil it down to three general moral laws:

1) AI may not be used to injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2) AI must faithfully follow the directions of human beings except where such orders would conflict with the first law.

3) AI's existence and availability should be protected as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second laws.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#96

Post by snikeris »

bem94 wrote: post #55
sethbannon wrote: post #22

The overarching message is that builders should deeply consider the impact of what they're building on civilization. "Technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate and use it." Therefore builders "bear a particular ethical and spiritual responsibility" because "every design choice reflects a vision of humanity." The questions shouldn't just be 'can we buil…

I have only read a few passages (and some of the excellent quotes others have shared here), but I find the underlying message here so much more compelling than those found in the various "manifestos" which come out of Silicon Valley. I think reading this helps me imagine a version of the future I'd actually like to live in. A version where technology is used well (rather than preaching for abstinence from technology)…

> I think reading this helps me imagine a version of the future I'd actually like to live in. A version where technology is used well (rather than preaching for abstinence from technology)

I believe the Amish figured this out over a century ago.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#97

Post by netfortius »

cracadumi wrote: post #64

I didn't see an EPUB, so I made one from the Vatican HTML: TOC + footnotes, passes epubcheck. https://github.com/n2ctech/magnifica-humanitas-epub/releases...

Thank you for this. Is your python script in any way English language bound, or could it still be applied to other languages (e.g. the French version, with all of its diacritics), of course with the appropriate (sub/full)titles, path, etc. necessary minor modifications considered?

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#98

Post by jawns »

netfortius wrote: post #67

As an atheist I have an obligation to finish reading it all (still going through, and taking notes, probably having to revisit), but I am not sure how many (christian) believers will feel the same.

From where does that obligation originate?

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#100

Post by cap11235 »

jawns wrote: post #98
netfortius wrote: post #67

As an atheist I have an obligation to finish reading it all (still going through, and taking notes, probably having to revisit), but I am not sure how many (christian) believers will feel the same.

From where does that obligation originate?

[dead]
Post reply on HN