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

151–160 of 1001 posts

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#151

Post by estearum »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #143
bluesign wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This sort of rationalization of evil is a core of technocratic support for Trumpism, I find, and has parallels to the evangelical prosperity gospel. Choice tenets: - Fuck you, got mine - If I don’t do it, someone else will - Might makes right - Greed is good It’s always cloaked in a veil of realism, but it’s just the classic 14-year-old-boy-just-got-introduced-to-the-prisoners-dilemma situation. There’s nothing philo…

And it's funny because the "realism" has been proven wrong over and over and over again for millennia. People do all sorts of selfless and generous things all the time! The entire premise is trivially disprovable by just going and asking a neighbor for some help with something.

That's not to say we should be naive about greed or malice existing or being powerful motivators (especially the former), but it is obviously not true that they're the only forces at play and therefore you are "just doing the logical thing" by succumbing to them. It's just the more destructive version of the same naiveté.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#152

Post by raldi »

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.

Priests will read it and then talk to their congregations about it on Sundays throughout the year, if not explicitly, then in how it shapes their homilies.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#153

Post by GoToRO »

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…

hard disagree. No matter what gets built, it will be used for bad things if the society is not properly constructed. We need to fix our government and then you can build anything you want. I don't like putting the blame on the builders, building is already difficult as it is. Also you can't built something in isolation, word will get out anyway. That's why this speech is either naive or he just wanted to tick a todo list: say something about AI.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#155

Post by exabrial »

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…

[flagged]

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#156

Post by estearum »

morningsam wrote: post #140
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.

Someone did an analysis and concluded that it appear to be at least partly (~10-15%) LLM-generated, or at least LLM-translated (see comments): https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/s58hDHX2GkFDbpGKD/linch-s-sh...

People need to stop acting like AI systems can detect AI. They can't. Pangram and similar are simply lying. There's no method to do what they claim and there never will be.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#157

Post by erelong »

hugh-avherald wrote: post #114
erelong wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ehhh, the model doesn't matter as much, the summary appears to be accurate (you can ctrl+f for keywords like "slavery", then see what's being said on the subject) so for example with "Just War" we see this passage: > it is important to reaffirm that the “just war” theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated. This would clearly be thought to be an error from a Catholic viewpoi…

I do not think that self-defense of an invading force is what just war theory is concerned with. The passage also says it is outdated, not that the doctrine is abrogated.

It's true that self-defense is not the only case where arguments have been made for justification for war but I think it's the most common:

> Catholic philosophy, therefore, concedes to the State the full natural right of war, whether defensive, as in case of another's attack in force upon it; offensive (more properly, coercive), where it finds it necessary to take the initiative in the application of force; or punitive, in the infliction of punishment for evil done against itself or, in some determined cases, against others.

"War" entry: newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm

By calling Catholic teaching "outdated", this sounds like the heresy of modernism (even if outright "abolition" isn't mentioned) - since for example these "older" teachings are directly applicable to current conflicts (people here might support Ukraine's right to defend against Russia, for example, under theories of justifications for war)

"Modernism": https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#160

Post by xandrius »

GoToRO wrote: post #153
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…

hard disagree. No matter what gets built, it will be used for bad things if the society is not properly constructed. We need to fix our government and then you can build anything you want. I don't like putting the blame on the builders, building is already difficult as it is. Also you can't built something in isolation, word will get out anyway. That's why this speech is either naive or he just wanted to tick a todo…

I get where you are coming from but this is the common "reduction to politics" that anyone who doesn't want to address a problem uses: think of any societal or human problem and you can have your comment with different nouns.

Sure, IF we could just go and fix our governments in some magical way then the problem would disappear. That goes from hunger, climate change, videogame addiction and AI. The problem is that what you value in life in different than what others do, so we now have a system in which sometimes you get what you want and sometimes you don't.

But back to the topic, I do think that how OpenAI and Anthropic handled the government and them asking to drop guardrails is something a company can actually and actively do without having to reinvent the universe.

Post reply on HN