321–330 of 1001 posts
I would love for the Pope to answer this question: If a technology existed that reduced the cost of producing a critical thing (think food, housing, medical care) down to near zero, however, it made the humans currently building the thing redundant, should we build it? Would it be okay to use the hyper-optimization power of Capitalism to build such a technology faster? Before someone yells at me about this not being…
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…
The strange part is how moral responsibility somehow always lands on the builders... the people with the least leverage... while the funders get to ask the ethical questions. Weird!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the technology is used to serve humanity by providing food or housing, it seems like his stance would be approving. But if it was used to increase profits and people still starved that would be bad, right? "AI must be used for the good of humanity" isn't even an anti ai position really.
"by providing food or housing" vs "if it was used to increase profits" Why..not both? I know this question is naive, but there is nothing that "hard-codes" AI to only increase profits at the cost of providing food or housing for much cheaper prices. Yes a Private equity firm could later insert itself and jack up prices and play such games, but that isn't baked into the technology itself. And as such, the technology s…
At this point, tech biz leaders are massively over-reaching and trying to influence the rest of us: muxk, thiel, Karp, etc.
So it should be no surprise that the rest of us are ready, willing and able to push back just as hard.
tech biz leads should just run their companies and stop trying to play president or god
Side note: (a) This new pope is very good at "political rhetoric" and (dare I say) polemic. He's a lot more relevant than recent popes. (b) There seems to have been a vibe shift, re: secular sentiments towards religion.
There is potentially a lot happening at this intersection... say catholicism and AI.
For example... LLMs make scripture a lot more accessible. That tends to be impactful, historically. It's Augustine, Aquinas, Spinoza and Schmidt. This kind of thing is a niche interest... even among the faithful, but an important niche. And... it just answers your questions, patiently.
It's also a therapist, confidant and advice giver... potentially a confessor or priest. Talk of "making an AI god" got a little stale, but... there are many ways that LLMs might take god-like roles in people's lives.
Predictions are futile, but I suspect we are going to see AI encroachment into religious/spiritual domains. I further suspect that good, natural, conversational audio is the bottleneck.
Personally... I'm curious about this Pope/AI thing. I find it interesting.
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 found that, for many of the statements about what AI should do, I would actally be happier if the letters "AI" were replaced with "companies"
I don't think anyone actually has an issue with AI. I think people are finally fed up with late-stage capitalism and lashing out.
I would love for the Pope to answer this question: If a technology existed that reduced the cost of producing a critical thing (think food, housing, medical care) down to near zero, however, it made the humans currently building the thing redundant, should we build it? Would it be okay to use the hyper-optimization power of Capitalism to build such a technology faster? Before someone yells at me about this not being…
If the technology is used to serve humanity by providing food or housing, it seems like his stance would be approving. But if it was used to increase profits and people still starved that would be bad, right? "AI must be used for the good of humanity" isn't even an anti ai position really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Church and any kind of believe system hurts our society and divides us. Any belief system? And yet I bet you value freedom over slavery, wisdom over ignorance and compassion over brutality. That’s a belief system, despite not being a religion.
If the majority says, no we want to be able to control other human beings, these people will reinact slavery. From a society point of view though we see that its not a working model anymore.
A real believe system can't be argued with. You believe in this god? This god says x and thats why you do things? Okay thats it. You don't even question were this information even came from.
If we delete all religion tomorrow and science, there is a realistic chance that the society rediscover the same existing rules like math and gravity, but religions might appear again but with different names, different rules etc.
I can change your mind with logic and arguments if its not a believe system, i can't do that with religion.
Wisdom over ignorance: The chance of survival is higher with wisdom
Compassion over brutality: This is just basic Game theory
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that mean that nothing of value can come from the church, and we should ignore all ideas they put forth out of some kind of spite?
Spite? Its not spite. The church creates a believe system which indoctrinates all of us and took our cultures away. The germanic tribes were believers in nature, church removed all of this. Church also doesn't see woman as equal. Just because they might sometimes also say postive things or things we might align, doesn't mean i need their oppinion. And especially not on hn
The point is that times change, and institutions change, and holding grudges for long ago sins and policies is ineffective.