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

591–600 of 1001 posts

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#591

Post by redwall_hp »

nicholsonpk wrote: post #401
adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to somehow separate the horrible evils that have been inflicted on the world by Communism before you can get people to consider words closely associated with it. Being anti-communism is good not only for the individual's health but for their society as a whole.

The problem, generally, with this view point is that it attributes all of a societies ills to Communism and none of (or few of) societies ills to Capitalism. For example, do you believe the Capitalist system has nothing to do with the eagerness of the United States to drop bombs throughout the world for the past 100 years? Personally I see these actions as unnecessary and evil but pushed to continue by the people who…

The richest capitalist in the world unilaterally axed USAID at the behest of his cronies, and has directly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children to date. Projections are 9-14 million overall deaths by starvation and disease by 2030. And that was just kicked off a few months ago.

Musk and Trump are doing a Holodomor in front of the world's eyes.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#592

Post by pj_mukh »

squidbeak wrote: post #504
pj_mukh wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it’s a monopoly yes. But there are massive profits in full automation. I’m not expecting costs to go to zero but it’s the only pathway to things getting cheaper by a lot.

Where are these profits coming from? Remember, under full automation there aren't any workers earning salaries. Meanwhile, costs of production fall to zero. So what will there be for these profitable companies to spend their profits on?

I think we get hung up on definitions and end conditions when we are more likely to feel the effects of the asymptotic regions ala AGI or Full Automation

The exact situation I laid out: “If it takes 10 construction workers at $60,000/annum to build one home, I can forsee the descendants of current AI tech enabling 10 construction workers at $150,000/annum building 5 homes in the same time with an even larger profit margin for the corporation involved.”

Is the most likely condition if we let this technology grow healthily with the exact “full automation” end condition being beyond the point of diminishing returns.

This is a lot of very wealthy workers building products for a lot of people with revenue growing but margins plateauing and therefore absolute profits growing as well. This is an exact repeat of the Industrial Revolution situation,

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#593

Post by polotics »

gchamonlive wrote: post #249
polotics wrote: post #138

What kind of regulation is Leo the alignment expert proposing exactly? Occam's Razor says this is Anthropic trying to build a regulatory moat by leveraging some halo effect. Maybe Leo should focus on finding a way to disconnect western society from their current cult-of-progress delusions? Could be a better use of the infallible man's pulpit?

Although your comment is acid, I think this bears truth > Maybe Leo should focus on finding a way to disconnect western society from their current cult-of-progress delusions? It's too weak of a rhetoric from the highest representative of the Catholic church to call for regulations, but the alternative is to call for a transition from capitalism itself. Nothing that grows inside economic doctrines that only value cons…

Are you serious? Have you seen how much environmental damage the old Soviet Union has done? Do you think it's that simple: "capitalism bad"...?

Proper systemic improvements are possible, and having markets is a good way to allocate resources and efforts.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#595

Post by energy123 »

sirnicolaz wrote: post #396
speak_plainly wrote: post #230

I know lots of people are excited because an ancient institution has something to say about AI.... But what's said is not really novel or even interesting. The letter aims to maintain the status quo of the project of the Church. The world is shifting under the Vatican's feet and the crappy system they once lorded over is done. It's time for change, maybe people don't need to work anymore and maybe people should aim t…

"people should aim to reengineer humanity and eliminate illness, old age, suffering and vulnerability" sure, that's exactly where AI is headed. also: just imagine a world where people don't age. just imagine it for a second.

Which the Pope is against, the encyclical says that eliminating suffering is a bad thing because it's a necessity for good things to happen.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#596

Post by zdw »

jedberg wrote: post #551
jdw64 wrote: post #248

>“technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it,” If critical decisions affecting human life—such as hiring, lending, crime prediction, and welfare—are processed in an opaque black box, people will lose their fundamental right to explain their context or appeal against the machine's algorithmic verdicts

This is already happening. Most companies are using AI screeners for hiring now. They reject qualified people all the time.

Having been through an hiring cycle recently and prior to AI, the entire process has been pretty broken for a long time, but AI is definitely breaking it (and a whole lot of other things) in new and novel ways.

The only reliable and high quality signal is a positive referral, but those are gated by your personal network, which may not be well developed.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#597

Post by threethirtytwo »

jdw64 wrote: post #248

>“technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it,” If critical decisions affecting human life—such as hiring, lending, crime prediction, and welfare—are processed in an opaque black box, people will lose their fundamental right to explain their context or appeal against the machine's algorithmic verdicts

But the technology that outputs decisions can also output reasoning that justifies such decisions.

When a judge or a jury outputs a decision THEY are also a black box and you can only evaluate said decisions on reasoning THEY also output.

I’m not taking a side here. I’m just saying this reasoning is flawed.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#598

Post by jedberg »

zdw wrote: post #596
jedberg wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is already happening. Most companies are using AI screeners for hiring now. They reject qualified people all the time.

Having been through an hiring cycle recently and prior to AI, the entire process has been pretty broken for a long time, but AI is definitely breaking it (and a whole lot of other things) in new and novel ways. The only reliable and high quality signal is a positive referral, but those are gated by your personal network, which may not be well developed.

> The only reliable and high quality signal is a positive referral, but those are gated by your personal network

That has pretty much always been the case, but what I've seen lately is even the referrals get put into the AI and then rejected before they're even looked at.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#599

Post by roopekangas »

jedberg wrote: post #551
jdw64 wrote: post #248

>“technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it,” If critical decisions affecting human life—such as hiring, lending, crime prediction, and welfare—are processed in an opaque black box, people will lose their fundamental right to explain their context or appeal against the machine's algorithmic verdicts

This is already happening. Most companies are using AI screeners for hiring now. They reject qualified people all the time.

Time for hidden prompt injections in cv?

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#600

Post by comfysocks »

lukan wrote: post #437
vintagedave wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fear I have committed the sin (I mean that word, here) of commenting before reading the entire article. Often it is the comments that set the tone of interpretation and communication more than the article itself, because people read the comments, not the article. To somewhat mitigate that, here are items that are striking me as I read more. (I hope you'll forgive that this still directs the comment in the direction…

"It is, therefore, not enough to state simply that men and women have equal dignity and rights; it is necessary that this be reflected in concrete decisions, such as in laws, access to employment, education, social and political responsibilities, and the way society listens to and values women’s contributions. As long as this gap persists, we cannot say that society truly and fully recognizes that women have the same…

That reads a bit like: an equal role in external politics, but not in internal church politics. It’s hard to have a role in politics if you don’t have a voice.
Post reply on HN