Always interesting to see older philosophical texts discussed here. Often find surprising parallels to modern tech ethics debates.
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you, but Magnifica Humanitas was published earlier this year.
Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas
31–40 of 57 posts
Re: Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas
#32It blows my mind that the Pope can say more relevant words about AI than American billionaires.
I think it's a matter of incentives. American billionaires are mostly highly financially exposed to AI, so are not really incentivised to say anything interesting about it except "it's great, you should buy it".
Re: Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas
#33On one hand I appreciate the considerate scholarship on display, and since there are so many Catholics maybe some will even listen to their purported leader. On the other hand I find any talk of greed, selfishness, manipulation and degradation of humanity... really rich coming from a pope. Maybe I'm supposed to forgive, but I'm not going to forget that they spent decades abusing, hiding abuse, trying to force abortio…
The abuse, sure, but the birth control stance is really the only one compatible with the Catholic idea of sex only being appropriate in the context of a monogamous, lifelong married couple. I'm not really sure what you're getting at with that one, since there wouldn't be an HIV or STI epidemic in that world.
Re: Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas
#34On one hand I appreciate the considerate scholarship on display, and since there are so many Catholics maybe some will even listen to their purported leader. On the other hand I find any talk of greed, selfishness, manipulation and degradation of humanity... really rich coming from a pope. Maybe I'm supposed to forgive, but I'm not going to forget that they spent decades abusing, hiding abuse, trying to force abortio…
>trying to force abortion to the margins along with birth control
Do you have some suggestions about the doctrines that Catholics should assent to?
Re: Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas
#35There is interesting debate about whether, and how much, LLMs were used to write parts of this encyclical. Generally encyclicals are written by a group of Cardinals and/or Bishops, with significant input from the Pope, so it seems possible that while the Pope's sections and speeches have been human-written, some of the other writers used LLMs in some capacity. The argument boil down to: Pangram seems to flag some sec…
who gives a shit tbh, argue with the substance, not the style.
Re: Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas
#36> The direction that AI takes is not written into the technology itself. It depends on our choices, on the institutions that host and underpin that choosing, and on our ability to manage innovation responsibly to serve the common good. This is such a key point -- the problem is that the $T that are being poured into AI are doing so for one purpose alone: ROI The choice has already been made, and it's the wrong one.
It's the correct choice according to the fundamental principles of capitalism, as set down by Milton Friedman.[1] and Lewis Powell.[2] Friedman set down the theory:
In an ideal free market resting on private property, no individual can coerce any other, all cooperation is voluntary, all parties to such cooperation benefit or they need not participate. There are no “social” values, no “social” responsibilities in any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals and of the various groups they voluntarily form. ...
(But) the doctrine of “social responsibility” taken seriously would extend the scope of the political mechanism to every human activity. It does not differ in philosophy from the most explicitly collectivist doctrine. It differs only by professing to believe that collectivist ends can be attained without collectivist means. That is why, in my book “Capitalism and Freedom,” I have called it a “fundamentally subversive doctrine” in a free society, and have said that in such a society, “there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”
Then Powell (the Powell who became a Supreme Court Justice) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce set out to change the rules of the game. The 1971 "Powell memo" was written when the values of the 1960s had permeated society. The objective of the memo was to turn that around. It's a battle plan to use corporate power to change government. When it was written, few companies had lobbyists. Now, corporate lobbying is huge, and effective.
The extent to which this well-funded project worked doesn't have to be described today. What's worth realizing is that it wasn't always that way.
The U.S. Government of the Lyndon Johnson era ("Great Society", "War on Poverty") was organized to deal with something like the impact of AI on employment. The current government is not. It is permeated with people who think it the government shouldn't do anything about it.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctr...
Re: Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas
#37It blows my mind that the Pope can say more relevant words about AI than American billionaires.
Saying relevant words is part of the Pope's job description. Not so for billionaires
Re: Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas
#38It blows my mind that the Pope can say more relevant words about AI than American billionaires.
the Pope is an American billionaire at this point, in some Vatican sense.
Re: Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> abortion to the margins along with birth control even when HIV became an obvious pandemic. How are abortion and birth control at all related to HIV? I don't understand the connection.
The most common form of male birth control also happens to be the primary recommended means to avoid HIV and other STI's: the condom. Sorry if I was unclear and made it seem like it was improperly related.
The only 100% effective form of birth control, which is also the most effective at avoiding HIV and other STIs, is the one that the Catholic Church recommends. Why do you want them to promote less effective alternatives instead?
Re: Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas
#40On one hand I appreciate the considerate scholarship on display, and since there are so many Catholics maybe some will even listen to their purported leader. On the other hand I find any talk of greed, selfishness, manipulation and degradation of humanity... really rich coming from a pope. Maybe I'm supposed to forgive, but I'm not going to forget that they spent decades abusing, hiding abuse, trying to force abortio…
The abuse, sure, but the birth control stance is really the only one compatible with the Catholic idea of sex only being appropriate in the context of a monogamous, lifelong married couple. I'm not really sure what you're getting at with that one, since there wouldn't be an HIV or STI epidemic in that world.
In this world with real people in it a lot of needless suffering and death resulted from that allegedly principled stance. I'm not sure what to take away from the idea that in a different, imaginary world this would have been harmless, except to conclude that you blame people for not meeting a particular ideal of "love" and sex.
Again, one promulgated by people who see fit to protect pedophiles and allow them to continue their abuse.