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

Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas

adropincalm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas

#41

Post by NoboruWataya »

hydrox24 wrote: post #30

There 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…

My view is that it doesn't really matter, and focusing on it is likely an attempt to distract from the substance of the encyclical, which could be seen as critical of AI insofar as it calls for stronger regulation and more conscientious use of AI. As an aside, I think the arguments put forward in the blog post you link are pretty weak, but again, getting into that would just distract from the actual points being made in the encyclical.

Re: Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas

#42

Post by EA-3167 »

Georgelemental wrote: post #39
EA-3167 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's not 100% effective, in the real world you don't start with a hypothetical value and then insist it's real despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary: You Modify Your Hypothesis.

Re: Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas

#43

Post by sm-silversight »

Animats wrote: post #36
insane_dreamer wrote: post #2

> 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…

It ain't capitalism if we have the FOMC chop off the invisible hand with 20 years of LIRP/ZIRP

Re: Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas

#44

Post by eru »

doodlebugging wrote: post #3
insane_dreamer wrote: post #2

> 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.

I agree with your summary. Greed has won out over everything else.

Ha, if only! I'd like to live in that utopia!

If eg Putin had been more greedy instead of power hungry, we wouldn't have had his war against Ukraine. Same for many other wars and conflicts, including the US war on Iran, or even WW2 if you want to go back in time.

Re: Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas

#45

Post by fasterik »

hydrox24 wrote: post #30

There 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…

The encyclical is not anti-AI, so there's not really any contradiction or hypocrisy if AI was used to write it. It's more of a criticism of the "technocratic paradigm" and the potential for abuse of power and lack of accountability.

Re: Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas

#46

Post by mcshicks »

EA-3167 wrote: post #10

On 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…

Did you read it?

89. Living out justice in the Church means purifying ecclesial relationships and structures from distortions that give rise to inequality, lack of transparency and abuse of power. In this regard, listening to the victims of spiritual, economic, institutional, sexual and power-based abuse, as well as abuses of conscience, is an integral part of a journey toward justice, which includes acknowledging the harm done, just reparation and taking steps to prevent it from happening again. Every power is at the service of communion and mission. All authority is at the service of the People of God. This ministry of service is expressed not only through our faith celebrated and lived in the Sacraments, and in the adoption of a synodal style, but also in the concrete sharing of goods. Following the example of the early Church, ecclesial resources need to be shared so that no one among us may be in need (cf. Acts 434, and so that their administration may support the mission of proclaiming the Gospel to the poorest. Regular assessments of the exercise of ministerial responsibilities should be encouraged, not as judgments on individuals, but as tools for learning and correction oriented toward mission. 116 Only to the extent that we are open to the action of the Holy Spirit will these principles of Social Doctrine become incarnate in ecclesial life. In this way, the Church will be able to bear credible witness to society that seeking the common good together, with shared responsibility and fraternity, is not a utopia, but a real possibility.

https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/events/event.dir.h...

Re: Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas

#47

Post by leflambeur »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #38
neves wrote: post #23

It 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.

It is fascinating (this word doesn't quite capture sentiment, but the best I can think of right now) how any mention of the Catholic Church, on whatever specific topic — in this case, an encyclical about AI — triggers the immediate desire in some to go full ad hominem.

"billionaire", "in some Vatican sense". Would you elaborate? This just sounds like such a low and lazy attack

Re: Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas

#48

Post by Georgelemental »

EA-3167 wrote: post #42
Georgelemental wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's not 100% effective, in the real world you don't start with a hypothetical value and then insist it's real despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary: You Modify Your Hypothesis.

There are many practices that have been widespread for thousands of years, which we would nevertheless all consider wrong. Why is this issue different?

Re: Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas

#49

Post by skybrian »

Waterluvian wrote: post #27
insane_dreamer wrote: post #2

> 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.

Yeah. And the quality of AI will only get worse from here unless we can commoditize open weight models. If Google and Anthropic and such are able to own access, they will enshittify it horribly. Because they are powerless to do anything but, in the name of profit.

I think it's just as likely that these companies will choose different strategies and go after different markets. Though there are some similarities, Apple didn't do the same thing as Microsoft. And although they do copy features, Android isn't the same as iPhone.

In particular, Google depends a lot more on advertising than Anthropic does, so their incentives are different.

Re: Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas

#50

Post by antihipocrat »

hydrox24 wrote: post #30

There 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…

I have caught myself writing in a manner similar to LLM output. I put it down to reading so much of LLM content at work and online that it bleeds into my own style.. Nothing egregious like the "it's not this, it's that" pattern, but more subtle like the cadence and the balance of active vs passive voice.

What I'm saying is that it's possible that some of these tells are becoming part of standard writing style now.

Post reply on HN