Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism • Hacker News Board

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#131

Post by inglor_cz » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:15 PM UTC

anjel wrote: post #69

merelydev wrote: post #7

I believe the great problem of our age is deciding who controls technology. The technologists who create it believe they should control it, the people who use it are starting to believe they should control it and the governments who write the laws believe they should control it. And now the priests believe they should also play role. So is the next phase of "Democracy" electing who controls technology?

In England, ca. 1500s common law established the legal precedent that if your cattle broke loose of its pen, wandered into your neighbor's field and trampled their garden, you were liable for the damage your cattle caused. Meanwhile, 500 years later Uber could disrupt the livery industry with VC cash that rendered a NY cab's owner/operator 6-figure financed medalion license worthless, and somehow that wasn't Uber's p…

"cash that rendered a NY cab's owner/operator 6-figure financed medalion license worthless"

Doesn't it strike you that if licenses for a banal service like taxi are that expensive, that this likely indicates political corruption?

Good riddance to this sort of rent-seeking. I wonder if the NYC taxi service was provided by the mob.

In Central Europe, I don't have to wonder. Prior to Uber, the local taxi services were operated by the mob, and the taxi drivers basically robbed naive tourists through exorbitant, illegal prices. Stories of rape or abuse of intoxicated women abound. Some of the drivers were so sketchy and creepy that people refused to board their cars. Scammy Prague taxi service was legendary, but by far the worst sort of tracksuit-and-gun wearing mobsters behind the wheel I ever encountered was in late 1990s Bratislava.

This ugly rotten web was swept clean by Uber, where people have a reputation to maintain. Thanks god. My wife is no longer afraid to take a cab at night. Hooray.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#132

Post by jandrewrogers » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:17 PM UTC

mentalgear wrote: post #38

merelydev wrote: post #7

I believe the great problem of our age is deciding who controls technology. The technologists who create it believe they should control it, the people who use it are starting to believe they should control it and the governments who write the laws believe they should control it. And now the priests believe they should also play role. So is the next phase of "Democracy" electing who controls technology?

'who controls technology' should be the result of 'what do [they] want to use it for', e.g the motivation. It should be put in the hands of the most trustworthy, transparent institution that can validate it works for all of us, not just the few. I don't think private companies or specific leaders want the best for the common good, so it would make the most sense to give control to a supra-nation entity like the UN -…

> so it would make the most sense to give control to a supra-nation entity like the UN

This is a very naive and idealistic imagining of what international NGOs such as the UN are actually like and how they operate. I can't think of anything worse.

The median country is a corrupt authoritarian state.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#133

Post by pstuart » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:19 PM UTC

knollimar wrote: post #106

notahacker wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But would governments defined by a cadre of techno-authoritarians disproportionately close to Mr Tariff do a better job?

Mr Tariff is probably slightly better to keep those around than not, but ideally I'd rather the government curate experts they employ to advise them. I guess I kinda walked right into handing technocrats power, but I really just want the government to understand the tech they regulate. We'd rather have populist zingers on TV though.

Mr. Tariff was trying to replace the income tax with tariffs with a bonus of having personal power over other countries economies by whatever tariff he decree'd. The "more jobs" was a smokescreen, and I'm sure you're aware of that

Trade policy should be as holistic as possible (tariffs, taxes, subsidies, etc), with the goal of aiding a robust domestic economy.

The 70's neoliberalism took Smith's comparative advantage argument and stripped it of context — optimizing for quarterly returns and capital mobility while ignoring the industrial ecosystem those returns depend on. You can't offshore your entire manufacturing base and expect to retain the innovation, workforce capacity, and supply chain resilience that made those profits possible in the first place.

Contrast this with "For years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare of the country."

That era was not without its issues as well, but there was a sense that "we're all in it together" vs the "greed is good" crowd.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#134

Post by mike_hearn » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:27 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #57

mike_hearn wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Pope is pleading for multilateralism and responsible regulation of technology. According to the Economist at least, he doesn't seem to know what he wants. The encyclical sounds like a grabbag of every progressive meme and worry out there, whether they contradict each other or not. You can't have both multilateralism and AI regulation (however that's defined). If you have genuine multilateralism then there will…

I mean yes, if we twist meanings of words enough, Pope is progressive. Except he is not, he is conservative catholic pushing for old school conservative catholic doctrine. He is not far right, he is not prosperity gosphel guy, but catholic doctrine was never that. Of course you can have multilateralism and regulations. And no, AML is not an antichrist. And Thiel with his plan yo create totalitatian fascist word is on…

"Antichrist" is not really a serious word you can pin down, but the AML system is regularly used in ways that are very un-Christ-like. For instance, Christ said to love thy neighbour, to be the good Samaritan, that people should not be punished for the sins of their family members and he preached tolerance.

Now consider the unlucky German-Turkish journalist Hüseyin Dogru, who was recently placed under trade sanctions by the EU Commission due to his reporting. But they did it while he was living in Europe. The sanctions force everyone - including his neighbours and supermarkets - to refuse to sell him anything.

Then they realized, what if his wife buys him food? So they sanctioned his wife too.

Then they realized, what if his parents buy him food? So they sanctioned his parents as well.

Literally the entire family has been put to economic death. The state will imprison anyone who helps them and confiscate the entire net worth of anyone who conceivably might help them. All appeals have been denied.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%BCseyin_Do%C4%9Fru#EU-San...

They are now completely screwed and reduced to living on a subsidence budget of ~500 EUR/month from the government, calculated to be just enough that his family don't literally die of starvation.

https://x.com/hussedogru/status/2037859218326180064

https://diariosocialista.net/2026/05/28/alemania-recrudece-l...

This is possible because of the systems-level implementation of the AML/sanctions system and its existence outside any kind of justice system. It's the kind of thing that Thiel meant by a totalitarian antichrist. The Bible warned of the "mark of the beast" on people's hands that would prevent people buying and selling if the antichrist doesn't approve of him. Well, a revoked EMV contactless credit card is basically that. If Jesus were alive today he would presumably have harsh criticisms of this kind of thing.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#135

Post by steveBK123 » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:32 PM UTC

KPGv2 wrote: post #118

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I struggle to see how the 3 examples go together. Your exposition implies a connection, but I struggle to see one. The best I could do is that it has to do with rights and responsibilities? The first example is clear. And it has pretty much carried on, as the "right to property" and "the responsibility to cover damage to other's rights". The second example, even though you wrote it as Uber vs. the cab driver, is more…

> over the imposed limitation of their municipalities This was really just a few cities in the US. There's no artificial taxi scarcity in Houston or London or Tokyo. You might reflexively say London has strict regulations, but it regulates safety not imposing an artificial cap. That's a NY/Boston/Chicago/Philly thing. Uber won because: 1. on-demand app 2. VCs subsidized rides to destroy taxi companies by driving the…

> 2. VCs subsidized rides to destroy taxi companies by driving the customer cost to well below provider cost.

Not sure about other regions but in NYC this is 100% the case. Ubers used to be nicer cleaner newer cars, better drivers.. for less than a taxi. Now they are about 4x what they cost in the 2010s, with cars about as dirty as a taxi and equally surly drivers.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#136

Post by steveBK123 » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:37 PM UTC

xp84 wrote: post #62

rebolek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then vote for politicians who do.

Few of those are ever running. Mostly we have just two brands of smooth-brains whose only policy aim is “preventing that other group of assholes from gaining any power, because they and their supporters are pure evil!”

Each side gets the smooth brains they crave because for ~50% of the population it's become a team sport / religion situation. A majority of people have not thought through 1/10th of the policy positions they automatically support/reject based on the team hat color.

There's a quote I will mangle and I forget the source of that's something like "If you agree with all the positions of your chosen political party, either you have thought through every option and came to the same conclusions on dozens of topics, or you haven't thought through anything".

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#137

Post by sealeck » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:37 PM UTC

SilverElfin wrote: post #117

sealeck wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The technologists who create it believe they should control it I think there's an interesting phenomenon where it is _not_ the people who control it, but instead a kind of international finance man cum-captain of industry (perhaps best embodied by Sam Altman) who does not create the technology and yet has ended up wielding the levers.

> a kind of international finance man cum-captain of industry (perhaps best embodied by Sam Altman) What the hell is a “cum-captain”? Search isn’t helping.

As in cum-"captain of industry"

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#138

Post by steveBK123 » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:39 PM UTC

miyoji wrote: post #74

amelius wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It basically says "we have no control over it", and "we don't know how it works".

Both of those things happen to be entirely true, though.

Sure but theres a level of uncertainty being expressed for a paid service that you don't see elsewhere.

Imagine if every time you booked an uber it was like "your drive may crash the car". Or whenever you ate at a restaurant, the waiter said "there is a chance the chef will poison you". Or your bank statement said something like "these numbers may be wrong".

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#139

Post by kjkjadksj » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:41 PM UTC

steveBK123 wrote: post #72

knollimar wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democratically elected governments can't reorder a cookie right now. We even had one out tariffs on steel, thinkinf this would be good for jobs here. If there was 0.1 seconds of thought they'd realize any manufacturing job you make from a steel tariff cuts 2 more well paid trade jobs

Democracies don’t necessarily pick the best leaders but they give a veto to the people such that the worst leaders don’t last long. A technocracy can build high speed rail in a decade but it can also institute multi decade one child policy, multi year zero-covid, barricade people into their own homes and ban entire industries at the whim of a single leader. There is less course correction.

Worst leaders don’t last long? Boy I wish that were true.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#140

Post by jeremyjh » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:43 PM UTC

solenoid0937 wrote: post #104

andrepd wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They provided a better and more cash efficient solution for passengers. That is enough. They burned half a billion dollars a month of VC money at their peak to undercut taxis across the world; in quainter times this used to be called "dumping", now it's just the standard way of doing business. All the while basically flaunting the law with their whole "we're just a platform connecting people who happen to drive a c…

Most businesses require sunk costs or debts, and it's also often what is required for new ideas take place in an established market. Whether they burn VC money or the bank's money to gain a foothold, is immaterial. Uber did a great thing here and made a product that people like more, for less money. More drivers, way more global availability, more customers, and better cars, all while being cheaper. That is a quintes…

Uber sold dollars for $0.75 until their competition was destroyed, and then they raised their prices.