Live data from Hacker News

Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

vatican.va

141–150 of 513 posts

Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

#141
post #130
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, there are many ancient philosophies and practices that help people resolve this without god or religion We don’t need god to find meaning or fulfillment And we definitely don’t need other people pretending to be the one true channel through which to connect with God either

If you thought it a conincidence that they didn't grow very big, you would be mistaken. Your conception of the Loving Metaphor of God might be flawed, in perpetuity, if you stay too prideful or cowardly to let go of your dogmatic conceptions.

[deleted]

Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah I want to see the numbers on this. Before technology we lived in feudalism. There’s no more unequal system than that.

> Before technology we lived in feudalism. There exists the possibility we have technology and feudalism. It also depends on how you define "technology": was/is the plough "technology"? The bow and arrow? Blacksmithing forge? Anvil? Water wheels? The wheel? The stirrup?

> There exists the possibility we have technology and feudalism

There exists the possibility of many things. The Pope made an appeal to empiricism. In our timeline, industrialisation brought forth a burst in democracy and the downfall of feudalism.

Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This always annoyed me about religion. Such a lazy cop out no answer to such important question. Religion, or at least Catholicism, recognizes four things that humans look to for happiness: wealth, honour, glory/fame/power, and pleasure. * https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2002.htm It concludes that these things can be good, they are not the highest good. The thing that will make humans most happy is love: love for o…

right but the "only in communion with God" part seems less supported than the general need for love in a community/ fulfillment. You have to do some leaps to get a universal loving god.

> right but the "only in communion with God" part seems less supported than the general need for love in a community/ fulfillment.

In the Christian tradition, love of neighbour is important:

> "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He [Jesus] said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commandment

And how does one love both God and neighbour at the same time? By loving one's neighbour one loves God as well:

> Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?'

> The King will answer them, 'Most certainly I tell you, because you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_and_the_Goats

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_of_mercy

Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

#146
post #41

This is a great demonstration of the fact that people coming from very different perspectives can, through good faith inquiry, find much to agree on. I think there are a lot of thoughtful arguments and conclusions in here even though I generally find the catholic church's metaphysical pyrotechnics to be fairly ridiculous. It goes to show that E.O. Wilson's concept of "consilience" can apply even outside of sciences -…

Yeah! Perhaps a bit naively, as a Highly Opinionated Person (HOP) on this topic I was ready for this to have something controversial to say about the nature of intelligence. It's not out of the ordinary for even Anglosphere philosophers to fall into a kind of essentiallism about intelligence, but I think the treatment of it here is extremely careful and thoughtful, at least on first glace. I suppose I would challenge…

Yep I think that is an interesting point! I definitely think there are important ways in which human intelligence is embodied, but yeah - if we are modeling intelligence as a function, there's no obvious reason to think that whatever influence embodiment has on the output can't be "compressed" in the same way – after all, it doesn't matter generally how ANY of the reasoning that AI is learning to reproduce is _actually_ done. I suppose, though, that that gets at the later emphasis:

> Drawing an overly close equivalence between human intelligence and AI risks succumbing to a functionalist perspective, where people are valued based on the work they can perform

One might concede that AI can produce a good enough simulation of an embodied intelligence, while emphasizing that the value of human intelligence per se is not reducible to its effectiveness as an input-output function. But I agree the vatican's statement seems to go beyond that.

Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

#147
post #98

Does this mean that in the eyes of this Pope or this church, natural born biological humans will always be closer to God or have a higher degree of sanctity than artificial intelligence, any form of technological machine, and presumably artificial "life"?

Artificial intelligence has no degree of sanctity at all, because it is dead matter. You have already been confused.

It might have rights despite not being sacred. Since nobody believes robots have an afterlife, I don't see why sanctity would matter, as long as their rights, whatever they be, are respected.

Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah I want to see the numbers on this. Before technology we lived in feudalism. There’s no more unequal system than that.

"We" lived in feudalism? Do you speak for the entire world? Remember that there were peoples that were conquered by industrialist empires who had more equal systems than feudalism or than what we have right now. Communities in the Amazon or isolated Pacific or African islands (and deserts in Africa) have had more equal societies than the USA today and arguably were quite happy till their partway-utopia was wrecked by…

> This gives me little hope for people pitching AI leading us into a better society unless the hearts of the people with the power are trustworthy and faithful to promoting good for people rather than profit for themselves.

Agree. I see parallels to communism: in theory it sounds alright - spread the wealth, everyone works for the collective etc. - but in practise it doesn’t work because people are greedy and leaders inevitably become dictators.

With AI it’s similar in that in theory it could be impartial and level playing fields, but in practise they will be run by companies and governments where the same old human fallibilities persist.

If you can’t trust the leaders then you can’t trust their machines either.

Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

#149

[flagged]

I could not disagree with these points more. I cannot speak to other faiths, but having been raised as a Christian (and having read the Bible in its entirety at one point), this form of Christian apologism neatly steps over the logical incongruities and moral failings fundamental to Christianity.

It's the absence of belief in a deity - and therefore the recognition that the starting conditions of our lives was random chance, out of our control - that provides the foundation that all humans are equal and of equal value. That after 14 billion years of my atoms circling the universe I sprung forth, child of middle-class but reasonably well-educated parents in the United States, and not the child of struggling farmers in Australia, or drug addicts in Eastern Europe, was complete chance. To me this means that I am of no more importance than people born to those situations, irrespective of what they eventually managed to accomplish.

It's the absence of belief in a deity - and therefore the realization that life is finite, precious, non-transferable, and fair in so far as much is the product of chance - that means we should prefer human life over sentient robots. The consciousness of a one-day sentient robot will likely be transferrable, and therefore durable mostly indefinitely. Mine consciousness is, as of yet, not.

It's the absence of belief in a deity that neatly solves the problem of evil in the world. And so on, and so forth.

I'm happy for people to be comforted by religion, as they hurtle through a probabilistic universe, trying to fill the time between their birth and their death with meaning and enjoyment. When we die, it's unlikely that even a single lifetime later people then alive will even know or think about how we ever existed. So do what you must to be comfortable now. It'll all be over soon.

Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

#150

[flagged]

> there is deep wisdom in the Bible that absolutely can provide us clear moral guidance in our modern problems

Of course there is. It’s a text that has survived two millennia. Almost anything that old is interesting due to selection effect.

The problem is not only has the book survived, but so have several political institutions and ways of thinking around it. Not from the time of Jesus. But from the centuries and millennia emperors and kings. That has resulted in our modern experience of Christianity, particularly in the West, as an antagonist to social progress. Pick a social issue fifty years ago, take most institutional church’s positions, and they’re pretty consistently wrong. (There are notable exceptions, of course.)

Religious texts contain deep wisdom. I’m much more sceptical of men of cloth, men who track the careers of politicians and CEOs yet, somehow, with even less accountability.

Maybe we need a new prophet for the modern world. One who tells of the Kingdom of Heaven having been voluntarily relinquished for a Republic. (The Bible was written in the shadow of Rome’s republic. It enshrines that era’s imperial tradition because if it hadn’t, it wouldn’t have survived.)

Post reply on HN