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

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#151

Post by kergonath » Sat, May 30, 2026, 6:19 PM UTC

mike_hearn wrote: post #143

tptacek wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're not reading it in the spirit it's intended. There's a section towards the end (Chapter 5, I think) that is full of policy prescriptions. But most of the encyclical isn't "about" AI, it's "about" Catholicism, and is using AI as a lens to talk about principles the church has been building up over a century. In that sense the document is less concerned with frontier models and disinformation than it is wi…

Perhaps, but I think that's a bit generous. Let's look at Chapter 3, titled "TECHNOLOGY AND DOMINANCE. THE GRANDEUR OF HUMANITY IN LIGHT OF THE PROMISES OF AI." This whole section is clearly about AI and social policy. It makes occasional Biblical references but if you strip those out it sounds like any Democrat podcast. If random people were given these quotes stripped of context, how many would guess it was the Pop…

> if you strip those out it sounds like any Democrat podcast

The fact that the bloody Pope sounds like what appears to be a left-wing party in the US' Overton window should be a big kick in the arse. In most of the rest of the west, these are classical conservative values, and indeed more aligned with the gospel than anything coming from the Republican Party these days. As a leftist, I find Magnifica Humanitas to be interesting, because it's a view point that is rooted in a rich history and profound thinking. But that's not a socialist doctrine at all. Its situation is very close to Rerum Novarum: it was more social than what the capitalist magnates wanted, but it was really far from things like communism or revolutionary socialism. Leo XIV does not hide his admiration for Leo XIII, and he sees many similarities with the state of the society they live in. On that, I think I agree with him.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#152

Post by tptacek » Sat, May 30, 2026, 6:23 PM UTC

kergonath wrote: post #151

mike_hearn wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, but I think that's a bit generous. Let's look at Chapter 3, titled "TECHNOLOGY AND DOMINANCE. THE GRANDEUR OF HUMANITY IN LIGHT OF THE PROMISES OF AI." This whole section is clearly about AI and social policy. It makes occasional Biblical references but if you strip those out it sounds like any Democrat podcast. If random people were given these quotes stripped of context, how many would guess it was the Pop…

> if you strip those out it sounds like any Democrat podcast The fact that the bloody Pope sounds like what appears to be a left-wing party in the US' Overton window should be a big kick in the arse. In most of the rest of the west, these are classical conservative values, and indeed more aligned with the gospel than anything coming from the Republican Party these days. As a leftist, I find Magnifica Humanitas to be…

The bloody pope believes a lot of things that would set a DSA person's hair on fire, and I don't just mean about reproductive freedom.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#153

Post by merelydev » Sat, May 30, 2026, 6:41 PM UTC

cornholio wrote: post #112

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?

> the great problem of our age is deciding who controls technology Isn't that just an instance of the political problem for all ages: who controls what, who gets to rule and who obeys, the fundamental power struggle apparent in all human history. Extend the definition of technology to the broadest sense, from the material that allow us control over the physical reality: steam, computing; to the organizational, that e…

> Isn't that just an instance of the political problem for all ages: who controls what, who gets to rule and who obeys, the fundamental power struggle apparent in all human history.

Yes. But modern technology, especially software doesn't have the high barrier to entry like being a feudal lord, but successful software can be just as impactful, tie in economies of scale and network effects and it can be even more powerful, which has allowed the producers of such software to wield significant power and as a result bypass democracy. And this ties in with your point:

> The present struggle around AI is therefore to be expected; what's more interesting is the type of political possibility space it opens up: is it one where having the bulk of society educated and productive, capable of running the machines is the key factor pushing the country forward in the international technological competition, like we've see post-war, forcing the national elites to cater to their needs, invest in their populations and broadly share the economic output and the political power? Or is it more likely one where the key competitive factor is the size of your datacenters and automated defense factories, where the bulk of people are irrelevant for the architecture of power?

It remains to be seen if this era of LLMs and datacenters raises or reduces the barrier to entry for software production and in general technological innovation. The marketplace is always hungry for innovation and those that can deliver and control it will be in a position of power.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#154

Post by meowkit » Sat, May 30, 2026, 7:00 PM UTC

jeremyjh wrote: post #140

solenoid0937 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I see this line of thinking a lot but lets look at it a different way.

Changing peoples behaviors >cost moneyI don’t care for Uber, but many many many businesses give people initial discounts and then full price later

The whole argument is moot though given self driving cars are going to wipe out the industry.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#155

Post by SilverElfin » Sat, May 30, 2026, 7:05 PM UTC

dudisubekti wrote: post #147

SilverElfin wrote: post #103

Yes that’s because the pope is pushing actual messianism. Are people forgetting what he stands for and which organization he represents? It’s silly that people are suddenly putting him on a pedestal. The Catholic Church is an evil force that has destroyed many other countries’ cultures and religions, not to mention enabled the mass systematic abuse of children. The pope is against tech companies getting power but is…

Even today, their ban of contraception alone is a cause of many misery in poor Catholic-majority countries. I wouldn't even bother reading whatever they wrote.

The various popes have made many statements in the past about converting many ethnicities and countries. With that comes contraception bans, reduced women’s rights, interference in the politics of those countries, corruption, and so many other problems. Like other extremely opinionated belief systems, the Catholic church’s goal is to replace all other beliefs and systems of government, and the power they get is meant to impose their beliefs on everyone in society.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#156

Post by fidotron » Sat, May 30, 2026, 7:07 PM UTC

yonaguska wrote: post #45

fidotron wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's legitimately surprising how off the pace HN is when it comes to discussions of this type. You won't get useful thoughts on this around here.

be the change you wish to see- share your thoughts.

That's not really the point: the key question is why HN is so out to lunch on this and closely related areas. It's clearly somewhat structural.

Look at the state of discussion just in this thread. I minimized my contribution for this reason.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#157

Post by esafak » Sat, May 30, 2026, 7:10 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #109

anjel wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Say you own a well and sell the clean water. I learn that boiling the stream water makes it safe and tell people about it. What do I owe you? Uber and AI are certainly more complicated than that, but you are pretty close to arguing that the constructed rights of some people inhibit the rights of other people.

How does that analogy apply to AI, where a handful of companies are attempting to replace the entire white collar market with computers? It fits neither qualitatively, nor quantitatively.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#158

Post by s1artibartfast » Sat, May 30, 2026, 7:30 PM UTC

anjel wrote: post #107

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…

1st example was the progenitor of what eveolved into strict liability. (If you make money putting stuff into the stream of commerce, you're liable for unintended and evenunforseeable downstream damages. 2nd example is an illustration of that longheld legal precedent's being curiously ignored (nevermind the cost savings was a bum rush and livery costs are now higher than before the innovative advent) 3rd is a call to…

you gravely understand #1 if you apply it in a blanket manner. You are not liable for all damages and consequences, only a vary narrow subclass.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#159

Post by inglor_cz » Sat, May 30, 2026, 7:32 PM UTC

kergonath wrote: post #146

inglor_cz wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 o…

> Doesn't it strike you that if licenses for a banal service like taxi are that expensive, that this likely indicates political corruption? Not necessarily. It indicates a profession that can be very easily abused to harm the general public and that requires some level of trust.

Not necessarily, but it surely reeks of corruption and requires extra scrutiny.

Most professions can be abused to harm people and require some level of trust. Imagine that a developer's medailon cost 300 k.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#160

Post by ktrnka » Sat, May 30, 2026, 7:35 PM UTC

mentalgear wrote: post #36

Never would have thought that I would defer to matters of Tech, let alone 'AI' policies, to the pope, but here we are: I have to say the 'Magnifica Humanitas' are a pristine work of meditation on AI's power, impact and most importantly the people that control it, while showing how we can make it decoupled from the predatory capitalism that it spawn from, to make it beneficial for humanity in general. (downloaded the…

I found it was a slow read in parts, but it was time well spent. There are deep themes that run through the whole letter and provide much better context for the quotes I've seen in the news. I'd also add that while the letter does offer feedback for the tech industry, the main focus felt like a more positive vision of what the future could be (if countless people work towards it).