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

Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 330 posts

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#171

Post by navane »

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?

Hasn't big capital always owned technology? I don't understand what is the question here. Is this rethorical?

Silicon valley owns the internet. The robber barons owned the railways. Big oil. Big pharma. The investment company owned the (slave) trading fleets. The lords owned the agriculture. The clergy owned the books. The Kings owned the armies.

Technology accumulates capital, capital accumulates technology.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#172

Post by maxerickson »

esafak wrote: post #170
maxerickson wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If somebody thinks the computer can make a better PowerPoint, what business is it of yours to stop them from using the computer to make a PowerPoint? There's a big political problem to solve, but it's how to give most people decent material standards of living if computers are doing all the work, not how to freeze things in place so that people can keep doing tasks that (assuming success) the computer is better at.

Again, this analogy makes no sense. People use PowerPoint, they don't get replaced by it. The goal of AI companies is to replace workers entirely; that is the only way their valuations make sense, and OpenAI's charter says this explicitly.

The displacement will rather obviously be task by task, not job by job.

Okay, edits it is. The displacement will rather obviously be incremental and be task by task, not job by job.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#173

Post by [deleted] »

arjie wrote: post #93
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…

Amusing. By yoking taxicab drivers to the other two, the argument attempts to make them seem like victims. However, most people’s direct experience with taxicab drivers and the resulting improvement under Uber directly contradicts that sentiment. This probably has the opposite effect and makes it seem like the AI companies aren’t so bad if they’re akin to the guys who freed us from cabs.

[deleted]

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#174

Post by kergonath »

fschuett wrote: post #21

When it comes to the overarching ideology of the techbros, "In Pursuit of the Metaverse" by Dr. Douglas Mark Haugen is a much better read than this encyclical. On the other hand, if he doesn't condemn Gaudium et Spes to the trashbin of history where it belongs, then I don't really care what he has to say.

What do you think is wrong with it? I can see how both conservatives and progressives could have reasons to be unhappy with it, but dropping this in like that is not very productive. There are many, many texts in the Vatican archives that are much worse than this.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#175

Post by kergonath »

erelong wrote: post #81
portmanteur wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In which ways, specifically? Or, which ways would you like to promote a discussion about?

The Second Vatican Council movement has had "popes" that seem to directly attack previous Catholic teaching; I expect this will resolve to the council being rejected as a false council like the "robber council" of Second Council of Ephesus, as well as the papal claimants being declared invalid or "not popes" since that time. The analogy would be like if, since the world cup of soccer is going on, FIFA had a meeting a…

This is an update of Rerum Novarum, which has nothing to do with Vatican II. Besides, so far you are on the wrong side of History.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#176

Post by froh »

sealeck wrote: post #137
SilverElfin wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"

non native speaker here - I don't get it.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#177

Post by kergonath »

inglor_cz wrote: post #159
kergonath wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think FAANG developers would be better equipped than taxi driver to manage this. And besides, I don't think I am really against some kind of professional certification like actual engineers do. Right now SWE do not manage any of the downsides of what they inflict upon the world, and it's a damn shame. That said, having a limited number like taxi medallions in some cities would be stupid, even though I can see how it might make sense in a city.

I agree with you that it requires scrutiny and the process must be open and fair, like most things in a working democracy. I also think that it is not out of line to have mechanisms to ensure whoever is in a situation to kill, mug, kidnap or ransom you has no interest in doing so.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#178

Post by froh »

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…

I love the animal-owner analogy of owning something and being responsible for what it does when set loose. the concept is the same in todays Germany. you own a pet, and if it's friendly it's all nifty but if it creates my damage, the owner is liable. not the person who guided it at the time. no. the owner. "Halterhaftung"

is it ok if I skip the Uber part? I think that leads as try s evidenced by the other reactions.

the "who is liable for the damage an ai creates, in the hands of an incompetent or even malignant guide?" question is fantastic. and who "owns" an ai?

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#179

Post by HappMacDonald »

froh wrote: post #176
sealeck wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As in cum-"captain of industry"

non native speaker here - I don't get it.

It's an old English word (predating the sexual connotation):

cum - Used in indicating a thing or person which has two or more roles, functions, or natures, or which has changed from one to another.

Basically nobody uses that language construct anymore until you run headlong into it in a Hackernews comment or something

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#180

Post by HappMacDonald »

merelydev wrote: post #41
mentalgear wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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 -…

Would you agree that to some extend, the ability to control technology is an incentive for companies to develop/innovate, and the more control they have the more profitable it is?

I would not. Especially not in the current climate when virtually every company is dropping all pretense of development and innovation (or creation of any kind) in favor of value extraction and rent-seeking.

We are in this constant cycle of bubbles — the last ones I can recall bursting in 2000 and 2008 — where someone invents some new financial shell game that allows them to trade on some form of non-existent capital and then half the stock market follows along like rats after the piper until it all collapses as soon as enough people realize that everyone else also realizes the Emperor is wearing no clothes. And incidentally no, I have no idea how this particular trainwreck of fairy tail lessons all became pertinent simultaneously, but here we are.

Control over things makes a lousy incentive anyway, since having said control always better empowers the appointed to just cheat the incentive instead.

If the big bad wolf is at your door, "letting him in" isn't a bargaining chip you can trust to incentivize any sort of behavior other than "eating you".

Post reply on HN