[flagged]
[deleted]
Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
191–200 of 513 posts
Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
#192" However, while AI holds many possibilities for promoting the good, it can also hinder or even counter human development and the common good. Pope Francis has noted that “evidence to date suggests that digital technologies have increased inequality in our world. Not just differences in material wealth, which are also significant, but also differences in access to political and social influence.”[103] In this sense,…
Hate this particular take. To say increasing inequality in that some people have better access to digital tech than others: sure. To say that it’s a net negative that many but not all humans can now video call their loved ones regardless of location, for instance, is conflating equality with benefit. I’m a hard no on this.
I generally like Francis’ take on things, and I think the main framework of this doc is interesting: “AI is functional, not grounded in physical reality, and not spiritual, therefore it’s not a replacement for human intelligence, and we should be cautious” is fine. I’m not sure I agree on these definitions but until I started working with llms daily, I felt the same way.
But the bogeyman of inequality as a reason to mistrust technology, written in HTML, sent over the internet, to our phones, bothers me.
Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
#193[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
#194Incidentally, the body that wrote this text, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, is the oldest and arguably most powerful department in the Roman Curia. (Joseph Ratzinger was its head prior to becoming pope.) To the laity it might be better known by its older name, the Inquisition. The purpose of the body is, in its own words, to "spread sound Catholic doctrine and defend those points of Christian tradition which seem in danger because of new and unacceptable doctrines."
Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
#195I liked the simple observation in point 35: 'as Pope Francis observes, “the very use of the word ‘intelligence’” in connection with AI “can prove misleading”[69] and risks overlooking what is most precious in the human person.' I was texting my buddy that the proper acronym could be ABNECUI (Almost, But Not Entirely, Completely Unlike Intelligence, to rip something from Douglas Adams). At a more profound level, I rea…
> How could they know? I can’t speak for any religious leader but in terms of Catholic leadership: because in many matters God spoke through the Prophets and then He came down and told us directly which is preserved in Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15-17), and the Holy Spirit guides the Church (John 14:26) and does so through the prime ministerial office of the Pope the successor of Peter (Ma…
[flagged]
Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
#196I enjoyed this bit - great use of the word "idolatry": ---- 104. Technology offers remarkable tools to oversee and develop the world's resources. However, in some cases, humanity is increasingly ceding control of these resources to machines. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, there is optimism about the potential of artificial general intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical form of AI that would match or sur…
> However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, but humanity itself---which, in this way, becomes enslaved to its own work. Doesn't that describe all religion? I mean, you're telling me that the infinite creator of the universe cares about the prayers, the suffering, the aspirations, and the sexual habits of a bunch of finite beings? The hubris! It seems obvious to me that the gods of all religions…
> I mean, you're telling me that the infinite creator of the universe cares about the prayers, the suffering, the aspirations, and the sexual habits of a bunch of finite beings?
Yes.
> The hubris! It seems obvious to me
I would turn that around and claim hubris on your part. You seem to think that your mind and the mind of God are similar, and limitations you perceive are limitations for God.
Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
#197“12. AI’s advanced features give it sophisticated abilities to perform tasks, but not the ability to think.” I suspect that the above sentence will be revised once we have abundant super-human intelligence thinking machines.
I suspect this prediction will never happen.
Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
#198Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
#199Incidentally, the body that wrote this text, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, is the oldest and arguably most powerful department in the Roman Curia. (Joseph Ratzinger was its head prior to becoming pope.) To the laity it might be better known by its older name, the Inquisition. The purpose of the body is, in its own words, to "spread sound Catholic doctrine and defend those points of Christian tradition…
this writing posted today by the Vatican shows modern scholarship and it appears, humility with respect to past Church attitudes about tech. Since just about everyone agrees that terrible mistakes were made in the distant past, and this writing shows active learning about how to approach new situations, the parent comment seems like immature and illogical mud-slinging, bringing up six hundred years old failures that are news to almost no one.
Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
#200[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…
> 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.
This is absolutely false if by "equal value" you mean anything other than "of no more value than any other product of randomness". But I doubt you believe that you and the drug addict in Eastern Europe are equally worthless (and equivalent to the return value of `head -c 100 /dev/urandom`). In fact, you say "the realization that life is ... precious". "Precious" to who, precisely?
> It's the absence of belief in a deity that neatly solves the problem of evil in the world
This is the same failing as above - it solves the problem of evil by removing evil as a category. There is only the actions of random chance, which cannot be evil. But you clearly still believe in evil. Where comes the good that evil opposes?