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

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

vatican.va

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 513 posts

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

#201

Post by pbalau »

nico wrote: post #90
progbits wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> search of meaning or fulfillment---longings that can only be truly satisfied in communion with God This always annoyed me about religion. Such a lazy cop out no answer to such important question.

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

And we don't need IDEs to develop software, yet IDEs are the way, sometimes only way, for some people to develop good software.

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

#202

Post by talkingtab »

It is increasingly difficult to even discuss what is called AI because of the enormous hype around it. I almost added the word "stupid" before the hype, but the problem is that it is now impossible to distinguish between CGS (Corporate Greed Stupidity) about AI and AI. The noise factor is astonishing. And certainly AI is a marketing term. I believe we need another word to replace AI. And ABNECUI is certainly a contender. But really what we are talking about is Neural Network Models. So Let s just talk about NNM or if we must, how about NNI?

And since there is no money to be made on it, certainly in all the hype, we may be overlooking other kinds of I that are right in front of our noses? CI, HI, GI whatever you want to call it.

[edit for dedup]

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

#203

Post by keybored »

throw0101c wrote: post #151
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> In our timeline, industrialisation brought forth a burst in democracy and the downfall of feudalism. Not everywhere: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialization_in_the_Sovie... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward It should also be noted that the Industrial Revolution occurred in the early 1800s: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution Democracy was already around by then: * https:…

> I think it is more accurate to say the the presence of democracy was part of the environment that allowed industrialization to occur.

That capitalism causes democracy is so high-level that it’s just a propaganda line. People from Marxists to neoliberals could say the same thing (meaning different things when interrogated).

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

#204

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

philipov wrote: post #109
achierius wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pope Francis talks exactly about this in the letter: > 38. ... The Church is particularly opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human person.[78] Like any human endeavor, technological development must be directed to serve the human person and contribute to the pursuit of “greater justice, more extensive fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations,” which a…

The existential risk that AI poses is first and foremost the threat that it be centralized and controlled by a closed company like OpenAI, or a small oligopoly of such companies.

That concern is your right to prioritize, but it lessens the term "existential risk" into a metaphor. The literal existential risk is the risk that AI destroys all humans in pursuit of goals that have nothing in common with human values.

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

#206

Post by [deleted] »

grahamj wrote: post #148
stephenhuey wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

[deleted]

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

#207

Post by cynicalpeace »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #150
cynicalpeace wrote: post #132

[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 mi…

I agree on most of that. A few comments:

> 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.)

According to what definition of wrong? What is decided by popular vote? Although democracy in America has a Christian foundation (congregational churches), Christians pretty much defer right/wrong to the biblical tradition where a materialistic society has strayed from the teachings of Jesus. Whereas secular society has run away from home and suggests right/wrong is somehow simultaneously subjective and determined by popular culture.

I don't stake a claim either way, but it's important to note that many Christians would make this argument.

I would make the claim that many individual Christians over the past fifty years have made amazing life choices precisely because of their faith.

> 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.

Well, I assume you know what Christians would say to this one... It's a lot of pain before it gets good.

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

#208

Post by esafak »

carlosjobim wrote: post #168
esafak wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dead matter does not have rights and can never have any rights.

What if it were alive? If you could not tell it apart from things that you consider alive? And why is being alive necessary to you for it to have rights?

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

#209

Post by tialaramex »

GreenWatermelon wrote: post #167
breuleux wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> It seems obvious to me that the gods of all religions are designed by human minds to be receptive to human interests, otherwise nobody would bother worshipping them Nah that's just what atheists convince themselves. There's nothing obviously nor truthful about this conclusion or the line of reasoning behind it. All arguments for and against the existence of God are inherently unfalsifiable, but that doesn't mean at…

There's no need for us to argue against the existence of God or other ludicrous hypotheticals, that's the whole point of Russell's Teapot.

As to the particulars of the imagined God, actually we do have some evidence for the parameters. The Princess Alice experiments in particular illustrate one desirable property, God (in the experiment, "Princess Alice") should provides behavioural oversight. An imaginary being can deliver effective oversight which would otherwise require advanced technology, but to do so the being must also believe in these arbitrary moral rules.

And that matches what we observe. People do buy Sithrak T-shirts, but, more or less without exception they don't actually worship Sithrak, whereas loads of people have worshipped various deities with locally reasonable seeming moral codes and do to this day.

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

#210

Post by TFYS »

devcpp wrote: post #169
b3lvedere wrote: post #6

" 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,…

This implies that inequality is bad. I would rather argue that poverty is bad, and it is at an all-time low [1], consistently raising the HDI everywhere technology is introduced. Inequality in itself is only bad with regards to jealousy, which should be addressed through economics education. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty

Unless you think centralization of power is a good thing, you're wrong. Things can too easily go wrong when the word of one man, however talented and wise, is louder than the voice of millions of people.
Post reply on HN