[flagged]
Don't post AI slop in HN comments.
Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
211–220 of 513 posts
Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
#212[deleted]
Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
#213Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
#214Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> they’re largely based on fairy tales and fear and shame I can just as simply say that atheism is based on ego worship, narcissism, and hyper-individuality. That is to say, you dressing your conclusion as an axiom. We're better off without atheistic delusions.
Athiesm is actually just as dogmatic and unfalsifiable as Theism.
Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
These are things you have to understand in your heart, just like all the important things in life. I cannot communicate it in text to you, because the medium is limited. Meditate on it.
You like all of us have only a limited time of life on this earth, why would you throw away that incredible gift by pursuing untruths?
Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In a sense, people preaching the coming dominance of AI are suicidal or homicidal, since they are pursuing their own demise by technical means. Nope, that is an unsubstantial argument. Geoffrey Hinton, the „God father of AI“ is neither suicidal, nor homicidal.
He is also not cheering its “coming” but worried about the misuse of its power. You can say the same thing about other powerful inventions and their inventors.
Hinton's views on human consciousness would seem remarkably "unhuman" coming from your PoV and if I understand you correctly. I think his point is based more on self-preservation rather than idolatry. My observations about him are that he does like AI and welcomes AGI. He does not think we humans as species are anything special.
edit: typos
Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
#218Incidentally, 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…
I posted this comment more in the spirit of showing how the institution has evolved over the centuries. A lot of people think that the "Inquisition" was just something that happened once in the distant past, but it is still right here with us and is a very important part of the Curia.
Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
My own reflection on this idolatry has been along the lines of how readily some people are at negating their own and humanity in general’s fundamental agency. Having AGI, SAI, etc. is completely meaningless if we as our own agents are not there to value it. In a sense, people preaching the coming dominance of AI are suicidal or homicidal, since they are pursuing their own demise by technical means.
> In a sense, people preaching the coming dominance of AI are suicidal or homicidal, since they are pursuing their own demise by technical means. Nope, that is an unsubstantial argument. Geoffrey Hinton, the „God father of AI“ is neither suicidal, nor homicidal.
They are suicidal/homicidal in the way the passengers on the Titan submersible were suicidal/homicidal. Which is to say that they weren’t.
But while their goal was not to die, their lack of concern about the risks killed them anyway.
This belongs in the “If they fully comprehended the risks, their behavior could only be described as suicidal” category.
Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 East…
Bravo, very good questions in the socratic method.
Christianity has so deeply penetrated our society that we don't even notice it's precepts anymore. It's like the air we breathe. It's so prevalent, it's become invisible to our eyes.