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

251–260 of 513 posts

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

#251

Post by macrocosmos »

rotexo wrote: post #159
throw0101c wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it always feels paradoxical when leaders wax poetic about the mystery of God and then say 'so here is what God thinks you should do.' How could they know? Perhaps we were told it: > "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He [Jesus] said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a…

Yes, I recognize that these are articles of deeply-held faith. I am open to the idea of God, I am open to the idea that God is fundamentally mysterious and beyond our mortal understanding. I simply feel that I always have to exercise skepticism regarding the words of religious institutions, though, because it seems to me that power-hungry individuals could use legitimate teachings as a camouflage for their immoral se…

I too am wary of "power-hungry individuals" who could use legitimate teachings for illegitimate ends.

I think the types of people you speak of are all too real. But I have recently decided I will not let a fear of them keep me from those legitimate teachings or from anything else good in this world. At least I will not anymore. I did for a long time.

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

#252

Post by wizzwizz4 »

kittikitti wrote: post #245
throw0101c wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it always feels paradoxical when leaders wax poetic about the mystery of God and then say 'so here is what God thinks you should do.' How could they know? Perhaps we were told it: > "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He [Jesus] said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a…

> Which is taken from the Torah. Proceeding to link to Wikipedia while claiming the Vatican took their opinions from the Torah especially since their references are an actual bibliography is very reductive.

Of course the Vatican took many of their opinions from the Torah! The Pentateuch is holy to Christians as well as Jews. (Although the comment you replied to says they took this opinion via Jesus, and was quoting a book of the New Testament often called Matthew.)

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

#253

Post by akomtu »

chrsw wrote: post #98

Does this mean that in the eyes of this Pope or this church, natural born biological humans will always be closer to God or have a higher degree of sanctity than artificial intelligence, any form of technological machine, and presumably artificial "life"?

AI remains a pile of transistors, no matter how convincing their output is, just like brains remain a pile of neurons, until there is a binding principle that rules them all. This binding principle is what gives us the inner moral compass. Greeks called it monad. Christians called it the spirit or the divine spark. These sparks can't be created except by the God himself, in his own image. Some old monads attempted to create these sparks by other means, to create life from matter in other words, but didn't succeed, although they've created a great variety of unholy quasi-lifeforms.

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

#254

Post by thomassmith65 »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #162
thomassmith65 wrote: post #89

In the future - perhaps even the near future - we may have AIs with richer inner lives than humans. Hopefully the situations we put them in, as they do our work, don't cause them pain or anguish. It's clear already they will have an uphill battle gaining any recognition of personhood from us.

I cannot not respond to this comment. Forgive me if I seem short in tone. Maybe we should be helping people develop richer inner lives instead of pouring billions of dollars into something that may or may not pan out in the future. I assert it'd be vastly cheaper, would raise GDP overall, and improve well-being. Where we're at collectively right now is...not great, and I think people correctly perceive that their pro…

My comment actually doesn't say anything positive about the billions of dollars pouring into AI, etc.

It's not that humanity has some obligation to create AI. It's that humanity has an obligation not to create an AI whose wellbeing we ignore because it's "not a real person"

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

#255

Post by cynicalpeace »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #228
cynicalpeace wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, humans were created in the image of God, according to Christianity. Secular society is overwhelmingly confused on how it will treat robots. Christianity has none of that confusion.

Christianity is not one thing. I expect that if AGI becomes a real thing, there will be sects that are on the opposite side of that argument.

True, but the point is that they'd have a firm moral foundation for that opinion, as opposed to the secular position, which will be dubious either way, letting it play out in a culture war.

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

#256

Post by cynicalpeace »

layer8 wrote: post #179
cynicalpeace wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, humans were created in the image of God, according to Christianity. Secular society is overwhelmingly confused on how it will treat robots. Christianity has none of that confusion.

AI is created in the image of humans. One could assume a kind of transitivity here.

lol

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

#257

Post by gsuuon »

Is it just me or does it seem like the Catholic church might have a better grasp on technology than the US government?

  46. While responsibility for the ethical use of AI systems starts with those who develop, produce, manage, and oversee such systems, it is also shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis noted, the machine “makes a technical choice among several possibilities based either on well-defined criteria or on statistical inferences. Human beings, however, not only choose, but in their hearts are capable of deciding.”[92] Those who use AI to accomplish a task and follow its results create a context in which they are ultimately responsible for the power they have delegated. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist humans in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it should be trustworthy, secure, robust enough to handle inconsistencies, and transparent in their operation to mitigate biases and unintended side effects.[93] Regulatory frameworks should ensure that all legal entities remain accountable for the use of AI and all its consequences, with appropriate safeguards for transparency, privacy, and accountability.[94] Moreover, those using AI should be careful not to become overly dependent on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases contemporary society’s already high reliance on technology.
That is, "an AI told me so" should never be a valid excuse for anything.

I also really liked:

  62. In light of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as a person should always be avoided; doing so for fraudulent purposes is a grave ethical violation that could erode social trust. Similarly, using AI to deceive in other contexts—such as in education or in human relationships, including the sphere of sexuality—is also to be considered immoral and requires careful oversight to prevent harm, maintain transparency, and ensure the dignity of all people.[124]
I think it should be a legal requirement that AI identifies itself as such given certain key-phrases and that there's no way to prompt engineer it out.

Really interesting read overall, thanks for sharing.

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

#258

Post by airstrike »

gtech1 wrote: post #231
titanomachy wrote: post #224

> the entire human person is simultaneously both material and spiritual... the human person transcends the material world through the soul... the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of knowledge without the body I have a hard time wrapping my head around exactly what it is that Christians believe about immortality. So the soul lives on forever, but without the reasoning and intellectual capabilities grante…

Mind you, it also can'y answer this: who really goes to heaven or hell ? Your spirit as you were at 10, 20, 30, 50 ? what if you have a stroke at 60 and die as a vegetable at 70 ? Which one is the real you ? Because if it's as you were when you die then it's pretty silly

You get your favorite version of yourself if you go to heaven and your least favorite if you go to hell.

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

#259

Post by goatlover »

titanomachy wrote: post #224

> the entire human person is simultaneously both material and spiritual... the human person transcends the material world through the soul... the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of knowledge without the body I have a hard time wrapping my head around exactly what it is that Christians believe about immortality. So the soul lives on forever, but without the reasoning and intellectual capabilities grante…

Depends on the denomination, but Christianity in general usually has some sort of bodily resurrection. Certainly you see that in the gospel narratives about Jesus. Paul talks about it as well in his epistles, but whether he meant some new form of body or the existing one being restored is debatable. The ancients thought divine beings had bodies made of a celestial material. It's important to note that they didn't see the supernatural as existing in some other dimension. It was literally right above in the heavens or below in Sheol. It was all one universe.

So Paul may have been arguing that Jesus and his followers would receive a new celestial body that wouldn't be subject to disease and death upon resurrection. Orthodox Churches don't believe in cremation because they think the biological body does get resurrected. The idea of a pure immortal soul is Greek, not Jewish in origin. Or at least it was believed that a soulish existence was a shadowy one in the underworld, not one enjoyed by beings in the heavens.

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

#260

Post by cynicalpeace »

Eisenstein wrote: post #237
cynicalpeace wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I suppose one could say 'wrong' would absolutely be something they changed their position on, regardless of any other definition.

The strictly Christian response would be "wrong" is what goes against the words of Christ, and they could have flipped from "right" in the past to "wrong" now, or vice versa, or even from "wrong" to "wronger".
Post reply on HN