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

291–300 of 513 posts

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

#291

Post by svieira »

tantaman wrote: post #246
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…

It's been around 2000 years with many divisions and sects so I don't think you can give a single definition. Early Christians didn't agree on the divinity of Jesus. Hell wasn't christian doctrine until 400CE. Some Christians believe heaven is on earth itself and you'll be resurrected on earth, in your original body, when that times comes.

> Hell wasn't christian doctrine until 400CE.

"So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

~ Jesus of Nazareth, quoted in Matthew 13:49-50

https://biblehub.com/nrsvce/matthew/13.htm

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

#292

Post by [deleted] »

gsuuon wrote: post #257

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…

[deleted]

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

#293

Post by [deleted] »

HPsquared wrote: post #137

"The human organism always worships. First it was the gods, then it was fame (the observation and judgment of others), next it will be the self-aware systems you have built to realize truly omnipresent observation and judgment." -conversation with Morpheus, Deus Ex (2000)

[deleted]

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

#294

Post by cynicalpeace »

Eisenstein wrote: post #277
cynicalpeace wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I don't think that is the Catholic response. Also, the words of Christ are only known as was given by third party recollections, and sometimes contradict themselves.

True on both fronts

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

#295

Post by breuleux »

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…

I wasn't making an atheistic argument. I'm saying that if God exists and is the infinite creator of everything, it's suspiciously convenient that he also happens to be interested in human affairs. Why does theism have to go hand-in-hand with the belief that God loves us? The former may have philosophical merit. The latter, which makes the bulk of the religious, is what I am saying is made up. We can certainly assign moral value to our own lives, but to assert that God just so happens to assign equivalent moral value to us is what I view as hubris.

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

#296

Post by hn_acc1 »

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

Inequality as we see today is bad, regardless of progress on poverty.

Some people today could endanger the lives of those they disagree with, simply by doxxing them. Yet, they'll face little to no opposition in the courts because they're uber-rich. No one should hold the power of life or death on a whim.

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

#297

Post by svieira »

breuleux wrote: post #232
JackFr wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> You seem to think that your mind and the mind of God are similar, How come? You think I'm saying that the infinite creator of the universe is unlikely to care about the fate or well-being of humans because... I wouldn't if I was him? I mean, I would. Because I have a human mind. But if there are indeed no similarities between God's mind and my own, well, anything goes, doesn't it? Him caring is just one small possi…

> I just don't see why I would assign a particularly significant probability to the former case.

"And [Jesus] came to Nazareth, where he was brought up: and he went into the synagogue, according to his custom, on the sabbath day: and he rose up to read. And the book of Isaias the prophet was delivered unto him. And as he unfolded the book, he found the place where it was written:

'The spirit of the Lord is upon me. Wherefore he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor, he hath sent me to heal the contrite of heart, To preach deliverance to the captives and sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of reward.' And when he had folded the book, he restored it to the minister and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them: 'This day is fulfilled this scripture in your ears.'"

~ Luke 4:16-20

https://biblehub.com/drbc/luke/4.htm

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

#298

Post by cynicalpeace »

dang wrote: post #283
cynicalpeace wrote: post #132

[flagged]

" Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"Flamebait is the posting of a provocative or offensive message with the intent of provoking an angry response" [1]

There hasn't been an angry response to this comment. In fact, they've been thoughtful, though some have disagreed.

I don't see how this is a generic tangent, since this comment directly expands on the post, and provides a Christian apologist viewpoint on artificial intelligence.

I politely request you retract your flag.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)#:~:text=Fla...

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

#299

Post by jajko »

rotexo wrote: post #48

I 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…

AI term if fine, no need to muddy the waters even more. There is the first word - Artificial in past and current world means subpar, fake, imitation that often breaks apart when you get closer and you should never expect to match original in quality nor experience.

Artificial plants, artificial meat, artificial light, and so on. Nothing great there, just cheaper, tolerable, often low quality, don't expect that much etc.

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

#300

Post by Eisenstein »

kittikitti wrote: post #284

I just want to appreciate how well written and thought out this was. I have spent countless hours reading over ethics on AI, especially from Big Tech sources, but this note is leaps beyond. I compare this to the disastrous letter that effectively knee-capped American AI all while proposing flimsy AI ethics within about 500 words ( https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experime... ). This should be anoth…

It is a rehashing of the same stalled philosophical debates that are already tired. They didn't present any scientific evidence for biological necessity for intelligence, nor did they assert their religious authority. It is completely pointless.
Post reply on HN