291–300 of 330 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A novel math proof does not make something AI.
Or it makes it AI in the broad sense, but not AGI. Maybe it's time to borrow "Virtual Intelligence" terminology from Mass Effect - something that's 'smart' but that doesn't have its own true volition or ability to materially self-improve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Papal doctrine is the word of God until a subsequent pope says otherwise No, that’s Hyperpapalism, which is an error. The Pope does not have the authority-power to transform error into truth, nor can he make “new truths” (of the Faith), whatever that might mean. He does have the solemn duty to faithfully hand on and explain the Apostolic Tradition. In an extra-ordinary act of his office, the Pope can, without error…
> No, that’s Hyperpapalism, which is an error. > The Pope does not have the authority-power to transform error into truth, The problem with your argument is that it is "left as an exercise for the reader" to determine what is actually true. If that were the case, then the Pope, as the representative of God on Earth, serves no purpose: everyone can individually determine what is true and what is an error. That does no…
The problem here is, we're saying the person who claims to be pope has contradicted past teachings that popes infallibly taught already. So the only way out then would be to consider they were never popes in the first place or else you have the contradiction of a pope taught error or that the pope is not infallible.
For example in Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Liberty) in the Vatican 2 documents it states: "This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits."
This is obviously contrary to the Catholic understanding of conscience and coercion - the "due limits" and "religious freedom" are never defined, when they were already somewhat clearly defined.
Hence being ambiguous, we would understand these in themselves to not be Catholic teachings. Consider if someone asked a person if they are a Catholic and they answered "I am a Christian". In itself, their answer does not explain if they are Catholic or not: some Catholics might argue that "only Catholics are Christians" and that the statement could mean "I am a Catholic"; some protestants might argue that "only non-Catholics can be Christians" so that the statement means "I am not a Catholic". Hence, in itself the statement is "objectively ambiguous" - the Vatican 2 statements are of this character, and if you had to categorize them as either "Catholic or not", it seems they would resolve to being considered as "clearly not Catholic". In any event, it seems we would be forced to reject the language as it stands and new documents that are clearer would have to be drawn up and agreed to.
For example, a person does not have the right to declare they have the "religious freedom" to be a "Pirate" and that they are free to steal from other people "conscientiously"; they are allowed to be "coerced" to not steal, if they try to steal.
Regarding John XXII from the other comment, I believe St. Robert Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice examined all cases of alleged papal heresy and explained why no popes had been heretics. John XXII simply speculated as a private theologian about an issue that had not been defined by the Church yet, hence did not enter in to error in doing so.
AI will never be alive or have a soul. No machine could have a human rational eternal soul. This is Catholicism 101. No amount of work on matrix multiplication will change that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That specific rule is enforced by assassinating the leaders and scientists of governments that don't agree to it. See: Iran. I don't think that's what anyone means when they say multilateralism. It's effectively an ad hoc global government defined by the reach of air power.
Then I guess all of human history is one big ad hoc global government because we've enforced the thing we want at the business end of a spear since there have been people.
Unless your vision for AI regulation involves drone striking offices where AI researchers work, then there's no way to enforce it globally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A novel math proof does not make something AI.
Or it makes it AI in the broad sense, but not AGI. Maybe it's time to borrow "Virtual Intelligence" terminology from Mass Effect - something that's 'smart' but that doesn't have its own true volition or ability to materially self-improve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a lot of research that suggests otherwise might be true for humans.
I think that can only happen to empire cultures: they only learn one language, and suddenly people think that's all there is. I speak five languages, my wife seven. Language synthesis is a feature, not the entire product, in my experience. Btw, this is only the third best language I can speak/write in. I didn't use AI, autocomplete, spell check, or a dictionary to construct any of my posts. All typos and imperfect gr…
And the power of "language models" (or any sort of deep learning, really), does not come from assuming that some specific input-output modality, like English text, is the ultimate foundation of thought. Strong versions of this claim were laid to rest around the time when GPT-2 came out. I'd also go further and argue that many people working on the symbolic AI of yesteryear already understood this as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
non native speaker here - I don't get it.
It's an old English word (predating the sexual connotation): cum - Used in indicating a thing or person which has two or more roles, functions, or natures, or which has changed from one to another. Basically nobody uses that language construct anymore until you run headlong into it in a Hackernews comment or something
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a kind of international finance man cum-captain of industry (perhaps best embodied by Sam Altman) What the hell is a “cum-captain”? Search isn’t helping.
Probably this: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cum I.e. finance man as well as captain of industry
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am getting tired of hearing "next token predictor" from carbon-based facial expression predictors. You are saying this like an argument which allows somehow estimate upper bound of possible influence of these entities. And I do not see how this help to make predictions. It sounds to me like saying "but air is just molecules bobbing around". OK, that's true, but does it help calculate wing aerodynamic profile? Yup,…
It's telling that the most frequent attempt at a counter-argument is just thinly-veiled misanthropy.
As a Catholic in AI, this has been my take since the day I started in Industry. Techies have a weird way of thinking themselves world saviors and having poor binary decision making ability. AI will never be alive or have a soul. No machine could have a human rational eternal soul. This is Catholicism 101. No amount of work on matrix multiplication will change that.
rich coming from a belief system that thinks everyone who had the opportunity to go through their water-dunking ritual and culpably didn't is automatically going to be tortured in the underworld for eternity.