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

321–330 of 513 posts

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

#321

Post by giraffe_lady »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #171
simonw wrote: post #19

I enjoyed this bit - great use of the word "idolatry": ---- 104. Technology offers remarkable tools to oversee and develop the world's resources. However, in some cases, humanity is increasingly ceding control of these resources to machines. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, there is optimism about the potential of artificial general intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical form of AI that would match or sur…

Idolatry isn’t evil if you think about it for even a second. You are free to worship whatever you choose. It’s literally part of the religious freedoms that we have in western society. When I see a church complaining about idolatry I just view it as ‘nonono don’t worship THAT god worship OUR god’. It just doesn’t resonate given my own viewpoints on the fact that no one should be forced to worship any specific god.

Freedom of religion is a societal norm, it's not useful for determining morality. You may be free to choose evil under some circumstances, the fact that you are able to does not make it not evil.

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

#322

Post by MiiMe19 »

HeatrayEnjoyer wrote: post #318
Lammy wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TRVKE whether you like it or not

Staying under the Earth's carrying capacity isn't some conspiracy, it's basic responsible behavior for surviving as a species. If your income is $700 a week, spending $900 a week isn't sustainable. What does "TRVKE" mean?

Those who know

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

#323

Post by grahamj »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #314
grahamj wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes you can say that. Why would we be better off without saying these things? There’s nothing wrong with speaking out when we see people saying things we believe to be false and it’s unreasonable to expect everyone to hedge every single thing they say simply because, well, we don’t really know anything. I know there’s no omnipotent being who cares so much about the minutiae of our lives yet allows terrible things to…

"The onus of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim and religion is firmly on the side of the extraordinary" Except the fact that something exists rather than nothing at all is absolutely extraordinary. I would put the burden of proof on anyone claiming it's completely explicable and mundane.

Existence is all we know; there is nothing more ordinary.

The idea of nothing existing is just that: an idea. Like god.

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

#324

Post by exe34 »

Mistletoe wrote: post #310
exe34 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

could you personally unplug chat gpt today?

Yes. Without constant money and electricity flowing into it, you wouldn't even need to unplug it, it would stop on its own.

and how would you personally achieve that, when Sama wants it to keep running?

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

#325

Post by radlad »

Eisenstein wrote: post #272
radlad wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't remember stating that having 5 senses were necessary to be human. This reads like a very uncharitable dismissal of what's really a very interesting topic. Helen Keller, despite lacking sight and hearing, was still able to perceive the world through sensory input, including taste, touch, and smell - and although she could not hear, she could still feel warmth and the touch of another human, and experienced emo…

You asked 'at what point will be it be considered human with added inputs' so I asked the reverse question. It is no more or less charitable to ask 'when does one stop being human with fewer inputs' than to ask 'when does one become human as inputs are added'.

I see - that's not quite what I was asking. Rather, I asked if the parent believed AI would get a physical body, with all that implies.

> Do you think AI will soon get a physical body, and experience "sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment"?

In fact, my point was that it's not clear that all of these features simply "added inputs." (Hence my questions around emotions, pain, mortality, and morality.)

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

#326

Post by cynicalpeace »

grahamj wrote: post #312
cynicalpeace wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a subtle and fascinating reference I had to Google. It's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot The problem with the argument is that the Athiestic viewpoint is indeed just as fantastical as the Thiestic viewpoint. It's basically switching out "Yahweh" with "Chance". It basically comes down to which God you believe in and how you define God. In my reading, a definition of God that is "caused e…

That’s a fine definition but it doesn’t encompass the ramifications. Christianity doesn’t simply define god, it dictates what will happen to you if you disagree or go against its presumed will. The universe won’t damn you to an eternity of suffering if you don’t live by some standard. That’s a pretty big difference from any biblical definition.

[flagged]

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

#327

Post by nickburns »

Phlogistique wrote: post #82
Mistletoe wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will prevent them from literally unplugging it from the wall?

...it will run in datacenters far from their homes, plugged into redundant power sources and high-availaibility systems?

All 'unpluggable.' It's a metaphor.

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

#328

Post by cynicalpeace »

grahamj wrote: post #320
cynicalpeace wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just as dogmatic as saying there is a god. Both positions are unfalsifiable and similar.

That is not rational. You can’t just make up an idea and then claim it’s true because no one can prove it isn’t. If you want to claim something that is outside our ordinary perceptions (and tests!) of how reality works is true then the onus is on you to prove it.

I did not argue God exists because no one can prove he doesn't.

I claimed that your claim is just as unprovable as the claim that God does exist.

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

#329

Post by TZubiri »

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…

Reminds me of Inter Mirifica.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_coun...

These are notable because they are not tweets or op-eds, one in thousands produced daily to keep you hooked to a source of information.

Rather these are published once by the church as part of their core mission and in response to the events themselves once. There is not necessarily a huge conversation here, although of course there might be conversation that lead to the letter and conversations that arise from the letter, but the center, core of the message from the church is very clear and static. It is long yes, but you only need to read it once and you'll be up to date with the church for years. You don't need to turn the news on everynight or keep your twitter feed clean and stay hooked every 20 minutes.

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

#330

Post by svieira »

teeth-gnasher wrote: post #319
svieira wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

The idea of Hell most popular is the “eternal conscious torment” view, which gives us the “don’t be bad or you’ll burn in Hell forever” perspective. That’s fairly new, and several other interpretations are just as biblical as it, if not more. Your quote for instance doesn’t explain what happens after the weeping and gnashing of teeth, some believe you become reunited with the Lord, others believe you are eliminated f…

"And the one who was seated on the throne said, “See, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true.” Then he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give water as a gift from the spring of the water of life. Those who conquer will inherit these things, and I will be their God and they will be my children. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”"

~ Revelations 21:5-8

Combined with the story of the steward who owed more than he could ever pay (Matthew 18:32-35) and Christ's words in Luke 12:10 "Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven." I'd have a very hard time reconciling anything other than "Hell is real and you can go there forever" as having a biblical basis.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021...

Post reply on HN