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

361–370 of 513 posts

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

#361

Post by giraffe_lady »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #340
giraffe_lady wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’d argue definitions of good and evil are very much based in societal norms. We absolutely define freedom of religion as good with our current societal norms.

Sure, yeah. That's a much weaker and less interesting assertion than the one I thought you were trying to make. I can't argue with it.

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

#362

Post by joe_the_user »

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…

I generally agree that the particular "rationalist" fear of AGI-autonomy are silly but your statement here, "the disastrous letter that effectively knee-capped American AI all while...", seems quite implausible. The same thing that makes the letter shallow is what means it's signers aren't going to hesitate for a second when they see an opportunity for profit.

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

#363

Post by keybored »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #306
keybored wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it is more accurate to say the the presence of democracy was part of the environment that allowed industrialization to occur. That capitalism causes democracy is so high-level that it’s just a propaganda line. People from Marxists to neoliberals could say the same thing (meaning different things when interrogated).

> That capitalism causes democracy is so high-level that it’s just a propaganda line. People from Marxists to neoliberals could say the same thing We have no evidence capitalism causes democracy. But every democracy on the planet emerged from a context with private property and the rule of law.

Democracy is older than political liberalism and its accompanying capitalism.

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

#364

Post by bena »

dang wrote: post #349
bena wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You've broken the site guidelines repeatedly in this thread by crossing into personal attack, perpetuating a religious flamewar, etc. Can you please not do that, regardless of how provocative some other comments are or you feel they are? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the sit…

I did not attack him personally. I said apologetics were already argued by people far more intelligent than us.

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

#365

Post by mvieira38 »

ncr100 wrote: post #30

Personally wondering if the Vatican ever translated to modern psychology or brain physiology speak their religious and philosophical wisdom. Their deductions may be more useful to more people if translated.

Most (orthodox) theologians actually preach that modern psychology, or "neuroscience", is fundamentally incorrect, so any translation effort would be ultimately unfruitful

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

#366

Post by keybored »

achierius wrote: post #97
boxed wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that a belief in god(s) makes you less prepared for a world with AI. In Buddhism the attitude is more sane: gods are just being that can be wrong too and ultimately suffer and cause suffering, the same as the rest of us. They might just be more strongly self-deluded (wink wink the pope wink wink)

It often feels to me that HN's view of Buddhism is "whatever bits of philosophy I happen to agree with". It's true that throughout history, there have been enough different expressions of Buddhism, practiced by at least a few people, that it's possible to say a lot of things 'are Buddhism', but it feels dishonest to me to rely on that in comparative analysis with a much more doctrinally stable religion. The differenc…

> It's true that throughout history, there have been enough different expressions of Buddhism, practiced by at least a few people, that it's possible to say a lot of things 'are Buddhism',

Then argue for the opposite. That a Buddhist can believe in the Abrahamic God.

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

#367

Post by ewheeler »

kouru225 wrote: post #269
radlad wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sensory input refers to the information received by the body's senses, like sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell, through sensory organs like the eyes, ears, skin, tongue, and nose, which is then transmitted to the brain as electrical signals for processing and interpretation; essentially, it's anything you perceive using your senses. Even if we are talking about the best cameras in the world, they pale in compa…

You’re looking at the world from a very anthropocentric pov. Sight, sound, touch, feel, taste are all human senses, but they’re all just one thing: ingesting information. An AI can ingest information… that’s just a fact… so… what are we talking about here? Also, we have absolutely no idea how the brain works. Current AI was developed off of modern theories on how the brain works. Saying that AI doesn’t represent how…

While there are some similarities, yes, our brains definitely don't have anything akin to backpropagation, which is the critical mechanism for how current AI models learn.

Hinton has some research on a forward-forward learning paradigm [1], which might be closer to how our brains learn (but the artificial implementations are not great yet). He also posits that maybe the purpose of humans' dreams are generating negative data for such a contrastive forward-forward learning mechanism.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.13345

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

#368

Post by zoogeny »

Barrin92 wrote: post #289
macrocosmos wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have many misconceptions about what Catholics actually believe. And then you seem to take exception to these misconceptions. So your exceptions are only with beliefs that exist in your own mind.

It's not really a misconception, this was Feuerbach's and also Nietzsche's or Stirner's criticism of Christianity. It projects human attributes on an ostensibly divine subject "othering" and worshipping them, in reality just attempting to sanctify humanity. (in Stirner's words creating Mensch (human/mankind) with a capital M". This is incredibly obvious in the psychology underpinning a lot of Christian beliefs, the M…

It is at least historically important to note that at least Nietzsche and Stirner were reacting to Protestantism as expressed in "modern" Germany.

I'm not trying to make a "No True Christian" argument but rather just want to assert that reform does happen both for good and ill. Luther's original reform, in part, was to point out that political concerns within the church were overriding the spiritual concerns of the laity. He wanted to refocus faith on a personal relationship with God. One major criticism of that refocus is that it caused individuals to become over-focused on the self instead of God (as embodied in the institution of the church).

In both cases you could argue that the principle problem is when the focus of faith is something in the world (either the church or the individual). So I think it is perhaps too far to say that "we have always been worshipping ourselves" when the criticisms within and without the church are pointing that out as the problem that triggers the reform.

That is, both Luther and Stirner can be correct in their criticism of religious institutions. There is more than one way to get it wrong.

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

#369

Post by nickburns »

exe34 wrote: post #359
nickburns wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All 'unpluggable.' It's a metaphor.

it's a pointless metaphor if there's an army of armed drones keeping you out.

You seem to have pondered this metaphor at least at some length before. Me too. :)

And yes, that's certainly a plausible hurdle.

Post reply on HN