Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Magnifica Humanitas

vatican.va

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 1001 posts

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#371

Post by adamtaylor_13 »

bbor wrote: post #270
adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to somehow separate the horrible evils that have been inflicted on the world by Communism before you can get people to consider words closely associated with it. Being anti-communism is good not only for the individual's health but for their society as a whole.

A) Well, it's you vs. the Pope and I! B) Fine, drop communism altogether -- it's evil and disgusting and bit my finger and should never be tried again. Can we work on a society where the means of production are owned by groups of laborers?

Re: B my guess is probably not (human nature and all that), but I'm open to ideas! I just think failed experiments where tens of millions died are probably not ones where we just flippantly "try again".

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#373

Post by stringfood »

fooker wrote: post #316

This is a surprisingly nuanced and technically literate take on this topic. Kudos. I wonder if this sort of thing got this dude elected, to navigate the changing times. (duplicating my comment from the other thread as this seems to have more traction)

[flagged]

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#374

Post by [deleted] »

6stringmerc wrote: post #351
Lerc wrote: post #178

I have found that, for many of the statements about what AI should do, I would actally be happier if the letters "AI" were replaced with "companies"

And while your comment has validity, in the US the phrase uttered by Presidential candidate Mitt Romney adds a layer of complexity: “Corporations are people, my friend.”

[deleted]

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#375

Post by lukan »

komali2 wrote: post #336
Lerc wrote: post #178

I have found that, for many of the statements about what AI should do, I would actally be happier if the letters "AI" were replaced with "companies"

Yes! I've felt exactly the same. Everything people have taken issue with - "plagiarism," concentration of wealth and power, termination of jobs, environmental harm to feed data centers, land being wasted on new datacenters, resources being distributed terribly so as to feed the AI monster, slopcode being shit out as fast as possible to stay ahead of the market, software quality dropping for the same reason, engineers…

"it's all just capitalism in its most raw, inevitable, end game form."

Can you explain, what would be early capitalism and what is the difference to "end game capitalism" to you?

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#376

Post by adamtaylor_13 »

komali2 wrote: post #277
adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to somehow separate the horrible evils that have been inflicted on the world by Communism before you can get people to consider words closely associated with it. Being anti-communism is good not only for the individual's health but for their society as a whole.

What specific horrible evils do you mean? And how do you attribute them to, specifically, organizing an economy along communistic lines? I ask because if we can take a country with a communist economy, or striving for one, and blame all its evils on communism itself, I have a few things I'd like to point out as being the horrors of capitalism: 1. Atlantic slave trade - millions dead (many on the ships), millions ensl…

The specific evil in my mind was the Great Leap Forward, but there are dozens we could draw from history.

And I attribute them to communism because that's literally how history attributes them, though obviously pro-Communism thinkers would disagree.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#377

Post by logicchains »

devilbunny wrote: post #326
sethbannon wrote: post #22

The overarching message is that builders should deeply consider the impact of what they're building on civilization. "Technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate and use it." Therefore builders "bear a particular ethical and spiritual responsibility" because "every design choice reflects a vision of humanity." The questions shouldn't just be 'can we buil…

The Roman Catholic Church has a lot of things wrong with it, now and in the past, but it’s a human institution older than almost any other, and it’s composed of a lot of very intelligent people. Agree or disagree with them, but a papal encyclical is almost always worth reading and understanding.

[flagged]

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#378

Post by wald3n »

Love this: building for the common good means accepting the limits and weakness of humanity without considering them an error to be corrected. Today, the human desire for fullness of life is at risk of being misled by deceitful goals, such as the prospect of a technology that promises to free us from all weakness, and models of wellbeing that leave behind entire populations. All too often, we place our hope in unlimited “upgrades,” in forms of progress that exacerbate inequalities, and in immediate solutions incapable of healing people’s wounds. As a result, while some pursue the illusion of unlimited self-assertion, many are deprived of basic necessities.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#380

Post by sham1 »

the_real_cher wrote: post #81

Why does the onus fall on the engineer for creating a better tool and not on the people who use that tool in evil ways? We've been having the same argument since the dawn of mankind. AI is the new AR.

I'd say that the onus falls on the engineer insofar as they need to ask the questions of "why are we making the new better tool", "according to what criteria is it better", and "do we need the better tool". And at least for me, that onus falls on the engineer instead of falling on the user because it's the engineer who is creating the tool, not the user, and if the engineer chose differently, the tool wouldn't be out there to be used for evil.

Sometimes it might just be better to not do the thing, especially if it conflicts with one's morals. And well, the idea that "if I don't do this, someone else will" seems to not work out well in practice.

Post reply on HN