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

Well, if AGI isn't the new Lord, I don't know what is.

They just can't be. Concepts like the soul, the inherent dignity of man, and the orientation of humanity toward a single Good are incomprehensible in the framework of modern psychology or physiology. They are ruled out or at least set aside by the presuppositions used to simplify the world for scientific analysis. And these concepts do a lot of work in the note.

Granting it's been 30 years since I've considered myself Catholic, so speaking entirely from the perspective of a non-believer at this point, but to me, the central dilemma is say I buy that we and our universe have a thinking, feeling creator that watches events, possibly intervenes, and actually cares how we behave in a way we can translate into human language and moral directives, given all the thousands upon thousands of conflicting historical text claiming to be that, why should I accept what one specific council of European priests 600 years ago or whatever decided is to be considered holy canon?

Other commenters trying to compare to science seem to misunderstand the analogy. You don't have to accept the conclusions of Francis Bacon himself because he sort of formalized the scientific method as we know it today. Nor do we read the texts of Newton and consider that eternal canon. Science involves empirical investigation and all claims can be corroborated or contradicted by further investigation. They're probabilistic claims based on statistical analysis of the currently available known evidence and always subject to change.

If you don't think this works, then explain how AI is able to exist in the first place, because adjusting probability estimates based on statistical modeling of incoming evidence conditioned on past evidence is exactly what machine learning does.

I love Catholicism for all the reasons given elsewhere. It has produced a grand tradition of clear writers and erudite thinkers. The basic morality and orientation of man's purpose with respect to other men rings "true" to me even if it lies outside of empiricism. But the core dogma of "believe specific claims of fact because they were written down in one text and not another" is bad epistemology no matter how you cut it. If God himself ever spoke to me directly, I'd have no choice but to consider that (but would also have to consider that I might be insane). No priest and no prophet, however, is ever going to convince me that they speak with the mandate of God just because they believe it very strongly themselves.

I understand where they're coming from with this, but I feel this perspective on work is exactly what needs to change. If true automation comes, society as a whole should move past the idea that one must find meaning/growth in performing economically valuable work.

> 70. Since work is a “part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal fulfillment,” “the goal should not be that technological progress increasingly replaces human work, for this would be detrimental to humanity”[132]—rather, it should promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI should assist, not replace, human judgment. Similarly, it must never degrade creativity or reduce workers to mere “cogs in a machine.” Therefore, “respect for the dignity of laborers and the importance of employment for the economic well-being of individuals, families, and societies, for job security and just wages, ought to be a high priority for the international community as these forms of technology penetrate more deeply into our workplaces.”

Ideally we'd move to a post scarcity economy like in Star Trek/Culture (Ian Banks) where personal growth is achieved, yes through "work", but not the same type of 9-5 "you must work to fend for yourself" we understand today.

Societal norms would need to be such that each individual would have their own vocations/hobbies with which to hone their craft and achieve growth--all without being forced to "work" in order to ensure their basic needs are met.

> Whether or not a literal god may have been involved at any point is irrelevant. Right now, we're very far removed from any such claimed involvement, looking at documents that have been written, cherry-picked, translated, rewritten, and reinterpreted many times by many different fallible humans.

This is only true from the Protestant Sola Scriptura perspective. The Catholic and Orthodox traditions hold that God still directs the Church through the Holy Spirit, which makes the documents that you identify only some elements of that direction—an output of the authority granted to the Church—not its final form. So, no, it's not accurate to say that we are far removed from any claims of direct involvement from Deity—several branches of Christianity hold that He is still actively involved.

> If the only meaning someone sees in religious guidance is its connection to a literal physical deity, they're in for an exercise in frustration from what is at best the world's longest game of telephone.

Again, it's not a long game of telephone if God is actually still directing the Church today. If you accept that He guides leadership right now through the Pope and the Bishops, which is the stance articulated by OP, you're at most a few steps removed from His regular guidance.

Which gets back to my original point, which is that this really all comes down to which axioms you want to accept. All religion is unfalsifiable, as you observe, but falsifiability cuts both ways and you can't logic your way out of that to logically conclude the absence or irrelevance of a God. What you can do is decide which axioms you're going to start from and work from there.