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

411–420 of 513 posts

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

#411

Post by lolinder »

nonameiguess wrote: post #405
nyokodo wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How could they know? I can’t speak for any religious leader but in terms of Catholic leadership: because in many matters God spoke through the Prophets and then He came down and told us directly which is preserved in Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15-17), and the Holy Spirit guides the Church (John 14:26) and does so through the prime ministerial office of the Pope the successor of Peter (Ma…

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 thou…

> 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.

My understanding of Catholicism comes from outside of it, but this isn't how I understand Catholic epistemology—this sounds more like Sola Scriptura, which is a Protestant doctrine and emphatically not a Catholic one.

Since I'm not a Catholic, I'm going to link out to an explanation from people who are [0]:

> The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings; she judges them more than she is judged by them.

So the epistemological problem to resolve is not why these particular documents, it's why this particular organization? Not why do I trust what's written here but not there—the answer to that is because the Church says so—but why do I trust this Church?

Not being a Catholic, I can't really answer that question, but I do think it's important to approach the Catholic question on its own terms rather than Protestant terms.

[0] https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/tradition-and-living-m...

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

#412

Post by BalinKing »

rotexo wrote: post #48

I liked the simple observation in point 35: 'as Pope Francis observes, “the very use of the word ‘intelligence’” in connection with AI “can prove misleading”[69] and risks overlooking what is most precious in the human person.' I was texting my buddy that the proper acronym could be ABNECUI (Almost, But Not Entirely, Completely Unlike Intelligence, to rip something from Douglas Adams). At a more profound level, I rea…

I'm not Catholic, and I share your distrust of religious institutions. So with that disclaimer, I think my answer would be that God chooses, at times, to teach us things in a "small enough" way that we can understand them.

For example, consider when the Bible gives concrete statements about what God wants us to do or not to, or when Jesus uses analogies and parables. Do we necessarily get the full picture? No, and there's a lot about the Christian life that one only learns through experience. One of those things IMO is that some questions have unknowable answers. E.g. "why did this particular tragedy occur?", or perhaps more fundamentally, "how could a holy and perfect God ever show mercy to us imperfect humans?". Or maybe even more directly to the thrust of your comment, "how could we ever hope to understand anything about God?".

Something else that comes to mind is that God became human Himself, and I imagine that—at least in part—this would be to allow us to understand Him better. Through Jesus' life, we got to see what it would look like for God to live a human life. (Admittedly, the question then becomes, how does God become man in the first place, which I have to categorize under "questions with unknowable answers".)

Finally, the Bible often talks about the Holy Spirit helping Christians to understand "spiritual" things. That is to say, it's not quite a matter of us trying to reach logical conclusions on our own, since—as you say—that wouldn't be possible for a God that's beyond our limits of comprehension. Rather, we get some supernatural help in the matter.

Maybe the tl;dr is that, just because we can't understand everything (or maybe even most things) about a God that is fundamentally greater than us in every way, doesn't imply that we can't understand anything.

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

#413

Post by [deleted] »

throw0101c wrote: post #106
rotexo wrote: post #48

I liked the simple observation in point 35: 'as Pope Francis observes, “the very use of the word ‘intelligence’” in connection with AI “can prove misleading”[69] and risks overlooking what is most precious in the human person.' I was texting my buddy that the proper acronym could be ABNECUI (Almost, But Not Entirely, Completely Unlike Intelligence, to rip something from Douglas Adams). At a more profound level, I rea…

> it always feels paradoxical when leaders wax poetic about the mystery of God and then say 'so here is what God thinks you should do.' How could they know? Perhaps we were told it: > "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He [Jesus] said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a…

[deleted]

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

#414

Post by BalinKing »

breuleux wrote: post #126
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…

> However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, but humanity itself---which, in this way, becomes enslaved to its own work. Doesn't that describe all religion? I mean, you're telling me that the infinite creator of the universe cares about the prayers, the suffering, the aspirations, and the sexual habits of a bunch of finite beings? The hubris! It seems obvious to me that the gods of all religions…

> Doesn't that describe all religion? I mean, you're telling me that the infinite creator of the universe cares about the prayers, the suffering, the aspirations, and the sexual habits of a bunch of finite beings?

I'm a Christian, and I absolutely agree with you that this is absurd! And if God hadn't said it Himself and then proved it true by His actions (both historically, and even in my own life), I'd be right there with you to call it idolatry.

For what it's worth, however, the quoted argument does also feel somewhat hubristic to me: As I see it, it boils down to "I don't understand how God could be this way, and therefore He cannot be this way." I believe that, somewhat ironically, He is beyond our understanding even when it comes to knowing what it means for Him to be beyond our understanding.

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

#415

Post by svieira »

titanomachy wrote: post #345
svieira wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the soul lives on forever, but without the reasoning and intellectual capabilities granted by the corporeal form? :boom: You've found it! The disassociation of soul and body are the problem that pre-Catholic thinkers ran into over and over again. The soul must be immortal, but it relies on the body for the sensory perceptions which enable the first stages of any intellection. So what the heck happens to it after…

If the soul is immortal and carries on to heaven, but doesn't contain your memories, but God copies all of your memories into a new body for you in heaven, then what's the point of even making the distinction between an immortal soul and a mortal body?

Is your question "why do we bother distinguishing" or "why did God bother creating the distinction" or something else entirely?

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

#416

Post by zoogeny »

pixl97 wrote: post #393
zoogeny wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they are fair statements, but perhaps not saying what you think. Plato covers a lot of this kind of thing and it is maybe useful to use his framework (since much of modern Catholicism has a healthy dose of Platonism). Both flowers and music can be called "beautiful" and there is some sense in which both partake in a universal "Beauty". Yet at the same time the nature of the beauty of flowers and music is dist…

>but there may be some aspect of the human manifestation of that form that will forever remain distinct to humans. Lets not forget the converse may be true for AI. Humans may be a very specialized form of intelligence (though we do like to consider ourselves general intelligences).

That is one implication. There is a sense in which the "beauty" that is particular with a rose shares more in common with a lily compared to the "beauty" either share with music. So it is the degree of particular-ness that is a matter of personal interpretation.

Imagine a science fiction future where we use AIs to enhance neuroscience to determine how to make Octopuses more intelligent, such that they reach LLM levels or near human levels of language. Is their brain not a neural network that could be optimized?

In our wildest dreams we might consider the breadth of intelligence possible and our particular relationship with respect to it. We might face questions that are harder to answer than we anticipate.

Perhaps considering the question is more important than deciding on an answer?

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

#417

Post by Eisenstein »

codr7 wrote: post #398
Eisenstein wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a rehashing of the same stalled philosophical debates that are already tired. They didn't present any scientific evidence for biological necessity for intelligence, nor did they assert their religious authority. It is completely pointless.

You're asking for proof that doesn't exist and using it's absence as proof you're right. Doesn't look very constructive to me.

I am saying that a document that says nothing new and claims no authority is not a Magna Carta.

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

#418

Post by philipov »

rashidae wrote: post #134
philipov wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The existential risk that AI poses is first and foremost the threat that it be centralized and controlled by a closed company like OpenAI, or a small oligopoly of such companies.

I don’t think centralization is the real threat. As James Currier [1] pointed out, AI will be commoditized through open-source and model convergence, making oligopoly control unlikely. The real challenge is standardizing safety across open models and countering malignant AI use, especially amid demographic challenges like declining fertility. [1] https://x.com/jamescurrier/status/1884057861514485803?s=46&t...

What's the connection between malignant AI use and declining fertility?

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

#419

Post by Juliate »

lolinder wrote: post #409
buu700 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a more interesting approach to disregard the metaphysical claims, which are inherently unfalsifiable and thus irrelevant to life in this universe, and look at religious texts as constitutions governing human behavior and morality. The metaphysical bits are just a side note to help sell that social contract and give it a theoretical enforcement mechanism. In other words, the relevant question isn't how so…

> 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…

This is also true from a Catholic point of view (I am).

At the very least, that’s debatable or less absolute than that.

Because evidence (schisms, actual errors from the Church institution throughout time, not the least sex scandals we are not done with yet) shows that if God was actively directing the Church in the past and today, oh boy… not sure you would be sane to want to follow such a “peculiar” guidance.

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

#420

Post by [deleted] »

moralestapia wrote: post #173
b450 wrote: post #41

This is a great demonstration of the fact that people coming from very different perspectives can, through good faith inquiry, find much to agree on. I think there are a lot of thoughtful arguments and conclusions in here even though I generally find the catholic church's metaphysical pyrotechnics to be fairly ridiculous. It goes to show that E.O. Wilson's concept of "consilience" can apply even outside of sciences -…

>people coming from very different perspectives Care to elaborate? Which people and which perspectives? It's a bit unclear to me.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN