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

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#421

Post by Npovview »

GoToRO wrote: post #153
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…

hard disagree. No matter what gets built, it will be used for bad things if the society is not properly constructed. We need to fix our government and then you can build anything you want. I don't like putting the blame on the builders, building is already difficult as it is. Also you can't built something in isolation, word will get out anyway. That's why this speech is either naive or he just wanted to tick a todo…

"That which can be destroyed by the truth should be." - P.C. Hodgell, from her novel Seeker's Mask (1994)

"That which can be automated by the AI should be."

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#422

Post by daveguy »

boxed wrote: post #40
vintagedave wrote: post #10

> a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion Unrelated to AI, but a wonderful support of the breadth of humanity in this anti-DEI time. > We must, then, avoid the “Babel syndrome,” namely the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a single language — even a digital one — can translate everything, including…

> > a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion > Unrelated to AI, but a wonderful support of the breadth of humanity in this anti-DEI time. I mean.. DEI was in reality homogenization and eliminated diversity. Just because you agreed with the small amount of allowed opinions/people doesn't make it more diverse.

DEI was only ever meant to reflect the diversity of society in our institutions (which historically have been and continue to be homogeneous compared to society). Of course there are better and worse ways to create the outcome of increased diversity. But thr recent backlash is the antithesis of diversity, wrapped up in the propaganda of "reverse racism."

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#423

Post by MichaelZuo »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #188
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…

Not new for software and hardware industry though, practitioners have just chosen to ignore it. From the Association for Computing Machinery, which encompasses all forms of software development, the very first principle is the public good: " Software engineers shall act consistently with the public interest. In particular, software engineers shall, as appropriate: 1.01. Accept full responsibility for their own work.…

Noble ideals can be upheld, relatively consistently… only if violators are visibly punished. And to a degree roughly commensurate with the violation.

The critical point is that the violators have to be punished more consistently then the demanded consistency of the ideals.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#424

Post by jobu1342 »

GoToRO wrote: post #153
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…

hard disagree. No matter what gets built, it will be used for bad things if the society is not properly constructed. We need to fix our government and then you can build anything you want. I don't like putting the blame on the builders, building is already difficult as it is. Also you can't built something in isolation, word will get out anyway. That's why this speech is either naive or he just wanted to tick a todo…

Hard disagree to your disagree. Every organization is made up of people and reflects the character of its members. So with the nation itself. If people won't take responsibility for their own actions, neither will the government. I.e. self-government isn't the answer to fixing a broken people. Transformation begins within one's self, not in imposing one's will on another. First everyone much look to themselves, then the government, organizations, and projects will fix itself.

Everyone likes to talk about "fixing the government". It feels nice to understand the problem with something else that is broken. The problem is that replacing the people in charge is a no-op if you don't have a pool of good people to choose from and the will to choose them.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#425

Post by jeremyjh »

ctoth wrote: post #288
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 strange part is how moral responsibility somehow always lands on the builders... the people with the least leverage... while the funders get to ask the ethical questions. Weird!

The funders are among the principal builders in this context. This is addressing the people who have a say in what is built, and how it is built. Much of that belongs to the executive and ownership class, but not all of it.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#427

Post by ako »

vermilingua wrote: post #92
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…

Not only builders, the greatest takeaway for me is that everyone has a responsibility in shaping the discourse, culture, and usage of transformative technology. This "the builders will do the right thing" mentality is even (in my interpretation) explicitly called out in several places: > It is the pursuit of the common good that gives life to a people, understood not as a mere collection of individuals, but as a livi…

Agreed, I think the builders are the wrong people to ask for this self reflection. Anything can be used for good and bad. A knife can be used to prepare food, or to stab someone. A drone can be used to attack a country, or to defend a country. A wooden beam can be used to build a house, or to build a cross to crucify someone. Same way AI can be used for good and bad. And it’s up to the person using the tool to act moral. Unfortunately this world is full of people that consider power and money more important than morals. For me, religion falls in this bucket, lots of “do as I say, not do as I do”. And on top of this, there’s very little agreement on what is good, and what is bad. Morals are quite fuzzy, and flexible.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#428

Post by lukan »

trolleski wrote: post #414
lukan wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to work somewhat with medical doctors and the Hippocratic Oath. But I would argue it is way easier there. Building software has way more grey areas.

I don't think there are more grey areas in software engineering than in medicine. The difference is the feedback loop of the outcome - if you design a dopamine slot machine you will ruin the generation and that's a long arc.

And that makes it hard. I am open for banning all comercial advertisement - but general society is largely fine with it. So is someone designing new targeting algorithm for ads breaking his potential oath of doing good for society?

What grey areas are there for doctors?

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#429

Post by serf »

it's a shame that the vatican didn't bother asking whether or not the crusades would make humanity better before causing the death of 9 million plus people.

..or whether or not hiding all those pedophiles was the right.

and to be clear ; i'm not equating AI to those things -- i'm saying that I don't care about the opinion of a group with such a sordid history regardless of how shined up the PR is now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPmyry0yaQE

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#430

Post by hackingonempty »

jfengel wrote: post #26
qsort wrote: post #15

I have only skimmed it, will definitely read carefully as soon as I have time. I will say, as an atheist, that regarding technology the Vatican has some of the best takes of any institution/government I have ever seen.

Much of Western thought traces back to serious work by Church theologians. Even atheists are strongly influenced by the patterns they set down. The Catholic Church, for all its many faults, retains a serious intellectual tradition. (In fact I think atheists should make more effort to learn about the vast diversity of other faiths. It's very narrow to be atheist only about the Abrahamic deity. You end up incorporating…

> Much of Western thought traces back to serious work by Church theologians

Western thought traces back to the Greeks. Aquinas refers to Aristotle as "The Philosopher." Aristotle died over 300 years before Jesus was born.

> The Catholic Church, for all its many faults, retains a serious intellectual tradition.

On Aquinas, the Church Doctor, Bertrand Russell had the following to say:

"Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times."

Post reply on HN