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

Pope tells priests to use their brains, not AI, to write homilies

ewtnnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 473 posts

Re: Pope tells priests to use their brains, not AI, to write homilies

#431

Post by roarcher »

rebolek wrote: post #409
overgard wrote: post #404

IMO, any (important) writing you expect other humans to consume should be your own writing. I think it's kind of disrespectful to outsource your voice to AI but expect people to read it like it's yours. Why should I put in time to read if you're not putting in time to write?

I write stories and tech docs. I'll happily outsource writing tech docs to AI. It would be better than anything I would write. I won't let AI to touch my stories. Their input is boring and cringy. So both things can be true at same time.

The AI doesn't know anything about the thing you're documenting except what you tell it, so what value does it add?

Re: Pope tells priests to use their brains, not AI, to write homilies

#432

Post by swat535 »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #388
soderfoo wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, faith is the crux of Catholicism.

The crux of all religions. The only comparatevely harmless religions are the ones who don't claim that gods demand absolute obedience, but their orders are spoken through a chosen few; otherwise they're just a form of primitive government.

Which religion doesn't demand obedience?

Re: Pope tells priests to use their brains, not AI, to write homilies

#433

Post by ASalazarMX »

swat535 wrote: post #432
ASalazarMX wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The crux of all religions. The only comparatevely harmless religions are the ones who don't claim that gods demand absolute obedience, but their orders are spoken through a chosen few; otherwise they're just a form of primitive government.

Which religion doesn't demand obedience?

Basically, any religion that considers gods uninvolved with human affairs, so they don't care about our obedience. Here's a start point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religion

Naturalistic religions, so called "paganism", also worshipped living beings or natural phenomena like a particularly big tree, a mountain, a forest, the Sun, etc. Some of these didn't demand obedience nor spoke through a ruling elite. Bonus points for worshipping things that could be verified as real.

Re: Pope tells priests to use their brains, not AI, to write homilies

#434

Post by anomaly_ »

amrocha wrote: post #357
bibleguided wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the Pope’s point. Priests should not hand pastoral judgment to a model. BibleGuided has church management tools plus optional AI help for drafting and organizing, with the priest making the final call. For community context, we avoid confessional and private pastoral data. It is opt-in from congregants, then aggregated and anonymized into themes and trends. We think AI can be a helpful tool across many a…

The pope, ostensibly the person you believe to be the representative of god on earth, has said that your product is garbage and here you are rationalizing it. Are you sure you have faith?

Based on OPs location and some of the marketing comments on their site, they probably think the Pope is the Anti-Christ.

Re: Pope tells priests to use their brains, not AI, to write homilies

#435

Post by cwillu »

qsera wrote: post #259
cwillu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considered at length, and ultimately rejected due to lack of evidence.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Wrong. It's not strong evidence of absence, but it absolutely is evidence.

Re: Pope tells priests to use their brains, not AI, to write homilies

#436

Post by hippo22 »

crystal_revenge wrote: post #430
hippo22 wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. The purpose of writing is to convey ideas. If written language had just been invented, I’m sure you’d be saying “IMO any important stories you expect others to know should be communicated orally. It’s kind of disrespectful to convey stories as if they were hearing you speak.”

Your conflating the medium with the source of the message in this analogy. Writing and oration are two different media, the question of which is preferable in which context is completely unrelated to LLM authorship. If "the purpose of writing is to convey ideas" (which I largely agree with), which ideas are being added between whatever you prompt the model to convey and what the model conveys? Are you proposing that…

> Are you proposing that an LLM can extract some meaning from your initial prompt that a human being couldn't?

No, I’m asserting that an LLM can help formulate ideas in a coherent, understandable way. You can give it a brain dump with a rough outline for an argument and it fill in the details. If the argument isn’t to your liking, you can try again. But the end result is basically equivalent to the human-written equivalent.

Re: Pope tells priests to use their brains, not AI, to write homilies

#437

Post by 486sx33 »

overgard wrote: post #404

IMO, any (important) writing you expect other humans to consume should be your own writing. I think it's kind of disrespectful to outsource your voice to AI but expect people to read it like it's yours. Why should I put in time to read if you're not putting in time to write?

[dead]

Re: Pope tells priests to use their brains, not AI, to write homilies

#438

Post by 9864247888754 »

graemep wrote: post #379
falcor84 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't adopt biblical literalism, then isn't the Bible just true in the same way that Star Wars is true?

No. You interpret each document in context and in culture. For example, you interpret Genesis as a story that makes a point and tell you something - it is like Jesus's parables (no one same says they are literal!). For example, that all human beings are made in the image of God - as we all look different that is clearly not literal. That we are all related and of one ancestry. On the other hand you interpret the gosp…

What a cheap cop-out to move the goalposts so that only the claims that haven't been disproved yet or are unfalsifiable are meant to be taken literally.

Re: Pope tells priests to use their brains, not AI, to write homilies

#439

Post by 9864247888754 »

graemep wrote: post #381
mjmas wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is wrong with taking the Bible as literal statement of fact?

Its a departure from Christian tradition (including early Christians), and it leads to demonstrably false conclusions, and its silly to treat many works of many different genres (myth, chronicles, personal accounts, poetry and lyrics, biographies, and letters) as all being interpreted the same way.

What's your god a metaphor for?

Re: Pope tells priests to use their brains, not AI, to write homilies

#440

Post by crystal_revenge »

hippo22 wrote: post #436
crystal_revenge wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your conflating the medium with the source of the message in this analogy. Writing and oration are two different media, the question of which is preferable in which context is completely unrelated to LLM authorship. If "the purpose of writing is to convey ideas" (which I largely agree with), which ideas are being added between whatever you prompt the model to convey and what the model conveys? Are you proposing that…

> Are you proposing that an LLM can extract some meaning from your initial prompt that a human being couldn't? No, I’m asserting that an LLM can help formulate ideas in a coherent, understandable way. You can give it a brain dump with a rough outline for an argument and it fill in the details. If the argument isn’t to your liking, you can try again. But the end result is basically equivalent to the human-written equi…

The point is if you can't correctly craft an analogy, I'm not particularly concerned about your opinions on writing in general.
Post reply on HN