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

451–460 of 513 posts

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

#451

Post by shakna »

Juliate wrote: post #428
nyokodo wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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… Except all the scandals and anti-Popes are empirical evidence of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church. Despite all that the teachings of the Church are fundamentally unchanged. I can read St Justin…

I don’t buy this so much as this is the perfect excuse for evil in humanity to continue to govern, wherever it is (“yeah it’s bad, but there’s a Plan behind all this” - very similar to how Qanon tried to operate). You see continuity and consistence while others see that it’s not only the religion that conquered the Roman world, but the Roman Empire that also conquered the religion to secure its existence. So much of…

> one thread being that it mixed temporal and spiritual concerns instead of making them obviously distinct

That's really, really, not something Christianity gained from Rome. Judaism is, and always has been, a religion of the practical world. It prescripts how to live, from the very beginning. The Torah is very concerned with the answering of how to live, as well as the why to live that way.

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

#452

Post by smogcutter »

Eisenstein wrote: post #417
codr7 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> claims no authority

It should be obvious what authority is implicit in a document from the vatican.

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

#453

Post by jcarrano »

keiferski wrote: post #24

This might seem unique or unusual, but technology has been intertwined with religion since well, forever, especially if we consider the book to be a form of technology. Personally one of my favorite historical topics is how the printing press had a huge impact on the Reformation. With the Internet more broadly I think we are in the midst of a second “Reformation” in terms of information sources, the media, etc. Anoth…

That book, and the follow up "Pentagon of Power" blew my mind when I read them years ago. I can't even enumerate how many topics it discusses. 100% recommended reading.

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

#454

Post by ben_w »

nickburns wrote: post #327
Phlogistique wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...it will run in datacenters far from their homes, plugged into redundant power sources and high-availaibility systems?

All 'unpluggable.' It's a metaphor.

Most people have a hard time unplugging from social media, despite widespread distrust of big tech.

Can't unplug from banking, even when literally communists (literally literally, I've met some proud of being communists, they still got a mortgage).

Coal and petroleum-based fuels are slowly getting unplugged, but the issues were known over a century ago, and the transition only became relevant scale when the alternative was already much cheaper — and it's not yet clear how much damage has been done in the intervening years.

--

Any AI worth using is so because it's at least one of [cheaper, better] than a human on the same task: any AI which is both more expensive and worse just doesn't have any reason to be used in the first place.

This means that "unplugging" an AI comes with a cost of losing every advantage that made you start using it in the first place.

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

#455

Post by jcarrano »

arresin wrote: post #408
stevenhuang wrote: post #407

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 t…

The amount of economically valuable work to be done is infinite and hopefully advances in AI will help us better able to do it.

Exactly. Mises explains, in the first part of Human Action, that the ultimate limiting factor of production is human labor. AI does not change this, or any other thesis of praxeology.

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

#456

Post by jcarrano »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #228
cynicalpeace wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, humans were created in the image of God, according to Christianity. Secular society is overwhelmingly confused on how it will treat robots. Christianity has none of that confusion.

Christianity is not one thing. I expect that if AGI becomes a real thing, there will be sects that are on the opposite side of that argument.

If it is really an AGI it will have its own set of opinions. It would be quite ironic if the AGI ends up believing that humans are in the image of God, against its own "believers".

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

#457

Post by MacsHeadroom »

andsoitis wrote: post #426
marc_abonce wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main difference is the degree of anthropomorphizing that happens with new chatbots. I mean, most kids in the 2000's didn't believe that they were literally asking Jeeves a question, but a lot of users today actually think of AI as an anthropomorphic being.

> but a lot of users today actually think of AI as an anthropomorphic being. You think more than 10% of users?

It's easily closer to 90% than 10%.

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

#458

Post by wrfrmers »

nyokodo wrote: post #422
nonameiguess wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> why should I accept what one specific council of European priests 600 years ago or whatever decided is to be considered holy canon? Well, firstly the canon doesn't just come from the decisions of Europeans and bringing race into it is a non-sequitur. The canon of Scripture comes from the Sacred Tradition, preserved by the Church and lead by the Pope and the Bishops (who FWIW weren't and aren't just white guys), and…

That's a lot of talking around the actual question

>that has kept his Tradition alive through the centuries and alive fundamentally unchanged

the answer to which is an emphatic, "No." Which is why Protestantism exists in the first place.

The fundamental conundrum is whether or not you believe god is operating through people who are clearly behaving in self-serving ways, as many Catholic officials have in the past. There's nothing empirical about such a question and no use becoming indignant over some taking the perfectly sentimental (if not also reasonable, though that's beside the point) stance that they simply don't trust those dudes. The appeal to being the Church which is Jesus who is God, and therefore you can't question anything a church official says, is, like... the whole point of tension.

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

#459

Post by exe34 »

ben_w wrote: post #448
exe34 wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if you give 10 chimps a grenade each, and only one of the flings poo reliably, then it doesn't matter that 9 of them don't fling.

Also true. But it looks to me like there's a decent number amongst the other nine who know what grenades are and don't want them to get thrown by the tenth. The power dynamics here could be just about anything; I don't know how to begin to forecast the risk distribution, but I definitely agree that what you fear is plausible.

it's possible that the other 9 would keep the 10th under control, but if you look at the direction the US has taken, when two billionaires took over and declared inclusion verboten, the others rolled over and updated their policies to fall in line.

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

#460

Post by achierius »

wrfrmers wrote: post #458
nyokodo wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why should I accept what one specific council of European priests 600 years ago or whatever decided is to be considered holy canon? Well, firstly the canon doesn't just come from the decisions of Europeans and bringing race into it is a non-sequitur. The canon of Scripture comes from the Sacred Tradition, preserved by the Church and lead by the Pope and the Bishops (who FWIW weren't and aren't just white guys), and…

That's a lot of talking around the actual question >that has kept his Tradition alive through the centuries and alive fundamentally unchanged the answer to which is an emphatic, "No." Which is why Protestantism exists in the first place. The fundamental conundrum is whether or not you believe god is operating through people who are clearly behaving in self-serving ways, as many Catholic officials have in the past. Th…

Is it a no? Many archeological finds since the reformation have shown that the early church was indeed very much alike to what the Catholic Church later claimed. What differences in doctrine or practice do you know of?
Post reply on HN