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

461–470 of 473 posts

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

#461

Post by cwillu »

qsera wrote: post #455
cwillu wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wrong. If there is no evidence, then there is no proof either way. Imagine looking at a point in the night sky and say you want to check if there is a start at that point. You look at the most powerful telescope that we have, and yet you see no star. Is that a non-strong evidence, as you put it, that there is no star at that point? I think not. There is no evidence one way or other. That is it. But the scientific com…

> There is always the chance that the "Most powerful" is just not good enough for the task at hand.

And that chance is not 100%, and so any given strength of telescope is in fact excluding some of the hypothesis space. That is the definition of evidence.

Every time I point a telescope that would be able to detect a star of a given brightness and distance somewhere, and it fails to see a star, that limits the remaining space for people who believe in stars to make claims about what stars can be, until they're finally at the point where they can only make the most esoteric claims about “stars” that have no observable effects on the world, at which there's no point even including “stars” in your physics model.

I'm at that point with respect to god: every concrete claim has either been disproven, or isn't actually a claim about the observable world, at which point I shrug and say that this thing you insist on defining has no impact on anything.

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

#462

Post by qsera »

cwillu wrote: post #461
qsera wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. If there is no evidence, then there is no proof either way. Imagine looking at a point in the night sky and say you want to check if there is a start at that point. You look at the most powerful telescope that we have, and yet you see no star. Is that a non-strong evidence, as you put it, that there is no star at that point? I think not. There is no evidence one way or other. That is it. But the scientific com…

> There is always the chance that the "Most powerful" is just not good enough for the task at hand. And that chance is not 100%, and so any given strength of telescope is in fact excluding some of the hypothesis space. That is the definition of evidence. Every time I point a telescope that would be able to detect a star of a given brightness and distance somewhere, and it fails to see a star, that limits the remainin…

> excluding some of the hypothesis space. That is the definition of evidence.

Not really, because in this case the "hypothesis space" is infinite, so your experiment exhausting some finite amount of space is not adding anything to the evidence.

So the point is when this "hypothesis space" is infinite or extremely large, if the best experiments that we can do right now can only explore a tiny fraction of that, then it is ABSURD to claim evidence of absence just because "We put our gold standard test and still didn't find anything".

>at which point I shrug and say that this thing you insist on defining has no impact on anything.

It is possible that this "thing" only interact with our world via events that we observe as truly random. Then you wouldn't go ahead and say random events have no impact on anything, will you?

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

#463

Post by cwillu »

qsera wrote: post #462
cwillu wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is always the chance that the "Most powerful" is just not good enough for the task at hand. And that chance is not 100%, and so any given strength of telescope is in fact excluding some of the hypothesis space. That is the definition of evidence. Every time I point a telescope that would be able to detect a star of a given brightness and distance somewhere, and it fails to see a star, that limits the remainin…

> excluding some of the hypothesis space. That is the definition of evidence. Not really, because in this case the "hypothesis space" is infinite, so your experiment exhausting some finite amount of space is not adding anything to the evidence. So the point is when this "hypothesis space" is infinite or extremely large, if the best experiments that we can do right now can only explore a tiny fraction of that, then it…

You've retreated that we're no longer in the realm of “consciousness is supernatural”, and I rest my case. Retreating to an infinite hypothesis space that I can never fully exclude only helps you if there is no mundane explanation, otherwise I reject it for the same reason I can reject the boltzman-brain hypothesis. “But there's still a chance!” is a line from a comedy, not statistics.

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

#464

Post by qsera »

cwillu wrote: post #463
qsera wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> excluding some of the hypothesis space. That is the definition of evidence. Not really, because in this case the "hypothesis space" is infinite, so your experiment exhausting some finite amount of space is not adding anything to the evidence. So the point is when this "hypothesis space" is infinite or extremely large, if the best experiments that we can do right now can only explore a tiny fraction of that, then it…

You've retreated that we're no longer in the realm of “consciousness is supernatural”, and I rest my case. Retreating to an infinite hypothesis space that I can never fully exclude only helps you if there is no mundane explanation, otherwise I reject it for the same reason I can reject the boltzman-brain hypothesis. “But there's still a chance!” is a line from a comedy, not statistics.

That was about the star example, not about the “consciousness is supernatural” and the rest about the evidence for god which you bought up. You seemed to have confused between multiple threads of reasoning. May be, try to stick to one at a time?

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

#465

Post by 1718627440 »

rgblambda wrote: post #109

Not defending the use of AI, but plenty of people who grew up going to Mass on Sunday know that priests often recycle old homilies, deliver lazily written homilies or homilies that were clearly pulled from the internet, or just skip them if they couldn't think of anything that week or are running late for something. Absolute worst was when an intelligent priest put in incredible effort, only for it to go over the hea…

> know that priests often recycle old homilies

I get the other ones, but why is this necessarily bad? If the homily is good by itself, then of course I would even like to hear it more than once. You don't remember everything from a single time anyway. And even if you do, you do not necessarily got everything.

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

#466

Post by rgblambda »

1718627440 wrote: post #465
rgblambda wrote: post #109

Not defending the use of AI, but plenty of people who grew up going to Mass on Sunday know that priests often recycle old homilies, deliver lazily written homilies or homilies that were clearly pulled from the internet, or just skip them if they couldn't think of anything that week or are running late for something. Absolute worst was when an intelligent priest put in incredible effort, only for it to go over the hea…

> know that priests often recycle old homilies I get the other ones, but why is this necessarily bad? If the homily is good by itself, then of course I would even like to hear it more than once. You don't remember everything from a single time anyway. And even if you do, you do not necessarily got everything.

I replied with more detail to someone who also asked this in the same thread.

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

#467

Post by TedHerman »

Originally published in If magazine in September 1954: in this satirical tale (author is Robert Schekley), advanced robot soldiers fight a war against "Satan's forces," and after their victory, they are raptured upward to a metallic heaven by a divine presence. Key details of the story "The Battle": Plot: Humans rely on automatic armies, including robot interceptors, tanks, and H-bombs, to fight their battles. The Climax: After the battle, a divine force ("The Presence") walks among the shattered robots, repairing them and causing them to ascend into the sky, essentially granting them a form of robot heaven. Themes: It reflects Sheckley's common themes of technological satire, the absurdity of war, and the blurred lines between man and machine. This story is sometimes remembered in discussions about "Silicon Heaven" or robot apotheosis.

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

#468

Post by DonHopkins »

1718627440 wrote: post #345
DonHopkins wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but you literally and officially hate LGBTQ+ people, treat women as property, condone slavery, and literally hallucinate that crackers and wine are flesh and blood in spite of what your eyes, nose, taste buds, and all scientific instruments and measurements tell you. Edit: yet you can't counter the objective fact that the Catholic Church is a hateful abusive power hungry cult full of dogmatically hallucinating…

> literally hallucinate that crackers and wine are flesh and blood in spite of what your eyes, nose, taste buds, and all scientific instruments and measurements tell you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle#Scientific... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12491371/ You might not agree with it, but it is not as simple as it defying all sensory input and data.

I'm sorry, but you've got to be a delusional lunatic to attempt to defend that kind of brazen biblical gaslighting. I don't agree with it because it's absolutely objectively insane and mendacious and unjustifiable in any context, no matter how much insincere self-serving apologetics and white-washing you can dig up. And your leaping to its defense is just as evil.

And even if you fully buy into and defend that reality-denying fairy tale, you still have to justify the institutionalized cannibalism and vampirism. It's a sick, sick, crucification fetishizing death cult.

And on top of that, as you very well know and can't deny, the Catholic Church and you complicit enablers also defend and support and perpetuate thousands of years of worldwide institutionalized child rape and pedophilia.

No wonder Catholics are so supportive of and defensive about Trump and Epstein -- your church rapes orders of magnitude more children over more millennia than even Epstein could afford or thirst for, and they're still doing it and hiding it and refusing to pay the consequences thanks to people who still cheerfully carry their water like you.

If you don't support cannibalism, vampirism, rape, and pedophilia, you are free to leave the church, but for God's sake, stop hypocritically defending it and the horrible things it does even if you selfishly choose to remain in the cult! Didn't your bible teach you to have some shame?

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

#469

Post by lo_zamoyski »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #457
lo_zamoyski wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that the burden of proof is yours first. But since you asked... > The church as an institution certainly prefers the more radical conservatives as you go higher up the chain Where are these "radical conservative" bishops? They're anything but "radical". If anything, they tend toward a soft middle that is very slow to act. Indeed, that's one of the gripes "radtrad" types tend to have. They would prefer mor…

So.. you basically agree, you just don't like the wording because you somehow felt personally attacked? Given your reasoning I suspect you work(ed) for the church in some capacity or are at least deeply involved. But it'll be quite obvious to anyone reading this that it is not exactly an objective opinion.

This is just a sad comment. Please stick to the merit and substance instead of reaching for bizarre speculation about my motives. And no, I do not work or have ever worked for the Church. I am an observer with an above average knowledge of what is occurring in the Church. The idea that I am necessarily less objective for that reason, and less than an ignorant outsider, is ridiculous and fallacious.

And for your information, my motive is correctness. I get annoyed by confidently expressed, ignorant claims posing as knowledge, especially when it is unfair to the accused party.

> So.. you basically agree, you just don't like the wording

No. I disagree with your reasoning, which I took the time to explain in detail and which you seem to have completely ignored.

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

#470

Post by nz »

cwillu wrote: post #435
qsera wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

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

It depends a lot on what counts as "observation" or "measurement". For example, nobody with a telescope (of any magnification and resolution) would postulate the existence of dark matter. But, one person (Zwicky, 1933), _did_ postulate the existence of dark matter, precisely because he combined the what he saw through the telescope (light), with his understanding of physics (gravity and mass), and was able to infer that there must be matter that _cannot_ be seen with a telescope.

It's always possible (is in fact likely), that we have many (metaphorical) people who peer through (metaphorical) telescopes, but lack a (metaphorical) theory of gravity, preventing them from even considering the existence of (metaphorical) dark matter.

Post reply on HN