501–510 of 513 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Staying under the Earth's carrying capacity isn't some conspiracy, it's basic responsible behavior for surviving as a species. If your income is $700 a week, spending $900 a week isn't sustainable. What does "TRVKE" mean?
Those who know
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It often feels to me that HN's view of Buddhism is "whatever bits of philosophy I happen to agree with". It's true that throughout history, there have been enough different expressions of Buddhism, practiced by at least a few people, that it's possible to say a lot of things 'are Buddhism', but it feels dishonest to me to rely on that in comparative analysis with a much more doctrinally stable religion. The differenc…
> It's true that throughout history, there have been enough different expressions of Buddhism, practiced by at least a few people, that it's possible to say a lot of things 'are Buddhism', Then argue for the opposite. That a Buddhist can believe in the Abrahamic God.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's true that throughout history, there have been enough different expressions of Buddhism, practiced by at least a few people, that it's possible to say a lot of things 'are Buddhism', Then argue for the opposite. That a Buddhist can believe in the Abrahamic God.
They can. Buddhism doesn't deny gods existing. They just say they are subject to Dharma, same as everything.
> This functional perspective is exemplified by the “Turing Test,” which considers a machine “intelligent” if a person cannot distinguish its behavior from that of a human.[11] However, in this context, the term “behavior” refers only to the performance of specific intellectual tasks; it does not account for the full breadth of human experience, which includes abstraction, emotions, creativity, and the aesthetic, moral, and religious sensibilities.
This is a strange distinction to make that fundamentally misunderstands the Turing Test. "Behavior" means anything that can be objectively measured. You can (and should) absolutely ask the test subject anything you like about emotions, creativity, aesthetics, morality, and religion. It is common in written examples of the Turing Test to depict asking the subject to do things like write a poem.
> Nor does it encompass the full range of expressions characteristic of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the “intelligence” of a system is evaluated methodologically, but also reductively, based on its ability to produce appropriate responses—in this case, those associated with the human intellect—regardless of how those responses are generated.
Again - how else can you evaluate anything? I evaluate my fellow humans by their responses, too - I have no idea how they generate them. Indeed, if you take into account the "how", you don't even have a test, do you? You merely have a policy, a belief that privileges one mechanism over another.
I am afraid that any analysis of AI by the Vatican is going to be corrupted by motivated reasoning. Humans are God's creations, and AI is Man's creation, and therefore Humans are Just Better and that's all there is to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> the answer to which is an emphatic, "No." Which is why Protestantism exists in the first place. Early Church scholarship makes it impossible to maintain the Protestant contention that the teachings have changed in their essence, obviously vocabulary has changed. Some recommended reading on the topic that is a mix of popular and scholarly works: * The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin * Upon This Rock by Steve Ray * F…
I think you overestimate my interest in soil-testing when I'm removed enough from the scene to see the mountain for myself. I suppose it could be a mirage; that's the best you can hope for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By which definition is that not true?
One definition might be an ability of an entity to have desires and to self-reflect. There was a recent paper on Alignment a few months back. The researchers started with an LLM that had been trained to behave 'safely'. They informed it they were changing the RLHF criteria to have it behave unethically instead (ie: that they now were going to dock points, rather than award them, whenever it refused to comply with une…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> all 3 of the above examples maintain strict conditions that their respective holy books must not be translated into the local languages Congratulations, you're one of today's lucky 10,000! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glagolitic_script > The Glagolitic script (/ˌɡlæɡəˈlɪtɪk/ GLAG-ə-LIT-ik,[2] ⰳⰾⰰⰳⱁⰾⰻⱌⰰ, glagolitsa) is the oldest known Slavic alphabet. It is generally agreed that it was created in the 9th century f…
> The Catholic and Orthodox churches have _always_ striven to make the Scriptures available to the people in languages they could understand. The first effort of the Catholic Church to translate the bible happened during the papacy of Pope Pius XII, which began in _1939_. They didn't encourage it before that, but it took the Protestant Reformation and the Council of Trent (1545-1563) to decide that Bible translators…
I struggle to see how this is anything but a direct lie. Even ignoring that the Church's translation of the Vulgate itself (from the original Greek and Hebrew) took place in the 4th century, the first _Catholic French_ translation was published in 1550, and there was never a question of whether to persecute the authors. You might say, but that was because of the Reformation -- then consider the Alfonsine Bible, composed in 1280 under the supervision a Catholic King and the master of a Catholic holy order. Well before then there were partial translations too: the Wessex Gospels were translated in 990, and to quote Victoria Thompson "although the Church reserved Latin for the most sacred liturgical moments almost every other religious text was available in English by the eleventh century".
So the longest period you can get where the Church was not actively translating texts was c. 400 - c. 900, a period you probably know as the "Dark Ages" specifically thanks to the fact that literary sources of all kinds were scarce, in no small part because the resources to compose large texts simply weren't there. Especially when you consider that those who could read and write generally knew how to read and write Latin -- vernacular literacy only became important later, with the increase in the number of e.g. merchants and scribes -- such translations held little value during that period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much everything you said here doesn't align with history. And if anything, Catholics are more inclined to agree that the Bible is a product of human writing and translation because they don't agree with the Protestant doctrine of Sola scriptura. Also, Catholics consider the Orthodox church to be in communion with Rome - they don't consider it a different religion and aren't opposed to the Bible being translate…
There was a time during the Reformation when they were actively burning Bible translations and executing priests who were translating Bibles. And remind me which language church services in the Latin rite are conducted in to this day?
First of all, I do not know of many (any?) cases of people being executed for translating a Bible, despite that being a crime at certain points in time. Generally the given reason was for unrepentant heresy -- e.g. someone has pointed out elsewhere that what we know about Wycliffe's trial and inquisition essentially leaves out his translation entirely, focusing instead on the doctrines he espoused. You seem to have the apprehension that there were just dozens of people being thrown on the fires over this, but that's just really not the case. Translation was banned as a blanket measure to control the spread of known heretical translations (e.g. for the Oxford Synod, the Tyndale Bible), it was not a serious concern in and of itself.
> And remind me which language church services in the Latin rite are conducted in to this day?
Do you mean the Roman Rite? There is no such thing as a "Latin Rite". The distinction is important because the language most Roman Catholic services are conducted in is the vernacular one, and has been for 50+ years now. There are a handful of Latin masses (using the old Tridentine missal) still going on, but I think something like 98%+ are using the vernacular missal from Vatican II.
And honestly, even before then... the Latin parts of the Mass were largely prayers which did not change, so you tended to pick them up, especially given that there were parts where you were supposed to speak as well. It's not too hard to memorize what "Et cum spiritu tuo" means. The gospel readings and homilies were themselves in the vernacular, since of course they were longer and meant to communicate teachings to the populace. So I don't understand what your problem is -- fixed prayers being said in vernacular is somehow antithetical to good religion?
But regardless, if you want, today you can go and find a bajillion Catholic Churches doing English mass, or Spanish mass, or Chinese mass, or whatever language you're interested in.
I just want to appreciate how well written and thought out this was. I have spent countless hours reading over ethics on AI, especially from Big Tech sources, but this note is leaps beyond. I compare this to the disastrous letter that effectively knee-capped American AI all while proposing flimsy AI ethics within about 500 words ( https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experime... ). This should be anoth…
It is well thought out. The "AI Magna Carta" is a stretch, though. Some good insights: 60. Anthropomorphizing AI also poses specific challenges for the development of children, potentially encouraging them to develop patterns of interaction that treat human relationships in a transactional manner, as one would relate to a chatbot. Such habits could lead young people to see teachers as mere dispensers of information r…
In the US,
"guide and nurture their intellectual and moral growth"
is not always regarded as the best or even a desirable part of teaching.