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

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#631

Post by peanut-walrus »

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…

It's a feedback loop between governance, social structures and individuals. But out of those, only individuals are the ones with free will who are able to "break" the loop and direct society along a different path. It's not just building "big things" that changes us, it's every small individual decision about what you choose to spend your labor on. No revolution would succeed without people willing to rebel and no dictator could dictate without people willing to follow them.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#632

Post by jimbokun »

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.…

We need to find an organization to which software engineers can report corporations abusing these principles, that can then take legal action or at least disclose those practices to the general public.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#633

Post by ascorbic »

dbalatero wrote: post #356
tom2026hn wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worry that companies like Anthropic, which are moving toward RSI, may prioritize speed over the timely identification of irreversible risks.

Did you mean AGI? I'd think whatever else they are doing, LLMs are reducing RSI...

Recursive self-improvement

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#634

Post by bombcar »

BloondAndDoom wrote: post #519
jdw64 wrote: post #248

>“technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it,” If critical decisions affecting human life—such as hiring, lending, crime prediction, and welfare—are processed in an opaque black box, people will lose their fundamental right to explain their context or appeal against the machine's algorithmic verdicts

I feel much much smaller version of it already happened. Many many customer facing processes in companies (from customer support to lost & found departments) almost all automated to a point if you are outside of the norm you are screwed. Time you are going to spent is higher than the value you are going to get most of the time. For the very same reason these companies are very anti-diversity. Because everything desig…

For many companies, even those breathlessly professing DEI, it boils down to “you can be any color you want as long as you operate exactly as our computers and processes expect you to. Any deviation will be harshly dealt with.”

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#635

Post by dubcanada »

jedberg wrote: post #608
treis wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever successfully appealed a failed HR screen? IME the reality of the modern world that there's little genuine appeal or reconsideration anymore. There is some sort of process but it's Byzantine and if we're talking the government, expensive. I guess everyone has had different lives but between humans and algorithms I take the algorithm every time.

What I'm saying is that pre-AI, at least a human would skim it, and maybe see something that caught their eye that wasn't on the keywords list. Or if it were an internal referral that used to guarantee at least a call with a recruiter or HM.

I don't think humans would skim stuff... Frankly I've always used a tool that preskimmed resumes. Even before AI. You can't expect a HR person getting 10k resumes a day to skim everyone or even look at 10% of them. Even 20+ years ago 80% of resumes went right into the trash bin before I even opening it.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#636

Post by jimbokun »

mentalgear wrote: post #431
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I think not just (computer) scientists but the general population thinks to serve the common good makes sense, not last because we understand it's eventually for our own good. It is however just that very small minority of the population with highly psychopathic/narcissistic traits - those that, in pre-historic times, would have been kicked out swiftly of hunter & gatherer / small village communities because of their…

You are referencing prehistoric times because there is no evidence to confirm or refute your claims.

Most likely the same kind of Machiavellian political maneuvering was effective in those groups as well.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#637

Post by dubcanada »

mmplxx wrote: post #386
jdw64 wrote: post #248

>“technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it,” If critical decisions affecting human life—such as hiring, lending, crime prediction, and welfare—are processed in an opaque black box, people will lose their fundamental right to explain their context or appeal against the machine's algorithmic verdicts

Substitute technology for religion and he's probably one of the least authorized persons to question this.

AI has nothing to do with technology, the questions are 100% psychological not technological. It's fundamental shifts in deep degrees of how humans have worked for centuries. Most of which the church has been the centre of.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#638

Post by treis »

jedberg wrote: post #608
treis wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever successfully appealed a failed HR screen? IME the reality of the modern world that there's little genuine appeal or reconsideration anymore. There is some sort of process but it's Byzantine and if we're talking the government, expensive. I guess everyone has had different lives but between humans and algorithms I take the algorithm every time.

What I'm saying is that pre-AI, at least a human would skim it, and maybe see something that caught their eye that wasn't on the keywords list. Or if it were an internal referral that used to guarantee at least a call with a recruiter or HM.

I'd still trust ChatGPT over the median recruiter.

And ChatGPT has the benefit of being able to do 10-100x as many screens as with a human. Even if it's grossly wrong half the time I'm ahead on volume.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#639

Post by LastTrain »

redfloatplane wrote: post #2

> As Pope Francis warned, we must realistically ask ourselves who holds this power today and how they use it: “It must also be recognized that nuclear energy, biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our own DNA, and many other abilities which we have acquired… have given those with the knowledge, and especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance over the whole of humanity and the…

> (and perhaps as AI has allowed me to spend more time thinking and less time doing)

This was an almost sickening sentence to read on so many levels.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#640

Post by riccardomc »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #597
jdw64 wrote: post #248

>“technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it,” If critical decisions affecting human life—such as hiring, lending, crime prediction, and welfare—are processed in an opaque black box, people will lose their fundamental right to explain their context or appeal against the machine's algorithmic verdicts

But the technology that outputs decisions can also output reasoning that justifies such decisions. When a judge or a jury outputs a decision THEY are also a black box and you can only evaluate said decisions on reasoning THEY also output. I’m not taking a side here. I’m just saying this reasoning is flawed.

No, your reasoning is flawed: a judge or a jury is voted, appointed or selected through a process which is the result of centuries civilization, norms and legislation. As corrupt it might be in some cases, it is expression of mankind.

They are not a black box, they passed rigourous examinations and they stick to principles enshrined in constitutions and laws.

Technology, or better, the productization of it, is instead the result of the interest of very few powerful individuals or corporations and aggressive product market fit iterations.

The bullish discourse around the PMF loop says that this is good because it is better at solving people's problems. But after a few decades it is obvious there's a gigantic risk the process actually exploits people's problems instead of actually solving them.

Post reply on HN