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

851–860 of 1001 posts

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#851

Post by jcattle »

derangedHorse wrote: post #820
cbm-vic-20 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. This paragraph shows something that most people really don't understand about AI. > 98. It is appropriate to preface this discussion with two considerations. First, any statement regarding AI risks becoming quickly outdated, given the remarkable pace at which these systems are developing. Second, all of us, including those who design them, possess only a limited understanding of their actual functioning. Inde…

> such as the internal representations and computational processes of these systems We know the representation (weights) and the computational processes, but we don't know the "why" behind the convergence of the model to a particular structure within that framework

I think a more higher level "internal representation" was meant. The internal representation of knowledge.

Sure we know that a model stores weights. We also know that a neuron transmits electric pulses. That doesn't mean that we know how knowledge is represented in our brain.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#852

Post by ruicraveiro »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #650

I'm curious if there has ever been an instance where people have been able to "tame" a technology to consider a broader, societal good, or if we've always just been at the whims of how any particular tech naturally concentrates or dissipates power. For example, if you look at the boom of the middle classes in the mid 20th century, this appears to me largely a consequence of the fact that industrial technology at the…

I like the expressionn "if you look at the boom of the middle classes in the mid 20th century", when incidentally it was precisely during that period that the marginal tax rate in the US was something between 94% and 70%. It might seem unrelated, but the main question is related to who benefits the most from tech, just a few or everyone?

"renewable and battery tech is just getting to be the economic best option". This also didn't happen in a vacuum. The place where they are evolving the most is in China, where government policies have been a huge incentive, with huge government investments made in the sector.

In my own country, Portugal, the adoption of renewal energy, was largely the result of government policies that kicked off the market. Now, it seems to have become self-sustaining in the sense that the market is now carrying on regardless of any incentives. I suspect that we might be reaching a point of no-return, if we haven't reached it already. We're still very far away from becoming energy independent, but we're much better than a couple of decades ago.

Moreover, the internet itself didn't just happen because the market led to its creation. It was a result of the cold war. The IP protocol was born in DARPA.

Still, the previous examples I gave were about the government (which is a form of us "as a collective society") spawning new tech or its adoption. Going in the reverse direction, here are examples where it required collective society to "tame" a technology:

- CFCs: It required an international agreement for us to tame the issue with ozone layer destroying chemicals, a huge problem in the 80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

- DDT: This was an incredibly efficient tech (pesticidies), but came with big externalities (highly toxic to people and nature), so a convention was required to tame it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Convention_on_Persis...

- Nuclear weapons: Eventually the most dangerous tech ever invented by mankind. Maybe the reason we're still here is because of the numerous treaties we've been making to curb them. The SALT agreements, the START agreements, and so on.

- TV, Radio and the printing press: All of these are technologies, which we tend to see as forces for good (well, I at least still do), but also with incredible potential for destruction - radio was used by the guys running Germany in the 30s. It required very careful rule making to strike a balance (and the balance varies a lot from democracy to democracy) between freedom of speech and the misuse of this tech for unethical purposes like defamation, intentional misinformation and so on.

- Car Safety: While seat belts were the invention of the market, governments have been regulating cars to make them safer, not only for occupants, but for pedestrians.

The list just goes on and on.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#853

Post by iNic »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #650

I'm curious if there has ever been an instance where people have been able to "tame" a technology to consider a broader, societal good, or if we've always just been at the whims of how any particular tech naturally concentrates or dissipates power. For example, if you look at the boom of the middle classes in the mid 20th century, this appears to me largely a consequence of the fact that industrial technology at the…

- Human Cloning - Human DNA editing (though we'll have to see) - CFCs - Various agrochemical products - Geneva convention (mostly) - Radio, television & newspaper all had much stricter rules around what could be said on them

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#854

Post by tim333 »

magic_hamster wrote: post #407
tim333 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism tends to benefit most people, like capitalist enterprise makes food, clothing, cars and the like and most get some benefit. I'm not convinced by the on our expense bit on the whole. It can have glitches sometimes of course.

Arguably, all the industries that you mentioned (clothing, food, automotive) have the same symptoms, doing everything possible to increase growth even (and often) at the expense of shipping worse products. At least, this has been my experience with clothing, electronics, appliances, and honestly almost everything. It's very hard today to find good long lasting products. A couple of decades ago you could expect your p…

I guess some of that is consumer preferences? Like people like Temu?

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#855

Post by ruicraveiro »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #650

I'm curious if there has ever been an instance where people have been able to "tame" a technology to consider a broader, societal good, or if we've always just been at the whims of how any particular tech naturally concentrates or dissipates power. For example, if you look at the boom of the middle classes in the mid 20th century, this appears to me largely a consequence of the fact that industrial technology at the…

Adding to my previous answer, here's a reading suggestion: Hot, Flat and Crowded, by Thomas Friedman. The book was written almost 2 decades ago and it has aged really well.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#856

Post by simonebrunozzi »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #650

I'm curious if there has ever been an instance where people have been able to "tame" a technology to consider a broader, societal good, or if we've always just been at the whims of how any particular tech naturally concentrates or dissipates power. For example, if you look at the boom of the middle classes in the mid 20th century, this appears to me largely a consequence of the fact that industrial technology at the…

> but he correctly realized that it would ultimately be the most profitable to him if he could build legions of cars and had a large customer base that could afford them

I think that this is a common misconception. I can't find the reference, but I remember reading that this might have been a "marketing" or PR spin, rather than reality - which was, simply, that he needed to pay well to keep talented workers or take them from other industries.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#857

Post by lobocinza »

chickensong wrote: post #609
lobocinza wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't believe. You believe that you don't believe. > But religion is different: if you believe that homosexuality is wrong due to your religion, there is nothing i can argue about. Your priest told you this based on some book or story from 2000 years ago and you do not question this. This isn't the Church doctrine. The Church doesn't target homosexuals or even homosexuality in particular but ALL sexual practices…

> Christians don't believe in this because a book written thousands of years ago say so but because deep in their souls it makes sense and is the truth for them. Sorry mate, but that's just cultural indoctrination that made them feel that way, and the culture is intimately tied to the book.

Progressive narratives and ideas are much more prevalent in modern society than religious ones. It would be easier to argue that cultural indoctrination makes progressists feel that way.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#858

Post by lukan »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #814
lukan wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh my, I assume you are male? Just declaring the discrimination to be "not that important" is quite typical then (as it does not affect you) and well, my catholic aunt would disagree, but she is not important. May I ask, what the principal role of women is in catholocism, besides being good mothers?

Trying to argue against someone's point by bringing their identity into it is not a good argument. It is a cheap rhetorical trick that only obscures the truth, not helps to bring it out.

And .. what is this comment if not a rhetorical trick to obscure the truth, that the catholic church is in fact deeply entrenched in gender discrimination?

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#859

Post by airspresso »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #689
Animats wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electricity. Eventually, it was everywhere, used by everybody, and a background to society. Electric utilities did not end up ruling the world.

Thanks! This answer was actually the one that I found most helpful. I feel like some of the other responses to my comment were talking about how we regulate lots of other tech, but that wasn't really my point - I understand that we regulate tech, but only when it becomes "economically convenient". But your last sentence "Electric utilities did not end up ruling the world" really struck me. It's a great point, and TBH…

> Time for me to go research the early history of electrification.

The Stepchange podcast has an amazing episode on The Grid [1], walking us through the arc of history of how it became the utility it is today.

[1]: https://www.stepchange.show/grid

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#860

Post by bandrami »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #856
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #650

I'm curious if there has ever been an instance where people have been able to "tame" a technology to consider a broader, societal good, or if we've always just been at the whims of how any particular tech naturally concentrates or dissipates power. For example, if you look at the boom of the middle classes in the mid 20th century, this appears to me largely a consequence of the fact that industrial technology at the…

> but he correctly realized that it would ultimately be the most profitable to him if he could build legions of cars and had a large customer base that could afford them I think that this is a common misconception. I can't find the reference, but I remember reading that this might have been a "marketing" or PR spin, rather than reality - which was, simply, that he needed to pay well to keep talented workers or take t…

Also the "five dollar day" was kind of a marketing gimmick too. Your daily pay was still $2.50, but if you stayed two years, went to church on Sundays, tithed, didn't go to bars, didn't go to union meetings, kept your house clean, and didn't send remittances overseas (and he had people checking on all of these things), you got the rest as a bonus in the form of savings bonds.
Post reply on HN