Live data from Hacker News

Magnifica Humanitas

vatican.va

861–870 of 1001 posts

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#861

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…

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

Fossil Fuel companies did end up ruling the world for a century (ongoing).

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#862
post #834
post #390

Yes it's a very dangerous concentration of power. But I don't believe strong words or proposing regulation by just another elite would change much. Please join/help open source groups doing small + local or distributed models. There's a lot to do. Support truly open source companies. Let's walk the walk.

I'm not even sure where to start, but I have to ask- are there any groups / projects that are trying to make and train an OSS model federated across members' machines?

Several. https://pluralis.ai/ https://nousresearch.com/ https://allenai.org/ and a few more I can't remember right now.

I'm personally on the other end: local small models working well for specific tasks (i.e. "agentic")

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#863
post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has weird “look what you made me do” undernotes. A Christian can live by their values without forcing them on others. As anyone can from any religion or not religious at all.

Sure, but it is very easy to say when you are currently not in the trenches. It has undernotes of being disconnected from reality so to speak.

We are all in the trenches of the war you refer to. For those of us who engage with a spirit of for the greater good, the side you are rooting for is as dangerous and malevolent as the side you supposedly plan to protect yourself from.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#864

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…

No i do not believe. You don't change it just because you say that i believe in not believing. There is also a clear definition for it: "Believing is the mental act of accepting something as true, real, or correct, often without requiring absolute, physical proof." I'm absolutly fine saying that I don't know something. I do not know a god exist, or multiply etc. But honestly that question comes down to me more like "…

So you don't believe in black holes or dark matter? Because neither of them, among many other things, have absolute physical proof. How do you even cross a street or go outside if you don't believe and can't have absolute physical proof that you will not be harmed.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#865

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was not my point at all. Maybe I could explained better, but main criticism I have is: you can bundle together objectives ( which are inherently good ) and create an utopia. But those cannot always be achievable. Everything in life in trade-offs. Simple example is speed/quality/cost. I can tell easily: - services should be cheap - services should be fast - services should be high quality Now I created an utopia.…

Your idea and its (perhaps unsatisfying to you) resolution can be summed up easily by John Quincy Adams’ quote: “Duty is ours. Results are God's”

Yeah but my point is sometimes suboptimal parts can give better overall results. ( Considering also bad actors )

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#866
post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of terrifying that "we may" turn the tide on CO2 is an acceptable level of optimism. If we don't, we all die. it isn't something to leave up to mindless market mechanics.

> If we don't, we all die. No, we don't. Even in the worse case scenarios, a runaway greenhouse effect a la Venus was never remotely part of the scientific consensus. Heck, the IPCC just retired the worst case RCP 8.5 scenario saying it is now scientifically implausible. Now a big reason it was deemed implausible is the transition to renewable energy is happening. But even if RCP 8.5 did happen, it was not a humanity…

In what scenario does humanity not achieve net neutral emissions and survive?

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#867

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although your comment is acid, I think this bears truth > Maybe Leo should focus on finding a way to disconnect western society from their current cult-of-progress delusions? It's too weak of a rhetoric from the highest representative of the Catholic church to call for regulations, but the alternative is to call for a transition from capitalism itself. Nothing that grows inside economic doctrines that only value cons…

Are you serious? Have you seen how much environmental damage the old Soviet Union has done? Do you think it's that simple: "capitalism bad"...? Proper systemic improvements are possible, and having markets is a good way to allocate resources and efforts.

You call for nuance but then jumps to the assumption that a transition from imperialist capitalism necessarily means a return to soviet communism?

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#868

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attacking the cult of progress is a major through-line: > 12: Today, the human desire for fullness of life is at risk of being misled by deceitful goals, such as the prospect of a technology that promises to free us from all weakness, and models of wellbeing that leave behind entire populations. All too often, we place our hope in unlimited 'upgrades,' in forms of progress that exacerbate inequalities, and in immedia…

I think you misunderstood the message there. These pompous paragraphs are not attacks on the cult of progress, at all. I read the extremely unexamined blank: """technological progress — valuable in itself —""" Read again: they are extremely weak sauce, with the implicit message that all that wanting more is oh yes so morally wrong... Morally. But in Leo's wordage I find zero pragmatism, zero hard facts, zero El Niño,…

Haha also this gem: "when efficiency becomes the ultimate measure of value"...

...as if this is what's going on right now! Whose efficiency? For what goals?

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

the arc of history

The history of arcs?

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#870

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…

> In a similar vein, it looks like we may eventually (at least at some point) turn the tide on CO2 emissions, but not because anyone (at large) really sacrificed anything, or did something that was mildly painful now in the hopes for a better future, but instead because renewable and battery tech is just getting to be the economic best option. One should not forget the reason that these technologies have become so ch…

Check out Charles C. Man's "The Wizard and the Prophet". In this book, a wizard is someone who approaches a problem with technological innovation. A prophet is someone who approaches it with societal transformation, usually involving sacrifice by the masses.

e.g. Malthus (and others) observed that human populations were growing exponentially, but crop-land is a finite resource. Humanity seemed doomed to starvation in just a few short generations. As a prophet, Malthus tried to get people to stop having so many children. Other prophets repeated this effort multiple times, always warning of an apocalypse that was just a few decades away. Meanwhile, wizards tried spreading bat guano on fields and started breeding new varieties of wheat, rice, etc.. The result has been a continual stream of innovation that has led to the world's food supply growing faster than its population. Yet, the warning of the prophets remains sound. There's an ultimate limit.

Humans seem hardwired to both be and love prophets while totally failing to follow their advice. Prophets have been warning us to reduce our energy use, eat local, bicycle everywhere, etc.. Some of us do some of these things some of the time, but not nearly enough to make a real difference. Wizards have gotten solar and wind to the point where they're economically viable enough to supplant coal and internal combustion engines, and that is making a huge difference.

Prophets are valuable for identifying problems, such as AI, but their demands for abstinence and self-sacrifice usually don't gain much traction. It's when the wizards show up that things usually start cooking.

Prophets have identified AI as a problem and are calling for limits, but history has shown that not nearly enough people are likely to listen. How might a wizard approach the problem in a way that lets people keep doing their thing without the world ending? The pace of AI development is so quick that we also have to ask, is there enough time for the wizards to do their thing?

---------------

EDIT: On the bright side, while the rapidity of the AI revolution seems utterly unprecedented, so too is the concentration of power in those who control it. The prophets really only need to convince or coerce a handful of billionaires in order to buy the world's wizards years or decades.

Post reply on HN