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

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#941

Post by [deleted] »

daveguy wrote: post #895
boxed wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> DEI was only ever meant to reflect the diversity of society in our institutions That sounds reasonable, but it's not really true. It was a tool to DISTORT the diversity of society by making minority groups front and center to a disproportionate degree. The more minority the better. This isn't reflecting the diversity of society, that's flipping it over. I'm not saying the intentions weren't good. They were. But goo…

Why wouldn't there be a period when more diverse groups are accepted at a higher than societally present amount until representation is more balanced? Because little Johnny feels entitled to get preferetial treatment when the system works for him, but insists everything be absolutely fair when he's not the recipient? After a while you have to wise up. Quotas aren't the best way, but they are certainly the most straig…

[deleted]

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#945

Post by jvanderbot »

ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #936
jvanderbot wrote: post #925

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to read one comment above mine to find a statement about how they may someday become more than simple tools. Let me quote it: > The pope treats them exclusively as lifeless tools, and while I think that this is most likely true for current LLMs, we should think more about the limit of what is going to happen in the next 20 years than being overly focused on the current capability level. To me it seems rather…

I react to your ethical position and logic. Saying that it's OK to enslave and mistreat some living thing because we enslave and mistreat others (animals, in the past humans). For sure mistreatment of animals is a BIG issue and the main acceptable justification is human survival, because they're threats or food. Applying this logic to something that is not threat and not food is flat out wrong. > My statement is that…

I reject your axiomatic assertion that AI is a living thing, and therefore qualifies for any comparison to animals (an assertion I was rejecting all along).

I think we're only talking because you think that I believe AI is a living thing and choose to advocate for mistreating it. Or, perhaps you are arguing because you think I want people to be cruel to animals. Also not true.

I'll try again. If you compare the conditions that animals are raised in, they are horrific, agreed, and I love many animals, and yet we as humans mostly accept animal's plight in the world at our hands.

I'm saying, I would accept those as the best conditions for an AI, just like I don't heat my toolshed to keep my rake warm in the winter, because it is my property and I care nothing for my rake's comfort, and my neighbor has no right to claim that I should care better for my rake (or car, or desk, or fridge).

> But we are morally obligated to do our best to find out if it's more than a tool.

Ah, another disagreement: No, we are not. You may feel that way, and do your best to discover the inner consciousness of anything you like, but we are under no obligation to entertain each object as though it were conscious unless some legal rights have been established for it. We may choose to because we are good people here and there (opt-in morals), but in the end I would drown, by hand, any animal in the world in front of its owner and parents to save a child. That hierarchy sets children above every other animal because of their basic humanity. I would probably destroy most tools to save an animal. And I would probably delete (or reset) an AI before I would destroy any material thing. That's the real hierarchy.

You and I are having an interesting discussion, but we are polluting this forum by going off topic and using very strong assertions with each other. I would be happy to continue this by email, which is available via my profile.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#946

Post by nathanh4903 »

severine wrote: post #885
nathanh4903 wrote: post #810

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Christian theology/philosophy, humanity is generally not defined by our intelligence, consciousness, or the ability to act a certain way. Most theologians through out history and different theological traditions all root human value in the concept of imago dei (that humans are divine images of God, and which God has became one, thus further bringing humans into union with God). Thus, machines becoming smarter or m…

Appreciate the answer, but then I have some questions: So, according to that theory, god could substantiate again, this time into an "imago dei computer", giving the computer "machinity"? A computer that is god, makes divine stuff and is, for example, at one point unplugged, but comes online miraculously three days after, etc? That would be Jesus-like, but we could posit an Eve/Adam-like computer, would that be imago…

Not facetious at all, its an interesting question I never thought about.

In principle I can't think of anything preventing God from making another specie (or thing) also bearing the image of God. Perhaps God has did this already.

I think perhaps God can also become other things. While the idea that God incarnating as a GPU die sound really weird, I also can't think of anything making this impossible. However, my post was claiming that human's special status (not necessarily uniqueness) derives from the imago dei, not intelligence. Thus, I don't think God has any special reason to become a computer just because they have become really smart. God didn't become a human because we are intelligent, so if God is going to incarnate again I don't see any reason to be a computer as opposed to anything else.

And you're right that Christianity does make some weird claims. A theology based on the incarnation has to be weird, but to christians thats probably more of a feature than a bug. Afterall, observing a miracle is weird. However, the claims of Christianity is also very specific. Thus, it leaves a lot of possibilities open.

I did a bit of research and found this interesting declaration from an ecumenical council basically claiming God has not and will not incarnate a second time as some non-human thing:

> If anyone shall say that Christ, of whom it is said that he appeared in the form of God, and that he was united before all time with God the Word, and humbled himself in these last days even to humanity, had (according to their expression) pity upon the various falls which had appeared in the spirits united in the same unity (of which he himself is part), and that to restore them he passed through various classes, had different bodies and different names, became all to all, an Angel among Angels, a Power among Powers, has clothed himself in the different classes of reasonable beings with a form corresponding to that class, and finally has taken flesh and blood like ours and has become man for men; [if anyone says all this] and does not profess that God the Word humbled himself and became man: let him be anathema. [1]

I think this is binding to Catholic and Eastern Orthodox believers. However, I'm not familiar with the context of this ecumencial council, and I assume this declaration is probably not pushing back against the possibility of silicon Jesus or alien Jesus, since its targeting extreme Origenism (a group of non-orthodox Christians )

[1] https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#947

Post by lobocinza »

psychoslave wrote: post #850
lobocinza wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the examples you gave caused much more tragedy than the system they meant to replace.

What actual system would you take as worth being pursued?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_(Catholicism)

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#948

Post by irdc »

svieira wrote: post #939
irdc wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, another source then: https://www.vox.com/2015/2/20/8078979/pope-francis-trans-rig... I just cannot reconcile the idea of personhood being valuable with reducing humans to mere biology.

Humans are not "reduced" to biology. Their biology is presumed to "reveal" something about their personhood. And no matter how they feel about their hair, their hips, their eyes, etc. they ought to receive them as a gift from God and enter into a dialog with Him about how they ought to make use of the gifts He has given them.

However, don't you feel as though biology thereby becomes an impediment to loving the whole person?

Edit: I'm sorry, I'm being a little vague here, so let me clarify: biology is what decides our appearance, and our appearance then influences how we interact with people. If ones appearance contradicts ones inner sense of personhood, how can that person ever truly connect with other people? And if they cannot connect, then how can they love and be loved (which if I remember correctly is one of the two major commandments in your religion)?

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#949

Post by Manuel_D »

daveguy wrote: post #895
boxed wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> DEI was only ever meant to reflect the diversity of society in our institutions That sounds reasonable, but it's not really true. It was a tool to DISTORT the diversity of society by making minority groups front and center to a disproportionate degree. The more minority the better. This isn't reflecting the diversity of society, that's flipping it over. I'm not saying the intentions weren't good. They were. But goo…

Why wouldn't there be a period when more diverse groups are accepted at a higher than societally present amount until representation is more balanced? Because little Johnny feels entitled to get preferetial treatment when the system works for him, but insists everything be absolutely fair when he's not the recipient? After a while you have to wise up. Quotas aren't the best way, but they are certainly the most straig…

What you're describing is a straightforward violation of civil rights laws (assuming you're talking about the United States). Like it or not, "little Johnny" is just as protected from discrimination as these "more diverse groups".

But I'll give you credit for your candor. Few DEI advocates are as honest as you about the movement's discriminatory nature.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#950

Post by [deleted] »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #345
ctoth wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The strange part is how moral responsibility somehow always lands on the builders... the people with the least leverage... while the funders get to ask the ethical questions. Weird!

No, we don't have to take the funders' money; that's what having professional standards means. Nobody would excuse a doctor performing unsafe procedures because they "needed the money". Engineers were jailed for the Volkswagen emissions tampering scandal and nobody would excuse them for needing to take funders' money.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN