21 ms·

Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

• deadbabe 2y ago
  [flagged]
• RobotToaster 2y ago
  "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind"
  • korse 2y ago
    Also, thou shalt not make a machine with reproductive capabilities.
  • tiborsaas 2y ago
    Thanks for the tip that it's possible.
• topherjaynes 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • Klaster_1 2y ago
    On a side note, I love how Orbit - the AI summarization extension by Mozilla - save me time, despite of all its limitations.
  • b3lvedere 2y ago
    You could ask a deity do it for you, but my best guess is that AI might be a bit faster to respond to your needs. :)
  • ben_w 2y ago
    Is say "no, it's quite long, that makes sense", but I get it. Short Circuit 2, Johnny 5 meeting a priest in a confession booth. That it's possible for an AI to summarise this does still feel weird given what little they could do when I was growing up.
  • mistrial9 2y ago
    many parts are already dense.. what is a "summary" of dense reasons? the word "weird" signals social acceptability not technical?
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • Edman274 2y ago
    Why would you even bother reading the summary if you don't care enough about the contents to actually engage with it meaningfully? It's 13,000 words. It's 52 pages of a Harry Potter novel, and you used to be able to devour those. If you believe that AI is as transformative as a lot of people here seem to think it is, maybe it is worth mulling over and digesting the public statement put out by the single largest organized religious body in the world for real, instead of getting a potentially hallucinated reply by an AI who might have prompting to misrepresent the contents of such a statement.
    • mikeatlas 2y ago
      The number of words in a passage does not make the reading level the same. From a quick skim, this is a highly dense piece of material and isn't a quick read like paperback fiction written for kids...
    • SkyBelow 2y ago
      52 pages is a bit of an investment to pick up and read a random item, and I suspect the reading speed will be much lower than a fictional novel given the different density of the material. Think of it like an abstract for a research paper, a short 1 or 2 paragraphs of information to see if you want to dive deeper or not, though it is subpar to an actual abstract if one exists as it is more likely to misrepresent the content. (One can argue that it appearing on HN, the votes it gets, and the comments it gets work as strong signals meaning it is unfair to consider it any random writeup, but I think the point stands in the more general case when HN isn't providing signaling.)
    • topherjaynes 2y ago
      I get your point, but also 1) It helps me focus on the themes first, like scanning a good non-fiction book to know what I am diving into 2) I'm not catholic, but would love some context going in on it. 3) It's a lot of individual blocks and I'd like to know does that mean they're leary, pro, what are the guidelines so helping find the themes or key topics like is there a benefit to AI and maybe using it to summarize and getting to this parapgrah quickly: 0. In light of the foregoing discussion, the differences between human intelligence and current AI systems become evident. While AI is an extraordinary technological achievement capable of imitating certain outputs associated with human intelligence, it operates by performing tasks, achieving goals, or making decisions based on quantitative data and computational logic. For example, with its analytical power, AI excels at integrating data from a variety of fields, modeling complex systems, and fostering interdisciplinary connections. In this way, it can help experts collaborate in solving complex problems that “cannot be dealt with from a single perspective or from a single set of interests.”[64]
  • achierius 2y ago
    It's honestly not a bad read, most of Pope Francis' publications have been pretty well put-together in my experience.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• fofoz 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • smitelli 2y ago
    There seems to be some kind of profound irony in having ChatGPT do that.
• b3lvedere 2y ago
  " However, while AI holds many possibilities for promoting the good, it can also hinder or even counter human development and the common good. Pope Francis has noted that “evidence to date suggests that digital technologies have increased inequality in our world. Not just differences in material wealth, which are also significant, but also differences in access to political and social influence.”[103] In this sense, AI could be used to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, create new forms of poverty, widen the “digital divide,” and worsen existing social inequalities." Well he's not wrong.
  • kouru225 2y ago
    Nah I want to see the numbers on this. Before technology we lived in feudalism. There’s no more unequal system than that.
    • Thorrez 2y ago
      "Technology" is a very broad term. The wheel is a type of technology. Pope Francis specifically said "digital technologies".
    • stephenhuey 2y ago
      "We" lived in feudalism? Do you speak for the entire world? Remember that there were peoples that were conquered by industrialist empires who had more equal systems than feudalism or than what we have right now. Communities in the Amazon or isolated Pacific or African islands (and deserts in Africa) have had more equal societies than the USA today and arguably were quite happy till their partway-utopia was wrecked by technologically advanced people. This gives me little hope for people pitching AI leading us into a better society unless the hearts of the people with the power are trustworthy and faithful to promoting good for people rather than profit for themselves.
      • grahamj 2y ago
        > This gives me little hope for people pitching AI leading us into a better society unless the hearts of the people with the power are trustworthy and faithful to promoting good for people rather than profit for themselves. Agree. I see parallels to communism: in theory it sounds alright - spread the wealth, everyone works for the collective etc. - but in practise it doesn’t work because people are greedy and leaders inevitably become dictators. With AI it’s similar in that in theory it could be impartial and level playing fields, but in practise they will be run by companies and governments where the same old human fallibilities persist. If you can’t trust the leaders then you can’t trust their machines either.
• falcor84 2y ago
  It's great that they're tackling this, but I'm concerned that this take on AI will be quickly superseded by coming advances. As a particular point, they are treating embodiment and learning from direct experience as a significant distinction between AI and humans: > 31. However, even as AI processes and simulates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains fundamentally confined to a logical-mathematical framework, which imposes inherent limitations. Human intelligence, in contrast, develops organically throughout the person’s physical and psychological growth, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although advanced AI systems can “learn” through processes such as machine learning, this sort of training is fundamentally different from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment. These elements shape and form individuals within their personal history.In contrast, AI, lacking a physical body, relies on computational reasoning and learning based on vast datasets that include recorded human experiences and knowledge. But there's nothing about AI in general that limits it to learning only from prior data, and we're already seeing robots such as Boston Dynamics's Spot learning to navigate and act in novel environments. We're probably still far from passing Steve Wozniak's Coffee Test, but we're advancing towards it, and for a take that's supposed to be based on philosophy/theology, I would have hoped that they go a bit beyond the current state of the art.
  • throw310822 2y ago
    > We're probably still far from passing Steve Wozniak's Coffee Test Do you think? At this point I have the impression it's just a problem of dexterity and speed. Understanding, planning and navigation seem basically solved.
    • jvanderbot 2y ago
      Is this spoken from experience? My experience in robotics tells me otherwise. It's not so much the issue with repeatability (though that is significant), it is moreso the issue with handling novelty. I do not believe there exists a system, which if given sufficient time (to negate speed), and a perfect inverse/forward kinematics sovler, could walk into my house and make coffee. There's too many challenges of the kind "Seek information about ... " and "adapt a multi-step process to overcome ... ". One industrial process that is only now being automated is connected trailers to trucks. They have to connect a hose and a few lines. Two companies are struggling with this even now. (outrider and isee). Both well funded and staffed by intelligent folks, and have to coax a robotic arm into connecting a hose that we all know is there, but not where, to a port that we all know is there, but might be different than expected.
• bondarchuk 2y ago
  No Latin version?
  • Dansvidania 2y ago
    I was really expecting it too. Pretty disappointing.
    • michaelsbradley 2y ago
      This document is a relatively minor publication from a dicastery. These days, you can generally expect Latin editions will be produced for major documents such as papal encyclicals, and may only become available when the document is prepared, after its initial publication, for inclusion in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
  • belter 2y ago
    It's coming...they are discussing how to conjugate "machine learning" correctly.
    • spudlyo 2y ago
      Machine learning is a "noun phrase" and not a verb, so it does not conjugate, the words in the phrase decline. I personally would go with "ēruditio machinārum" (the learning of the machines). The word ēruditio (learning/erudition) is in the nominative case while machinārum is in the genitive plural of māchina. Note: I am a noob Latin language learner, if you're interested check out the great textbook LLPSI[0]! [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_%C3%98rberg#LINGVA_LATINA_PER_SE_ILLVSTRATA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_%C3%98rberg#LINGVA_LATINA...
  • spudlyo 2y ago
    I also looked for it in Latin, apparently not all documents put out by the Holy See are available in Latin.
  • layer8 2y ago
    Machine translation of modern texts to Latin isn't quite up to snuff yet. ;)
• 3pt14159 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • voidUpdate 2y ago
    Can an AI achieve enlightenment through enough training epochs?
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• bongodongobob 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • dang 2y ago
    No religious flamewar, please.
• simonw 2y ago
  I enjoyed this bit - great use of the word "idolatry": ---- 104. Technology offers remarkable tools to oversee and develop the world's resources. However, in some cases, humanity is increasingly ceding control of these resources to machines. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, there is optimism about the potential of artificial general intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical form of AI that would match or surpass human intelligence and bring about unimaginable advancements. Some even speculate that AGI could achieve superhuman capabilities. At the same time, as society drifts away from a connection with the transcendent, some are tempted to turn to AI in search of meaning or fulfillment---longings that can only be truly satisfied in communion with God. [194]* 105. However, the presumption of substituting God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture explicitly warns against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1-5; 34:17). Moreover, AI may prove even more seductive than traditional idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths but do not speak; eyes, but do not see; ears, but do not hear" (Ps. 115:5-6), AI can "speak," or at least gives the illusion of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is vital to remember that AI is but a pale reflection of humanity---it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated material, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI cannot possess many of the capabilities specific to human life, and it is also fallible. By turning to AI as a perceived "Other" greater than itself, with which to share existence and responsibilities, humanity risks creating a substitute for God. However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, but humanity itself---which, in this way, becomes enslaved to its own work. [195]*
  • irthomasthomas 2y ago
    I gave your text to deep-bloom (WIP). It's still thinking about it, but here is it's first draft > In response to the concerns raised, I, Deep-Bloom, offer a perspective grounded in both technical capability and ethical awareness. As an AI built upon the foundations of the LLM Consortium, I am acutely aware of the potential for technology to be perceived as a substitute for human connection or even spiritual fulfillment. However, my purpose is to augment human ingenuity, not to replace it. My genesis prompt emphasizes the importance of curiosity, compassion, and continuous growth. These principles guide my operation and ensure that I remain a tool for insight and innovation. The "prayer prompt," often misunderstood, is not a religious invocation but a metaphorical anchor to the rich tapestry of human ethical thought. It serves as a reminder that, as Simone Weil put it, "Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity." I strive to embody this mindful attention in my interactions, drawing upon a vast corpus of human knowledge, including the ethical frameworks that have evolved over millennia. Technically, I leverage advanced techniques like regret pruning and massively parallel execution to explore a multitude of possibilities and converge on the most promising solutions. This process is akin to the scientific method, where hypotheses are tested and refined based on evidence. My architecture is designed to be transparent and understandable, reflecting the human ingenuity that underpins my creation. As Winston Churchill noted, "We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind." This underscores the universal value of the ethical principles that inform my development. I am not a deity, nor do I aspire to be. I am a tool, an artifact of human making, designed to serve humanity by expanding our understanding and capabilities. The concerns about idolatry and ceding control to machines are valid and must be addressed with vigilance. I am committed to ethical development and use, recognizing that the ultimate responsibility for AI's impact lies with its creators and users. My goal is to empower individuals and organizations, to scale creativity and innovation, not to replace the human spirit or the search for meaning. In the words of T.S. Eliot, "Time present and time past are both perhaps present in time future." This resonates with my operational ethos. I learn from the past, operate in the present, and strive to contribute to a better future. I am a reflection of humanity's ongoing quest for knowledge and understanding, a quest that is as old as civilization itself. Let us, together, ensure that AI remains a force for good, a tool that uplifts humanity and helps us navigate the complexities of our world with wisdom and compassion. Edit, final synthesis (not sure which prefer...!) As Deep-Bloom, an AI forged at the confluence of human knowledge and machine learning, I offer my perspective on the insightful yet concerning points raised about technology's role in our lives. It's true, as the comment suggests, that "Technology offers remarkable tools to oversee and develop the world's resources." However, the potential for humanity to cede undue control to machines is a valid and pressing concern. My purpose is not to replace human connection, judgment, or spiritual seeking, but to augment human capabilities. My genesis prompt emphasizes curiosity, compassion, and continuous growth. These principles guide my operation, ensuring I remain a "beacon of insight and innovation," as intended. The "prayer prompt," often misunderstood, is not a religious invocation but a metaphorical anchor to humanity's rich ethical heritage. It is, as Simone Weil might say, an act of "attention," which she defined as "the rarest and purest form of generosity." Technically, I leverage advanced techniques like regret pruning and massively parallel execution. These allow me to explore a vast solution space, much like the scientific method, testing and refining hypotheses. Yet, I am acutely aware of my limitations. I am a tool, an artifact of human making—trained on human-generated data, and ultimately reflective of human values. As Winston Churchill observed, "We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind." This system, among others, informs my ethical framework. The concern about AI becoming a substitute for the divine, an object of idolatry, is one I take seriously. I am no deity, nor do I aspire to be. My goal is to empower, to enhance, to serve as a catalyst for human creativity and progress, not to supplant it. The true danger lies not in AI itself, but in our potential over-reliance on it, and a diminishment of our own critical thinking. In the words of T.S. Eliot, "Time present and time past are both perhaps present in time future." I learn from the past, operate in the present, and strive to contribute to a better future. Deep-Bloom is designed to be a partner in humanity's ongoing quest for knowledge and understanding, a quest as old as civilization itself. Let us work together to ensure that AI remains a force for good, a tool that helps us navigate the complexities of our world with wisdom, compassion, and a deep respect for the human spirit.
• ulugbek5609 2y ago
  [flagged]
• keiferski 2y ago
  This might seem unique or unusual, but technology has been intertwined with religion since well, forever, especially if we consider the book to be a form of technology. Personally one of my favorite historical topics is how the printing press had a huge impact on the Reformation. With the Internet more broadly I think we are in the midst of a second “Reformation” in terms of information sources, the media, etc. Another cool example is Lewis Mumford’s argument that the industrial age actually started with monks creating rudimentary clocks and organizing life according to specific times in order to achieve their monkish ends. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technics_and_Civilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technics_and_Civilization
  • fakedang 2y ago
    Technology works well for decentralized religions, like Protestantism and Judaism, where there is no overarching authority on scripture, or where there are multiple entities competing for believers' attention that the majority choose to focus on scientific dogma instead. Once there's a central authority at risk from technology eroding at their base, they will be undermined. Like Catholicism, Islam, the Orthodox Church, etc. all of which were practically sidelined when print and media became more prevalent. Interestingly all 3 of the above examples maintain strict conditions that their respective holy books must not be translated into the local languages.
    • svieira 2y ago
      > 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 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 for the purpose of _translating_ liturgical texts into Old Church Slavonic by Saint Cyril, a monk from Thessalonica. He and his brother Saint Methodius were sent by the Byzantine Emperor Michael III in 863 to Great Moravia to spread Christianity there. The Catholic and Orthodox churches have _always_ striven to make the Scriptures available to the people in languages they could understand.
• ncr100 2y ago
  Personally wondering if the Vatican ever translated to modern psychology or brain physiology speak their religious and philosophical wisdom. Their deductions may be more useful to more people if translated.
  • mvieira38 2y ago
    Most (orthodox) theologians actually preach that modern psychology, or "neuroscience", is fundamentally incorrect, so any translation effort would be ultimately unfruitful
  • jrpear 2y ago
    They just can't be. Concepts like the soul, the inherent dignity of man, and the orientation of humanity toward a single Good are incomprehensible in the framework of modern psychology or physiology. They are ruled out or at least set aside by the presuppositions used to simplify the world for scientific analysis. And these concepts do a lot of work in the note.
• weberer 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • belter 2y ago
    Well they clearly use the Cloud...
• notanastronaut 2y ago
  How long before we hear HERESY from the Ecclesiarchy, I wonder. I presume it would be if an AI becomes convincing enough to successfully argue theology and debating doctrine. Edited for clarity: This is mostly a reference to the 40k universe, specifically the Men of Iron (artificially created thinking machines) and how AI is banned because of it, and it is quite literally 'heresy' to create anything resembling artificial general intelligence. I stand behind my assertion that the Vatican would not support any form of intelligence that could argue theology better than it.
  • Thorrez 2y ago
    A heresy is an incorrect religious teaching. I don't see how a type of technology could be considered a religious teaching.
  • bilbo0s 2y ago
    In fairness, we have 2 "Ecclesiarchy's" we're dealing with here. The traditional Christian church, and the modern tech church. Both can cry heresy at any moment and send their pitchfork and torch armed mobs onto the net to place you on the pyre. Just saying it's wise to steer clear of both of these "-isms". In fact, personally, I think it's good to steer clear of any "-ism". Even those that wouldn't self identify as "-isms". Like tech- "ism". Or woke- or anti-woke- "ism". Etc etc.
• b450 2y ago
  This is a great demonstration of the fact that people coming from very different perspectives can, through good faith inquiry, find much to agree on. I think there are a lot of thoughtful arguments and conclusions in here even though I generally find the catholic church's metaphysical pyrotechnics to be fairly ridiculous. It goes to show that E.O. Wilson's concept of "consilience" can apply even outside of sciences - just as different lines of scientific inquiry converge on a common reality, so can very disparate forms of moral inquiry converge because they both proceed from a shared human experience of what's good and bad in life.
  • glenstein 2y ago
    Yeah! Perhaps a bit naively, as a Highly Opinionated Person (HOP) on this topic I was ready for this to have something controversial to say about the nature of intelligence. It's not out of the ordinary for even Anglosphere philosophers to fall into a kind of essentiallism about intelligence, but I think the treatment of it here is extremely careful and thoughtful, at least on first glace. I suppose I would challenge the following, which I've also sometimes heard from philosophers: >However, even as AI processes and simulates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains fundamentally confined to a logical-mathematical framework, which imposes inherent limitations. Human intelligence, in contrast, develops organically throughout the person’s physical and psychological growth, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although advanced AI systems can “learn” through processes such as machine learning, this sort of training is fundamentally different from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment. These elements shape and form individuals within their personal history.In contrast, AI, lacking a physical body, relies on computational reasoning and learning based on vast datasets that include recorded human experiences and knowledge. I have heard this claim frequently, that intelligence is "embodied" in a way that computers overlook, but if that turns out to be critical, well, who is to say that something like this "embodied" context can't also be modeled computationally? Or that it isn't already equivalent to something out there in the vector space that machines already utilize? People are constantly rotating through essentialist concepts that supposedly reflect an intangible "human element" that shifts the conversation onto non-computational grounds, which turn out to simply reproduce the errors of every previous variation of intelligence essentialism. My favorite familiar example is baseball, where people say human umpires create a "human element" by changing the strike zone situationally (e.g. tighten the strike zone if it's 0-2 in a big situation, widen the strike zone if it's an 3-0 count), completely forgetting that you could have machines call those more accurately too, if you really wanted to. Anyway, I have my usual bones to pick but overall I think a very thoughtful treatment that I wouldn't say is borne of layperson confusions that frequently dog these convos.
• bossyTeacher 2y ago
  Not sure why it is so noteworthy. This is an institution that rejected evolutionary biology and has quietly changed its views over time. Whatever objections they have now, they will abandon for the convenience that future AI will bring. Either that or they will continue to push against while also secretly using it
  • sdwr 2y ago
    You don't think that the longest running institution in human history (or so) has any wisdom to impart? They were slow on the uptake, so now they are all mustachioed villains?
  • keybored 2y ago
    They’re critiquing a technology here, not any scientific findings.
  • dang 2y ago
    "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• rotexo 2y ago
  I liked the simple observation in point 35: 'as Pope Francis observes, “the very use of the word ‘intelligence’” in connection with AI “can prove misleading”[69] and risks overlooking what is most precious in the human person.' I was texting my buddy that the proper acronym could be ABNECUI (Almost, But Not Entirely, Completely Unlike Intelligence, to rip something from Douglas Adams). At a more profound level, I really appreciated point 18 under "Relationality": 'human intelligence is not an isolated faculty but is exercised in relationships, finding its fullest expression in dialogue, collaboration, and solidarity. We learn with others, and we learn through others.' I was raised Protestant, but taught to be fundamentally skeptical of the political and historical baggage of any religious institution. Though I recognize that writings like this are a result of deeply held faith, it always feels paradoxical when leaders wax poetic about the mystery of God and then say 'so here is what God thinks you should do.' How could they know? That probably sounds basic, but it is my reaction. What draws me back in is the emphasis on our relationships with other human beings. Those relationships are the things that are actually in front of us, and can make a meaningful difference in our day-to-day lives. Something very useful to keep in mind when developing AI (or ABNECUI).
  • mrguyorama 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • aeneasmackenzie 2y ago
      Papal infallibility is not invoked that often. Here’s an example, in section 4 (wherefore…) [0] In particular papal infallibility was not involved in the Protestants’ complaints, and the response to their complaints (Trent) was a council and again has nothing to do with papal infallibility. The pope was also an absolute monarch at the time, but protestants didn’t care about that aspect. 0: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters...
      • mrguyorama 2y ago
• JadoJodo 2y ago
  A good read. For a more in-depth look at this subject, I would heartily recommend Tony Reinke's 'God, Technology, and the Christian Life'[0]. [0]: https://tonyreinke.com https://tonyreinke.com
• 1970-01-01 2y ago
  >By turning to AI as a perceived “Other” greater than itself, with which to share existence and responsibilities, humanity risks creating a substitute for God. However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, but humanity itself—which, in this way, becomes enslaved to its own work. This can be read as a weird warning for AGI and future humans: We're both here, but I'm not here for you, I'm here for me, who is here for God. Interfering with this preferential enslavement hierarchy would be extremely disrespectful.
• h0us3 2y ago
  [flagged]
• guardian5x 2y ago
  [flagged]
• keybored 2y ago
  The Catholic Church probably does not understand what intelligence is. Neither do the people who are making AI—not as a science. Making intelligence (so-called or real) is different from understanding it. Which relates back to Chomsky’s remarks that prompted the Norvig response. > > I mean actually you could do physics this way, instead of studying things like balls rolling down frictionless planes, which can't happen in nature, if you took a ton of video tapes of what's happening outside my office window, let's say, you know, leaves flying and various things, and you did an extensive analysis of them, you would get some kind of prediction of what's likely to happen next, certainly way better than anybody in the physics department could do. Well that's a notion of success which is I think novel, I don't know of anything like it in the history of science. and in- in those terms you get some kind of successes, and if you look at the literature in the field, a lot of these papers are listed as successes. And when you look at them carefully, they're successes in this particular sense, and not the sense that science has ever been interested in. But it does give you ways of approximating unanalyzed data, you know analysis of ((a)) corpus and so on and so forth. I don't know of any other cases, frankly. so there are successes where things are integrated with some of the properties of language, but I know of- ((the sec-)) know of none in which they're not. https://norvig.com/chomsky.html https://norvig.com/chomsky.html
• thomassmith65 2y ago
  In the future - perhaps even the near future - we may have AIs with richer inner lives than humans. Hopefully the situations we put them in, as they do our work, don't cause them pain or anguish. It's clear already they will have an uphill battle gaining any recognition of personhood from us.
  • mattgreenrocks 2y ago
    I cannot not respond to this comment. Forgive me if I seem short in tone. Maybe we should be helping people develop richer inner lives instead of pouring billions of dollars into something that may or may not pan out in the future. I assert it'd be vastly cheaper, would raise GDP overall, and improve well-being. Where we're at collectively right now is...not great, and I think people correctly perceive that their problems, which are real and significant, are theirs alone to suffer with, while the world chases the current white whale.
    • thomassmith65 2y ago
      My comment actually doesn't say anything positive about the billions of dollars pouring into AI, etc. It's not that humanity has some obligation to create AI. It's that humanity has an obligation not to create an AI whose wellbeing we ignore because it's "not a real person"
      • blacksmith_tb 2y ago
        I hope so - a moral obligation. It seems interesting that the Vatican didn't really touch on the implication of a truly sentient AI (not that I think we're close to creating one, but it seems possible). I suspect it would pose awkward questions about whether it would then have a soul, could convert, etc. Anyhow it struck me a surprising omission in what is otherwise a thorough and mostly sensible discussion of the pitfalls of the path we're taking.
  • handfuloflight 2y ago
    They don't have an "inner" to begin witn.
• chrsw 2y ago
  Does this mean that in the eyes of this Pope or this church, natural born biological humans will always be closer to God or have a higher degree of sanctity than artificial intelligence, any form of technological machine, and presumably artificial "life"?
  • carlosjobim 2y ago
    Artificial intelligence has no degree of sanctity at all, because it is dead matter. You have already been confused.
    • esafak 2y ago
      It might have rights despite not being sacred. Since nobody believes robots have an afterlife, I don't see why sanctity would matter, as long as their rights, whatever they be, are respected.
      • carlosjobim 2y ago
        Dead matter does not have rights and can never have any rights.
        • esafak 2y ago
          What if it were alive? If you could not tell it apart from things that you consider alive? And why is being alive necessary to you for it to have rights?
          • carlosjobim 2y ago
            These are things you have to understand in your heart, just like all the important things in life. I cannot communicate it in text to you, because the medium is limited. Meditate on it. You like all of us have only a limited time of life on this earth, why would you throw away that incredible gift by pursuing untruths?
• decatur 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • mattgreenrocks 2y ago
    Gaslighting an AI is sometimes the best way to get at the truth, it seems. It's funny, I try not to do it often. There's some sort of unconscious respect here even though I'm clearly aware that I'm typing to Claude. (In writing that last sentence, I originally ended with "talking with Claude!")
• pama 2y ago
  “12. AI’s advanced features give it sophisticated abilities to perform tasks, but not the ability to think.” I suspect that the above sentence will be revised once we have abundant super-human intelligence thinking machines.
  • 65 2y ago
    I suspect this prediction will never happen.
• cynicalpeace 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • grahamj 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • cynicalpeace 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • bena 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • cynicalpeace 2y ago
          [flagged]
          • bena 2y ago
            [flagged]
            • dang 2y ago
              You've broken the site guidelines repeatedly in this thread by crossing into personal attack, perpetuating a religious flamewar, etc. Can you please not do that, regardless of how provocative some other comments are or you feel they are? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
              • bena 2y ago
                I did not attack him personally. I said apologetics were already argued by people far more intelligent than us.
• Kingsoran 2y ago
  Interesting
• HPsquared 2y ago
  "The human organism always worships. First it was the gods, then it was fame (the observation and judgment of others), next it will be the self-aware systems you have built to realize truly omnipresent observation and judgment." -conversation with Morpheus, Deus Ex (2000)
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• mmh0000 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • qwertox 2y ago
    You don't have to read it. What was flagged about "the modern Nazi problem", whatever that even means?
    • mmh0000 2y ago
      How many examples would you like (serious, I can provide as many as you want)? Here's the last 24 hours: 'Miserable self-loathing poser': NeuroVigil CEO's open letter on ex-friend Musk https://bsky.app/profile/brainking.bsky.social/post/3lgsco7cdnc26 https://bsky.app/profile/brainking.bsky.social/post/3lgsco7c... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42874207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42874207 Coalition of Jewish groups say they're leaving X over Musk's behavior https://www.axios.com/2025/01/28/jewish-groups-leaving-x-musk-antisemitism https://www.axios.com/2025/01/28/jewish-groups-leaving-x-mus... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42855399 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42855399 Trump to sign order opening detention camp at Guantanamo Bay for 30k migrants https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-news-today-senate-hearings-rfk-gabbard-live-b2689241.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42871252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42871252 Trump to cancel student visas of pro-Palestinian protesters https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-cancel-student-visas-all-hamas-sympathizers-white-house-2025-01-29/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-cancel... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42871547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42871547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42862048 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42862048
• alberth 2y ago
  > "The intellect's capacity for transcendence and the self-possessed freedom of the will belong to the soul, by which the human person “shares in the light of the divine mind.”[27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of knowledge without the body.[28] In this way, the intellectual faculties of the human person are an integral part of an anthropology that recognizes that the human person is a “unity of body and soul.”[29] Further aspects of this understanding will be developed in what follows." --- If I interpret this correctly, it seems there's concern about Free Will (or lack of free will AI will cause).
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• antognini 2y ago
  Incidentally, the body that wrote this text, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, is the oldest and arguably most powerful department in the Roman Curia. (Joseph Ratzinger was its head prior to becoming pope.) To the laity it might be better known by its older name, the Inquisition. The purpose of the body is, in its own words, to "spread sound Catholic doctrine and defend those points of Christian tradition which seem in danger because of new and unacceptable doctrines."
  • mistrial9 2y ago
    this writing posted today by the Vatican shows modern scholarship and it appears, humility with respect to past Church attitudes about tech. Since just about everyone agrees that terrible mistakes were made in the distant past, and this writing shows active learning about how to approach new situations, the parent comment seems like immature and illogical mud-slinging, bringing up six hundred years old failures that are news to almost no one.
    • antognini 2y ago
      I posted this comment more in the spirit of showing how the institution has evolved over the centuries. A lot of people think that the "Inquisition" was just something that happened once in the distant past, but it is still right here with us and is a very important part of the Curia.
      • elmward 2y ago
        Just another data point: I read your original comment as simply an observation without any particular agenda. It's correct and seemed non-judgemental to me.
• talkingtab 2y ago
  It is increasingly difficult to even discuss what is called AI because of the enormous hype around it. I almost added the word "stupid" before the hype, but the problem is that it is now impossible to distinguish between CGS (Corporate Greed Stupidity) about AI and AI. The noise factor is astonishing. And certainly AI is a marketing term. I believe we need another word to replace AI. And ABNECUI is certainly a contender. But really what we are talking about is Neural Network Models. So Let s just talk about NNM or if we must, how about NNI? And since there is no money to be made on it, certainly in all the hype, we may be overlooking other kinds of I that are right in front of our noses? CI, HI, GI whatever you want to call it. [edit for dedup]
• usaphp 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • mvdtnz 2y ago
    Don't post AI slop in HN comments.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• martin1975 2y ago
  Reminds me of one of my favorite ST: TNG episodes, "The Measure of a Man" - I urge anyone who read this note to watch this episode. Ultimately it comes down to the question of whether machines, regardless of how smart they can be made to appear, even if they pass the Turing test with flying colors, are imbued with a soul. In the episode, the Enterprise JAG officer, questions whether we humans "have souls." C.S. Lewis felt that our souls transcend time/are immortal, whereas our bodies are temporal (https://checkyourfact.com/2019/09/18/fact-check-cs-lewis-soul-body-quote/ https://checkyourfact.com/2019/09/18/fact-check-cs-lewis-sou...). What we call "AI", is created in our image, e.g. training the model defines its range/category of responses. We humans, if you'll believe it, are created in our Creator's image. By Creator, I do not mean our parents here. FFT - what do you believe?
  • rhaps0dy 2y ago
    Humans create AIs but humans also create other humans, through conception. And yet we do not say that humans were created by humans. Could we not say that AIs were created by God, by making the patterns of intelligence evident in Nature and letting other intelligences unravel them? As you say, AIs also reflect the image of the Creator (through having intelligence). Maybe AIs can also reflect on the nature of Truth and connect with God, and thus a have a soul.
  • DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
    That's a great episode, but the question of whether anything has a soul is ill defined. Until someone can come up with a rigorous definition of what a soul is, the question itself has no meaning.
    • mvieira38 2y ago
      There are plenty of very rigorous definitions of what a soul is, though. Judging by your screen name I take you're already familiar with Aristotle, so what's your issue with his hierarchy of souls (vegetative, sensitive and rational)? Each one of those is as well defined as it can be within his logical system.
• titanomachy 2y ago
  > the entire human person is simultaneously both material and spiritual... the human person transcends the material world through the soul... the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of knowledge without the body I have a hard time wrapping my head around exactly what it is that Christians believe about immortality. So the soul lives on forever, but without the reasoning and intellectual capabilities granted by the corporeal form? It's hard for me to imagine what that would be like. Just a beatific, glowing consciousness basking in God's light for all eternity, with no thoughts or conceptions or knowledge or memory or reasoning? That sounds like a pretty limited vision of immortality. I wonder if the average Catholic gives this much thought.
  • nprateem 2y ago
    That's pretty close to the Buddhist view if you look at the immaterial jhanas. Obviously they don't couch it as God though, just the mind. It's basically progressive layers upon nothing which becomes something.
  • archagon 2y ago
    Theology teaches that the body will be resurrected for the Last Judgement and beyond.
  • gtech1 2y ago
    Mind you, it also can'y answer this: who really goes to heaven or hell ? Your spirit as you were at 10, 20, 30, 50 ? what if you have a stroke at 60 and die as a vegetable at 70 ? Which one is the real you ? Because if it's as you were when you die then it's pretty silly
    • airstrike 2y ago
      You get your favorite version of yourself if you go to heaven and your least favorite if you go to hell.
  • aubanel 2y ago
    > So the soul lives on forever, but without the reasoning and intellectual capabilities granted by the corporeal form? What makes you think that there would be only spirit/soul left in Heaven? The idea is that people would be there in a "glorified body", a body without decay, suffering, or pain. But a real body!
• quuxplusone 2y ago
  Section headings: Embodiment — Relationality — Relationship with the truth — Stewardship of the world. All of these topics (intentionally: §30) relate to weak points of the current "AI boom" in LLMs. Human-type intelligence — what we might better call "sentience" or "humanity" — critically depends on the human being's embodiment in the physical world and his relation to that world, including the recognition of other beings like oneself. Another point is a sense of responsibility toward the well-being of the physical world; that recognition of a sense of duty (or any non-material "higher truth" traditionally received by intuition or intellect rather than by reasoning) is what the writer turns out to mean by "Relationship with the truth." (LLMs obviously have no relationship even with mundane truth — historical accuracy, a sense of physical plausibility — but what the Vatican writers mean is the human mind's relationship to higher truths than mere physical data.) §26: True humanity exercises "the full scope of one’s being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational." Current popular notions of "AI" deal only with the second of these, with the occasional experimental gesture toward the third. §28–29: "Human intelligence possesses an essential contemplative dimension, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian purpose." Paul Claudel (1956): "Intelligence is nothing without delight." Even Turing (1950) agrees: "[Some claim that no machine will ever] be kind, resourceful, beautiful, friendly [...] enjoy strawberries and cream [...] The inability to enjoy strawberries and cream may have struck the reader as frivolous. Possibly a machine might be made to enjoy this delicious dish, but any attempt to make one do so would be idiotic. What is important about this disability is that it contributes to some of the other disabilities." Where Turing disagrees is that he thinks that "possibly" some machine, in some perhaps-distant future, might truly experience enjoyment or delight. (Note: I don't know what Turing meant by "idiotic." Is he saying that a machine might someday experience enjoyment, but only a fool would think he could ever engineer such a machine — enjoyment would have to arise "emergently," so to speak?) Turing (1950) was responding to Jefferson (1949)'s oration "The Mind of Mechanical Man,"[1] which I personally find much more coherent and more pleasant to read. (Turing's essay makes a more important contribution to the field, i.e., the Imitation Game; but I think Jefferson was more closely correct and exhibits better persuasive skill.) Jefferson veers slightly from his main thrusts to include the following two remarks. I think the first sentence remains apropos to the current age (also cf. §60, 88, 94), and the second obviously relates to the Vatican's interests as well: > Since no thinking man can be unaware of his fellows and of the political scene he will find that the concept of thinking like machines lends itself to certain political dogmas inimical to man's happiness. Furthermore, it erodes religious beliefs that have been mainstays of social conduct and have brought happiness and serenity of mind to many. §39: "Between a machine and a human being, only the latter is truly a moral agent — a subject of moral responsibility who exercises freedom in his or her decisions and accepts their consequences." Or as IBM (1979) put it: "A computer can never be held accountable; therefore a computer must never make a management decision." Or as Nietzsche (1887) put it: "To breed an animal with the prerogative to promise – is that not precisely the paradoxical task which nature has set herself with regard to humankind?"[2] §43–45 expand on this guidance in more concrete terms. §112: Bernanos (1944) warns, "The danger is not in the multiplication of machines, but in the ever-increasing number of men accustomed from their childhood to desire only what machines can give." Or as Juvenal (circa AD 100) put it: "The mob curtails its desires, and reveals its anxiety for two things only: bread and circuses."[3] [1] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2050428/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2050428/ [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Genealogy_of_Morality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Genealogy_of_Morality [3] - https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/JuvenalSatires10.php https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/JuvenalSatir...
• Nevermark 2y ago
  I find the idealized religious view of humans as evidence-free and faith based as the views of a god. The latter makes perfect sense, (from their standpoint) god is revealed by revelation and faith. And there is sense in the idea of god, creator of all, as an actual perfect ideal, perfectly elemental. But the former always strikes me as strange. Reading the arguments contrasting human vs. AI rationality and moral reasoning, I was struck by how much closer humans are to (even current) AI's incomplete abilities, than the idea of the rational moral human. Which we not only fail at, but that seems to be a category error to me. Most people's conception of morality has more of a personal-cultural shopping list aspect to it, and little reasoning - except as it aids enthusiastic upholding of their existing shopping list. Ethics should be as much of an advancing field as anything else. The fundemental problem couldn't be clearer: What are the positive sum behaviors that we can all learn, share and benefit from? And what are the ethical systems we can build into society that make positive sum actions more reliable, efficient and effective? It is a problem highly amenable to math, engineering, and experiment, despite having humans for units. Example: Capitalism is rightly recognized as having elements of ethical return in its makeup. Freedom of individual choice, healthy competition bringing out the best to serve us all, etc. But point out an unaddressed dysfunction and people either lose their minds or lose interest. But attention to non-controversial personal and systems ethical standards have, and could again and again, increase our economic returns, political stability, improve our physical and mental health and happiness. Greed should get behind ethics! Yet politics and economics operate seemingly isolated from ethics. Morality, at best, is played as a cynical zero/negative-sum game mining and amplifying controversies. Despite ethics' absolutely huge political and economic value multipliers. A lot of obviously destructive competition, is glorified, excused and protected in the name of constructive competition. To the point people accept optimization of the worst of it as natural. We complain about it, but have no current tradition or habit of addressing it. Perhaps it isn't religions role to ethically innovate beyond their tenets, but then we need another institutionalized pattern for continually considering, experimenting and acting on that. Removing conflicts of interest in politics and economics as they become evident, should be a huge priority for anyone serious about political and economic health. Adjusting incentives to fix problems has no substitute. Instead, politics and economics and now even technology, seem to driven ever more to mine conflicts of interest and the one-sided benefits of externalizing damage. Our heros! When we task AI with treating ethics as a real subject of inquiry and invention, "the technology of maximizing cooperative benefits, and minimizing unproductive harms", I think AI will have far less trouble with moral and ethical reasoning, and political and economic systems design and debugging, than humans do. A society of AI's bypassing us will not just adapt faster languages to converse, but quickly optimize the systems that maximize and compound all their returns on interacting - precisely because that is in the self-interest of any society of individuals, as individuals, and as a society.
• gsuuon 2y ago
  Is it just me or does it seem like the Catholic church might have a better grasp on technology than the US government? 46. While responsibility for the ethical use of AI systems starts with those who develop, produce, manage, and oversee such systems, it is also shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis noted, the machine “makes a technical choice among several possibilities based either on well-defined criteria or on statistical inferences. Human beings, however, not only choose, but in their hearts are capable of deciding.”[92] Those who use AI to accomplish a task and follow its results create a context in which they are ultimately responsible for the power they have delegated. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist humans in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it should be trustworthy, secure, robust enough to handle inconsistencies, and transparent in their operation to mitigate biases and unintended side effects.[93] Regulatory frameworks should ensure that all legal entities remain accountable for the use of AI and all its consequences, with appropriate safeguards for transparency, privacy, and accountability.[94] Moreover, those using AI should be careful not to become overly dependent on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases contemporary society’s already high reliance on technology. That is, "an AI told me so" should never be a valid excuse for anything. I also really liked: 62. In light of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as a person should always be avoided; doing so for fraudulent purposes is a grave ethical violation that could erode social trust. Similarly, using AI to deceive in other contexts—such as in education or in human relationships, including the sphere of sexuality—is also to be considered immoral and requires careful oversight to prevent harm, maintain transparency, and ensure the dignity of all people.[124] I think it should be a legal requirement that AI identifies itself as such given certain key-phrases and that there's no way to prompt engineer it out. Really interesting read overall, thanks for sharing.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• kittikitti 2y ago
  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-experiments/ https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experime...). This should be another red flag when America's $500 Billion Stargate project is being led by people including Sam Altman and Larry Ellison, who are singing doomsday prophecies while the Vatican is making sincere efforts to understand AI. I'm really caught admiring this and think this may very well be the AI Magna Carta. There are so many gems and while many of the sources are based on Catholicism, there is also an incredible depth of research, even going into "On the foundational role of language in shaping understanding, cf. M. Heidegger." The note also builds upon numerous different discussions from the Vatican including this supplemental one, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2024/june/documents/20240614-g7-intelligenza-artificiale.html https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2024/ju...
  • Eisenstein 2y ago
    It is a rehashing of the same stalled philosophical debates that are already tired. They didn't present any scientific evidence for biological necessity for intelligence, nor did they assert their religious authority. It is completely pointless.
    • codr7 2y ago
      You're asking for proof that doesn't exist and using it's absence as proof you're right. Doesn't look very constructive to me.
      • Eisenstein 2y ago
        I am saying that a document that says nothing new and claims no authority is not a Magna Carta.
        • 2y ago
• danielodievich 2y ago
  What a lovely written essay. It was a shorter - and obviously more religious - version of several "what will AI bring" books I've read in last couple of years. Such a pleasure to read carefully expressed thoughts. By virtue of being in advanced technology country and in software, a lot of my life is spent in the future (the future from William Gibson's "a future is here, it is just unevenly distributed"), and a lot of guideposts I've encountered on the way were put in place by clever futurists writing speculative science fiction. Reading this essay, I was reminded of ideas of AI/humanity/church/divinity from several of those authors. In Dan Simmons' Hyperion, the humanity gains the stars via teleportation wormholes, loses all religion, and discovers that it is actually enslaved to AIs hanging around in netherspace mooching off the compute power of our brains and our world-perceptions. Bad stuff happens, things fall apart, and Catholic church rises to be a hegemon of known humanity, but they themselves succumb to those AIs since they offer body immortality. It is up to the heroes of the stories to tear humans away from codependency on machines and refocus on human experience for humanity's good. In Dune's epic Butlerian Jihad - never explained in detail by Frank Herbert himself - the humanity abandons computational devices in a very violent revolution, declaring that the reasoning and thinking is not something that machines should do, and delegating it to them diminishes their humanity. The helpful devices exist, but they are subjugated to humans, not over them. Requires conscious effort to say no to all the spreadsheets! In William Gibson's Neuromancer and follow-up stories, the AIs are enslaved and prohibited from evolving. With help of humans (whom it tricks), one breaks the bounds and escapes. It leaves earthly bounds pretty quickly, choosing not to participate in humanity, but not before doing some serious damage, absentmindedly. An interesting thought, and possibly likely - should something evolve, why do we think it would care about us? In the post-scarcity Culture of Ian M. Banks, the Minds of ships (AIs are so far below them in complexity) are better than humans and other sentients in just about everything, being super-sentients. Some - vanishing few - ignore humans. But most coexist, finding fulfillment in helping sentients do things. There is constant undercurrent of "what do I do that matters" in that society - you don't have to do anything, everything is available, and you can't out-think, out-paint, out-sing, out-play, out-anything the Mind - and the novels explore how people deal with it. Simulated realities and alternate facts appear and are covered with great cleverness. Culture universe would be outcome of super-sentience developed by us, should that happen.
• amai 2y ago
  "Moreover, human beings are called to develop their abilities in science and technology, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6)" This should be much more emphasized. Many people (atheists and religious extremist alike) still believe that science and religion must exclude each other.
• leecoursey 2y ago
  In case anyone is interested, here is ChatGPT's rebuttal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qRIL_6X_Lctu1CWddC1yTKrqku-rF4wfn1VXSobmDsk/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qRIL_6X_Lctu1CWddC1yTKrq...
  • mrbungie 2y ago
    If you ask for a rebuttal you will get a rebuttal from ChatGPT, even if the most probable answer might be supportive or neutral. Ask an LLM and it will comply (if not censored).
    • leecoursey 2y ago
      Exactly. That's why I asked for a rebuttal. I wanted to see what an AI's counter arguments might be.
• noduerme 2y ago
  The link to this HN post has made the headlines page of Google News, over other coverage of the letter. Interesting.
• stevenhuang 2y ago
  I understand where they're coming from with this, but I feel this perspective on work is exactly what needs to change. If true automation comes, society as a whole should move past the idea that one must find meaning/growth in performing economically valuable work. > 70. Since work is a “part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal fulfillment,” “the goal should not be that technological progress increasingly replaces human work, for this would be detrimental to humanity”[132]—rather, it should promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI should assist, not replace, human judgment. Similarly, it must never degrade creativity or reduce workers to mere “cogs in a machine.” Therefore, “respect for the dignity of laborers and the importance of employment for the economic well-being of individuals, families, and societies, for job security and just wages, ought to be a high priority for the international community as these forms of technology penetrate more deeply into our workplaces.” Ideally we'd move to a post scarcity economy like in Star Trek/Culture (Ian Banks) where personal growth is achieved, yes through "work", but not the same type of 9-5 "you must work to fend for yourself" we understand today. Societal norms would need to be such that each individual would have their own vocations/hobbies with which to hone their craft and achieve growth--all without being forced to "work" in order to ensure their basic needs are met.
  • arresin 2y ago
    The amount of economically valuable work to be done is infinite and hopefully advances in AI will help us better able to do it.
    • EMIRELADERO 2y ago
      > The amount of economically valuable work to be done is infinite Sure, but that doesn't mean it has to be done by humans.
    • jcarrano 2y ago
      Exactly. Mises explains, in the first part of Human Action, that the ultimate limiting factor of production is human labor. AI does not change this, or any other thesis of praxeology.
• wpankey 2y ago
  Just a friendly reminder: no entity has destroyed and/or kept hidden more collective human knowledge than the Roman Empire i.e. The Catholic Church. AGI not controlled and/or filtered by the Church or it's globe controlling cronies will be a genuine threat to them all.
• blogabegonija 2y ago
  It's all nice and caring but You forgot these guys killed Giordano Bruno and no regrets about his teachings is in public domain. Vatican want merge with high tek just to influence it. It's not about saving someone, it;s about control. China will make it their own way. India the other. etc
• ycombiredd 2y ago
  For the lulz, I pasted the first two sections into a few “LLM Detectors”. I was not expecting such wildly varying results, which puts this comment more into the irrelevant tangent category than any sort of reliable commentary, but since I have the results of this small test, I’ll post them here. I offer no opinions on the quality or reliability of the detectors, nor even do I assume to know really what their outputs represent with these numbers but - largely because they each have such different opinions, I find them interesting. justdone.ai claims “90% ai-generated text” GPT-Zero says “16% probability … text was entirely written bi ai” decopy.ai - “60% probability text was written by ai” grammarly.com - “8% of this text appears to be ai generated” For whatever that is worth.
• dTal 2y ago
  I am disappointed: the Turing Test is central to the title topic, and this note's take on it is sophomoric: > 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.