7 ms·

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, b

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.
    - smogcutter 2y ago
      > claims no authority It should be obvious what authority is implicit in a document from the vatican.
      - Eisenstein 2y ago
        You don't understand what I am saying. It has the authority to make a decision about these questions but it doesn't claim that authority and do it. It could state 'intelligence is only something humans can have because we have God's authority to say so', but instead tries to use science and philosophy to make those claims. This doesn't work, because everyone else is trying the same thing and it is just a mire since there is no science which can prove intelligence is biologically based and there isn't even a standard definition for intelligence. Instead of joining everyone else in the same tired debates while providing no proof for their conclusions, they had an opportunity to use their religious authority to go 'Because God told us' or whatever, and they didn't, so this document is effectively pointless.
        codr7 2y ago
        I don't really care about decisions; I care about truth and wisdom, and there is plenty to be found in this document.
        Eisenstein 2y ago
        The document is just a summary of a bunch of arguments and assertions that have yet to be proven either way. Every single thing they state as a given can be stated as not being a given just as convincingly. If they had claimed religious authority to make those statements at least it would have meaning. I am glad you found wisdom in it, but anyone familiar with the debate over a necessary biological basis for intelligence will find it unconvincing.
UomoNeroNero 2y ago
One may or may not appreciate the religious aspect, but the Vatican has always been a hub for “refined thinkers.” And when it comes to establishing an (initial) point of discussion on such an ethically significant topic, I believe that the amount of thought distilled into this page has been considerable.
- sangnoir 2y ago
  The Jesuit order - to which Pope Francis belonged (belongs?) - has a long and notable history of contributing to science and scientific discovery. So they are not just thinkers, but doers.
Animats 2y ago
It is well thought out. The "AI Magna Carta" is a stretch, though. Some good insights: 60. Anthropomorphizing AI also poses specific challenges for the development of children, potentially encouraging them to develop patterns of interaction that treat human relationships in a transactional manner, as one would relate to a chatbot. Such habits could lead young people to see teachers as mere dispensers of information rather than as mentors who guide and nurture their intellectual and moral growth. Genuine relationships, rooted in empathy and a steadfast commitment to the good of the other, are essential and irreplaceable in fostering the full development of the human person. That's a good one. Teacher time is a scarce resource, but the chatbot is always there, and undemanding if not asked anything. Kids who grow up talking mostly to AIs may have that kind of relationship with the world. Historically, kids who grew up with servants around sometimes defaulted to that kind of transactional relationship. Now that can scale up. Amusingly, asking Google's AI about "bringing up children with servants" produced an excellent summary of the topic. Years ago, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos warned that “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.” That's an argument against too much screen time for kids.
- blindhippo 2y ago
  It could be argued that the emergence of the web and search engines in particular has established this as a common pattern long before AI was around. I'm not convinced that AI represents a dramatic change to this behavior, though the point about anthropomorphizing AI likely acts as a magnifier.
  - pixl97 2y ago
    I'm sure we could extend this farther into the separation of people out of villages into cities and the rise of transactional capitalism.
  - marc_abonce 2y ago
    I think the main difference is the degree of anthropomorphizing that happens with new chatbots. I mean, most kids in the 2000's didn't believe that they were literally asking Jeeves a question, but a lot of users today actually think of AI as an anthropomorphic being.
TZubiri 2y ago
Reminds me of Inter Mirifica. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19631204_inter-mirifica_en.html https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_coun... These are notable because they are not tweets or op-eds, one in thousands produced daily to keep you hooked to a source of information. Rather these are published once by the church as part of their core mission and in response to the events themselves once. There is not necessarily a huge conversation here, although of course there might be conversation that lead to the letter and conversations that arise from the letter, but the center, core of the message from the church is very clear and static. It is long yes, but you only need to read it once and you'll be up to date with the church for years. You don't need to turn the news on everynight or keep your twitter feed clean and stay hooked every 20 minutes.
UomoNeroNero 2y ago
Mamma mia. Yes, I totally agree with what you wrote: this is a landmark, profound, historic (and very courageous) document.
joe_the_user 2y ago
I generally agree that the particular "rationalist" fear of AGI-autonomy are silly but your statement here, "the disastrous letter that effectively knee-capped American AI all while...", seems quite implausible. The same thing that makes the letter shallow is what means it's signers aren't going to hesitate for a second when they see an opportunity for profit.
nahuel0x 2y ago
It will be funny to discover that they were aided by ChatGPT to write this :)
wlecometo 2y ago
> I just want to appreciate how well written and thought out this was Cath church is well famous on writing good things and then failing at putting them in practice. It took up to 1992 to see an official pardon to Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642) we are still missing few words on people like Giordano Bruno, killed with fire because he dared to speculate of life outside of earth. I personally find this piece of text over closer to a philosophic rant rather than an accurate analysis of the current situation. > The commitment to ensuring that AI always supports and promotes the supreme value of the dignity of every human being and the fullness of the human vocation serves as a criterion of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, as well as to its users. It remains valid for every application of the technology at every level of its use. this is being said by the organisation who decided american natives were lacking souls and therefore could be killed, the very same organisation who helped promoting slavery across the world, in the 2nd world war worked together with nazis and it is well known it supported far right governments in south america in the 1970's . the very same organisation against promoting condom use in Africa to prevent and contain AIDS . > 54. Furthermore, there is the risk of AI being used to promote what Pope Francis has called the “technocratic paradigm,” which perceives all the world’s problems as solvable through technological means alone.[106] In this paradigm, human dignity and fraternity are often set aside in the name of efficiency, “as if reality, goodness, and truth automatically flow from technological and economic power as such.”[107] Yet, human dignity and the common good must never be violated for the sake of efficiency,[108] for “technological developments that do not lead to an improvement in the quality of life of all humanity, but on the contrary, aggravate inequalities and conflicts, can never count as true progress.”[109] Instead, AI should be put “at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral.”[110] TL;DR yes you can use AI but for few things, for other matters please refer to your local community priest

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.
  - smogcutter 2y ago
    > claims no authority It should be obvious what authority is implicit in a document from the vatican.
    - Eisenstein 2y ago
      You don't understand what I am saying. It has the authority to make a decision about these questions but it doesn't claim that authority and do it. It could state 'intelligence is only something humans can have because we have God's authority to say so', but instead tries to use science and philosophy to make those claims. This doesn't work, because everyone else is trying the same thing and it is just a mire since there is no science which can prove intelligence is biologically based and there isn't even a standard definition for intelligence. Instead of joining everyone else in the same tired debates while providing no proof for their conclusions, they had an opportunity to use their religious authority to go 'Because God told us' or whatever, and they didn't, so this document is effectively pointless.
      - codr7 2y ago
        I don't really care about decisions; I care about truth and wisdom, and there is plenty to be found in this document.
        Eisenstein 2y ago
        The document is just a summary of a bunch of arguments and assertions that have yet to be proven either way. Every single thing they state as a given can be stated as not being a given just as convincingly. If they had claimed religious authority to make those statements at least it would have meaning. I am glad you found wisdom in it, but anyone familiar with the debate over a necessary biological basis for intelligence will find it unconvincing.

UomoNeroNero 2y ago

One may or may not appreciate the religious aspect, but the Vatican has always been a hub for “refined thinkers.” And when it comes to establishing an (initial) point of discussion on such an ethically significant topic, I believe that the amount of thought distilled into this page has been considerable.

sangnoir 2y ago
The Jesuit order - to which Pope Francis belonged (belongs?) - has a long and notable history of contributing to science and scientific discovery. So they are not just thinkers, but doers.

Animats 2y ago

It is well thought out. The "AI Magna Carta" is a stretch, though. Some good insights: 60. Anthropomorphizing AI also poses specific challenges for the development of children, potentially encouraging them to develop patterns of interaction that treat human relationships in a transactional manner, as one would relate to a chatbot. Such habits could lead young people to see teachers as mere dispensers of information rather than as mentors who guide and nurture their intellectual and moral growth. Genuine relationships, rooted in empathy and a steadfast commitment to the good of the other, are essential and irreplaceable in fostering the full development of the human person. That's a good one. Teacher time is a scarce resource, but the chatbot is always there, and undemanding if not asked anything. Kids who grow up talking mostly to AIs may have that kind of relationship with the world. Historically, kids who grew up with servants around sometimes defaulted to that kind of transactional relationship. Now that can scale up. Amusingly, asking Google's AI about "bringing up children with servants" produced an excellent summary of the topic. Years ago, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos warned that “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.” That's an argument against too much screen time for kids.

blindhippo 2y ago
It could be argued that the emergence of the web and search engines in particular has established this as a common pattern long before AI was around. I'm not convinced that AI represents a dramatic change to this behavior, though the point about anthropomorphizing AI likely acts as a magnifier.
- pixl97 2y ago
  I'm sure we could extend this farther into the separation of people out of villages into cities and the rise of transactional capitalism.
- marc_abonce 2y ago
  I think the main difference is the degree of anthropomorphizing that happens with new chatbots. I mean, most kids in the 2000's didn't believe that they were literally asking Jeeves a question, but a lot of users today actually think of AI as an anthropomorphic being.

TZubiri 2y ago

Reminds me of Inter Mirifica. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19631204_inter-mirifica_en.html https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_coun... These are notable because they are not tweets or op-eds, one in thousands produced daily to keep you hooked to a source of information. Rather these are published once by the church as part of their core mission and in response to the events themselves once. There is not necessarily a huge conversation here, although of course there might be conversation that lead to the letter and conversations that arise from the letter, but the center, core of the message from the church is very clear and static. It is long yes, but you only need to read it once and you'll be up to date with the church for years. You don't need to turn the news on everynight or keep your twitter feed clean and stay hooked every 20 minutes.

UomoNeroNero 2y ago

Mamma mia. Yes, I totally agree with what you wrote: this is a landmark, profound, historic (and very courageous) document.

joe_the_user 2y ago

I generally agree that the particular "rationalist" fear of AGI-autonomy are silly but your statement here, "the disastrous letter that effectively knee-capped American AI all while...", seems quite implausible. The same thing that makes the letter shallow is what means it's signers aren't going to hesitate for a second when they see an opportunity for profit.

nahuel0x 2y ago

It will be funny to discover that they were aided by ChatGPT to write this :)

wlecometo 2y ago

> I just want to appreciate how well written and thought out this was Cath church is well famous on writing good things and then failing at putting them in practice. It took up to 1992 to see an official pardon to Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642) we are still missing few words on people like Giordano Bruno, killed with fire because he dared to speculate of life outside of earth. I personally find this piece of text over closer to a philosophic rant rather than an accurate analysis of the current situation. > The commitment to ensuring that AI always supports and promotes the supreme value of the dignity of every human being and the fullness of the human vocation serves as a criterion of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, as well as to its users. It remains valid for every application of the technology at every level of its use. this is being said by the organisation who decided american natives were lacking souls and therefore could be killed, the very same organisation who helped promoting slavery across the world, in the 2nd world war worked together with nazis and it is well known it supported far right governments in south america in the 1970's . the very same organisation against promoting condom use in Africa to prevent and contain AIDS . > 54. Furthermore, there is the risk of AI being used to promote what Pope Francis has called the “technocratic paradigm,” which perceives all the world’s problems as solvable through technological means alone.[106] In this paradigm, human dignity and fraternity are often set aside in the name of efficiency, “as if reality, goodness, and truth automatically flow from technological and economic power as such.”[107] Yet, human dignity and the common good must never be violated for the sake of efficiency,[108] for “technological developments that do not lead to an improvement in the quality of life of all humanity, but on the contrary, aggravate inequalities and conflicts, can never count as true progress.”[109] Instead, AI should be put “at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral.”[110] TL;DR yes you can use AI but for few things, for other matters please refer to your local community priest