so maybe we'll get to the right place by accident when all companies are effectively replaced by ai ha ha. (not putting a high %age likelihood on that one, obviously, just being cheeky)
Same thing though. AI is largely a service provided by companies
Yes yes I know, open source models exist, yadda yadda
I think it's safe to say the overwhelming amount of AI usage in the world today is gates by corporations though. The vast majority of people will barely configure their own OS nevermind managing their own locally hosted open source AI instance
An HN user time-transported in from 15 years ago would find it incomprehensible that there there are only two sceptical responses (both flag killed) on a post about a message from the supreme leader of a nearly 1.5 billion strong religion. Times have truly changed.
Times have changed in a lot of dimensions. To name 2: 1) we have an AI thing now, and 2) the pope is American and more trustworthy than all of our current top politicians of both parties.
It's not like people are longing for times of papal authority, they're just looking for anyone at all with common sense.
Former Catholic. I left the church for a variety of reasons, one of which being the child abuse scandal. I am aware of the Catholic Church's long and often sordid history. What I am trying to say is there is no love lost between me and the Catholic Church.
With that out of the way, the Pope is right. Knowledge should be used for the benefit of humanity and I don't think any of the big AI companies have our best interests in mind.
I don't really get this, so I genuinely want to understand.
You can still follow a religion while rightfully thinking that the organization representing it to be corrupt (and how could it be otherwise, as it's made from mortal sinners?).
But you either believe that St.Peter and its descendants in Rome have been tasked by god to spread (and interpret) its word or you don't.
It's fine if you don't (I don't my self, I'm an atheist), but I don't get why can't you be a catholic if you believe and also find the organization flawed.
Litmus tests about personal beliefs are not really how religious organizations function for most people in my experience. It’s about whether you want to associated with a tribe or movement, then the beliefs come with that package.
My take is that scandals can make some people realize that the Church is fallible, which can lead people to question about the legitimacy of such religion. e.g. if the church representatives can be corrupt, what if their other actions also weren't in service of God?
My point is that once you see a sort of contradiction between words and action, it may make one deeply reflect on it.
And they hoarded and kept such knowledge for themselves and those who swore fealty for as long as they could, concentrating and maintaining power for centuries.
I mostly agree with you, but I’ve come to appreciate that there was a period of time in the Middle Ages where the Catholic Church held the fabric of society together in their corner of the world. I think much more knowledge from antiquity would’ve been lost without them.
The Pro human AI Delcaration has as one of its list of denands
Child Protection: Companies must not be allowed to exploit children or undermine their wellbeing with AI interactions creating emotional attachment or leverage
I think it entirely consistent with many of the supporters of this statement that this leaves open the opportunity for the church to do it with AI, or indeed companies and the church to do it by other means.
So is the Church what? That the Church must serve humanity or that it is the "powerful few" as some here are saying?
In the first case, I claim that it has and that it does. I'm not sure how you can credibly claim otherwise. Only ideologically informed animosity could distort one's views here. If you know the mission of the Church, then I see no issue. Do members of the Church fail? Of course. Everyone does, and indeed this is captured best in the Christian acknowledgment that everyone is a sinner, without exception. Everyone falls short.
In the second case, I don't know what the implication is. Is it that the Church is one of the "powerful few" and therefore evil? The first question you must ask is what your notion of "power" here is. The second, whether the Church is actually powerful according to that definition. The third, whether you are falsely linking being one of the "powerful few" with being evil. The problem, after all, is not with power, but with the way power is used. In an ideal world, all power would be exercised morally, and all authority would have commensurate power.
I would say this: the Church has authority. Whether it has power depends on your definition of power and the particular historical epoch. It is not reduced to a simple boolean.
It's best to avoid cheap jabs that rely on boring and unthinking tropes that appeal to widespread prejudices rather than to informed reason.
> anyone can host and get almost exact same power.
This is not true at all.
And the claim about mission of the church and mission of the ai being the same is absurd. Or ai being authority. Like, the rest of that comment does not apply to ai at all.
For reference, the general form (so that I can use letters to refer to parties and avoid convoluted phrasing):
(Axiom: B has done X.)
A (to B): You have done X, and you should not have done so.
C: I note here that certain prior actions of A could also reasonably be characterized as X.
D (to C): Ah, here you commit the fallacy of "tu quoque".
This argument is not sound. It misunderstands the fallacy. (To be clear: Wikipedia describes the fallacy accurately; it's just that it's rare in practice, and very often falsely accused.)
Everyone should uphold the standards to which they hold others (and I consider it an obvious moral failing not to do so). The fallacy only applies where C either continues on to argue that B has, somehow, not actually done X (because A did); or, at least, clearly has the purpose of distracting from the fact that B has done X.
But there is nothing fallacious about simply pointing out that A does not live up to A's own implied standards. There is nothing fallacious about the implication that A is therefore being either i) dishonest about the anti-X belief, or ii) simply hypocritical. (To be fair, we don't know, from the given information, which of those is the case; but I think it's fair to say that neither is "fair dealing" and that A is thus a legitimate target of criticism regardless.)
It is also not fallacious for C to use this as a jumping-off point to argue that X is in fact okay to do, although of course this requires further support.
Unfortunately, he did not mention the moral responsabilities of the Silicon Valley technopower in delivering and selling a technology so society-impact only for making themselves and their shareholders richier.
Good luck with that. Capitalism doesn't work that way. AI will make money for some companies, but as always, it will be on our expense, not for our benefit. We will get some convenient features, we will grow dependent, and eventually subscriptions will be squeezed as far as we are able to pay, advertising will take over, we will have less choice and worse service.
By then we might not even have computers anymore, or we might have "transparent" computers, i.e. have everything on the cloud and just tell our AI agents what to do.
Sorry Pope Leo, things are not going to suddenly turn into a wonderful utopia, but maybe buy some stocks so you can at least make a buck from what's coming.
Why should anyone care what the pope says? He’ll never go as far as to even stick his thumb out of the Overton window. You’re guaranteed to always get the mildest, most boring take on any subject.
Have you actually read it? It is not a boring take. It's actually the best thing I've read on moral philosophy in quite some time. I suggest you take the time to read it.
In my way of life, the idea that people follow and care deeply about what some mullah has to say is very foreign. There's a mass of these people though. Their life must be so incredibly different than mine, it's just hard to fathom. I can't even imagine caring about the Pope or what they have to say. In my imagination the Pope is something out of roman times, it's just so weird this still exists today.
Millions pf poor people listen to this shit the religious leaders say, so kind of following it to see what masses believe steered through them but I agree I find it dumb and boring as well.
AI is like an arrow, a trebuchet, a gun, a missile, a weapon to gain more power, to wage more wars and to terrorize people into submission, just like every new weapon before. No, the powerful won't listen to nobody, the universe doesn't have morals or ethics, it just have laws, and survival of the fittest is one of them.
The church is just playing the role they've always played, instilling weakness and fear while "siding" with the oppressed so they all can milk the sheeple. They are an institution of power, for power, and they behave like such, under sheep's clothes.
I have found that, for many of the statements about what AI should do, I would actally be happier if the letters "AI" were replaced with "companies"
so maybe we'll get to the right place by accident when all companies are effectively replaced by ai ha ha. (not putting a high %age likelihood on that one, obviously, just being cheeky)
Same thing though. AI is largely a service provided by companies
Yes yes I know, open source models exist, yadda yadda
I think it's safe to say the overwhelming amount of AI usage in the world today is gates by corporations though. The vast majority of people will barely configure their own OS nevermind managing their own locally hosted open source AI instance
The Pope has a better understanding of what's at stake that many of 'our' (lobbied) politicians.
An HN user time-transported in from 15 years ago would find it incomprehensible that there there are only two sceptical responses (both flag killed) on a post about a message from the supreme leader of a nearly 1.5 billion strong religion. Times have truly changed.
Times have changed in a lot of dimensions. To name 2: 1) we have an AI thing now, and 2) the pope is American and more trustworthy than all of our current top politicians of both parties.
It's not like people are longing for times of papal authority, they're just looking for anyone at all with common sense.
Time to start on the first draft of the orange Catholic bible
I'm down to start a butleirian jihad
Dupe, more or less. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48265206
AI has brought more knowledge to more people than anything since maybe the internet itself. Maybe it's not surprising the Pope isn't happy about that.
Wouldn't your claim be consistent with the Pope's request? Why would he be unhappy about that?
I noticed ads on churches in Mexico City for this earlier this year, https://juanito.ai
Great to see the Pope recognises the gravity of what is to come with AI and is coming out early with this.
So is the church...
Former Catholic. I left the church for a variety of reasons, one of which being the child abuse scandal. I am aware of the Catholic Church's long and often sordid history. What I am trying to say is there is no love lost between me and the Catholic Church.
With that out of the way, the Pope is right. Knowledge should be used for the benefit of humanity and I don't think any of the big AI companies have our best interests in mind.
I don't really get this, so I genuinely want to understand.
You can still follow a religion while rightfully thinking that the organization representing it to be corrupt (and how could it be otherwise, as it's made from mortal sinners?).
But you either believe that St.Peter and its descendants in Rome have been tasked by god to spread (and interpret) its word or you don't.
It's fine if you don't (I don't my self, I'm an atheist), but I don't get why can't you be a catholic if you believe and also find the organization flawed.
He didn’t say that. He said that he agrees with the pope on this issue. You don’t become a catholic from agreeing on an issue
Litmus tests about personal beliefs are not really how religious organizations function for most people in my experience. It’s about whether you want to associated with a tribe or movement, then the beliefs come with that package.
Catholicism is as much about hierarchy and pomposity as it is about faith.
Plus personal and social experiences are often catalysts for changing one’s beliefs. It happens so often there’s a term for it: “crisis of faith”
My take is that scandals can make some people realize that the Church is fallible, which can lead people to question about the legitimacy of such religion. e.g. if the church representatives can be corrupt, what if their other actions also weren't in service of God?
My point is that once you see a sort of contradiction between words and action, it may make one deeply reflect on it.
The church was a great archive of knowledge for the longest time. They were the powerful few too.
And they hoarded and kept such knowledge for themselves and those who swore fealty for as long as they could, concentrating and maintaining power for centuries.
Still, I agree with the pope this once.
Wrong - I am very far from a catholic, but this just doesn’t reflect history.
They did a lot to make the middle ages more tolerable. After that, maybe they overstayed their welcome.
I mostly agree with you, but I’ve come to appreciate that there was a period of time in the Middle Ages where the Catholic Church held the fabric of society together in their corner of the world. I think much more knowledge from antiquity would’ve been lost without them.
Agreed. Crusades have also close ties with gnosticism since the Templars themselves were gnostics.
The Catholic church has also burned Christians in various era’s including in the 15th century.
How crazy would it be if the Vatican started training up their own custom AI models?
I noticed ads? maybe not the right word in this situation, for https://juanito.ai, on several of the large Catholic churches in Mexico City this year.
The Pro human AI Delcaration has as one of its list of denands
Child Protection: Companies must not be allowed to exploit children or undermine their wellbeing with AI interactions creating emotional attachment or leverage
I think it entirely consistent with many of the supporters of this statement that this leaves open the opportunity for the church to do it with AI, or indeed companies and the church to do it by other means.
I had a similar thought. Something about a splinter in someone's eye while a plank in your eye blah blah
So is the Church what? That the Church must serve humanity or that it is the "powerful few" as some here are saying?
In the first case, I claim that it has and that it does. I'm not sure how you can credibly claim otherwise. Only ideologically informed animosity could distort one's views here. If you know the mission of the Church, then I see no issue. Do members of the Church fail? Of course. Everyone does, and indeed this is captured best in the Christian acknowledgment that everyone is a sinner, without exception. Everyone falls short.
In the second case, I don't know what the implication is. Is it that the Church is one of the "powerful few" and therefore evil? The first question you must ask is what your notion of "power" here is. The second, whether the Church is actually powerful according to that definition. The third, whether you are falsely linking being one of the "powerful few" with being evil. The problem, after all, is not with power, but with the way power is used. In an ideal world, all power would be exercised morally, and all authority would have commensurate power.
I would say this: the Church has authority. Whether it has power depends on your definition of power and the particular historical epoch. It is not reduced to a simple boolean.
It's best to avoid cheap jabs that rely on boring and unthinking tropes that appeal to widespread prejudices rather than to informed reason.
Everything you say apply to the AI. Even more so that there are very good open models which anyone can host and get almost exact same power.
> anyone can host and get almost exact same power.
This is not true at all.
And the claim about mission of the church and mission of the ai being the same is absurd. Or ai being authority. Like, the rest of that comment does not apply to ai at all.
> This is not true at all.
In what sense is it not true?
> mission of the church and mission of the ai being the same is absurd
Did I claim that?
I just said any point you wrote against church representing powerful few is applicable to AI.
Yes, but still: so is AI.
Really? Classic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
For reference, the general form (so that I can use letters to refer to parties and avoid convoluted phrasing):
(Axiom: B has done X.)
A (to B): You have done X, and you should not have done so.
C: I note here that certain prior actions of A could also reasonably be characterized as X.
D (to C): Ah, here you commit the fallacy of "tu quoque".
This argument is not sound. It misunderstands the fallacy. (To be clear: Wikipedia describes the fallacy accurately; it's just that it's rare in practice, and very often falsely accused.)
Everyone should uphold the standards to which they hold others (and I consider it an obvious moral failing not to do so). The fallacy only applies where C either continues on to argue that B has, somehow, not actually done X (because A did); or, at least, clearly has the purpose of distracting from the fact that B has done X.
But there is nothing fallacious about simply pointing out that A does not live up to A's own implied standards. There is nothing fallacious about the implication that A is therefore being either i) dishonest about the anti-X belief, or ii) simply hypocritical. (To be fair, we don't know, from the given information, which of those is the case; but I think it's fair to say that neither is "fair dealing" and that A is thus a legitimate target of criticism regardless.)
It is also not fallacious for C to use this as a jumping-off point to argue that X is in fact okay to do, although of course this requires further support.
Unfortunately, he did not mention the moral responsabilities of the Silicon Valley technopower in delivering and selling a technology so society-impact only for making themselves and their shareholders richier.
Actually, he did, extensively.
[dupe] Discussion on source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48265206
Good luck with that. Capitalism doesn't work that way. AI will make money for some companies, but as always, it will be on our expense, not for our benefit. We will get some convenient features, we will grow dependent, and eventually subscriptions will be squeezed as far as we are able to pay, advertising will take over, we will have less choice and worse service.
By then we might not even have computers anymore, or we might have "transparent" computers, i.e. have everything on the cloud and just tell our AI agents what to do.
Sorry Pope Leo, things are not going to suddenly turn into a wonderful utopia, but maybe buy some stocks so you can at least make a buck from what's coming.
AI will probably serve all humans or serve no one.
I struggle to envision an ASI respecting the authority of some jacked up tech bro.
Why should anyone care what the pope says? He’ll never go as far as to even stick his thumb out of the Overton window. You’re guaranteed to always get the mildest, most boring take on any subject.
Have you actually read it? It is not a boring take. It's actually the best thing I've read on moral philosophy in quite some time. I suggest you take the time to read it.
He is right. Why should you not listen to him?
In my way of life, the idea that people follow and care deeply about what some mullah has to say is very foreign. There's a mass of these people though. Their life must be so incredibly different than mine, it's just hard to fathom. I can't even imagine caring about the Pope or what they have to say. In my imagination the Pope is something out of roman times, it's just so weird this still exists today.
because he is right and he is more for the people than the dumb shit you spew out of your mouth
Millions pf poor people listen to this shit the religious leaders say, so kind of following it to see what masses believe steered through them but I agree I find it dumb and boring as well.
AI is like an arrow, a trebuchet, a gun, a missile, a weapon to gain more power, to wage more wars and to terrorize people into submission, just like every new weapon before. No, the powerful won't listen to nobody, the universe doesn't have morals or ethics, it just have laws, and survival of the fittest is one of them.
The church is just playing the role they've always played, instilling weakness and fear while "siding" with the oppressed so they all can milk the sheeple. They are an institution of power, for power, and they behave like such, under sheep's clothes.