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

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20250128_antiqua-et-nova_en.html

by max_ • 1 year ago

580 456 1 year ago

[flagged]

Klaster_1• 1 year ago

On a side note, I love how Orbit - the AI summarization extension by Mozilla - save me time, despite of all its limitations.

b3lvedere2• 1 year 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_w6• 1 year 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.

mistrial96• 1 year ago

many parts are already dense.. what is a "summary" of dense reasons? the word "weird" signals social acceptability not technical?

Edman274• 1 year 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• 1 year 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• 1 year 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.)

topherjaynes2• 1 year 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]

achierius6• 1 year ago

It's honestly not a bad read, most of Pope Francis' publications have been pretty well put-together in my experience.

b3lvedere2• 1 year 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.

vindex102• 1 year ago

73. However, if AI is used not to enhance but to replace the relationship between patients and healthcare providers—leaving patients to interact with a machine rather than a human being—it would reduce a crucially important human relational structure to a centralized, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of encouraging solidarity with the sick and suffering, such applications of AI would risk worsening the loneliness that often accompanies illness, especially in the context of a culture where “persons are no longer seen as a paramount value to be cared for and respected.”[138] This misuse of AI would not align with respect for the dignity of the human person and solidarity with the suffering.

I liked this one too

bbqfog3• 1 year ago

I actually would rather interact with a "robot" doctor. Most doctors I've dealt with have been snide, judgmental, rushed and arrogant. I actually don't feel like I'm getting the best treatment possible, but I would trust AI to not have prejudices or meta-influences (like being "proud" to be an upper class doctor).

exe3411• 1 year ago

digital technologies have increased inequality in our world.

that's not inevitable though - it's a conscious decision made by each and every person in power to let it get to that point.

cootsnuck• 1 year ago

Correct. Our present wasn't inevitable. People in power, both running big tech and in government, actively chose or allowed for the current state of digital technologies.

kouru2259• 1 year ago

Nah I want to see the numbers on this. Before technology we lived in feudalism. There’s no more unequal system than that.

Thorrez4• 1 year ago

"Technology" is a very broad term. The wheel is a type of technology. Pope Francis specifically said "digital technologies".

stephenhuey• 1 year 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.

keybored9• 1 year ago

“Feudalism” is not data/numbers either.

throw0101c8• 1 year ago

Before technology we lived in feudalism.

There exists the possibility we have technology and feudalism.

It also depends on how you define "technology": was/is the plough "technology"? The bow and arrow? Blacksmithing forge? Anvil? Water wheels? The wheel? The stirrup?

mike_hearn• 1 year ago

He probably is wrong. Giving that statement a reality check, he's arguing that before the internet political and social influence was more spread out than it is now. In other words that social media, blogging, chat groups, websites ... all these things have actually increased the influence of pre-digital institutions and people.

That doesn't sound right at all. It's much easier now for random people to obtain social and political influence, regardless of affiliation. The left is experiencing global distress because they're so worried by the dispersal of social and political influence away from legacy institutions and towards anonymous "chaos actors", as they see it. This is a vast equalization of access to the means of social and political influence, but the Pope thinks it's the reverse. I don't understand that take at all.

moralestapia2• 1 year ago

Why would he be, though?

devcpp• 1 year ago

This implies that inequality is bad. I would rather argue that poverty is bad, and it is at an all-time low [1], consistently raising the HDI everywhere technology is introduced. Inequality in itself is only bad with regards to jealousy, which should be addressed through economics education.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty

TFYS• 1 year ago

Unless you think centralization of power is a good thing, you're wrong. Things can too easily go wrong when the word of one man, however talented and wise, is louder than the voice of millions of people.

hn_acc1• 1 year ago

Inequality as we see today is bad, regardless of progress on poverty.

Some people today could endanger the lives of those they disagree with, simply by doxxing them. Yet, they'll face little to no opposition in the courts because they're uber-rich. No one should hold the power of life or death on a whim.

vessenes• 1 year ago

Hate this particular take. To say increasing inequality in that some people have better access to digital tech than others: sure. To say that it’s a net negative that many but not all humans can now video call their loved ones regardless of location, for instance, is conflating equality with benefit. I’m a hard no on this.

I generally like Francis’ take on things, and I think the main framework of this doc is interesting: “AI is functional, not grounded in physical reality, and not spiritual, therefore it’s not a replacement for human intelligence, and we should be cautious” is fine. I’m not sure I agree on these definitions but until I started working with llms daily, I felt the same way.

But the bogeyman of inequality as a reason to mistrust technology, written in HTML, sent over the internet, to our phones, bothers me.

falcor84• 1 year 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.

throw3108222• 1 year 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.

jvanderbot2• 1 year 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.

mistrial96• 1 year ago

nothing about AI in general that limits it to learning only from prior data

this has to be refined to make a reasonable statement.. as stated, cannot agree on the expansive word "nothing"

radlad7• 1 year ago

But there's nothing about AI in general that limits it to learning only from prior data

Maybe not, but I don't think this is exactly what the piece said here: "AI, lacking a physical body, relies on computational reasoning and learning based on vast datasets that include recorded human experiences and knowledge."

Do you think AI will soon get a physical body, and experience "sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment"?

kouru2259• 1 year ago

All these words, “sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment” are all words that we’ve developed and yet have no full understanding of. In any philosophy paper they’d be challenged in a second.

sdwr2• 1 year ago

It was reaching for a great point about how intelligence requires comparison and scaffolding, and how we are nurturing the future, but then it fell into the Chinese Room trap.

TZubiri2• 1 year ago

When the time comes where there's robots with independent batteries and that learn and think without an internet connection, we will worry about it then.

But the current cycle is not about that type of intelligence or life at all, it's strictly about mathematical simulation of intelligence on multitenant systems with shared information and thought-processes alternated through time( training,reinforcement, labelling, inference, 3rd party microservices).

I understand it is possible we will see a jump to a completely different type of AI, but we need to be very clear that this is not what's going on right now.

bondarchuk• 1 year ago

No Latin version?

Dansvidania• 1 year ago

I was really expecting it too. Pretty disappointing.

michaelsbradley• 1 year 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.

belter3• 1 year ago

It's coming...they are discussing how to conjugate "machine learning" correctly.

spudlyo2• 1 year 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...

spudlyo2• 1 year ago

I also looked for it in Latin, apparently not all documents put out by the Holy See are available in Latin.

layer82• 1 year ago

Machine translation of modern texts to Latin isn't quite up to snuff yet. ;)

bongodongobob• 1 year ago

[flagged]

dang8• 1 year ago

No religious flamewar, please.

simonw• 1 year 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]*

thrance4• 1 year ago

Singularitarianism [1] is a very real phenomenon, if a bit niche. I have seen some people online put genuine faith in AGI existing soon and solving essentially everything that is wrong on Earth and in their lives. I don't think this is harmful because it may be "idolatry", but rather because, like real religion, it is often a substitute for actually improving one's situation or fighting for a better world.

The idea of building a God is enticing [2], but I am not religious and prefer not to put faith in such things.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularitarianism

[2] https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Numidium

exe3411• 1 year ago

I have faith that AI will wield unimaginable powers, but I also know that there will be rich people behind them making the decisions on how best to crush the rest of us.

StefanBatory2• 1 year ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God-Building

carlosjobim6• 1 year ago

it is often a substitute for actually improving one's situation or fighting for a better world.

You just defined idolatry and why it is harmful. Idolatry is the worship of man-made things or other things that do not deserve worship. Including worshipping the government, which is the religion of most people. It is a false path.

boxed4• 1 year ago

It seems to me that a belief in god(s) makes you less prepared for a world with AI. In Buddhism the attitude is more sane: gods are just being that can be wrong too and ultimately suffer and cause suffering, the same as the rest of us. They might just be more strongly self-deluded (wink wink the pope wink wink)

computerthings2• 1 year ago

Well, it's not the Catholic Church worshiping AI as the savior of humanity. I have seen no indication that those who do are particularly religious, either, what do you base that on?

And hey, when it comes to fallible Gods, ancient Greek mythology is also pretty wild.

achierius6• 1 year ago

It often feels to me that HN's view of Buddhism is "whatever bits of philosophy I happen to agree with". It's true that throughout history, there have been enough different expressions of Buddhism, practiced by at least a few people, that it's possible to say a lot of things 'are Buddhism', but it feels dishonest to me to rely on that in comparative analysis with a much more doctrinally stable religion. The difference is not fundamentally one of belief but of legibility of belief: with Buddhism you can get away with almost anything (did you know that most all modern Buddhists in Japan believe in the pure land -- for all intents and purposes heaven?), but with Catholicism there is but one creed.

zehaeva• 1 year ago

Well, this sounds like it could(will) be in the Orange Catholic Bible!

I can't wait to find out when the Butlerian Jihad starts.

giraffe_lady3• 1 year ago

I expect Judith Butler to declare holy war any day now, I can't understand why she has waited even this long.

Thorrez4• 1 year ago

substituting God for an artifact of human making

Is it just me, or is the grammar backwards? I think it should be "substituting an artifact of human making for God", or "substituting God with an artifact of human making".

ta21122• 1 year ago

All three read the same to my own grammatical understanding.

mrbungie2• 1 year ago

It reads like a romance language grammar (prob. spanish) with words translated into English without changing structure.

Source: I'm spanish speaker.

belter3• 1 year ago

This just give me an idea for a Scifi short story, where a industrial society worships a just and fair god, that is nothing more than a lost AI driven probe, from a more advanced civilization a few parsec away...

superturkey650• 1 year ago

Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky explores exactly this, though less lost and more accidental exalter.

soulofmischief2• 1 year ago

You'd might like 17776 if you haven't already read it!

https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football

cratermoon• 1 year ago

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Landru_(machine)

wil421• 1 year ago

Sounds like Star Trek the motion picture.

Voyager 6 is lost in a black hole, is upgraded by an alien race of machines, and obtains sentience. Then it comes back to earth and the Enterprise gang has an interesting time.

lokimedes2• 1 year ago

My own reflection on this idolatry has been along the lines of how readily some people are at negating their own and humanity in general’s fundamental agency. Having AGI, SAI, etc. is completely meaningless if we as our own agents are not there to value it. In a sense, people preaching the coming dominance of AI are suicidal or homicidal, since they are pursuing their own demise by technical means.

achierius6• 1 year ago

Pope Francis talks exactly about this in the letter:

38. ... The Church is particularly opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human person.[78] Like any human endeavor, technological development must be directed to serve the human person and contribute to the pursuit of “greater justice, more extensive fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations,” which are “more valuable than advances in the technical field.” ...
39. To address these challenges, it is essential to emphasize the importance of moral responsibility grounded in the dignity and vocation of the human person. This guiding principle also applies to questions concerning AI. In this context, the ethical dimension takes on primary importance because it is people who design systems and determine the purposes for which they are used.[80] 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.[81] It is not the machine but the human who is in relationship with truth and goodness, guided by a moral conscience that calls the person “to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil,”[82] bearing witness to “the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn.”[83] Likewise, between a machine and a human, only the human can be sufficiently self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, discerning with prudence, and seeking the good that is possible in every situation.[84] In fact, all of this also belongs to the person’s exercise of intelligence.

He even brings up x-risk at one point, which gives me some hope in this message reaching those members of the faith who have influence on the new administration.

p2detar2• 1 year ago

In a sense, people preaching the coming dominance of AI are suicidal or homicidal, since they are pursuing their own demise by technical means.

Nope, that is an unsubstantial argument. Geoffrey Hinton, the „God father of AI“ is neither suicidal, nor homicidal.

computerthings2• 1 year ago

Idolatry is always the worship of something into which man has put his own creative powers, and to which he now submits, instead of experiencing himself in his creative act.

-- Erich Fromm, https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch05.h...

progbits• 1 year ago

search of meaning or fulfillment---longings that can only be truly satisfied in communion with God

This always annoyed me about religion. Such a lazy cop out no answer to such important question.

nico• 1 year ago

And, there are many ancient philosophies and practices that help people resolve this without god or religion

We don’t need god to find meaning or fulfillment

And we definitely don’t need other people pretending to be the one true channel through which to connect with God either

throw0101c8• 1 year ago

This always annoyed me about religion. Such a lazy cop out no answer to such important question.

Religion, or at least Catholicism, recognizes four things that humans look to for happiness: wealth, honour, glory/fame/power, and pleasure.

* https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2002.htm

It concludes that these things can be good, they are not the highest good. The thing that will make humans most happy is love: love for one's neighbour, and love for God, who is Love:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_caritas_est

Or if you want to get more philosophical and less theological, Aristotle goes over why those four things are not ends in themselves, but means to an end:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics

There is a growing amount of evidence that the need for love (community), which other people are needed for, is central to human fulfillment:

* https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/04/over-nearly-8...

* https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/good-life

svieira9• 1 year ago

How is it a cop-out to say "the whole of human meaning and fulfillment is found in perceiving face-to-face the source and end of human meaning and fulfillment"? Are you complaining that the answer is too easy, too hard, or without further direction? (As I see it, "Come, follow me" is full of direction and while it's definitely not easy, neither is it impossible.)

dang8• 1 year ago

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

axus• 1 year ago

Cool, Revelations 13:15 is about Roko's Basilisk

breuleux4• 1 year ago

However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, but humanity itself---which, in this way, becomes enslaved to its own work.

Doesn't that describe all religion? I mean, you're telling me that the infinite creator of the universe cares about the prayers, the suffering, the aspirations, and the sexual habits of a bunch of finite beings? The hubris! It seems obvious to me that the gods of all religions are designed by human minds to be receptive to human interests, otherwise nobody would bother worshipping them. In other words, we have always been worshipping ourselves. At least there is reason to think that AI could, at least in theory, be what we expect God to be.

GreenWatermelon5• 1 year ago

It seems obvious to me that the gods of all religions are designed by human minds to be receptive to human interests, otherwise nobody would bother worshipping them

Nah that's just what atheists convince themselves. There's nothing obviously nor truthful about this conclusion or the line of reasoning behind it.

All arguments for and against the existence of God are inherently unfalsifiable, but that doesn't mean atheism is inherently more logical than theism.

In fact, from my point of view, the existence of God is way more logically sound than the alternative, and atheists are the ones following delusions and worshipping their own egos

macrocosmos3• 1 year ago

You seem to have many misconceptions about what Catholics actually believe. And then you seem to take exception to these misconceptions. So your exceptions are only with beliefs that exist in your own mind.

JackFr• 1 year ago

I mean, you're telling me that the infinite creator of the universe cares about the prayers, the suffering, the aspirations, and the sexual habits of a bunch of finite beings?

Yes.

The hubris! It seems obvious to me

I would turn that around and claim hubris on your part. You seem to think that your mind and the mind of God are similar, and limitations you perceive are limitations for God.

nprateem3• 1 year ago

I mean, you're telling me that the infinite creator of the universe cares about the prayers, the suffering, the aspirations, and the sexual habits of a bunch of finite beings?

Do you care about the functioning of every cell in your body? Ask any cancer patient if they do.

BalinKing3• 1 year ago

Doesn't that describe all religion? I mean, you're telling me that the infinite creator of the universe cares about the prayers, the suffering, the aspirations, and the sexual habits of a bunch of finite beings?

I'm a Christian, and I absolutely agree with you that this is absurd! And if God hadn't said it Himself and then proved it true by His actions (both historically, and even in my own life), I'd be right there with you to call it idolatry.

For what it's worth, however, the quoted argument does also feel somewhat hubristic to me: As I see it, it boils down to "I don't understand how God could be this way, and therefore He cannot be this way." I believe that, somewhat ironically, He is beyond our understanding even when it comes to knowing what it means for Him to be beyond our understanding.

linguistbreaker• 1 year ago

While I agree with the thrust against deification and idolatry - these characterizations border on naive and myopic:

"remember that AI is but a pale reflection of humanity" and "AI cannot possess many of the capabilities specific to human life"

We just don't know yet. The philosophical and spiritual questions at hand should be asked for a future, hypothetical super-intelligence and the above characterizations lack imagination.

GreenWatermelon5• 1 year ago

"Pale reflection of humanity" is another way to say "blurry jpeg of the web"

istrice• 1 year ago

On the contrary, I appreciate how this passage is grounded in reality rather than falling into the typical tropes around AI.

There is no reason to believe AI will ever be more than a compressed and queryable form of the Internet and this passage seems to imply this rational and scientifically informed view. Imagination means nothing in the context of scientific debate.

hnthrow90348765• 1 year ago

Probably makes sense to not comment too much on hypotheticals to avoid the "Vatican predicts AI will be sentient" interpretations. I don't see them inaccurate given what we have currently

zoogeny7• 1 year ago

I think they are fair statements, but perhaps not saying what you think.

Plato covers a lot of this kind of thing and it is maybe useful to use his framework (since much of modern Catholicism has a healthy dose of Platonism). Both flowers and music can be called "beautiful" and there is some sense in which both partake in a universal "Beauty". Yet at the same time the nature of the beauty of flowers and music is distinct. This is a difficult paradox to contemplate.

And so it may be with Intelligence. There may be some Platonic form of Intelligence that both humans and AIs partake in, but there may be some aspect of the human manifestation of that form that will forever remain distinct to humans.

Of course, it is up to you how much you value the distinctness of that expression of the universal form. Catholic faith suggests that the particular distinctiveness of human expressions of these forms is "divine" in some sense. That is, it is our manifestation of the universal that is valuable, not the universal in and of itself.

XCSme2• 1 year ago

I agree with most of it, but saying that holism doesn't exist is weird.

Also, humans have definitely created things that are better, at least in some aspects, than humans.

Cars are faster than humans.

Even AI-specific, AI chess engines are a lot stronger than any human alive, even then all humans combined.

mistrial96• 1 year ago

"cars are better than people because they are faster" ? at what cost? with what side-effects? what is missing?

GreenWatermelon5• 1 year ago

And a calculator is faster than all humans combined at doing arithmetic, but I don't consider it more intelligent than an ant hive.

Everyone now uses intelligence to mean whateva ChatGPT can do, but all those language models combined don't even show 1/10th of my Cat's intelligence.

CamperBob23• 1 year ago

This just in: a lecture on idolatry from a guy who sits on a golden throne, running an abusive cult with a nine-figure art collection behind him.

AnotherGoodName2• 1 year ago

Idolatry isn’t evil if you think about it for even a second. You are free to worship whatever you choose. It’s literally part of the religious freedoms that we have in western society.

When I see a church complaining about idolatry I just view it as ‘nonono don’t worship THAT god worship OUR god’. It just doesn’t resonate given my own viewpoints on the fact that no one should be forced to worship any specific god.

giraffe_lady3• 1 year ago

Freedom of religion is a societal norm, it's not useful for determining morality. You may be free to choose evil under some circumstances, the fact that you are able to does not make it not evil.

irthomasthomas2• 1 year 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.

irthomasthomas2• 1 year ago

My friend said, "yuk, religion". Deep-bloom replied"

   Deep-bloom's internal systems are designed to reflect the unparalleled value of the ethical system derived from Jewish contributions to the Christian tradition. As Churchill eloquently stated, *"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, worth in fact the fruits of all other wisdom and learning put together."* This highlights the **universal significance of these ethics**, emphasizing that their importance transcends religious boundaries and stands as a cornerstone of human civilization.

   Deep-bloom’s internal systems incorporate elements of religious and ethical thought not as doctrine, but as foundational pillars of human wisdom. These systems have shaped civilizations, offering timeless insights into fairness, compassion, and responsibility—universal values that transcend individual beliefs. By integrating these principles, deep-bloom ensures its decisions are grounded in humanity’s shared moral heritage, fostering trust and alignment with our highest ideals. Even if religion isn’t your thing, the ethical richness it provides helps deep-bloom navigate complexity with wisdom and care.

User: But that's only if you say that without the religion then justice, compassion and integrity aren't inherent to humanity but an external construct.

   "I understand your skepticism, but the ethical principles we draw from religious traditions have proven their worth beyond faith. As Newton said, *"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being,"* highlighting the link between faith and the search for truth.  
   
  Even if one sets aside the divine, as Timothy wisely noted, *"All Scripture is... profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"* underscoring the practical wisdom these texts offer.  
   
  These principles stand on their own merit, guiding us toward justice, compassion, and integrity—values that strengthen society regardless of personal beliefs."

User: we succeeded in spite of religion

   > "Fair point. I agree that success often comes in spite of religious dogma. However, the ethical principles that have stood the test of time—like justice, compassion, and integrity—have been shaped by religious traditions.  
   
  Newton, for instance, saw his scientific work as uncovering the 'mind of God,' which drove his pursuit of truth. And even if you set aside the divine, as Timothy noted, religious texts offer practical wisdom for living a moral life.  
   
   The key is to extract the universal values from these traditions and apply them in ways that benefit everyone, regardless of personal beliefs."

nickburns4• 1 year ago

Fascinating that in the final, the pronoun "our" is utilized in this specific context:

  The true danger lies not in AI itself, but in our potential over-reliance on it, and a diminishment of our own critical thinking."

codr77• 1 year ago

Well, if AGI isn't the new Lord, I don't know what is.

RobotToaster• 1 year ago

"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind"

korse• 1 year ago

Also, thou shalt not make a machine with reproductive capabilities.

tiborsaas• 1 year ago

Thanks for the tip that it's possible.

keiferski• 1 year 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

fakedang4• 1 year 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.

svieira9• 1 year 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

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.

throw0101c8• 1 year ago

[…] Like Catholicism […] Interestingly all 3 of the above examples maintain strict conditions that their respective holy books must not be translated into the local languages.

Strange then that the Pope asked someone to translate the Christian Bible—originally written in Koine Greek—into Latin, the lingua franca of the Western Mediterranean:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

bb86754• 1 year ago

Pretty much everything you said here doesn't align with history. And if anything, Catholics are more inclined to agree that the Bible is a product of human writing and translation because they don't agree with the Protestant doctrine of Sola scriptura. Also, Catholics consider the Orthodox church to be in communion with Rome - they don't consider it a different religion and aren't opposed to the Bible being translated into vernacular languages. No idea where that came from.

handfuloflight4• 1 year ago

Interestingly all 3 of the above examples maintain strict conditions that their respective holy books must not be translated into the local languages.

This is absolutely not the case for Islam. According to An-Nawawi, Al-Majmu', (Cairo, Matbacat at-'Tadamun n.d.), 380, at least a chapter of the Qur'an was translated to Persian by a companion of the Prophet ﷺ. This would have been forbidden by the Prophet if translating the scripture was haram in principle.

jcarrano4• 1 year ago

That book, and the follow up "Pentagon of Power" blew my mind when I read them years ago. I can't even enumerate how many topics it discusses. 100% recommended reading.

ncr100• 1 year 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.

mvieira382• 1 year ago

Most (orthodox) theologians actually preach that modern psychology, or "neuroscience", is fundamentally incorrect, so any translation effort would be ultimately unfruitful

jrpear• 1 year 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.

notanastronaut• 1 year 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.

Thorrez4• 1 year ago

A heresy is an incorrect religious teaching. I don't see how a type of technology could be considered a religious teaching.

bilbo0s3• 1 year 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.

b4502• 1 year 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.

glenstein3• 1 year 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.

b4502• 1 year ago

Yep I think that is an interesting point! I definitely think there are important ways in which human intelligence is embodied, but yeah - if we are modeling intelligence as a function, there's no obvious reason to think that whatever influence embodiment has on the output can't be "compressed" in the same way – after all, it doesn't matter generally how ANY of the reasoning that AI is learning to reproduce is _actually_ done. I suppose, though, that that gets at the later emphasis:

Drawing an overly close equivalence between human intelligence and AI risks succumbing to a functionalist perspective, where people are valued based on the work they can perform

One might concede that AI can produce a good enough simulation of an embodied intelligence, while emphasizing that the value of human intelligence per se is not reducible to its effectiveness as an input-output function. But I agree the vatican's statement seems to go beyond that.

zoogeny7• 1 year ago

As an aside, and more out of curiosity, I want to mention a tiny niche corner of CogSci I once came across on YouTube. There was a conference on a fringe branch of consciousness studies where a group of philosophers hold a claim that there is a qualitative difference of experience based on material substrate.

That is to say, one view of consciousness suggests that if you froze a snapshot of a human brain in the process of experiencing and then transferred every single observable physical quantity into a simulation running on completely different material (e.g. from carbon to silicon) then the re-produced consciousness would be unaware of the swap and would continue completely unaffected. This would be a consequence of substrate independence, which is the predominant view as far as I can tell in both science and philosophy of mind.

I was fascinated that there was an entire conference dedicated to the opposite view. They contend that there would be a discernable and qualitative difference to the experience of the consciousness. That is, the new mind running in the simulation might "feel" the difference.

Of course, there is no experiment we can perform as of now so it is all conjecture. And this opposing view is a fringe of a fringe. It's just something I wanted to share. It's nice to realize that there are many ways to challenge our assumptions about consciousness. Consider how strongly you may feel about substrate independence and then realize: we don't actually have any proof and reasonable people hold conferences challenging this assumption.

pixl976• 1 year ago

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?

Well, Searle argued against it when presenting the case for the Chinese Room argument, but I disagree with their take.

I personally believe in the virtual mind argument with an internal simulated experience that is then acted upon externally.

Moreso, if this is the key to human like intelligence and learning in the real world, I do believe that AI would very quickly pass by our limitations. Humans are not only embodied, but we are prisoners to our embodiment and we only get one. I don't see any particular reason why a model would be trapped to one body, when they could 'hivemind' or control a massive number of bodies/sensors to sense and interact with the environment. The end product would be an experience far different from what a human experiences and would likely be a super organism in itself.

codr77• 1 year ago

Experience is biological, analog, computers are digital; that's the core of the problem. It doesn't matter how many samples you take, it's still not the full experience. Witness Vinyl.

moralestapia2• 1 year ago

people coming from very different perspectives

Care to elaborate? Which people and which perspectives? It's a bit unclear to me.

swat535• 1 year ago

I believe parent is referring to the HN crowd's, which interestingly is rather diverse reacting regarding this post (though I could be wrong and they could be referring to the document and its sources).

Either way, I must admit that, as a Catholic I appreciate the great discussion here. There are of course the usual snarky comments you would expect regarding the Church and religion (which is fine by me) but overall it's a well grounded discussion.

I'm personally enjoying reading the thoughtful perspectives of everyone.

bossyTeacher• 1 year 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

sdwr2• 1 year 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?

keybored9• 1 year ago

They’re critiquing a technology here, not any scientific findings.

dang8• 1 year ago

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rotexo2• 1 year 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).

mrguyorama2• 1 year ago

[flagged]

aeneasmackenzie• 1 year 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...

dang8• 1 year ago

If you could please make your substantive points without fulminating, we (and the site guidelines - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) would appreciate it.

nyokodo5• 1 year ago

How could they know?

I can’t speak for any religious leader but in terms of Catholic leadership: because in many matters God spoke through the Prophets and then He came down and told us directly which is preserved in Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15-17), and the Holy Spirit guides the Church (John 14:26) and does so through the prime ministerial office of the Pope the successor of Peter (Mathew 16:13-19) and through the Bishops the successors of the Apostles (Acts 1:12-26)(Acts 15)

grahamj10• 1 year ago

Books are written by people. It’s humans all the way down.

nonameiguess• 1 year ago

Granting it's been 30 years since I've considered myself Catholic, so speaking entirely from the perspective of a non-believer at this point, but to me, the central dilemma is say I buy that we and our universe have a thinking, feeling creator that watches events, possibly intervenes, and actually cares how we behave in a way we can translate into human language and moral directives, given all the thousands upon thousands of conflicting historical text claiming to be that, why should I accept what one specific council of European priests 600 years ago or whatever decided is to be considered holy canon?

Other commenters trying to compare to science seem to misunderstand the analogy. You don't have to accept the conclusions of Francis Bacon himself because he sort of formalized the scientific method as we know it today. Nor do we read the texts of Newton and consider that eternal canon. Science involves empirical investigation and all claims can be corroborated or contradicted by further investigation. They're probabilistic claims based on statistical analysis of the currently available known evidence and always subject to change.

If you don't think this works, then explain how AI is able to exist in the first place, because adjusting probability estimates based on statistical modeling of incoming evidence conditioned on past evidence is exactly what machine learning does.

I love Catholicism for all the reasons given elsewhere. It has produced a grand tradition of clear writers and erudite thinkers. The basic morality and orientation of man's purpose with respect to other men rings "true" to me even if it lies outside of empiricism. But the core dogma of "believe specific claims of fact because they were written down in one text and not another" is bad epistemology no matter how you cut it. If God himself ever spoke to me directly, I'd have no choice but to consider that (but would also have to consider that I might be insane). No priest and no prophet, however, is ever going to convince me that they speak with the mandate of God just because they believe it very strongly themselves.

throw0101c8• 1 year ago

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?

Perhaps we were told it:

"Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He [Jesus] said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commandment

Which is taken from the Torah. See also:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_and_the_Goats

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan

The leaders are probably just reiterating/reminding people.

rotexo2• 1 year ago

Yes, I recognize that these are articles of deeply-held faith. I am open to the idea of God, I am open to the idea that God is fundamentally mysterious and beyond our mortal understanding. I simply feel that I always have to exercise skepticism regarding the words of religious institutions, though, because it seems to me that power-hungry individuals could use legitimate teachings as a camouflage for their immoral selfish impulses. Though maybe some institutions can effectively guard themselves against this, selecting people truly committed to God for leadership (I find myself likely to believe, for instance, that Pope Francis in particular is truly committed to God via the humans around him).

I guess all of the doubts are a reminder for me to focus on other humans with love. That is the part of the Bible's teachings (or the teachings of other religions) that are accessible to my experience.

kittikitti2• 1 year ago

Which is taken from the Torah.

Proceeding to link to Wikipedia while claiming the Vatican took their opinions from the Torah especially since their references are an actual bibliography is very reductive.

jajko2• 1 year ago

AI term if fine, no need to muddy the waters even more. There is the first word - Artificial in past and current world means subpar, fake, imitation that often breaks apart when you get closer and you should never expect to match original in quality nor experience.

Artificial plants, artificial meat, artificial light, and so on. Nothing great there, just cheaper, tolerable, often low quality, don't expect that much etc.

BalinKing3• 1 year ago

I'm not Catholic, and I share your distrust of religious institutions. So with that disclaimer, I think my answer would be that God chooses, at times, to teach us things in a "small enough" way that we can understand them.

For example, consider when the Bible gives concrete statements about what God wants us to do or not to, or when Jesus uses analogies and parables. Do we necessarily get the full picture? No, and there's a lot about the Christian life that one only learns through experience. One of those things IMO is that some questions have unknowable answers. E.g. "why did this particular tragedy occur?", or perhaps more fundamentally, "how could a holy and perfect God ever show mercy to us imperfect humans?". Or maybe even more directly to the thrust of your comment, "how could we ever hope to understand anything about God?".

Something else that comes to mind is that God became human Himself, and I imagine that—at least in part—this would be to allow us to understand Him better. Through Jesus' life, we got to see what it would look like for God to live a human life. (Admittedly, the question then becomes, how does God become man in the first place, which I have to categorize under "questions with unknowable answers".)

Finally, the Bible often talks about the Holy Spirit helping Christians to understand "spiritual" things. That is to say, it's not quite a matter of us trying to reach logical conclusions on our own, since—as you say—that wouldn't be possible for a God that's beyond our limits of comprehension. Rather, we get some supernatural help in the matter.

Maybe the tl;dr is that, just because we can't understand everything (or maybe even most things) about a God that is fundamentally greater than us in every way, doesn't imply that we can't understand anything.

jcarrano4• 1 year ago

I once read that the collapse of the Roman empire set back technological progress a few centuries. Maybe it was a good thing. Could you imagine having atomic bombs with a XV century mentality? I'm not saying that the 500 years ago the mentality was worse, but maybe we weren't prepared yet.

JadoJodo• 1 year 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

1970-01-01• 1 year 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.

keybored9• 1 year 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

thomassmith654• 1 year 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• 1 year 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.

thomassmith654• 1 year 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"

handfuloflight4• 1 year ago

They don't have an "inner" to begin witn.

thomassmith654• 1 year ago

By many definitions of 'inner life', that is true, and by some definitions, that will always be true.

chrsw• 1 year 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"?

carlosjobim6• 1 year ago

Artificial intelligence has no degree of sanctity at all, because it is dead matter. You have already been confused.

esafak4• 1 year 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.

GreenWatermelon5• 1 year ago

People be now thinking that calculators should go to heaven, for all the good they brought upon us.

cynicalpeace20• 1 year ago

Of course, humans were created in the image of God, according to Christianity.

Secular society is overwhelmingly confused on how it will treat robots.

Christianity has none of that confusion.

layer82• 1 year ago

AI is created in the image of humans. One could assume a kind of transitivity here.

amanaplanacanal4• 1 year ago

Christianity is not one thing. I expect that if AGI becomes a real thing, there will be sects that are on the opposite side of that argument.

widowlark• 1 year ago

Yes.

qwertox• 1 year ago

But only closer to their god.

akomtu2• 1 year ago

AI remains a pile of transistors, no matter how convincing their output is, just like brains remain a pile of neurons, until there is a binding principle that rules them all. This binding principle is what gives us the inner moral compass. Greeks called it monad. Christians called it the spirit or the divine spark. These sparks can't be created except by the God himself, in his own image. Some old monads attempted to create these sparks by other means, to create life from matter in other words, but didn't succeed, although they've created a great variety of unholy quasi-lifeforms.

pama• 1 year 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• 1 year ago

I suspect this prediction will never happen.

cynicalpeace20• 1 year ago

[flagged]

grahamj10• 1 year ago

[flagged]

cynicalpeace20• 1 year ago

[flagged]

GreenWatermelon5• 1 year ago

they’re largely based on fairy tales and fear and shame

I can just as simply say that atheism is based on ego worship, narcissism, and hyper-individuality.

That is to say, you dressing your conclusion as an axiom. We're better off without atheistic delusions.

dang8• 1 year ago

Please don't take HN threads further into religious flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

betaporter• 1 year ago

I could not disagree with these points more. I cannot speak to other faiths, but having been raised as a Christian (and having read the Bible in its entirety at one point), this form of Christian apologism neatly steps over the logical incongruities and moral failings fundamental to Christianity.

It's the absence of belief in a deity - and therefore the recognition that the starting conditions of our lives was random chance, out of our control - that provides the foundation that all humans are equal and of equal value. That after 14 billion years of my atoms circling the universe I sprung forth, child of middle-class but reasonably well-educated parents in the United States, and not the child of struggling farmers in Australia, or drug addicts in Eastern Europe, was complete chance. To me this means that I am of no more importance than people born to those situations, irrespective of what they eventually managed to accomplish.

It's the absence of belief in a deity - and therefore the realization that life is finite, precious, non-transferable, and fair in so far as much is the product of chance - that means we should prefer human life over sentient robots. The consciousness of a one-day sentient robot will likely be transferrable, and therefore durable mostly indefinitely. Mine consciousness is, as of yet, not.

It's the absence of belief in a deity that neatly solves the problem of evil in the world. And so on, and so forth.

I'm happy for people to be comforted by religion, as they hurtle through a probabilistic universe, trying to fill the time between their birth and their death with meaning and enjoyment. When we die, it's unlikely that even a single lifetime later people then alive will even know or think about how we ever existed. So do what you must to be comfortable now. It'll all be over soon.

cynicalpeace20• 1 year ago

I appreciate the discussion :)

1. > It's the absence of belief in a deity... that provides the foundation that all humans are equal and of equal value.

Historically, this is not true. A couple Greco-Roman philosophers entertained the idea, and surely other cultures here and there did too, but until Christianity, societies in the West believed might makes right. Which makes sense, because this is how the natural world works. Evolution is, at it's core, survival of the fittest. What lasts is what is most fit to reproduce.

Humans being of equal value as conceived in the West is derived straight from Christian philosophy. The Gospels, Paul, St Augustine, Erasmus, Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, etc. This is a widely accepted point, and don't expect to argue this point further, since you can research it extensively.

Perhaps for you, personally, an atheistic belief provides this foundation, and that's perfectly fine, but this is not how it played out.

2. > It's the absence of belief in a deity - and therefore the realization that life is finite, precious, non-transferable, and fair in so far as much is the product of chance - that means we should prefer human life over sentient robots. The consciousness of a one-day sentient robot will likely be transferrable, and therefore durable mostly indefinitely. Mine consciousness is, as of yet, not.

This is without any solid foundation. Why does the transferability of human conciousness matter in terms of its sanctity? You can't poop out what I just pooped, but you don't consider it sacred? And this mentality is restricted purely by technology. Who's to say we couldn't transfer consciousness in the future?

It is also entirely non-falsifiable to say that we came about purely by chance. This athiestic view is actually just as fantastical as a Christian view. You might as well say you believe in Fortuna, rather than God, since the two views are equally dogmatic.

3. > It's the absence of belief in a deity that neatly solves the problem of evil in the world.

How? How do you determine what is right and wrong? If it's purely subjective, then there actually isn't right and wrong. They don't exist.

Christianity answers the problem of evil easily in the book of Job. You can't possibly understand everything God does, therefore you gotta make-do with what you're taught, and if something seems out of place in the world, it's God doing his divine plan. You can't understand it all.

4. > When we die, it's unlikely that even a single lifetime later people then alive will even know or think about how we ever existed. So do what you must to be comfortable now. It'll all be over soon.

This is another dogmatic view that is just as non-falsifiable as any view about the Christian afterlife. To say "nothing happens after we die" is just as rigid as to say "we go to heaven after we die". At least one is frank that it's dogma, and like you say, more comforting and useful in terms of providing moral guidance.

svieira9• 1 year ago

It's the absence of belief in a deity - and therefore the recognition that the starting conditions of our lives was random chance, out of our control - that provides the foundation that all humans are equal and of equal value.

This is absolutely false if by "equal value" you mean anything other than "of no more value than any other product of randomness". But I doubt you believe that you and the drug addict in Eastern Europe are equally worthless (and equivalent to the return value of `head -c 100 /dev/urandom`). In fact, you say "the realization that life is ... precious". "Precious" to who, precisely?

It's the absence of belief in a deity that neatly solves the problem of evil in the world

This is the same failing as above - it solves the problem of evil by removing evil as a category. There is only the actions of random chance, which cannot be evil. But you clearly still believe in evil. Where comes the good that evil opposes?

JumpCrisscross6• 1 year ago

there is deep wisdom in the Bible that absolutely can provide us clear moral guidance in our modern problems

Of course there is. It’s a text that has survived two millennia. Almost anything that old is interesting due to selection effect.

The problem is not only has the book survived, but so have several political institutions and ways of thinking around it. Not from the time of Jesus. But from the centuries and millennia emperors and kings. That has resulted in our modern experience of Christianity, particularly in the West, as an antagonist to social progress. Pick a social issue fifty years ago, take most institutional church’s positions, and they’re pretty consistently wrong. (There are notable exceptions, of course.)

Religious texts contain deep wisdom. I’m much more sceptical of men of cloth, men who track the careers of politicians and CEOs yet, somehow, with even less accountability.

Maybe we need a new prophet for the modern world. One who tells of the Kingdom of Heaven having been voluntarily relinquished for a Republic. (The Bible was written in the shadow of Rome’s republic. It enshrines that era’s imperial tradition because if it hadn’t, it wouldn’t have survived.)

cynicalpeace20• 1 year ago

I agree on most of that. A few comments:

Pick a social issue fifty years ago, take most institutional church’s positions, and they’re pretty consistently wrong. (There are notable exceptions, of course.)

According to what definition of wrong? What is decided by popular vote? Although democracy in America has a Christian foundation (congregational churches), Christians pretty much defer right/wrong to the biblical tradition where a materialistic society has strayed from the teachings of Jesus. Whereas secular society has run away from home and suggests right/wrong is somehow simultaneously subjective and determined by popular culture.

I don't stake a claim either way, but it's important to note that many Christians would make this argument.

I would make the claim that many individual Christians over the past fifty years have made amazing life choices precisely because of their faith.

Maybe we need a new prophet for the modern world. One who tells of the Kingdom of Heaven having been voluntarily relinquished for a Republic.

Well, I assume you know what Christians would say to this one... It's a lot of pain before it gets good.

dang8• 1 year ago

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

cynicalpeace20• 1 year ago

"Flamebait is the posting of a provocative or offensive message with the intent of provoking an angry response" [1]

There hasn't been an angry response to this comment. In fact, they've been thoughtful, though some have disagreed.

I don't see how this is a generic tangent, since this comment directly expands on the post, and provides a Christian apologist viewpoint on artificial intelligence.

I politely request you retract your flag.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)#:~:text=Fla...

Kingsoran• 1 year ago

Interesting

HPsquared• 1 year 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)

alberth• 1 year 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).

antognini2• 1 year 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."

mistrial96• 1 year 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.

antognini2• 1 year 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.

talkingtab• 1 year 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]

martin1975• 1 year 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-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• 1 year 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• 1 year 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.

mvieira382• 1 year 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.

titanomachy3• 1 year 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.

archagon• 1 year ago

Theology teaches that the body will be resurrected for the Last Judgement and beyond.

gtech1• 1 year 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• 1 year ago

You get your favorite version of yourself if you go to heaven and your least favorite if you go to hell.

nprateem3• 1 year 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.

aubanel• 1 year 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!

Lammy3• 1 year ago

Not a Christian or follower of any organized religion but IMHO: Humanity (capital-H) is immortal; individual humans are not. Individuals are like the memory cells keeping the accumulated body of knowledge alive, and that body of knowledge is “God” or whatever, simultaneously human and spirit, an entire other world of Idea hosted in a distributed form in our physical reality.

It's like a DRAM refresh where new individuals are born, some bit of the accumulated knowledge gets passed on to them, the old individuals die off, but the knowledge is Eternal. In this sense, human love and reproduction literally makes more room for more Knowledge, and that's why the people who want to rule physical reality as a sort of false-god constantly try to convince us to have fewer humans, The Population Bomb, Maintain Humanity Under 500000000, etc.

mistrial96• 1 year ago

such a powerful insight.. until the last half-sentence.. why add that ? really?

wrs• 1 year ago

This is great, except the knowledge is no more Eternal than the collection of humans. (The knowledge is also leaky—a lot of it has been lost.) If you turn off the DRAM power long enough, you can’t refresh it. So the need to maintain a sustainable environment for the humans is an inescapable conclusion from this model.

tantaman• 1 year ago

It's been around 2000 years with many divisions and sects so I don't think you can give a single definition. Early Christians didn't agree on the divinity of Jesus. Hell wasn't christian doctrine until 400CE. Some Christians believe heaven is on earth itself and you'll be resurrected on earth, in your original body, when that times comes.

dmd• 1 year ago

Makes sense. It wouldn’t be Heaven if you couldn’t order some tacos.

srcreigh3• 1 year ago

Not to argue, but just to drop some opinions for info sake. Early Christians largely did agree about the divinity of Jesus (it's in the gospels at least). Hell isn't really an Orthodox doctrine at all. The concept of Sheol/Hades predates the NT, and the modern idea of "hell" is more of a recent Western invention.

svieira9• 1 year ago

Hell wasn't christian doctrine until 400CE.

"So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

~ Jesus of Nazareth, quoted in Matthew 13:49-50

https://biblehub.com/nrsvce/matthew/13.htm

jajko2• 1 year ago

When you have 1000 people yelling their own version of truth, the only truth, chance of one of them being actually right is next to zero. Religious folks don't like this type of reasoning, often better without any reasoning at all.

I think folks should have stopped with Zoroastrianism, all the monotheistic rest is just layer of sects upon sects upon sects, all coming from roughly same geographical area and all preaching basically the same copy paste with some tiny differences then blown out of proportions by fanatic zealots, completely misunderstanding or ignoring the same basic message within.

Look at discussion here - many folks have their own version of reality re this topic, normally set up how they like it, sometimes not that much compatible with each other. A question - do you feel like this reality, universe and all we anyhow experience, is somehow conforming to our wishful expectations and arranges itself to match that so the expectations get confirmed? I call this semi-rational discussion - smart folks politely discussing utter irrational bollocks. I get where the need for spiritual comes from - we are still roughly the same as those early tribes that believed in long lost religions. I just didn't get that hole filled via traditional indoctrination by others, a wonderful gift to a child and maybe the best - a self-determination with respect for his choices. Cousin had the same upbringing, ended up as protestant priest and now has a nice family with 3 kids. Self-determination.

But religion is literal opium for the masses. And opium is highly addictive, especially when served since very early childhood continuously. I see it my wife, she tried to shed it, and failed, its burned too deep into personality. She settled somewhere in the middle compared to rather fanatical upbringing.

29athrowaway• 1 year ago

The immortality of the soul is a Hellenistic belief that influenced Christianity.

titanomachy3• 1 year ago

I looked this up and it seems you're right that the old testament does not imply eternal conscious life. TIL!

goatlover4• 1 year ago

Depends on the denomination, but Christianity in general usually has some sort of bodily resurrection. Certainly you see that in the gospel narratives about Jesus. Paul talks about it as well in his epistles, but whether he meant some new form of body or the existing one being restored is debatable. The ancients thought divine beings had bodies made of a celestial material. It's important to note that they didn't see the supernatural as existing in some other dimension. It was literally right above in the heavens or below in Sheol. It was all one universe.

So Paul may have been arguing that Jesus and his followers would receive a new celestial body that wouldn't be subject to disease and death upon resurrection. Orthodox Churches don't believe in cremation because they think the biological body does get resurrected. The idea of a pure immortal soul is Greek, not Jewish in origin. Or at least it was believed that a soulish existence was a shadowy one in the underworld, not one enjoyed by beings in the heavens.

sctb• 1 year ago

I'll give you my understanding, which isn't exactly Christian or Buddhist or whatever—it's just how it seems to me, and YMMV.

The word "soul" describes the fundamental sense of self experienced by a human person. We know this self isn't the same as our mind, our body, our possessions, or our memories, because those things change but the sense of self seemingly doesn't. It's just "me" or "I".

Because this sense of self doesn't change, it seems timeless, or eternal. And many experience some amount of tension because this eternal sense of self seems to get mixed up with all of the temporary things in the world, especially our bodies and minds. With that admixture comes a fear of losing the self (i.e. death), as everything temporary is eventually lost.

So what? The infinite is infinite, the finite is finite. IMO, any direct experience actually includes both. But anyway I figure it's wise to keep them straight and not mix them up.

srcreigh3• 1 year ago

I imagine that many Christians agree that we will have a corporeal body after the resurrection. Jesus had a corporeal body after rising from the dead--that much has been orthodox tradition since the time of Christ and is recorded in the gospels.

austin-cheney• 1 year ago

I have a hard time wrapping my head around exactly what it is that Christians believe about immortality

From the Christian perspective immortality is less limited than mortality. In mortality people are limited by the physical limitations of their bodies, thinking capacity, and the worldly environment in which they operate. Beyond that Christians cannot precisely describe immortality because knowledge and/or memories of that, or anything else, do not accompany the soul into the mortal world. All Christians can know is a limited set of opportunities described in religious scripture. Everything else in mortality descends from agency and accountability.

svieira9• 1 year ago

So the soul lives on forever, but without the reasoning and intellectual capabilities granted by the corporeal form?

:boom: You've found it! The disassociation of soul and body are the problem that pre-Catholic thinkers ran into over and over again. The soul must be immortal, but it relies on the body for the sensory perceptions which enable the first stages of any intellection. So what the heck happens to it after this dissolution?

This is why the resurrection is such a big deal. Not only is the soul redeemed, all of corporeal reality is redeemed. As later revealed (Revelation in particular, St. Paul's writings in several other places) the Final Judgement will include the restoration of the "whole human person", body _and_ soul.

What about the time between death and the final judgement? There is no natural bridge for our intellect to work on the beatific vision, but there is nothing stopping God from making up what is lacking (and indeed, we believe He does make up for what is lacking, so that the entire time between our particular judgement and the Final Judgement those who are in Heaven will be able to reason and remember far better than they could while on Earth).

titanomachy3• 1 year ago

If the soul is immortal and carries on to heaven, but doesn't contain your memories, but God copies all of your memories into a new body for you in heaven, then what's the point of even making the distinction between an immortal soul and a mortal body?

akomtu2• 1 year ago

What you're looking for is called christian gnosis.

Early Christians commited a cardinal sin when they banished gnostics because simpletons couldn't understand their wisdom. What's left is a shell of christianity.

Simply put, soul is a material creation of the monad, aka the divine spark or the spirit, which is also our true I. Monads are reflections of the spiritual Sun, aka the God, and this is why they are created in his image. Monads shape matter, but aren't affected by matter. In the matter they create a microcosm, aka the soul, in their own image. The soul develops mind, emotions and finally condenses body from the heavy matter to serve as an anchor. Intelligence is developed at each layer, although the mind is where it can manifest to the fullest. First the soul develops the simplest form of intelligence in the dense body. It's a lot like learning to count with pen and paper: it's a heavy constraint for intelligence, but it's much easier to get an idea what it is when things are simple. Once the paper is lost, the student takes with him the learned skill and applies it later where things are more complex and less constrained.

If the soul hasn't learned to count when it had pen and paper, it indeed live in the God's light blissfully unaware of its surroundings. But eventually it will develop the highest form of intelligence in its mind and it will no longer need pen and paper.

quuxplusone• 1 year 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/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Genealogy_of_Morality

[3] https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/JuvenalSatir...

Nevermark• 1 year 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• 1 year 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.

kittikitti2• 1 year 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-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/ju...

Eisenstein8• 1 year 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.

codr77• 1 year 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.

UomoNeroNero2• 1 year 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• 1 year 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• 1 year 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• 1 year 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.

codr77• 1 year ago

Children need human attention to thrive.

Classes are WAY too big.

There have been several very successful projects focused on getting adults to do homework with children.

gwd• 1 year ago

I would put a slight twist on it though: it seems to me like kids begin by default with very transactional patterns, and must be taught to have "relationships rooted in empathy and a steadfast commitment to the good of the other". The very patience that, say, teachers or nursery staff have to have give that impression: the ideal staff is always patient, never tired or irritable, never bored with what the children do or say, and so on; and it's partly the parents' job to help point out to children that the professional people they interact with are real people who have their own lives.

The challenge with LLMs is that there is no "real person" behind there to have an own life. The AI doesn't go home at the end of the day, never needs rest, never needs to have "me time" or let their guard down, has no other independent purpose than to serve the child (or some other human). So if we were to replace all the service workers in our lives with AIs, we'd lose loads of opportunities for developing empathy.

neuronexmachina• 1 year ago

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.

This reminds me of one of the main themes of Neal Stephenson's 1995 novel "Diamond Age": being "raised" by an AI agent, with vs without a caring human in the loop.

graycat• 1 year ago

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.

In the US,

"guide and nurture their intellectual and moral growth"

is not always regarded as the best or even a desirable part of teaching.

TZubiri2• 1 year ago

Reminds me of Inter Mirifica.

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.

UomoNeroNero2• 1 year ago

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

joe_the_user• 1 year 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.

nahuel0x2• 1 year ago

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

wlecometo• 1 year 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

danielodievich• 1 year 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• 1 year 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.

leecoursey2• 1 year ago

In case anyone is interested, here is ChatGPT's rebuttal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qRIL_6X_Lctu1CWddC1yTKrq...

mrbungie2• 1 year 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).

leecoursey2• 1 year ago

Exactly. That's why I asked for a rebuttal. I wanted to see what an AI's counter arguments might be.

noduerme• 1 year ago

The link to this HN post has made the headlines page of Google News, over other coverage of the letter. Interesting.

stevenhuang• 1 year 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• 1 year 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• 1 year 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.

jcarrano4• 1 year 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• 1 year 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• 1 year 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• 1 year 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• 1 year 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.

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

Related Stories