DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⥠Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
67% Positive
Analyzed from 2022 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#hiv#more#power#church#pope#abuse#greed#birth#control#written
Discussion (45 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
The argument boil down to: Pangram seems to flag some sections, some sections have tells or AI smell, and despite being written in a similar register, previous writings of both the Pope and previous encyclicals are not flagged.
I'm not sure that it's a disaster if parts have been AI assisted, but it's an interesting question to ponder, and would be interested in the HN view.
Best post I've found arguing that there was LLM use: https://substack.com/inbox/post/199316613
Australian startup apparently verifying (without much detail) that it's not: https://www.proudlyhuman.org/news-room/media-releases/pope-l...
What I'm saying is that it's possible that some of these tells are becoming part of standard writing style now.
This is such a key point -- the problem is that the $T that are being poured into AI are doing so for one purpose alone: ROI
The choice has already been made, and it's the wrong one.
The whole interview is well worth your time.
In an ideal free market resting on private property, no individual can coerce any other, all cooperation is voluntary, all parties to such cooperation benefit or they need not participate. There are no âsocialâ values, no âsocialâ responsibilities in any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals and of the various groups they voluntarily form. ...
(But) the doctrine of âsocial responsibilityâ taken seriously would extend the scope of the political mechanism to every human activity. It does not differ in philosophy from the most explicitly collectivist doctrine. It differs only by professing to believe that collectivist ends can be attained without collectivist means. That is why, in my book âCapitalism and Freedom,â I have called it a âfundamentally subversive doctrineâ in a free society, and have said that in such a society, âthere is one and only one social responsibility of businessâto use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.â
Then Powell (the Powell who became a Supreme Court Justice) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce set out to change the rules of the game. The 1971 "Powell memo" was written when the values of the 1960s had permeated society. The objective of the memo was to turn that around. It's a battle plan to use corporate power to change government. When it was written, few companies had lobbyists. Now, corporate lobbying is huge, and effective.
The extent to which this well-funded project worked doesn't have to be described today. What's worth realizing is that it wasn't always that way.
The U.S. Government of the Lyndon Johnson era ("Great Society", "War on Poverty") was organized to deal with something like the impact of AI on employment. The current government is not. It is permeated with people who think it the government shouldn't do anything about it.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctr...
[2] https://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/
If eg Putin had been more greedy instead of power hungry, we wouldn't have had his war against Ukraine. Same for many other wars and conflicts, including the US war on Iran, or even WW2 if you want to go back in time.
If Google and Anthropic and such are able to own access, they will enshittify it horribly. Because they are powerless to do anything but, in the name of profit.
In particular, Google depends a lot more on advertising than Anthropic does, so their incentives are different.
Therefore, whatever AGI looks like will be selfish, violent, and short sighted...
But our current crop of chatbots are not it. They're just parrots that happen to be pretty bad for the climate.
"billionaire", "in some Vatican sense". Would you elaborate? This just sounds like such a low and lazy attack
Enough people have made these same points without the taint of that organization that I don't see this offering as necessary for the discussion, it mostly seems like a way to insert religion into something that simply doesn't require it. Faith can be a beautiful thing, personal and meaningful, but a giant organization with power and money is always going to be just that and should be treated with according suspicion.
Again, one promulgated by people who see fit to protect pedophiles and allow them to continue their abuse.
89. Living out justice in the Church means purifying ecclesial relationships and structures from distortions that give rise to inequality, lack of transparency and abuse of power. In this regard, listening to the victims of spiritual, economic, institutional, sexual and power-based abuse, as well as abuses of conscience, is an integral part of a journey toward justice, which includes acknowledging the harm done, just reparation and taking steps to prevent it from happening again. Every power is at the service of communion and mission. All authority is at the service of the People of God. This ministry of service is expressed not only through our faith celebrated and lived in the Sacraments, and in the adoption of a synodal style, but also in the concrete sharing of goods. Following the example of the early Church, ecclesial resources need to be shared so that no one among us may be in need (cf. Acts 4î34î, and so that their administration may support the mission of proclaiming the Gospel to the poorest. Regular assessments of the exercise of ministerial responsibilities should be encouraged, not as judgments on individuals, but as tools for learning and correction oriented toward mission. î116î Only to the extent that we are open to the action of the Holy Spirit will these principles of Social Doctrine become incarnate in ecclesial life. In this way, the Church will be able to bear credible witness to society that seeking the common good together, with shared responsibility and fraternity, is not a utopia, but a real possibility.
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/events/event.dir.h...
Likewise when it comes to changing their practical stances and teaching on matters that have very real impacts on health and wellbeing of so many, I'll believe it when I see the results for some time.
How are abortion and birth control at all related to HIV? I don't understand the connection.
Do you have some suggestions about the doctrines that Catholics should assent to?