So is the Church what? That the Church must serve humanity or that it is the "powerful few" as some here are saying?
In the first case, I claim that it has and that it does. I'm not sure how you can credibly claim otherwise. Only ideologically informed animosity could distort one's views here. If you know the mission of the Church, then I see no issue. Do members of the Church fail? Of course. Everyone does, and indeed this is captured best in the Christian acknowledgment that everyone is a sinner, without exception. Everyone falls short.
In the second case, I don't know what the implication is. Is it that the Church is one of the "powerful few" and therefore evil? The first question you must ask is what your notion of "power" here is. The second, whether the Church is actually powerful according to that definition. The third, whether you are falsely linking being one of the "powerful few" with being evil. The problem, after all, is not with power, but with the way power is used. In an ideal world, all power would be exercised morally, and all authority would have commensurate power.
I would say this: the Church has authority. Whether it has power depends on your definition of power and the particular historical epoch. It is not reduced to a simple boolean.
It's best to avoid cheap jabs that rely on boring and unthinking tropes that appeal to widespread prejudices rather than to informed reason.
AI is like an arrow, a trebuchet, a gun, a missile, a weapon to gain more power, to wage more wars and to terrorize people into submission, just like every new weapon before. No, the powerful won't listen to nobody, the universe doesn't have morals or ethics, it just have laws, and survival of the fittest is one of them.
The church is just playing the role they've always played, instilling weakness and fear while "siding" with the oppressed so they all can milk the sheeple. They are an institution of power, for power, and they behave like such, under sheep's clothes.
Why should anyone care what the pope says? He’ll never go as far as to even stick his thumb out of the Overton window. You’re guaranteed to always get the mildest, most boring take on any subject.
Millions pf poor people listen to this shit the religious leaders say, so kind of following it to see what masses believe steered through them but I agree I find it dumb and boring as well.
Unfortunately, he did not mention the moral responsabilities of the Silicon Valley technopower in delivering and selling a technology so society-impact only for making themselves and their shareholders richier.
> Transubstantiation means the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood. This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit. However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the “eucharistic species”, remain unaltered.
Presidents through out American history has believed various forms of genocide and slavery were applicable practices to modern problems; hell the current president thinks variously incredulous things.
So you know, you might want to adjust your measuring stick before you critique people.
Both things can be true at the same time, so shutting down the critique (possibly because it is critiquing something you like??) just because another critique can be made is not a good counter argument
> Transubstantiation means the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood. This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit. However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the “eucharistic species”, remain unaltered.
Edit: It's a catholic thing, and it's very silly (other denominations say its symbolic)
Lets not forget the hideous acts that this church has commited against young men and children in america. This would the last place I'd accept leadership advise from.
This message is not focused on u.s or its presidents. Its focused on leadership world wide.
The people best suited to give advice on how AI should be used, distributed, and controlled are probably those disconnected from the profit structure of AI.
> Presidents through out American history has believed various forms of genocide and slavery were applicable practices to modern problems; hell the current president thinks variously incredulous things.
And we shouldn't criticize them? Is that the point?
Both American presidents and Abrahamic faiths have, historically, justified slavery and genocide (and often by the same pretense.)
And the current President's ridiculous beliefs are just as ridiculous as believing in transubstantiation. Believing angels manifest on Earth and intercede in human affairs is no more rational believing that aliens are manifesting on Earth but are really demons, which Catholic VP JD Vance believes. The former is just more culturally accepted, and thus given the weight of dignity, but both are valid as far as a naive and literalist interpretation of the Bible is concerned, because demons exist in the Bible, but not aliens.
Either way, as much as the Pope is a silly man in a silly hat looking like a fucking wizard who is required to believe in supernatural nonsense while leading a corrupt den of pedophiles, he's also absolutely and objectively correct on this specific topic and it's clear he's put far more researched thought into his opinions on AI than 99% of people on HN. Hell, he even apologized for the Church's historical support of slavery, and many people here won't even concede that slavery was ever a problem.
The only significance here with history is we don't repeat it. There is no reason ever concede anything. Its akin to dwelling on indians introducing americans to tobacco. No group of people in the future should be judge on peoples beliefs or indiscretions. There is no connection.
In the first case, I claim that it has and that it does. I'm not sure how you can credibly claim otherwise. Only ideologically informed animosity could distort one's views here. If you know the mission of the Church, then I see no issue. Do members of the Church fail? Of course. Everyone does, and indeed this is captured best in the Christian acknowledgment that everyone is a sinner, without exception. Everyone falls short.
In the second case, I don't know what the implication is. Is it that the Church is one of the "powerful few" and therefore evil? The first question you must ask is what your notion of "power" here is. The second, whether the Church is actually powerful according to that definition. The third, whether you are falsely linking being one of the "powerful few" with being evil. The problem, after all, is not with power, but with the way power is used. In an ideal world, all power would be exercised morally, and all authority would have commensurate power.
I would say this: the Church has authority. Whether it has power depends on your definition of power and the particular historical epoch. It is not reduced to a simple boolean.
It's best to avoid cheap jabs that rely on boring and unthinking tropes that appeal to widespread prejudices rather than to informed reason.
The church has a massive child fucking scandal around the globe for the last 15 years while South Park and others ALREADY critizied this in the 90s.
Despite this, people would still post what some dude of some weird crazy child fucking scandal is telling us?
We do not need moral ideas from them.
https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/debunking-the-myth-of-va...
Its still true. The church gained massive amount of land in germany due to the fear they put into humans. Hell, purgatory etc.
The church owns 2% of land in germany. A f. church...
The church is just playing the role they've always played, instilling weakness and fear while "siding" with the oppressed so they all can milk the sheeple. They are an institution of power, for power, and they behave like such, under sheep's clothes.
Yes I do. I don't think you a prayer can literally transform wine into blood. How about you?
https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/arch...
283
> Transubstantiation means the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood. This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit. However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the “eucharistic species”, remain unaltered.
So you know, you might want to adjust your measuring stick before you critique people.
That claims is, very simply, a lie.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/arch...
283
> Transubstantiation means the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood. This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit. However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the “eucharistic species”, remain unaltered.
Edit: It's a catholic thing, and it's very silly (other denominations say its symbolic)
This message is not focused on u.s or its presidents. Its focused on leadership world wide.
And we shouldn't criticize them? Is that the point?
And the current President's ridiculous beliefs are just as ridiculous as believing in transubstantiation. Believing angels manifest on Earth and intercede in human affairs is no more rational believing that aliens are manifesting on Earth but are really demons, which Catholic VP JD Vance believes. The former is just more culturally accepted, and thus given the weight of dignity, but both are valid as far as a naive and literalist interpretation of the Bible is concerned, because demons exist in the Bible, but not aliens.
Either way, as much as the Pope is a silly man in a silly hat looking like a fucking wizard who is required to believe in supernatural nonsense while leading a corrupt den of pedophiles, he's also absolutely and objectively correct on this specific topic and it's clear he's put far more researched thought into his opinions on AI than 99% of people on HN. Hell, he even apologized for the Church's historical support of slavery, and many people here won't even concede that slavery was ever a problem.
I struggle to envision an ASI respecting the authority of some jacked up tech bro.