The after-lunch outing came after Leo presided over his first formal audience, with the cardinals who elected him pope. In it Leo repeatedly cited Francis and the Argentine popes own 2013 mission statement, making clear a commitment to making the Catholic Church more inclusive and attentive to the faithful and a church that looks out for the least and rejected.
Leo, the first American pope, told the cardinals that he was fully committed to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, the 1960s meetings that modernized the church. He identified AI as one of the main issues facing humanity, saying it poses challenges to defending human dignity, justice and labor.
Leo referred to AI in explaining the choice of his name: His namesake, Pope Leo XIII, was pope from 1878 to 1903 and laid the foundation for modern Catholic social thought. He did so most famously with his 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, which addressed workers rights and capitalism at the dawn of the industrial age. The late pope criticized both laissez-faire capitalism and state-centric socialism, giving shape to a distinctly Catholic vein of economic teaching.Seems like the anti-Francis faction of the church was not a powerful voice in this conclave.
In his remarks Saturday, Leo said he identified with his predecessor.
In our own day, the church offers everyone the treasury of its social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice and labor, he said.
Toward the end of his pontificate, Francis became increasingly vocal about the threats to humanity posed by AI and called for an international treaty to regulate it.
Francis in many ways saw the Chicago-born Augustinian missionary Robert Prevost as something of an heir apparent: He moved him to take over a small Peruvian diocese in 2014, where Prevost later became bishop and head of the Peruvian bishops conference, and then called him to Rome to take over one of the most important Vatican offices vetting bishop nominations in 2023.
In this, our time, we still see too much discord, too many wounds caused by hatred, violence, prejudice, the fear of difference, and an economic paradigm that exploits the Earths resources and marginalises the poorest, Pope Leo XIV said in his homily.
Hypocrites, both. Any call to "regulate" AI at this time is in favor of corporations. It's like "regulating" the internet.I can at least understand the stance that it's sort of impossible to regulate at this point, but I am very curious how you think regulations would favour corporations. unless you're just assuming the entire world government is so corrupt that the corporations are the ones writing the rules in which case I think you sort of failed to even accept the initial premise
[...] Also I disagree with regulation of AI favoring the fascist. The entire mandate for fascism comes from fear that AI will be regulated. The fascist want to privitize AI and make their choice of implementation confidential. Quality control and safety to environment, workplace and consumers will be their dirty little secret.
I can at least understand the stance that it's sort of impossible to regulate at this point, but I am very curious how you think regulations would favour corporations. unless you're just assuming the entire world government is so corrupt that the corporations are the ones writing the rules in which case I think you sort of failed to even accept the initial premise
I fucking love AI. We just need to make well defined rules to regulate it and update those as we go.
MONEY ALWAYS MAKES THE RULES.This is the problem, not the solution. This isn't something to be worshipped. At this point, this is why humanity is likely to have a severe decline due to the state of the planet and the economy both. It being the "law" is also why AI is in the sorry state it is, honestly.
Fascist what?? Who the hell cares. Open your eyes, finally. You're still confusing fascist with capitalist. You're still being tricked into confusing fascist with capitalist, rather. It's only slightly less difficult than making someone confuse communist with capitalist after all. The fascists are only a figurehead. In order to have power over someone else there must be a lot of people profiting from it. And in the modern world, a whole lot of people profiting from it... but always a lot less than the consumers, the general pubic they are "protecting" or "empowering" or whatever the freak, you can be sure of that.This is a purely recent issue and the sign the entire system is rotten now. Society is wearing "we don't care about you" on it's sleeve. You've likely missed the AI corps trying to push Techno Feudalism or openly declaring they own the world anyway and governments don't matter. So yes, fascists.
MONEY ALWAYS MAKES THE RULES.
If you honestly don't know this basic fact of the world you're just too naive.
This is the problem, not the solution. This isn't something to be worshipped. At this point, this is why humanity is likely to have a severe decline due to the state of the planet and the economy both. It being the "law" is also why AI is in the sorry state it is, honestly.
This is a purely recent issue and the sign the entire system is rotten now. Society is wearing "we don't care about you" on it's sleeve. You've likely missed the AI corps trying to push Techno Feudalism or openly declaring they own the world anyway and governments don't matter. So yes, fascists. [...]
I think you're being a little too negative? We have managed to ban or mostly-ban a surprising number of things as a global society before even when those conflict with economic interests or the desires of those in power: slavery, the mining of antarctica, ozone destruction/ocean waste dumping / other environmental stuff, commercial whaling, etc
To be clear, when I talk about regulating AI I am thinking of things on this scale, not some lame local government being like "oh hmm I guess your AI can do this, but not do that...". I mean things like international bans on large scale data centers, bans on reasoning agents above a certain size, bans on production of high tier GPUs, etc
If you look at AI as a faction of warfare / the military (which I don't think is totally unreasonable either) there are tons of other banned weaponry related stuff that just provides even more precedent for this.
Don't you realize that with statements like these all you're doing is admitting that you have already defeated yourself?? With a few words you just GAVE it to them! They barely had to say or do anything!I'm not quite sure what you mean? Maybe I chose poor wording.
"Toward the end of his pontificate, Francis became increasingly vocal about the threats to humanity posed by AI and called for an international treaty to regulate it."So what should we do, nothing?
Hypocrites, both. Any call to "regulate" AI at this time is in favor of corporations. It's like "regulating" the internet.
Regulations are very needed in many fields, but there's just as long a list of things that don't need it.
I'm not quite sure what you mean? Maybe I chose poor wording.
In an era where large nations constantly wage war against each other through digital means - hacking, other cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and so on, it seems entirely reasonable to me to consider AI a weapon? it's the most powerful propaganda tool in existence right now. It's not too far from being the most adept hacker, either. And global society is generally pretty good about regulating weapons imo?
So what should we do, nothing?