@lukeburgis Maybe save “abomination” for something that is, I dunno, actually an abomination? I don’t love it. At all. But does it misrepresent the content and teaching of the encyclical? Does it distort Catholic teaching or mislead the faithful? Those are questions beneath hyperbole.
@juddrosenblatt It’s at least equally magical thinking to think that what looks like consciousness because it’s been taught to imitate consciousness actually is consciousness, same-same.
There’s a longer conversation to be had here to clarify terms like “intelligence” and “consciousness”…not sure Leo’s account of intelligence as embodied, storied, and felt wouldn’t fit better under “consciousness,” But that’s a convo for a different day.
@deanwball The inferences are all wrong. Leo quite specifically critiques a functionalist account of intelligence as inadequate. And Olah expresses wonderment at what he can only say *functionally* looks joy. So what you have here is the start of a good conversation, not a “violation.”
@DSDOConnor Yeah so that’s not how I read that at all. That UBI would “provide necessities” doesn’t mean that it would replace work, except in cases of its abuse. But Pope Francis isn’t obligated to correct the fevered overdetermined readings of his critics, I don’t think.
@DSDOConnor That’s quite a leap, it seems to me. The address you link to speaks at great length about the dignity of work as well as UBI, and he offered very few details about its implementation or scope.
@DSDOConnor UBI proposals, roughly speaking, are of two types, full and partial. A full UBI program has never, to my knowledge, been tried. Partial UBI programs have been tried in the short term. So, in the real world, so far, only partial UBI programs have ever been attempted.
"Calling for prudence, rigorous evaluation and even, at times, a slower pace in adopting AI does not mean opposing progress; instead, it is an exercise of responsible care for the human family." #magnificahumanitas
https://t.co/hBgIsYIFne
@mattyglesias Are we ready to put an AI on trial for its crime? If not, why not? If so, why now? What precisely has changed to make AI a subject, a person, if so? When Grok went crazy, we blamed Elon (have we changed?). Those are real questions which “mind/body dualism” only obfuscates.
@mattyglesias There are questions to be asked here, whether the account of ai is capacious enough, eg, but it’s hardly “mind/body dualism”. It’s exactly not.