Software CEO tells Catholic uni panel AI won't take out jobs, but it could take out brains The CEO of a software testing company told a panel at Catholic University of America that AI will not create mass unemployment – though it could make people more stupid. Will Wilson, CEO of reliability platform Antithesis, was part of the panel pondering how Christians should consider AI, the technology’s threats and the …
They only ever talk about the AI tool and the vague marketing bullshit they use to sell it to you.
They NEVER talk about the process or the results... only the tool.
Because they know that if they tried to sell it to you based on the process and the results, you'd tell them to fuck off.
Tell them to fuck off anyway... you'll be a happier, smarter person for it.
School kids are now using the phrase 'that's so AI' to describe things they don't believe and are untrue.... there's hope for the next generation after all.
Father, I have sinned. I used AI to pray for me and now I can't remember how to pray. Can you help me?
The standard reply will obviously fail. Therefore, there is only one way for these sinners: Hell(*).
(*) Hell: a fictional place where you don't get bored; see also Heaven (a fictional place where you go to die from boredom).
"Hell: a fictional place where you don't get bored; see also Heaven (a fictional place where you go to die from boredom)."
I imagine Hell is like the castle (confession¹ dial) in Heaven Sent where each day ends in the same way no matter what you do to avoid it based on your recall the previous days' experiences.
Heaven is the same but your memory is mercifully erased before the commencement of the next day.
¹ remarkable how religious ideas get recycled into ostensibly secular fiction.
Sound a lot more fun than your typical geek tech bun fight. :)
"La investigadora Beatrice Ugolini, criminóloga y asesora del Gris, quien con eficaz concisión ilustró la relación entre el neoocultismo y la inteligencia artificial "
Investigadora Bea sound likes a wild lady — the relation between the neo·occult¹ and AI melts my butter every time. ;)
If they want to burn Altman and fellow heretics I would happily lend her a box of matches (and supply a jerry can of diesel.)
Amazes me that in the 21st Century a major global religion still goes in for this Bell, Book and Candle nonsense.
¹ whatever that might be.
I think the important point here is that a lot of people who believe in the occult are taking to using AI and it is reinforcing their beliefs.
The church allow but does not seem to encourage exorcism as a practice as it restricts it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_of_Exorcists
I think the important point here is that a lot of people who believe in the occult are taking to using AI and it is reinforcing their beliefs.
The church allow but does not seem to encourage exorcism as a practice as it restricts it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_of_Exorcists
I assume neo-occult is contemporary versions of the the occult. There are quite a number that have sprung up in the last 100 years or more.
Is there a 'guardrail' (yes, stupid term) to prevent AI from joining religious cults, prioritising deities over science, and treating human constructs, myths and supernatural stuff as real?
Asking for a (non-imaginary) friend.
quote: it could make people more stupid.
I think America is safe on this one, having elected Trump twice.
Frankly, the "artificial intimacy" issue has already arisen with social media and cell phone use generally. Kids raised on those things don't know how to interact with actual humans; AI just makes the problem worse. If the Catholic Church wants to help out, perhaps they can encourage some sort of smartphone banishing or containment ritual.
In some avenues of study, learning to use the particular college library is an important first step. Just like the library, AI is a tool. If AI isn't hallucinating, it can be a very useful tool to get things done quickly. The problem is that is doesn't think. It has no grasp of what's best for humans (animals, plants) outside of factual biological things. Anything that has a subjective quality of life aspect to it won't be handled well. Feeding religion into AI will only lead to "null program".
> learning to use the particular college library is an important first step. ... If AI isn't hallucinating, it can be a very useful tool to get things done quickly.
If it is hallucinating, unlike the college library, it will happily feed you nonsense without giving you any clue that it is doing so; when you learn to use the library, you trust that it has ben curated and its contents can be relied upon. If part of the contents do seem at odds with the rest, there are curators and college members around to say "yeah, that entire volume is junk, we keep it around so you can learn how to distinguish it from sane arguments"; the AI can not be relied upon to do that - and you'll quickly run out of people willing to read and comprehend all the AI output and critique it for you every single time (unlike the book, whose contents don't change every day so yesterday's critique is still valid tomorrow).
> The problem is that is doesn't think
Neither does a library.
The problem is that, unless you already have read the contents of the actual library, you have no way to judge if its responses are accurate/valid, so they are useless (assuming that accuracy and validity are of any interest to you, which one can assume is the case if a comparison is being made with a college library). Even as a quote (what value is a bibliography if the words being referenced can change? Wikipedia users, take note).
> Feeding religion into AI will only lead to "null program".
That feeding will result in the output containing a mishmash of old stories, collected from all over the place, containing some odd items of historical recollections, some odd madey-uppy items, loads of contradictions. One of the major problems with the current crop of AIs[1] is that they *don't* produce a "null program" (and resolutely stick to it); they'll witter one regardless.
> Anything that has a subjective quality of life aspect to it won't be handled well.
It'll be handled as well by an AI as by anything else: everything and anything subjective is purely within the subject and can only be handled (or not) by said subject: the clue is in the word. Nothing external to the subject, AI or not AI, can change that basic fact. Externalities can affect your subjective experience (IMO things get really dull if they don't). Some humans may be better, in your opinion, in helping you get your subjective experiences where you think you'd like to get them, other humans may be incredibly worse at that. Ditto AIs or anything else.
There are plenty of attempts to create objective measures around "quality of life" issue, and - except for the whole hallucinations aspect, see above - anyone may be as well served for those by an AI's output as by anything else. That is all, um, subjective.
[1] and those are the only ones we can usefully discuss
