[torben-friis]

For anyone concerned about the growing power of giant corporations, the fact that they're doing joint statements with religious leaders is...wow.

Regardless of content, it seems an extra step in solidifying where power lies.

[sudobash1]

That is just what the (edited) title makes it sound like. The article states that Christopher Olah will be a speaker present at the encyclical release. It does not imply that he had any hand or influence in the content.

[torben-friis]

Well yeah, private companies influencing doctrine would be far more scandalous for believers I guess. The point is the church making connections with companies straight away, sidestepping heads of state.

[joenot443]

I think in the case of Anthropic, it shows they’re at the very least willing to engage with the most important people in the philosophical and theological realm they’re in the midst of disrupting.

When the question asked is roughly of “can an AI ever be considered a human soul?”, there isn’t a philosopher alive whose individual opinion would be considered more meaningful than Pope Leo’s.

It’s unlikely that the church’s opinion would influence the future business choices of Anthropic. I think it still remains a positive business move to publicly engage with the church.

[torben-friis]

I don't think you got my point. I'm not criticizing anthropic for deciding to engage with the pope, I'm pointing at the state we're at where a for profit company is doing individually the work of understanding how their disruptive tech should fit in the wider world.

Saving distances, it's like Glock engaging with spiritual leaders to figure out when it's ethical to kill. This should not be their area of decision, and if it starts being so there is clearly a giant gap for the entities that should be leading this instead.

[losvedir]

I think Glock sounds silly because it's a relatively small weapon and company. But I wouldn't think it at all strange if you used, say, Oppenheimer engaging with the pope around nuclear weapons at the start of the nuclear age. Or maybe even better Enrico Fermi when he was developing nuclear reactors, since those had both the potential for cheap, clean energy and the spectre of nuclear weapons, which feels more analogous to the state of AI right now to me.

[torben-friis]

Those are actually wonderful examples to my point, because it was the state leading the manhattan project. It is the role of the state to engage with issues such as how to handle the new discovery in terms of national security, constitutional rights, etc.

I would even argue that, for such a disrupting discovery, some sort of international approach should be considered - everything from monoply risks through energy usage to economical risks if massive unemployment is possible. We instead have private interests dealing with (or ignoring) these issues by themselves.

It's something that already misfired with the advent of social networks, where many of the current issues could have been avoided if the state had actually showed up to engage with the problem.

[notepad0x90]

I don't know enough to disagree with this specifically, but reductionism and generalizing is its own problem. A PR stunt is far cry from a power grab. Reductionism favors addressing large trends, and large boogeymen, classes, groups, etc.. instead of doing the diligent work of finding root causes, nuanced as they might be, and addressing those.

If what you say is right, I would challenge that by still insisting the corporations can only do what governments let them. You might say they run governments behind the scenes, to which I would say, who let them? They keep influencing elections? Then elections don't seem to be working, that's the root cause perhaps? In all the major political issues, that's the trend I'm seeing, democracy failing, but then I'll challenge myself and ask why is it failing?

The old sentiment of "if it can't be fixed, it isn't a problem" seems rampant. Modern democracy itself is a fix for some other sets of problems. In the US at least, it is in theory designed to be mended and fixed. Perhaps the real cause is lack of political will power by everyone pursuing politics, to even talk about changing the way the government is architectured, altering constitutions, talking about parting ways with land and population (secession), or incorporation of some. Perhaps the population just isn't that interested in educating themselves on matters of civics, therefore how democracy works needs a rewrite at its core?

Either way, I rambled on, i know, but it's with a point i hope is obvious: the common political sentiment around billionaires, corporations, oligarchs (or similar "woke" or "DEI" dogwhistles on the right) simply don't address root causes. They're reductive by design, not accident.

[torben-friis]

I don't think it's reductive, the root cause you ask for is relatively obvious: no system can indefinitely tame a set of forced that are at near peer powers.

If private entities have as much power as the sum of common citizens to influence public opinion, policy, or the action of elected officials, then they overtake the system, whatever it is, however it's been designed.

An upper bound on individual power is then the only thing that maintains the system working.

[notepad0x90]

I agree, and most people agree too. Upper bound on power though, not wealth. This has been an issue for a long time. In the 30's business men tried to overthrow FDR and got a slap on the wrist for example. Something about the structure of government doesn't account for them, and expects politicians and voters alike to be noble and honorable on default.

[lanyard-textile]

Thoughtful and well written.

I tend to agree -- Even if I'm not sure what that quite looks like, and even if I'm not sure if that's better than what we already have.