[mentalgear]

> “Disarming AI means freeing it from the mentality of ‘armed’ competition, which today is not limited simply to the military context, but is also an economic and cognitive phenomenon”

This is very on-point: capitalism-driven AI development as we have it today will always turn against the common good due to it's singular profit-motive.

What a time: the pope having a much clearer picture of the risks & dangers of 'AI' than most people, many 'tech leaders' and certainly most politicians.

[gchamonlive]

I think while it's a very lucid comment, it's still too much reconciliatory for the position that the pope occupies. He should be advocating from a sustainable transition from the current capitalist/consumerist economic doctrine to one more centered on welfare and the care for the other, following his religious doctrine's moral values.

[iamacyborg]

I don’t know that the Papacy has ever been about that though

[gchamonlive]

That the papacy isn't about speaking out when the world in the eyes of the pope is taking a turn away from the catholic moral principles?

[iamacyborg]

Given how those virtues have changed over time and how badly behaved a large number of popes have been, yeah, no. The more cynical read is that the Papacy has for a very extensive period been about increasing the personal worldly power of the Pope and his close associates.

[gchamonlive]

> Given how those virtues have changed over time

Virtues change over time. You can't judge 16th century morals with our current view of virtues.

> how badly behaved a large number of popes have been

This is from our point of view. I think there should be legal guardrails so that gov and church don't mix, but this kind of moral separation is the kind of thing that created the conditions for the holocaust.

Of course the other extreme is to have a theocracy, so everything in balance.

> The more cynical read is that the Papacy has for a very extensive period been about increasing the personal worldly power of the Pope and his close associates.

This is a problem in every institution, it needs power and power corrupts absolutely. But the pope dedicates his life for a doctrine that if correctly applied presents a really important counterweight for the current system of morals that reduces the individual to what it can produce. This is why I think this is an important period to listen to our religious leaders, not because they have the answers, but because first they are deserving of some level or respect and second just because they have incentives that are different from our political leaders.

[iamacyborg]

> first they are deserving of some level or respect

Are they?

> because they have incentives that are different from our political leaders

Do they?

[logicchains]

The pope, as a Christian, is well aware that human nature is fundamentally sinful. If you take away the ability for people to profit themselves from their work, they just stop working and you get mass starvation like China and Russia post communist revolution.

[gchamonlive]

This smuggles in so many assumptions and misconceptions I find it hard to decide where to start. Maybe from the beginning:

> The pope, as a Christian, is well aware that human nature is fundamentally sinful.

This might be true in the context of the original sin, but philosophically speaking you can't make this assertion, since there is no consensus on what the human nature is, or even if there is an essential human nature.

> If you take away the ability for people to profit themselves from their work, they just stop working

That's incorrect because it assumes the only reason for working is profit, in which case art for instance in many forms wouldn't exist.

> they just stop working and you get mass starvation like China and Russia post communist revolution

This is just a wrong impression what communism is. What creates these conditions are autocracies and oligarchies, not communism. In either case, even if this were true, this statement isn't falsifiable so can't really be taken into account.

[vintagedave]

Yes. I was slightly disappointed by the commentary on welfare itself:

> This principle encourages us to move beyond any form of paternalistic or welfare-based management of societal life, but instead to promote a culture of shared responsibility in a State that values citizens’ initiative, and a civil society capable of forging bonds and mobilizing energies in the service of the common good.

The section above on the universal destination of goods was far more encouraging.

He did also write,

> The idea of “social justice” helps us recognize that injustices do not arise solely from the wrong choices of individuals, but also from structures, mechanisms and economic and cultural systems that produce inequality almost automatically.