←back to thread

Pope Francis has died

(www.reuters.com)
916 points phillipharris | 3 comments | 21 Apr 25 08:00 UTC | HN request time: 0.663s | source
Show context
jimmcslim ◴[21 Apr 25 11:47 UTC] No.43750835[source]▶
The Vatican published an interesting document on AI [1], which attributes a number of quotes to Pope Francis:

* As Pope Francis noted, the machine “makes a technical choice among several possibilities based either on well-defined criteria or on statistical inferences. Human beings, however, not only choose, but in their hearts are capable of deciding."

* In light of this, the use of AI, as Pope Francis said, must be “accompanied by an ethic inspired by a vision of the common good, an ethic of freedom, responsibility, and fraternity, capable of fostering the full development of people in relation to others and to the whole of creation.”

* As Pope Francis observes, “in this age of artificial intelligence, we cannot forget that poetry and love are necessary to save our humanity.”

* As Pope Francis observes, “the very use of the word ‘intelligence’” in connection with AI “can prove misleading”

[1] https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docu...

replies(4): >>43751790 #>>43752519 #>>43753454 #>>43753904 #
timeon ◴[21 Apr 25 13:27 UTC] No.43751790[source]▶
> * As Pope Francis observes, “the very use of the word ‘intelligence’” in connection with AI “can prove misleading”

Yes, LLMs are more about knowledge than intelligence. AK rather than AI.

replies(5): >>43751865 #>>43752189 #>>43753296 #>>43754713 #>>43755357 #
diggan ◴[21 Apr 25 13:35 UTC] No.43751865[source]▶
Illustrating perfectly how wide this conversation really is, as we don't even have consensus about what "knowledge" means :)
replies(3): >>43752007 #>>43753141 #>>43759678 #
moralestapia ◴[21 Apr 25 13:50 UTC] No.43752007[source]▶
We do!

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/knowledg...

replies(3): >>43752074 #>>43752146 #>>43752448 #
diggan ◴[21 Apr 25 13:56 UTC] No.43752074[source]▶
The Cambridge Dictionary has its own internal consensus, true, but there are so many more ways people understand that specific word :)

Wikipedia even has it's own page with some of the various definitions people use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_knowledge

Then we have implicit/explicit knowledge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_knowledg...) where some people assume one of them when they say "knowledge", others refer to the other.

In fact, there is an entire scientific field to understanding what "knowledge" actually is/means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

So yeah, it isn't as simple as looking it up in a dictionary, unfortunately.

replies(1): >>43753488 #
moralestapia[dead post] ◴[21 Apr 25 16:03 UTC] No.43753488[source]▶
[flagged]
1. fwip ◴[21 Apr 25 16:18 UTC] No.43753666[source]▶
Yes, but blue doesn't have a "Definitions of Blue" Wikipedia page.

There are nuances to definitions of common words "what is blue, what is a bicycle, what is a dollar, really?", but the magnitude of variance in definition is not shared with something like "knowledge" or "intelligence."

With these high-level concepts, most people are operating only on a "I know it when I see it" test (to reference the Supreme Court case on obscenity).

replies(1): >>43753748 #
2. moralestapia ◴[21 Apr 25 16:27 UTC] No.43753748[source]▶
>Yes, but blue doesn't have a "Definitions of Blue" Wikipedia page.

Oh, I understand, so the criteria is to have a Wikipedia page like that?

You know what's interesting, I couldn't find neither of these:

* تعريفات المعرفة

* 知識嘅定義

* Définitions de la connaissance

* Definiciones de conocimiento

Should we add "and it has to be written in English" as a requirement?

I know this is arguing ad absurdum, but the point is, again, that if you choose to be that strict, you wouldn't even be able to communicate with other people, because your desired perfect 1:1 map of concepts among them doesn't even exist.

replies(1): >>43754308 #
3. fwip ◴[21 Apr 25 17:25 UTC] No.43754308[source]▶
No, I mean to illustrate that "blue" and "knowledge" have a vastly different degree in variation in definition.

Like you say, all words of course have different definitions between individuals, but you and I are obviously able to communicate without specifying every definition. There exists a spectrum between well-agreed-upon definitions (like "and") and fuzzier ones. The definition of "knowledge" is divisive enough that many people disagree vehemently on definitions, which is illustrated by the fact that there is a whole Wikipedia article on it.

If there is a "midwit trap" related to this, there is certainly a Sorites paradox trap as well - that because all words have varying definitions, that it is no use to point out that some words' definitions are more variable than others.