I read the first few pages and then a summary and a critique by my AI.
I respect what the Pope is trying to do. Obviously we are at a crossroads and Christians just can't bury their heads in the sand and wait to see what happens.
On the other hand, I have an objection, which I've had for a long time, that the Church always argues from this kind of "Christian Humanist" perspective. (Or has done from Vatican II at least). It's like Christ is the magic dust that you sprinkle on the problem, and you end up with something like a social justice /diversity is our strength utopia which just happens to be compatible with the world view of the secular elites.
I have confessed it as a sin of mine that I critique the pope and others for standing up as leaders and do their best to work in an imperfect world, while I stand on the sidelines, with no accountability, being a critic. So I don't want to be too harsh here. Obviously Pope Leo is doing more than me. But "Christian Humanism" just doesn't sit right with me. I struggle with it. I dunno. I wonder if at this point in history the church needs to be more of an "embarrassment" to "polite society"? I just think secular society is damn near satanic at this point. Am I overstating it? Can the church work with secular elites and hope for good outcomes?
I haven't fully read all of it, but maybe 30% complete
All in all very balanced take. The things I do really like is he resisted the knee-jerk reaction to "call for govt regulation" and instead sort of admits that governments are pretty much powerless to stop any of this as the companies producing this AI are probably more powerful than most governments.
Instead, he focuses on individual accountability and an exhortation to a shared goal of keeping humanity front and center and not reduced to an assistant to the machine.
This individual accountability extends to creators of AI in the moral sense....if the things you create (and you created without the proper safeguards) are then used for war, murder, etc....then you become morally culpable.
Lastly, which I think is very much needed, is a warning against transhumanist endeavors. That human frailties and limitations are not "problems to be fixed", and humans should not become hybrid constructs with the goal of obsessively trying to remove all possible forms of suffering.
Our relationship with life seems to be in crisis today. Everything that appears as a “limit” — incapacity, illness, old age, suffering, vulnerability — tends to be seen primarily as a defect to be corrected, rather than as a reality through which our humanity matures and opens itself to relationship. And yet we must remember that humanity flourishes not despite limitations, but often through them. The light of faith offers a perspective on reality that helps us recognize what we call the “contingency” of the things of this world. While it is right to strive to alleviate the suffering that marks human life, it is also wise to acknowledge our fundamental finitude, knowing that “religious experience, and in particular Christian faith, propose that we live, without oversimplification, this ambivalence between human greatness and limitation, interpreting it in the light of our original and fundamental relationship with God.”
I read the first few pages and then a summary and a critique by my AI.
I respect what the Pope is trying to do. Obviously we are at a crossroads and Christians just can't bury their heads in the sand and wait to see what happens.
On the other hand, I have an objection, which I've had for a long time, that the Church always argues from this kind of "Christian Humanist" perspective. (Or has done from Vatican II at least). It's like Christ is the magic dust that you sprinkle on the problem, and you end up with something like a social justice /diversity is our strength utopia which just happens to be compatible with the world view of the secular elites.
I have confessed it as a sin of mine that I critique the pope and others for standing up as leaders and do their best to work in an imperfect world, while I stand on the sidelines, with no accountability, being a critic. So I don't want to be too harsh here. Obviously Pope Leo is doing more than me. But "Christian Humanism" just doesn't sit right with me. I struggle with it. I dunno. I wonder if at this point in history the church needs to be more of an "embarrassment" to "polite society"? I just think secular society is damn near satanic at this point. Am I overstating it? Can the church work with secular elites and hope for good outcomes?
Romans 2:11
For there is no respect of persons with God.
Are you a Christian? Curious.
I'm curious and fascinated
#360735
not subject to the laws of free men, but the laws of property
yes
Exodus 20:4
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
Confusion of Face
https://www.bitchute.com/video/6R2JMVT6r4Lc
I haven't fully read all of it, but maybe 30% complete
All in all very balanced take. The things I do really like is he resisted the knee-jerk reaction to "call for govt regulation" and instead sort of admits that governments are pretty much powerless to stop any of this as the companies producing this AI are probably more powerful than most governments.
Instead, he focuses on individual accountability and an exhortation to a shared goal of keeping humanity front and center and not reduced to an assistant to the machine.
This individual accountability extends to creators of AI in the moral sense....if the things you create (and you created without the proper safeguards) are then used for war, murder, etc....then you become morally culpable.
Lastly, which I think is very much needed, is a warning against transhumanist endeavors. That human frailties and limitations are not "problems to be fixed", and humans should not become hybrid constructs with the goal of obsessively trying to remove all possible forms of suffering.