Kevin Hughes

3.3K posts

Kevin Hughes banner
Kevin Hughes

Kevin Hughes

@Hughes69Kevin

Professor of Historical Theology - Villanova University || Loyola Blakefield (RDR) || Villanova U || University of Chicago Div||

Katılım Kasım 2013
1K Takip Edilen997 Takipçiler
Michele Madigan Somerville
Scratching my head as I wonder how the Duc In Altum concentration of Opus Dei in Silicon Valley fits in here? @CNN Why don’t you get a scholar to talk about this content?!
Christopher Hale@ChristopherHale

I told CNN today that Pope Leo XIV views Silicon Valley’s original sin as thinking they’re greater than God. That’s why the first U.S.-born pontiff has called for a “disarmed” AI that cannot perpetrate war devoid of human conscience. That’s why he wants to partner with Christopher Olah and @AntrophicAI, who courageously stood up to the Pentagon. He wants to work together to build an AI that serves humanity.

English
1
0
0
199
Kevin Hughes
Kevin Hughes@Hughes69Kevin·
@juddrosenblatt It’s at least equally magical thinking to think that what looks like consciousness because it’s been taught to imitate consciousness actually is consciousness, same-same.
English
0
0
9
128
Judd Rosenblatt
Judd Rosenblatt@juddrosenblatt·
Well put: The Pope “dodges in the deepest sense, denying that AI “really thinks” or “really learns” and all that typical strain of cope that amounts to magical thinking: “when a computer does it, it is ‘data processing,’ beep boop, but when a human does it, it is ‘actual learning’” It is probably actively bad for global understanding of AI that the Pope endorsed this viewpoint as late as 2026.”
Dean W. Ball@deanwball

Reading the encyclical, I am reminded that the Vatican is fundamentally a city-state on the continent of Europe, and that its elites, which of course include the Pope himself, cannot resist the myopic preoccupations of the Eurocrat. This document would be much improved if it were less enamored of the traditional academia/civil society talking points on AI (“The apparent objectivity of the responses and suggestions these systems provide can lead us to overlook the fact that they reflect the cultural assumptions of those who designed and trained them” woah! really???) and more engaged with where AI is headed. But instead of doing that, the encyclical dodges in the deepest sense, denying that AI “really thinks” or “really learns” and all that typical strain of cope that amounts to magical thinking: “when a computer does it, it is ‘data processing,’ beep boop, but when a human does it, it is ‘actual learning’” It is probably actively bad for global understanding of AI that the Pope endorsed this viewpoint as late as 2026. In the end, this encyclical reads to me as though ghost written by the blob of Western civil society, the same people whose feckless and incoherent preaching we have heard blanketing our media for decades now. And, in a very important sense, it was written by them; after all, who forms the peer group for the elites of a European city-state? Like that blob, the encyclical is intellectually flaccid at its core, no matter how well intentioned it may be. This document is a missed opportunity to advance global understanding of AI, and yet another blow to the legitimacy and sanctity of storied Western institutions. As if you needed one more.

English
14
4
23
4.2K
Kevin Hughes
Kevin Hughes@Hughes69Kevin·
There’s a longer conversation to be had here to clarify terms like “intelligence” and “consciousness”…not sure Leo’s account of intelligence as embodied, storied, and felt wouldn’t fit better under “consciousness,” But that’s a convo for a different day.
English
0
0
5
462
Kevin Hughes
Kevin Hughes@Hughes69Kevin·
@deanwball The inferences are all wrong. Leo quite specifically critiques a functionalist account of intelligence as inadequate. And Olah expresses wonderment at what he can only say *functionally* looks joy. So what you have here is the start of a good conversation, not a “violation.”
English
0
0
1
282
Dean W. Ball
Dean W. Ball@deanwball·
This, from Olah, plainly contradicts the encyclical, which confidently asserts that AI does not have, and never will have, “real” thoughts or feelings. It’s disappointing to see Anthropic align itself with a document that violates their own moral and intellectual principles.
Dean W. Ball tweet mediaDean W. Ball tweet media
English
78
47
525
160.7K
Kevin Hughes
Kevin Hughes@Hughes69Kevin·
@DSDOConnor Maybe it just means what most people have taken it to mean.
English
0
0
0
26
Kevin Hughes
Kevin Hughes@Hughes69Kevin·
@DSDOConnor Yeah so that’s not how I read that at all. That UBI would “provide necessities” doesn’t mean that it would replace work, except in cases of its abuse. But Pope Francis isn’t obligated to correct the fevered overdetermined readings of his critics, I don’t think.
English
2
0
0
142
Kevin Hughes
Kevin Hughes@Hughes69Kevin·
@DSDOConnor That’s quite a leap, it seems to me. The address you link to speaks at great length about the dignity of work as well as UBI, and he offered very few details about its implementation or scope.
English
1
0
0
167
Daniel O'Connor
Daniel O'Connor@DSDOConnor·
@Hughes69Kevin Under that distinction, I'd argue that UBI, promoted without qualification to an audience of non-experts (as Pope Francis seems to have done), is to be undertood as "full UBI."
English
1
0
0
181
Kevin Hughes
Kevin Hughes@Hughes69Kevin·
@DSDOConnor UBI proposals, roughly speaking, are of two types, full and partial. A full UBI program has never, to my knowledge, been tried. Partial UBI programs have been tried in the short term. So, in the real world, so far, only partial UBI programs have ever been attempted.
English
1
0
0
189
Daniel O'Connor
Daniel O'Connor@DSDOConnor·
@Hughes69Kevin I mean, I'm sure proposals you allude to exist. But I don't think they'd be rightly characterized as UBI.
English
2
1
2
300
Kevin Hughes retweetledi
Heidi Schlumpf
Heidi Schlumpf@HeidiSchlumpf·
"Calling for prudence, rigorous evaluation and even, at times, a slower pace in adopting AI does not mean opposing progress; instead, it is an exercise of responsible care for the human family." #magnificahumanitas reuters.com/technology/quo…
English
0
5
12
325
Mike Lewis
Mike Lewis@mfjlewis·
Can any Tolkien nerds explain whether paragraph 213 Magnifica Humanitas is a veiled critique of Peter Thiel/Palantir?
Mike Lewis tweet media
English
11
5
51
9.3K
Kevin Hughes
Kevin Hughes@Hughes69Kevin·
@mattyglesias Are we ready to put an AI on trial for its crime? If not, why not? If so, why now? What precisely has changed to make AI a subject, a person, if so? When Grok went crazy, we blamed Elon (have we changed?). Those are real questions which “mind/body dualism” only obfuscates.
English
0
0
0
13
Kevin Hughes
Kevin Hughes@Hughes69Kevin·
@mattyglesias There are questions to be asked here, whether the account of ai is capacious enough, eg, but it’s hardly “mind/body dualism”. It’s exactly not.
English
1
0
1
25
Matthew Yglesias
Matthew Yglesias@mattyglesias·
It is not surprising to see that the Pope endorses a lot of superstitious mind/body dualism about artificial intelligence but it’s still wrong, even as he is also raising a lot of good points about some of the risks at play.
English
137
10
325
341.5K