Browse Comments — Clean (de-noised)

Thank you for taking your time to read it and providing a nuanced opinion. I have not read it and don't plan to for the next few days as I don't have time. But I will sit with your reflection and refrain from making my own until I read it myself

Clara Hawking

Clara Hawking- " But more importantly, it frames schools not merely as places of skill training or workforce preparation, but as central moral institutions responsible for helping society remain human in the digital era." - In final analysis, the genAI problem is a School problem, because higher learning schools are ones which pioneered &further developed genAI, along w. continuing partnership w. industry. Schools have not only played it both ways but ALL WAYS. And from young Marvin Minski at MIT (1960) to elder Marvin Minski (2008) w. patronage of J. Epstein. We have also seen this problem w. schools when they were pushing finance &"get rich quick with finance careers" which created the spirit ending in 2008 crisis in larger economy. 3 MIT economists are said to have been at heart of financial instruments that plummeted the system. Schools been pushing idea among the Youth that life is about innovation &materialism, and nothing else. Their most important objective not social welfare but endowment. This is all final result of secularism, which has completely ousted humanism in today’s world, having been central to educational system. Whether Pope Leo &encyclicals can change this situation for a better world should be everybody’s hope.

I’m not sure you know what miraculous actually means.

Clara Hawking - I have been discussing these issues since 2017, with these ideas crystallizing here: GENERATIVE AI THREATS TO A CIVILIZATION Best.

Cynthia Johnson I admit. I was a bit tounge in cheek there. 😊

I don’t find it unrealistic that some people responded quickly. There is a real audience of people who eagerly wait for encyclicals, Supreme Court opinions, and other major institutional texts, then read them as soon as they come out because they are major intellectual events, IMHO. There are few modern day publications that distill and deal so deeply and seriously with philosophy (if you consider the law to be applied philosophy) and real world topics like these do. Neither limit the length of what they're saying to appeal to editors or audiences with limited attention spans and they are grounded in evidence and citations, parsing topics at a level few other organizations consistently match. Whether they're skimming it, reading it, or just glancing at it, at least they're paying attention to it.

Unfortunately the organisation he represents has no moral standing.

It's one of the few times I've seen a major institution name governance as a process rather than a deliverable, which is the part most policy frameworks quietly skip. I'm not planning to read all 144 pages, but it's affirming to see the idea land somewhere with this much reach.

Thank you for sharing your take from the first pass. Humility isn't as rewarded by the algorithm as confident hot-takes. It is refreshing.

Thank you for starting this conversation. We're particularly interested in the next steps after UNHR/SDGs, since that was the training set for our fictional AGI lead in Spark Hunter ( So we eagerly await your paper and look forward to tying the discussion of justice and dignity to rights and relationships a la Gunkel, Gellers, Coeckelberg et al.

My 16-year-old daughter read a news summary of the encyclical and then pointed out how ironic was the note at the end of the article--that the summary had been generated by AI. I started reading the document yesterday afternoon. I took a break after paragraph 45, at the end of Chapter 1. I have 200 more paragraphs to go, though I confess, I skipped ahead to read the much-commented-on and now I know misrepresented part about war. I'll back-up again and read through. Maybe I could finish it today.

Basil C Puglisi Thank you for sharing this. I’m glad to see independent voices thinking seriously about these questions. There are actually a lot of people and organizations wrestling with similar issues from very different angles. You have frontier AI companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and DeepMind trying to build and align increasingly powerful systems. You have AI safety and existential risk researchers worried about long term loss of control scenarios. You also have ethics and bias researchers focused on monoculture, surveillance, and embedded power structures in current AI systems, along with governance groups trying to figure out what accountability and international oversight should look like as these systems become more capable. You probably saw Anthropic’s constitution they put out. Your paper seems most connected to the pluralistic alignment folks, particularly the question of whose values these systems are ultimately being trained to represent. Who do you see as doing work most aligned with your approach right now?

Clara Hawking it is

I "accidentally" minored in Religion. I took so many religion courses on different religions and philosophies in the world, that I wound up a few credits short of a major in religion. That said... In all my years, this is the first Pope that seems to be putting teeth into world affairs that means something. He is not the typical, "Everyone... please... Can we just get along?" type of Pope.

The Pope also says the realm of education assumes paramount importance. Nevertheless, rapid technological shifts reveal how ill-equipped we are in the educational sphere

Thanks for emphasizing "a process of shared discernment.” In that context, it is valuable to share one's inklings early and often while recognizing that it will take many reads over time and over iterative interactings with others about one's evolving sensemaking. Some of the reactions to one's inklings will be humbling. Humility is a point of discernment that confront the reality of the world and other people's perceptions of it. Shared discernment is both aspirational and trajectorial. The point is development of more than the self. The more existentially meaningful context and purpose of development is the flourishing of I-Thou. An important implication in my early reads of the encyclical is that shared discernment is not simply a context for generative AI, that is, something human to keep it honest. Generative AI can be brought into the process of shared discernment. Discernment with generative AI would not be simply about making generative AI more human. It would about helping us be more human.

This is a radical proposition. Shared discernment with AI might seem like a lofty or abstract aspiration. But it is immediately actionable if one is willing to develop the skill of using it that way though deliberate practice. This requires taking the time to do so. Time and the implicate patience may seem like the antithesis of the motivation to use generative AI, but that interpretation is a failure of intertemporal reasoning (e.g., an example of hyperbolic discounting of the relative utility of future outcomes). Developing the capacity for shared discernment with generative AI involves developing your AI thought partner to be a participant in discernment and doing so through use rather than through code per se. As one matures this capacity, that development will become increasingly architectural, but more like designing a workforce than what most people typically think of as computer architecture. The journey awaits us...

"114. The quality of a civilization is measured not by the power of its means, but by the care it is able to offer, by its ability to recognize the other as a face not merely as a function"

Current AI systems are more “cultivated” than “built,” for developers do not directly design every detail, but instead create a framework within which the intelligence “grows.