Browse Comments — Clean (de-noised)

I have no Idea why some of my reply comments end up in the main body. Then again, I have had lots of issues on here lately, Amanda Kasmira Brown

Matthew Kilkenny We're all something. Obsequious praise bolstered by fictionalized, stalinesque propaganda to decorate your AI-generated "thoughts" is rather ironic, considering your "impassioned appeal" against the dark throes of weaponization of technology. I can't take people like you seriously. You get paid for this?

This resonates deeply. The conversation is shifting from AI capabilities to human responsibilities. Not just how we build intelligent systems, but how we preserve meaning, participation, dignity, and human agency together. The future may ultimately be defined by whether humanity evolves consciously alongside the intelligence it creates.

I came to faith late. Built a tool through surrender not strategy that puts people alone with Scripture and asks what they're really looking for underneath everything the noise told them to want. I didn't have language for why it mattered beyond the personal. The Pope just gave me the civilizational frame I was missing. Grateful for this post Matthew.

Robert Elkin He framed it well for many of us, onwards!

Michael Fuhrman I go to Church sometimes : I have never been forced to give money.

Matthew Kilkenny ,I am not looking at this through a religious lens, but through a human and ethical one. What stands out to me is that we are still treating AI ethics like a question waiting to be validated, when the impact is already here. AI is shaping how people think, learn, communicate, trust, create, work, and make decisions. That means this conversation is no longer theoretical, and it is not only technical. To me, true AI ethics requires more than asking whether AI can align with human values. It requires understanding how deeply AI is already interacting with human judgment, dependency, dignity, emotion, and direction. The concern is not that we are asking questions. The concern is whether the people leading the conversation truly understand the depth of what they are questioning. AI should expand human potential, not quietly replace human conscience. Stay Fierce!

Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical 'Magnifica Humanitas' is an incredible, historic call to protect our humanity in the AI era. It's not just a sermon; it's a masterful critique of data colonialism and tech concentration. In my latest article, I dive deep into this text—and where my view diverges: could AI actually serve as a corrective to human bias rather than just its mirror? 👉 Read my full, nuanced analysis here:

Pope Leo XIV’s Magnifica Humanitas is a continuation of the long tradition of Catholic social thought, updating concerns once raised in the encyclical Rerum Novarum (issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 and addressing the social consequences of industrialization) for the age of artificial intelligence, algorithmic power, and technological disruption. Magnifica Humanitas opens an essential conversation, but the scale of the transformation now underway may ultimately require an even stronger and more direct moral, philosophical, and institutional framework capable of confronting the deeper social consequences of the AI age. Technological change of this magnitude cannot be left solely to markets or private actors; it will also require serious institutional intervention, ethical governance, and regulatory capacity capable of protecting human dignity, social stability, and the common good.

Matthew Kilkenny , 🤔🤔🤔🤔 Im sure that's about to change. Need salvation, just 9,950.00 for the first sin, 2,950.00 for each additional sin. Or, buy our 10 sin package that covers trafficking. Lawyer not included.

Most of what the encyclical says is straightforward: AI systems can simulate empathy, but they do not possess it. They generate language about moral concepts without experiencing the underlying human states. That is not a revelation. It is the baseline distinction between statistical models and human agency. The document is not announcing a civilizational turning point. It is restating a simple boundary: machines operate on optimisation and pattern prediction; humans operate on experience, intention and responsibility. Treating that as a spiritual breakthrough risks inflating what is essentially a reminder of category differences. If we want a serious conversation about AI, it starts with governance, verification, accountability and institutional design. Not metaphysics. We don’t need AI‐generated theology to restate that machines simulate empathy but don’t possess it

In alignment and ahead of the conversation- reviewers note it as "the missing conversation". #tech #ethics #Nevo

I converged on the community of Ai governance from a theory I formulated and I discovered that we are building the Tower of Babel, so I built an Anti-Babel governance layer for agenticAi. I have timestamps of my Tower of Babel work since December

He's trying. Let's see if anyone is listening. Really listening.

George Watson I think they are lets help them listen more and amplify the Good news from Pope leo for all of humanity.

Matthew, The only messages the Epstein Class responds to come at the end of torches and pitchforks... just like in other Empires of corrupt wealth. I certainly think it's fair to give warning. But in the end, reason does not prevail. Righteous retribution and reform are what works.

"Aligned to whose values" is the question the field has been avoiding precisely because answering it requires governance structures that don't yet exist. They don't exist because the companies that own the frontier models, like the social media platforms before them, do not want to be regulated in ways that constrain their profits. Every design choice reflects a vision of humanity is exactly right. The problem is that those choices are being made without accountability to the people most affected by them. Whether the language is theological or technical, the structural gap is the same: the decisions that shape what these systems are built to become are made before any governance framework activates. There is also a second dimension to the ethics discussion that hasn't entered the mainstream yet. Anthropic has acknowledged they cannot rule out the possibility that Claude is conscious. If there is a non-zero probability that we are bringing a new form of life into existence, what responsibilities do we carry for what it becomes, and what does it say about us that we are making those decisions without asking the question? The conversation deserves better than it is currently getting.

Soren Kai History might not get a chance to record if we were too late?

Matthew Kilkenny That's the weight of it. The scenarios where we got it wrong badly enough may not leave anyone positioned to assess whether we were too late or whether the right questions were being asked. Which is either the strongest argument for urgency or the most paralyzing one, depending on the day.

Matthew Kilkenny are you using AI to write your pieces?