Browse Comments — LLM coded
Close reading of the corpus at each pipeline stage: raw → clean → relevant → coded.
8
comments matched
· page 1 of 1
Frankly, the pope hasn’t really done right by girls so he’s just kind of just another bro boy if you ask me whether it’s Bro spirituality are on Bro Science bro or bro AI I’m not into any of it. And did he not endorse a bible rewritten by a king who had a fear of witches so there is that.. Oh and speaking of mary
I think AI has the potential to be the most empowering, decentralising and democratising tool while at the same time posing an existential threat. As an optimistic alarmist I’m hopefully we can steer a future that does involve ‘disarming’ the risk of certain models and enabling the guardrails and usage systems to steer it it in the best direction for humanity. Naive maybe, but I think we still have the agency and this encyclical is a positive step forward
Magnifica Humanitas is not claiming “AI good” or “AI bad.” It is that technology is not morally neutral. Systems inherit the assumptions, incentives, and values of those who design, finance, regulate and deploy them. That matters enormously in education, work, and governance. To me the question remains---What kinds of human beings, institutions and societies are being formed inside increasingly intelligent systems? And who gets to shape the underlying moral architecture? The concentration question feels especially important. As technological capability scales, wealth, influence and governance capacity increasingly concentrate in relatively few transnational actors. That is not only a technical problem. It is a profoundly anthropological and political one. “Disarming AI” may be difficult. Perhaps the deeper challenge is disarming the logics of inevitability, concentration, and optimization that quietly shape the systems before most people even realize the architecture is being built.
The danger is that this will create a small club of people who “know what’s best for us so we should just listen to them” and this club would include Anthropic, the Vatican, and a few other entities selected by them. But their power would be limited because western companies and religious leaders can only influence AI development in the West. They have no influence over what China, India or the Middle East does. Which means AI will advance with or without the West, and the dangers outlined by western companies and religious leaders can still happen in regions outside their control.
I am afraid it is a little too late. It is naive to think we can go back and start again on the right path this AI journey.
The EdTech point 👏🏾 If the systems being deployed in learning environments carry the values and blind spots of their creators, then the question is not just what AI teaches but who is equipped to critically mediate it. That falls on educators and managers. And most of them have not been prepared for that responsibility. We talk a lot about AI governance at the policy and platform level. We talk very little about governance at the human layer, the people who sit between the algorithm and the learner, or between the algorithm and the employee. Quiet credibility is exactly right. And it has to be built at every level of an organization, not just at the top.
Joop Remmé Humanity has good, evil, and all of the grey in between. Remove one, and what do you have? Do you really want to control AI or allow another institution to do that?
Really thoughtful framing I don’t think AI can be “disarmed” in the sense that competition, power and commercial incentives will simply disappear. But it can be slowed down, redirected and governed better — especially in education, where the stakes are not only productivity, but the formation of people. For me the key question is: who gets to define what “better learning” means? If it is only vendors optimizing for engagement, retention or scale, we will get one kind of education. If teachers, researchers, parents and students are genuinely involved, we may get something much more human. So maybe “disarming AI” is not about stopping the technology. It is about refusing to let speed, profit and geopolitical pressure become the only design principles.