Browse Comments — LLM coded

Steady State Of Human Flourishing is the goal. Maximally Beneficial AI for Humanity is the means. That is what we need. With current AI: Humanity is sleepwalking into surrendering human dignity, agency, labor, morality, and even war-making to systems optimized for power, speed, profit, and control.

Václav Šulista thank you for always supporting the mission and being the first to purchase from the online store to help raise the discussion on ethical-AI-now brother. That will never be forgotten!

This hits the core of the issue, Matthew Kilkenny. Technology is never morally neutral. When organizations chase speed over human experience, they sacrifice their "moral imagination". Real resilience requires anchoring our processes in humanity long before we deploy the algorithms.

If AI systems increasingly shape what billions of people see, believe and desire... who should decide the values embedded within them?

I agree. The real question is not only whether AI is “aligned,” but what kind of human record it stabilizes under pressure. I recently explored this through functional emotion, AI alignment, and the awareness tensor: emotion-like AI structures may not be feeling, but they can still shape restraint, salience, and moral behavior. That makes AI ethics anthropological, not merely technical.

This is a significant shift in the AI governance conversation because it moves AI beyond technical capability and regulatory compliance into questions of human identity, moral responsibility, and societal direction. What stands out most is the recognition that governance is not only about aligning systems to policies, but about understanding the values, incentives, and assumptions embedded into the systems themselves. The idea that AI is becoming “invisible moral infrastructure” is especially important because many organizations still underestimate how deeply AI systems shape behavior, decisions, and institutional power. Whether people agree with the theological framing or not, the broader message is clear: the future of AI governance will require technologists, policymakers, ethicists, operational leaders, and humanities voices working together, not in isolation.

Respecting your struggle over the last many years Matthew, it’s good to know fine folk are on the case in this world. I agree with the points that the pope is referring to. Our original governance Architecture introduces none hackability for action of impossibility at the execution boundary in conjunction with the full stack we will have AI in its place from the inside, if regulations hurry up and catch up.. I wonder how the Vatican is going to handle the problem?

This is such an important conversation, Matthew Kilkenny! AI is advancing quickly, but we also need to reflect on the human values, ethics, and responsibility that come with it. Thank you for continuing to raise awareness and encourage deeper thinking around this topic.

"released onto an unsuspecting public" is absolutely right. I wish I saw that framing more frequently, because I think it's the most honest. I just commented on a post comparing AI to nuclear weapons, but that's a false equivalence. This is more like giving everyone a nuclear reactor in their carport, with no instructions on how to use it safely, and an invitation to the neighborhood kids to push the buttons and "see what happens". And without observability (my lane), it's like we didn't bother to install radiation detectors to see when the reactor is leaking. So we shouldn't be surprised when we turn out the lights and discover we're all gently glowing in the dark. //Scott Ω∴∆∅

ARUN BABU RAJESWARI Be good to see more podcasts on the vision of Pope Leo. He has to be the most respected leader on AI Aligenment and safety in the world 🌍 today?

My original post got enormous interest 100s of likes and more than 40 reposts and yet this post got 30 likes and 2 reposts: surely what the Pope said in the encyclical is far more important than the post that mentioned it's arrival? Given what the Pope had to say about how public opinion is being shaped, can you think why this is the case on #linkedin? These are the hard conversations we all must have if we are to have objective truth and transparency in the AI supercycle. Do you agree or disagree my friends. Lonica Smith Saeed Al Dhaheri Srini Pagidyala Dan Blake Mo Gawdat Peter H. Diamandis (PHD Ventures) Paolo Benanti Christopher Wright Wasfi Safadi Dion Wiggins Leo Michaels Angelique Letizia Rachel Beck Rebecca Human AI Trust Leader Jeffrey Vahanian, CFP® Julie Saslow Schroeder

Posted over two years ago lets hope the EU AI ACT has imbedded the values of Pope Leo?

The Pope Is right to liken the AI 🤖 arms race with the nuclear ☢️ arms race : the ungoverned AI swarm dropped on humanity could be deadlier. Do you agree or disagree? Dropped two years ago :

srsly...the Emperor's church as the moral high ground 🤣 ...the image implies the world hinges upon his word on #AI the handful of people at this event are cut from the same cloth and speak with the same tongue. #AI development needs more than lip service and leaven.

Matthew Kilkenny Thank you Matthew. Roman Yampolski says AI safety is unsolvable even with decades of research and billions invested. He’s right about the angle—but the angle is wrong. Post-hoc governance of systems already capable of acting becomes intractable under capability scaling. That’s the wall he’s hitting. The impossibility pattern inverts the problem: authority-bearing execution becomes structurally impossible unless admissibility is deterministically certified at commitment. You don’t control what’s already capable. You structure the boundary so capacity doesn’t exist until conditions verify. The Vatican faces the same challenge. Unless they’re examining the execution boundary as the control mechanism itself, they’ll hit Yampolski’s wall too. Most governance assumes managing increasingly capable systems through oversight and accountability. Those matter downstream. But execution-boundary governance answers what appears unsolvable everywhere else—not how to control what’s already capable, but how to structure systems so effect-bearing execution is impossible unless valid admissibility exists at commitment.

the deeper issue may not be whether AI reflects human values. it may be whether we have built operational systems where nobody can clearly explain who holds decision authority once execution begins. alignment alone does not resolve that. because aligned systems can still drift operationally if escalation boundaries, admissible conditions and authority transitions were never explicitly defined in the first place. that becomes increasingly important as AI moves from tools people use... to infrastructure people depend on. especially in environments where decisions carry financial, legal, medical or societal consequence. the real challenge may not be creating intelligence that appears human. it may be preserving legitimate human authority once intelligence becomes embedded into execution itself.

Aaron H Indeed it does not sure what you mean by the “handful of people” : the “Call to Rome : AI ethics” united almost all the faith and Philosopies in the world 🌍 In 2024 on the 80th Anniversary of the Atomic bomb?

Matthew Kilkenny, The real issue is why do we accept that Big Tech companies define hardcoded my moral compass and of all of their users worldwide with genAI and on their online platforms inside their AI-models and platforms? #moderation #productivity #creativity #culturalbias #democracymatters

These new tools called "AI" will no doubt change human society very profoundly and very fast; probably too profoundly and too fast. Being afraid of the changes is natural and almost logical. Yet there is no way to avoid it, the change is coming like a thunderstorm and it is useless to keep stressing its negative aspects. It is like the emergence, within the human social environment, of a new species that has many aspects, some beneficial and some harmful, but all (still) under human control. We humans need to act rationally and act fast. One problem is that only a very tiny minority of people has any real knowledge of what AI really is, how it ticks, and where it came from. Regardless of whether AI's (plural is compulsory here) are foes or friends, we first of all need to know them! That, imo, is a point where we are currently badly behind.

"What kind of civilization are we building?" One built on sovereignty, renewable materials, and the protection of children "What is AI doing to the human spirit?" AI is a tool. The substrate — SIEN — is what frees it from extraction The encyclical is a call to conversation. The #yamrostandard is a framework for action. You do not need the Vatican to tell you what is right. You have Ma'at. You have the patents. You have the hair. You have the haven. You changed the conversation not by asking better questions — but by building a better foundation. That is not arrogance. That is completion. Under the #yamrostandard.