Per this story (via fark)
Pope warns scientists not to risk fate of Icarus
Specifically this part -
“Contemporary life gives pride of place to an artificial intelligence ever more enslaved to experimental techniques”
Individually the words make sense, but in a sentence they become a non-sensical mishmash. What is the Pope trying to say here?
My parse: “Everyone loves science, but its wealth of intelligence and problem solving is untempered by human compassion and empathy (for unborn babies, the stem cells, and things of that nature). It’s artificial, a human endeavor without any of the real human virtues.”
Or, briefly: “There are some things man was not meant to know. Please stop trying to know them. Yours faithfully, the Pope.”
It doesn’t have anything to do with artificial intelligence in a computer-science sense, I don’t think.
Opinions presented in this post may not reflect those of the poster.
The Church holds valuable intellectual property in certain areas. New technology threatens it. The Church would like control over the new technology so that it does not disrupt traditional revenue streams and will lobby hard to prevent erosion of of its market position. It would be a shame if anything happened to your nice lab.
I agree with Taran. Artificial Intelligence is not meant in the scientific sense of AI. As a form of intellectualim, meaining analytical problem solving bereft of moral judgement, it is overvalued and potentially dangerous according to Pope Benny.
This makes me wonder what the RCC’s position on genetic engineering of crops and plants is. Because I can see more potential danger to civilization from some recombinant DNA plant experiment going amok and say, destroying some big part of the world’s food supply. These kinds of things seem to me more dangerous than fertility medicine. But plants don’t have souls…
I dunno. There is a certain logic to his arguement, until you start to think about whose moral judgement is going to decide what kind of science gets done. IMO the RC church has a long and shitty record along those lines.
Honestly, ethical debate is not new to science. There are already pretty clear guidelines on things like animal testing. The old adage of “just becuse we CAN doesn’t mean we SHOULD” applies here.
I think the Pope is just saying “don’t get too far ahead of yourselves and think through what you’re doing, there may be moral implications”.
But feel free to disagree.
'Way I remember the story, it wasn’t the scientific advancement that caused problems for Icarus, it was user error. Seems somewhat of a poor metaphor, given that the wings, used correctly, worked perfectly.
That depends on the on the performance specifications laid out by the designer, Daedalus. Did he specify a maximum service ceiling? Did he provide sufficient guidelines to assure users stayed within the flight envelop? “If you can no longer see cows on the ground, you’re too high”, probably would have been sufficient documentation.
This seems like yet another case of a poorly tested and undocumented design being foisted on an suspecting public, while tech support claims user error.
Wow, so that’s how Bill Gates got his business model!
Not to mention a porous and caveat-laden warranty.
“Manufacturer warrants product only when operated according to strictly defined guidelines. Safety guarantee immediately void if used above ten thousand feet. By using this product consumer agrees to subject claims to binding arbitration, which is to say being bound to a mast and sung to by honey-voiced lawyers. Terms may vary in Ionia and Sparta. See your legal professional for clarification.”
More than that, Daedalus actually provided one-to-one product familiarisation training, with strict instruction to adopt a flightpath closely similar to his own. Icarus ignored all this. Fucker had it coming.
Being reckless was his only crime.
I dunno – the myth has it that he flew too close to the sun and his wings melted, right? But we know that it actually gets * colder * as you gain altitude. So I’d have to see the black box data before making any judgements.
Another possible rephrasing:
All your ethics are belong to us.
To which, Scientists might point out many counter-arguments such as this.
What zoid said: As you speed along the path of scientific discovery and experimentation, don’t leave your moral judgment behind.
Surely that’s “As you speed along the path of scientific discovery and experimentation, don’t leave OUR moral judgment behind.”