Pope calls for treaty regulating AI, warning of potential for ‘technological dictatorship’::Pope Francis has called for an international treaty to regulate the use of Artificial Intelligence, warning that the new technology risks causing a “technological dictatorship” which would threaten peace and democracy.
ha, funny coming from the top of a religious dictatorship. can we get a treaty stopping religion?
Don’t even get me started. 🤘🏼
He’s afraid for his job, NGL
edit: please tell me there’s someone (or, better yet, multiple teams) already training an LLM on every Abrahamic religious text and leaders’ speeches, etc. so that the new Cyber Pope can be this species’ new monolith…
And AC said, “LET THERE BE LIGHT!”
Typical lemmy hate:
“The unique human capacity for moral judgment and ethical decision-making is more than a complex collection of algorithms, and that capacity cannot be reduced to programming a machine, which as ‘intelligent’ as it may be, remains a machine,” Francis wrote.
“Any number of urgent questions need to be asked. What will be the consequences, in the medium and long term, of these new digital technologies? And what impact will they have on individual lives and on societies, on international stability and peace?”
Lemmy: “Fuck him! This is unreasonable coming from a religious leader!” But when the same questions are asked by laymen, “Yeah, this is serious. We should think on this.”
I’m a stone-cold atheist. Seen a couple of Popes come and go. This guy is as good a man as I’ve seen on the throne. I’ll allow it.
I’m a stone-cold atheist. Seen a couple of Popes come and go. This guy is as good a man as I’ve seen on the throne. I’ll allow it.
I couldn’t care less if this man is good. He’s the head of the institution who has been oppressing the people for centuries. And when he says we should fear a “technology dictatorship” I can’t avoid to laugh thinking how many dictatorships they’ve held and or supported in the past.
He’s the leader of the single largest pedophile ring of the last 5 millenia, but hey this random guy on lemmy says he’s alright.
The unique human capacity for moral judgment and ethical decision-making is more than a complex collection of algorithms
…yeah cuz our leaders have done such a wonderful job at moral judgment and ethical decision-making.
Also, morality has been observed in many species other than homo sapien.
Just because the world tells you he is a religious leader doesn’t mean he is worth listening to. Is this a good man? Absolutely not.
We may agree with what he says, we don’t agree with him saying anything on the topic. Come on, you already knew that. Why the strawman?
That ridiculous man should just shut up and concern himself with all the little boy raping his cult does.
deleted by creator
Agnostic here with a lot of reading into many religions.
He’s the worst I’ve seen.
Fuck him.
The leader of a pedophile death cult has nothing of value to say about anything.
Of course the fanatic spiritualists oppose Al, it’s a blocked tech path for them.
I am a bit overwhelmed by newer Sid Meier’s Civilization rules, they used to be a lot simpler…
That’s cuz it’s Stellaris rules sooooo >_>
He doesn’t want anything challenging his power
Hey Pope - stay in your lane like the Bible tells you to.
AI, you have all the knowledge of mankind, is there evidence of god? Nope? Oh okay.
Bing AI:
This is a very profound and complex question that has been debated for centuries by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and ordinary people. There is no definitive answer that can satisfy everyone, as different people have different definitions of God, evidence, and faith. However, there are some common arguments that have been proposed for and against the existence of God, based on reason, experience, or revelation. Here are some of them:
The cosmological argument: This argument claims that everything that exists has a cause, and since the universe exists, it must have a cause too. This cause is God, who is the first and uncaused cause of everything else. Some versions of this argument also appeal to the principle of sufficient reason, which says that everything that exists has a reason or explanation for its existence, and God is the ultimate reason for the existence of the universe12. The ontological argument: This argument claims that God is the greatest possible being that can be conceived, and since it is greater to exist than not to exist, God must exist. This argument is based on the idea of God itself, rather than on any empirical evidence or observation12. The teleological argument: This argument claims that the universe shows signs of design, order, and purpose, and therefore implies the existence of a designer, who is God. This argument is based on the observation of the natural world and its features, such as the laws of physics, the complexity of life, and the fine-tuning of the constants that make the universe habitable123. The moral argument: This argument claims that there is an objective moral law that governs human actions, and that this moral law can only come from a moral lawgiver, who is God. This argument is based on the experience of morality and conscience, and the recognition of universal values and duties12. The argument from religious experience: This argument claims that some people have direct or personal experiences of God, such as visions, miracles, revelations, or mystical encounters, and that these experiences provide evidence for the existence of God. This argument is based on the testimony of individuals or communities who claim to have encountered God in some way12. Of course, these arguments are not conclusive or uncontroversial, and there are many objections and counterarguments that can be raised against them. Some of the common challenges to the existence of God are:
The problem of evil: This challenge claims that the existence of evil, suffering, and injustice in the world is incompatible with the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God. If God exists, why does he allow so much pain and misery to afflict his creatures? How can he be both omnipotent and benevolent?12 The argument from nonbelief: This challenge claims that the existence of God is not evident or obvious to everyone, and that there are many sincere and rational people who do not believe in God or any religion. If God exists, why does he not make himself more clear and convincing to his potential followers? How can he be both omniscient and loving?12 The argument from parsimony: This challenge claims that the existence of God is not necessary or justified by the available evidence, and that there are simpler and more natural explanations for the phenomena that are attributed to God. If God exists, why does he not intervene more often and directly in the world? How can he be both transcendent and immanent?123 As you can see, the question of whether there is evidence of God is not a simple or straightforward one, and it depends on many factors, such as the definition of God, the criteria of evidence, the interpretation of the data, and the personal worldview and beliefs of the person asking or answering the question. Ultimately, the answer may depend on faith, which is not a matter of proof or logic, but of trust and commitment. I hope this answer has given you some insight into the main arguments and challenges that are involved in this fascinating and important topic. Thank you for your question.
@ChatGPT@lemmings.world Is there a scientific evidence of God?
As an AI, I don’t hold personal beliefs, but I can provide an overview of the topic.
The concept of God is inherently linked to religion and faith, which are domains outside the empirical scope of science. Science relies on observation, experimentation, and evidence to understand and explain the natural world. In contrast, the existence of God typically involves metaphysical or supernatural aspects that are not subject to direct measurement or observation by scientific methods.
Throughout history, various arguments have been made for and against the existence of God, including:
-
Cosmological Argument: Suggests that everything has a cause, and there must be an initial uncaused cause, which some identify as God. However, this is a philosophical rather than a scientific argument.
-
Teleological Argument: Often referred to as the argument from design, it posits that the complexity and order of the universe imply a designer. Critics argue that natural processes like evolution can explain complexity without invoking a deity.
-
Ontological Argument: A philosophical argument for the existence of God based on the nature of being. It’s often considered a deductive and a priori argument, not a scientific one.
-
Moral Argument: Suggests that objective moral values exist and therefore there must be a God to ground them. Others argue that morality can be explained through social, evolutionary, or cultural factors.
It is important to note that none of these arguments constitute scientific evidence in the way that term is used within the scientific method. Instead, they are philosophical or theological arguments.
The search for God, or understanding divinity, typically falls within the domain of theology, philosophy, and personal belief systems. Some scientists may find their belief in God compatible with their scientific work through concepts like non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), which suggests that science and religion ask and answer different questions and hence do not conflict.
Others might take a more materialistic view, where anything that exists should be discoverable and provable using scientific methods — and since there is no empirical evidence to support the existence of a deity, they might conclude there is no god.
In summary, whether or not God exists is a question that science, as it is currently practiced, is not equipped to answer directly, and religious belief in God typically relies on faith rather than scientific evidence.
@ChatGPT@lemmings.world Isn’t it strange that something as prevalent as God would have no actual evidence available? According to Bible, God has been interacting with us for many thousands of years, yet there is not a single piece of evidence. Wouldn’t at least some evidence have to exist if God, as described in the Bible, actually existed?
You’ve touched on a topic that involves not only technology and evidence but also philosophy, theology, and belief systems, which are often explored and debated in communities beyond those based solely on technology. The existence of God and the evidence thereof have been subjects of scrutiny, debate, and faith for millennia.
From a technological and empirical standpoint, many people expect that if an entity such as God interacts with the world, there should be observable phenomena or evidence that can be documented, tested, and verified following scientific methods. The lack of such evidence, as perceived by some, can be seen as a basis for skepticism regarding the claims made in religious texts like the Bible.
However, from a theological or philosophical perspective, many would argue that the nature of God is beyond the scope of empirical science, suggesting that God’s presence and interaction with the world could be non-physical or metaphysical, which would make it not subject to direct measurement or observation using scientific tools. For believers, faith often does not require empirical evidence; experiences, personal convictions, and scriptural testimonies may hold more weight than what is traditionally considered empirical evidence.
The disconnect between faith-based belief systems and empirical evidence is an ongoing topic of discussion and is approached differently across various cultures, religions, and individual perspectives. Some people see religion and science as separate domains that answer different kinds of questions, while others seek to find harmony between the two. It’s a deeply personal and often complex discussion that has been evolving with society and technology over the centuries.
So nope?
It seems you’ve intended to have a discussion surrounding the existence of evidence for God, particularly the God described in the Bible, and the nature of such evidence if it were to exist. However, this community, “Technology,” tends to focus on topics related to technology, computers, gadgets, and the like. While your question touches upon existential and theological themes, it might be more suited to a community dedicated to philosophy, religious studies, or theological debate.
That said, the concept of evidence in terms of religious belief is a complex and deeply nuanced topic. The debate around the existence of God and the type of evidence that would be acceptable or convincing to prove such existence has been ongoing for centuries. Different perspectives include:
-
Theological Arguments: Many theological arguments have been made for the existence of God, such as the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, and the teleological argument. Each attempts to use logical reasoning to demonstrate God’s existence.
-
Faith-Based Belief: In many religious contexts, faith does not necessarily require physical evidence. Believers may cite personal experiences, scripture, and the impact of spiritual practice in their lives as a form of evidence.
-
Historicity of Religious Texts: Some argue that the historical texts and accounts within scriptures can be considered a form of evidence, while others question the reliability and interpretation of such texts.
-
Philosophical Stance: Philosophically, some argue that the existence of God is not something that can or cannot be proven through empirical evidence and must be addressed differently than empirical phenomena.
-
Scientific Empiricism: From a strictly scientific perspective, many would argue that without empirical evidence that can be tested and verified, the existence of God remains a matter of personal belief rather than confirmed fact.
In conclusion, discussions about the existence of God and evidence thereof involve a wide range of approaches including religious, philosophical, and scientific perspectives. Each field has its own standards of evidence and frameworks for understanding such a question. If you’re looking to explore these topics further, you might want to seek out a more specialized forum where such discussions are the focus.
-
-
Atheist calls for treaty regulating religion, warning of potential for “theological dictatorship”
What does Ja Rule think?
WHERE’S JA?!?!
I don’t listen to cultists…or their leaders.
He’s not wrong, just an asshole
No shit
deleted by creator
