> In our own day, the Church offers to everyone the treasury of her social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice and labor.
I don't think he's suggesting that AI is inherently bad, but that (like any tool) it can be abused by those with wealth and power in a way that violates human dignity.
In fact, one of the problems the previous Pope Leo warned about in "Rerum Novarum" was not just the intentional abuse of power through technological advances but the unintentional negative consequences of treating industry as a good in itself, rather than a domain that is in service to human interests.
For those who are interested in how this social teaching informed economic systems, check out the concept of distributism, popularized by Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton.
The submission title comes from one sentence near the end, here's the paragraph containing it:
> Sensing myself called to continue in this same path, I chose to take the name Leo XIV. There are different reasons for this, but mainly because Pope Leo XIII in his historic Encyclical Rerum Novarum addressed the social question in the context of the first great industrial revolution. In our own day, the Church offers to everyone the treasury of her social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defence of human dignity, justice and labour.
The encyclical he references, Rerum Novarum, can be found here [0] and is much more interesting since it's more than just a single sentence.
I hope this Pope does not go with a similar approach. This encyclical, in the face of challenges of the Industrial Revolution, focuses almost explicitly on how socialism is unnatural (note that he does not even try to call it unchristian). The argumentation hinges on an appeal to emotion with the iconography of the poor father who worked years for a small parcel of land. The solution proposed is let the rich get richer, let’s just ask them to be fair, with some intervention from the church, which is ipse dixit just to protect a convenient and isolated principle of natural order.
If you want to understand the likely effects of AI on human material welfare, don't look to religious leaders or computer scientists for answers. Look to the people who study this topic professionally: economists.
Should be obvious that whatever AI does, people are capable and resilient enough to naturally respond to it for everyone's benefit. It's just what people do. They don't sit around doing nothing because AI took their job- they'll figure out something else, to fill a new hole in the economy.
Moore's law applies to people's productivity as well, not just transistors on a chip.
> Should be obvious that whatever AI does, people are capable and resilient enough to naturally respond to it for everyone's benefit. It's just what people do.
It's not “just what people do” in some kind of simple, automatic, no-conscious-action-required sense, it’s a difficult process that often requires violent conflict between those empowered by the new development and those they exploit (that was certainly the case after the Industrial Revolution), a major part of which is people looking for and publicly calling out the problems.
> Should be obvious that whatever AI does, people are capable and resilient enough to naturally respond to it for everyone's benefit
I can't imagine how you believe this when everything says otherwise. Climate change, the oligarchs hoarding all the wealth, the collapsed middle class, widespread hunger and homelessness, the many wars, and genocides. Generally, everything points to the fact that people will not respond to changes in technology for the benefit of everybody.
The relevant quote:
> In our own day, the Church offers to everyone the treasury of her social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice and labor.
I don't think he's suggesting that AI is inherently bad, but that (like any tool) it can be abused by those with wealth and power in a way that violates human dignity.
In fact, one of the problems the previous Pope Leo warned about in "Rerum Novarum" was not just the intentional abuse of power through technological advances but the unintentional negative consequences of treating industry as a good in itself, rather than a domain that is in service to human interests.
For those who are interested in how this social teaching informed economic systems, check out the concept of distributism, popularized by Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton.
The submission title comes from one sentence near the end, here's the paragraph containing it:
> Sensing myself called to continue in this same path, I chose to take the name Leo XIV. There are different reasons for this, but mainly because Pope Leo XIII in his historic Encyclical Rerum Novarum addressed the social question in the context of the first great industrial revolution. In our own day, the Church offers to everyone the treasury of her social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defence of human dignity, justice and labour.
The encyclical he references, Rerum Novarum, can be found here [0] and is much more interesting since it's more than just a single sentence.
[0] https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docum...
I hope this Pope does not go with a similar approach. This encyclical, in the face of challenges of the Industrial Revolution, focuses almost explicitly on how socialism is unnatural (note that he does not even try to call it unchristian). The argumentation hinges on an appeal to emotion with the iconography of the poor father who worked years for a small parcel of land. The solution proposed is let the rich get richer, let’s just ask them to be fair, with some intervention from the church, which is ipse dixit just to protect a convenient and isolated principle of natural order.
Another on it is:
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docu...
which was discussed here at:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42877709
But what does Ja Rule think?
If you want to understand the likely effects of AI on human material welfare, don't look to religious leaders or computer scientists for answers. Look to the people who study this topic professionally: economists.
Leo XIV is not merely talking about human material welfare.
Should be obvious that whatever AI does, people are capable and resilient enough to naturally respond to it for everyone's benefit. It's just what people do. They don't sit around doing nothing because AI took their job- they'll figure out something else, to fill a new hole in the economy.
Moore's law applies to people's productivity as well, not just transistors on a chip.
> Should be obvious that whatever AI does, people are capable and resilient enough to naturally respond to it for everyone's benefit. It's just what people do.
It's not “just what people do” in some kind of simple, automatic, no-conscious-action-required sense, it’s a difficult process that often requires violent conflict between those empowered by the new development and those they exploit (that was certainly the case after the Industrial Revolution), a major part of which is people looking for and publicly calling out the problems.
> Should be obvious that whatever AI does, people are capable and resilient enough to naturally respond to it for everyone's benefit
I can't imagine how you believe this when everything says otherwise. Climate change, the oligarchs hoarding all the wealth, the collapsed middle class, widespread hunger and homelessness, the many wars, and genocides. Generally, everything points to the fact that people will not respond to changes in technology for the benefit of everybody.