Several of the arguments by Barnes are only relevant for Catholics. Some are not, like the fact that no digital tool is "just a neutral tool": that's something I think should be etched on the monitor of every software developer, and should also matter for everybody, regardless of religion, because many of our digital-related problems are due exactly to the fact that we left people who can ONLY code do whatever they wanted because hey, it's just software...
This, in general. As far as religious chatbots for every faith are concerned, I think everybody should care about their nature, diffusion and ease of access because we all already know a) that digital tech like social media and AI chatbots DO polarize and can radicalize people, b) that religion is one of the most polarizing things there can be and c) this would be obviously bad for democracy and public mental health.
In one sentence, even if one didn't care less for religion, he should be at least mildly concerned about anything that may increase the percentage of religious extremists of any sort.
Respectfully, I'm not sure I wind up in the same place you do. I'm no fan of the abuses of Big Tech, and all things being equal, I'd just as soon turn back the clock on AI. But given that we're here, from a realistic/pragmatic perspective...
To me, the anti-AI arguments here are the same as the anti-reading-Scripture-in-the-vernacular arguments in the 16th and 17th centuries (which anti-AI arguments in other fields, like healthcare, echo; see https://b2bs.substack.com/p/dr-ai-aint-so-bad ). Because, as per the Council of Trent and The Act for the Advancement of the True Religion (promulgated by Parliament during the reign of Henry VIII), the "lower sortes" (like commoners and women) couldn't be trusted and were thus in "Danger" when it came to actually understanding their own religion.
The folly of "trust the filter of human authorities over accessibility to doctrine, accessibility to God, and your own research" is exactly why we have so many offshoots of Christianity to begin with.
And if one's religion is the one true right religion, then better tactics for proselytizing, one would think, would be a good thing.
if access were only access on a human, personal, direct scale and speed, instead of being access mediated and controlled by something almost supernatural, but controlled (albeit indirectly, in the case of Magisterium AI) by a few for-profit companies led by individuals whose human maturity I seriously doubt...
I would certainly agree with you. That WOULD be "accessibility that unites".
With chatbots, as it was with social media before them, it's exactly the opposite. "Accessibility unites" is exactly what first the Zuckerbergs and now the Altmans of the world promised, and we all know what we got: people more lonely, more isolated in individual bubbles by gatekeepers, and more polarized than before.
Marco, as someone who was raised as a Catholic, but is non-religious, can you tell me if or why I should care? This is a serious question.
Hi Patrick,
Several of the arguments by Barnes are only relevant for Catholics. Some are not, like the fact that no digital tool is "just a neutral tool": that's something I think should be etched on the monitor of every software developer, and should also matter for everybody, regardless of religion, because many of our digital-related problems are due exactly to the fact that we left people who can ONLY code do whatever they wanted because hey, it's just software...
This, in general. As far as religious chatbots for every faith are concerned, I think everybody should care about their nature, diffusion and ease of access because we all already know a) that digital tech like social media and AI chatbots DO polarize and can radicalize people, b) that religion is one of the most polarizing things there can be and c) this would be obviously bad for democracy and public mental health.
In one sentence, even if one didn't care less for religion, he should be at least mildly concerned about anything that may increase the percentage of religious extremists of any sort.
Respectfully, I'm not sure I wind up in the same place you do. I'm no fan of the abuses of Big Tech, and all things being equal, I'd just as soon turn back the clock on AI. But given that we're here, from a realistic/pragmatic perspective...
To me, the anti-AI arguments here are the same as the anti-reading-Scripture-in-the-vernacular arguments in the 16th and 17th centuries (which anti-AI arguments in other fields, like healthcare, echo; see https://b2bs.substack.com/p/dr-ai-aint-so-bad ). Because, as per the Council of Trent and The Act for the Advancement of the True Religion (promulgated by Parliament during the reign of Henry VIII), the "lower sortes" (like commoners and women) couldn't be trusted and were thus in "Danger" when it came to actually understanding their own religion.
The folly of "trust the filter of human authorities over accessibility to doctrine, accessibility to God, and your own research" is exactly why we have so many offshoots of Christianity to begin with.
And if one's religion is the one true right religion, then better tactics for proselytizing, one would think, would be a good thing.
Accessibility unites. Gatekeeping divides.
Hi Joe,
if access were only access on a human, personal, direct scale and speed, instead of being access mediated and controlled by something almost supernatural, but controlled (albeit indirectly, in the case of Magisterium AI) by a few for-profit companies led by individuals whose human maturity I seriously doubt...
I would certainly agree with you. That WOULD be "accessibility that unites".
With chatbots, as it was with social media before them, it's exactly the opposite. "Accessibility unites" is exactly what first the Zuckerbergs and now the Altmans of the world promised, and we all know what we got: people more lonely, more isolated in individual bubbles by gatekeepers, and more polarized than before.