It seems the Bishop of Rome now is an earthly technology expert! He writes:
This is also the case with forms of artificial intelligence. To date, there is no single definition of artificial intelligence in the world of science and technology. The term itself, which by now has entered into everyday parlance, embraces a variety of sciences, theories and techniques aimed at making machines reproduce or imitate in their functioning the cognitive abilities of human beings. To speak in the plural of “forms of intelligence” can help to emphasize above all the unbridgeable gap between such systems, however amazing and powerful, and the human person: in the end, they are merely “fragmentary”, in the sense that they can only imitate or reproduce certain functions of human intelligence. The use of the plural likewise brings out the fact that these devices greatly differ among themselves and that they should always be regarded as “sociotechnical systems”. For the impact of any artificial intelligence device – regardless of its underlying technology – depends not only on its technical design, but also on the aims and interests of its owners and developers, and on the situations in which it will be employed. Artificial intelligence, then, ought to be understood as a galaxy of different realities. We cannot presume a priori that its development will make a beneficial contribution to the future of humanity and to peace among peoples. That positive outcome will only be achieved if we show ourselves capable of acting responsibly and respect such fundamental human values as “inclusion, transparency, security, equity, privacy and reliability”.
Ockham wrote in his Work of Ninety Days that the Bishop Of Rome must limit his dicta to religious matters. In the case of AI it is even so very much more critical. He admits to the lack of clear definition but continues to espouse his earthly controls.
We have recently argued about AI, its lack of definition and its putative evolution. He finishes with the "plea"
For this reason, in debates about the regulation of artificial intelligence, the voices of all stakeholders should be taken into account, including the poor, the powerless and others who often go unheard in global decision-making processes
Just how this is to happen is I assume left to the reader. Ockham was correct, what is God's is God's and what is man's is man's. Papal prognostications are becoming just added chaff in the world of awkward chaff.
Posts
