jdelfuego

> there's no way to say it nicely, I have a big nose.

But there is!

"Érase un hombre a una nariz pegado, érase una nariz superlativa, érase una nariz sayón y escriba, érase un peje espada muy barbado" (Francisco de Quevedo, 1580-1645)

Or, as translated by Timothy Adès (https://timothyades.com/francisco-de-quevedo-1580-1645-a-una...):

"There was a nose, which had a man appended. It was a nose superb, superlative, it was a nose, a hangman and a scribe, it was a swordfish, sharp and hairy-ended"

Service called his work "verse, not poetry", I just learned. I consider myself singularly unendowed in the whole "understanding poetry" thing, and here is a poem that I can actually understand, and relate to its, and enjoy in its simple musicality. Thanks

Homeopathic sports supplementation

I think I get your point. The issue with which I disagree is that it remains a principle of Catholic thought that it avails nothing to man being created in the image of God without conversion and grace. A piece of moral guidance coming from the Pope which remains at a natural level (i.e. the danger of becoming "less human" which you identify as Leo's point) runs dangerously close to ignoring that the Catholic faith insists that the end of man is supernatural, not natural only. It'd be a good thing if the human dignity of some is preserved thanks to the discussions this encyclical might raise; but that's not enough, for "what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world and lose himself and cast away himself?” (Luke 9:25).

My issue with this encyclical is that, interesting discussion on ethical and philosophical aspects of AI notwithstanding, I still would like to hear the Catholic voice on AI: a voice that actually believes that man is not for this world, and that only grace through faith in Christ can save him. And this is not it, I think.

Fair. Also far from an expert on the Amish. Your comment made me think in two things. One, as another [1] comment on this thread mentions, some technologies end up in some sort of 'background', used by everyone and not receiving any thought from anyone. Maybe that's some sort of practical proof of their "neutrality", in the sense of being something that satisfies a simple human need with demanding the sacrifice of part of our humanity? I don't know. The other: maybe their self-imposed isolation (physical, cultural, linguistic, etc ) affords them a greater independence with respect to contemporary politics and vibes?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48271324

I find the Amish approach to technology a very interesting one. As I understand it, they're not in principle "against" modern technology, but they carefully evaluate the potential impact of every new technology on the community. The decision is a purposeful one, governed by the criterion of the common good of the community, which in my opinion is much healthy than our free-for-all.

In this respect I find this encyclical quite lacking. It makes interesting points, and will give food for thought for people working in/with AI who might not otherwise have been exposed to these kinds of concepts. But one would expect, from a Catholic encyclical, an exposition of the principles of common good from a Catholic perspective. But in this document everything seems to be based in the concept of "human dignity", which, however useful or beautiful, has no roots in Catholic tradition: it's a purely secular idea. Nothing in the document couldn't have been written by a secular philosopher. It gives the uncomfortable impression of someone arriving late to the party, so to speak, trying hard to fit in.

The answer to the question "is this technology good or not?" can ultimately only be answered in reference to ends: it's good insofar as it helps achieve the end which is sought. The common good of the community, which AI might either help or hinder, depends ultimately on what is the the end, or purpose, of man. And it is about _this_ that the Catholic church claims to have a definite answer, a true set of propositions regarding the origin and destiny of man, not achieved by human ingenuity but directly revealed by God. Whatever can be labelled Catholic will reference that supernatural claim to divine authority; yet none of that is present in this text. It remains an interesting exercise in thought on AI and other topics, but nothing here indicates that those reflections are Catholic.

Good question, they considered it at some point:

> Lilypond is a very good tool, but the part on Gregorian chant is not maintained and very deep modifications would be needed to perfectly align the notes and text.

Source: https://gregorio-project.github.io/gregoriotex/index.html

Traditionally the explanation involves distinguishing between nature ("what") and person ("who"), which is the basis of the term "hypostatic union". There is one Person (which the gospel of st John refers to as "the Word"), which is of divine nature, i.e., is God; this Person assumed also a human nature, on the incarnation; and that is Jesus. This is what is meant by Jesus being truly God and truly Man: the one Person had united in himself both natures, the divine and the human.

I agree it's unfortunate that these kinds of questions sometimes get answered by inadequate metaphors or simply by dismissals. The whole joy of theology, while still requiring faith, is trying to answer these questions rationally.