As a Catholic, far be it from me to disagree with the Pope, but when he doesn’t speak ex cathedra, we are all entitled to our opinions; thus, I question the assertion that no war is moral, which implies that no war is just. I particularly wonder why an Augustinian would make that argument, since it was Saint Augustine who authored the just war doctrine.
Certainly, no war is desirable, and kinetic conflict should be avoided at all costs and be reserved as a last resort; and no war of aggression is moral.
However, I think self-defense is an inalienable right (even though Jesus would advise us to turn the other cheek), and I certainly think that WWII, which put an end to Nazi and Italian fascism and Japanese militarism, is the perfect example of a just and moral war. That’s why it’s called the good war in popular culture.
While I’m a fierce opponent of collectivism and communism, it is less clear that wars like Vietnam were or are as morally justified as that, but I still make that case; even though Vietnam was a road to hell, it was paved with good intentions.
While the cost of such anti-communist, anti-fascist, ideologically-driven wars is horrendously high, the alternative is to incur the astronomical costs of enduring by decades of communism or fascism, which can be measured in the millions of lives and untold economic damages, as well as the collective misery inflicted by communist and fascist regimes on the people subjected to them, those in other countries that have to deal with them, and the incalculable drain on global productivity and progress.
So, in my view, the benefits of resisting such unsound ideologies by any means necessary far outweigh the costs.
Finally, on that subject, it is always better to change unsound ideology by persuasion rather than war, conducted in a free marketplace of ideas in which various alternative ideologies can be evaluated through uncensored discourse and debate based on real-world results, in a pragmatic rather than a doctrinal fashion. This is perhaps the most powerful argument for the establishment of free speech as a human right.
My perspective on AI regulation is that it should be done at the highest possible level, ideally globally, but in practice probably at the national level, versus, in the United States, for example, at the state, local, county, or municipal levels. While AI is probably capable of coping with complex matrices of regulation, it would be far better if we could achieve consensus on one global standard. If that is unattainable given national and cultural variation (which I fear it is) and the weakness of international institutions such as the UN and WTO, at a bare minimum, I prefer national standards rather than, in the US, 2,200 different counties or tens of thousands of municipalities, each having their own unique and perhaps contradictory regulatory schema.
Broadly regarded frameworks, like the Pope’s encyclical and regional regulatory frameworks such as the EU’s, add value in my view as they are potentially helpful in moving AI regulation to the highest possible level.
While US states such as Illinois proclaim that their state-level regulation is not intended to stifle AI development, it may, in effect, inadvertently do so. Today, the governor of Illinois said he is cognizant of the need for the US to be competitive without unreasonable constraints with rivals, principally China, but I am concerned that the popular demand for regulation of AI and data centers may handicap us in that competition, which could have a disastrous impact on our economic and national security. This applies equally to other nations and other continents, including Africa.
As a former Catholic, let me tell you that the problem with “subsidiarity“ is that the Church really doesn’t believe in it. The church talks a great game, but it’s all talk. The church is far more interested in centralized control than it lets on because the Church itself specializes in centralized control. Apply “subsidiarity“ to the churches, ecclesiastical structure, and the church falls apart.
The Vatican's Davos intervention on AI is old habit. Leo XIII did the same for industrial workers in 1891, and the church got little while capital got moral cover. Francis urging dignity over efficiency sounds noble. The track record is what matters.
Not a catholic but it seemed that his missive wasn’t particularly aimed at the flock nor at evangelism. I just thought it telling that in the same document he apologized for slavery he made a pronouncement that he can’t be particularly knowledgeable about.
I would have had much more respectful if he employed the epistemological humility to say “we don’t know much but we should be cautious “.
Guardrails, not mandates. Structure, not absolute control from afar, created and driven by bureaucrats. As usual, Magatte and I agree!
What a clear, cogent, and balanced response. Thank you, Magatte
As a Catholic, far be it from me to disagree with the Pope, but when he doesn’t speak ex cathedra, we are all entitled to our opinions; thus, I question the assertion that no war is moral, which implies that no war is just. I particularly wonder why an Augustinian would make that argument, since it was Saint Augustine who authored the just war doctrine.
Certainly, no war is desirable, and kinetic conflict should be avoided at all costs and be reserved as a last resort; and no war of aggression is moral.
However, I think self-defense is an inalienable right (even though Jesus would advise us to turn the other cheek), and I certainly think that WWII, which put an end to Nazi and Italian fascism and Japanese militarism, is the perfect example of a just and moral war. That’s why it’s called the good war in popular culture.
While I’m a fierce opponent of collectivism and communism, it is less clear that wars like Vietnam were or are as morally justified as that, but I still make that case; even though Vietnam was a road to hell, it was paved with good intentions.
While the cost of such anti-communist, anti-fascist, ideologically-driven wars is horrendously high, the alternative is to incur the astronomical costs of enduring by decades of communism or fascism, which can be measured in the millions of lives and untold economic damages, as well as the collective misery inflicted by communist and fascist regimes on the people subjected to them, those in other countries that have to deal with them, and the incalculable drain on global productivity and progress.
So, in my view, the benefits of resisting such unsound ideologies by any means necessary far outweigh the costs.
Finally, on that subject, it is always better to change unsound ideology by persuasion rather than war, conducted in a free marketplace of ideas in which various alternative ideologies can be evaluated through uncensored discourse and debate based on real-world results, in a pragmatic rather than a doctrinal fashion. This is perhaps the most powerful argument for the establishment of free speech as a human right.
My perspective on AI regulation is that it should be done at the highest possible level, ideally globally, but in practice probably at the national level, versus, in the United States, for example, at the state, local, county, or municipal levels. While AI is probably capable of coping with complex matrices of regulation, it would be far better if we could achieve consensus on one global standard. If that is unattainable given national and cultural variation (which I fear it is) and the weakness of international institutions such as the UN and WTO, at a bare minimum, I prefer national standards rather than, in the US, 2,200 different counties or tens of thousands of municipalities, each having their own unique and perhaps contradictory regulatory schema.
Broadly regarded frameworks, like the Pope’s encyclical and regional regulatory frameworks such as the EU’s, add value in my view as they are potentially helpful in moving AI regulation to the highest possible level.
While US states such as Illinois proclaim that their state-level regulation is not intended to stifle AI development, it may, in effect, inadvertently do so. Today, the governor of Illinois said he is cognizant of the need for the US to be competitive without unreasonable constraints with rivals, principally China, but I am concerned that the popular demand for regulation of AI and data centers may handicap us in that competition, which could have a disastrous impact on our economic and national security. This applies equally to other nations and other continents, including Africa.
Fantastic, pragmatic piece.
"I would add the countries always told to wait their turn, because a cure built around permission would narrow their path."
Or worse. This is now four years old, and it is worse now:
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2022/11/03/africa-will-remain-poor-unless-it-uses-more-energy
A moral government rightly defends free minds and free markets.
Bob is no more Pope than I or a Sentinel Islander is. The last valid Pope died on October 9th 1958.
Please do expand on that.
I have. Short version: Believe!. Long version: Reclaim the Catholic Church.
https://payhip.com/EBOOKSBYGFILOTTO
As a former Catholic, let me tell you that the problem with “subsidiarity“ is that the Church really doesn’t believe in it. The church talks a great game, but it’s all talk. The church is far more interested in centralized control than it lets on because the Church itself specializes in centralized control. Apply “subsidiarity“ to the churches, ecclesiastical structure, and the church falls apart.
The Vatican's Davos intervention on AI is old habit. Leo XIII did the same for industrial workers in 1891, and the church got little while capital got moral cover. Francis urging dignity over efficiency sounds noble. The track record is what matters.
Not a catholic but it seemed that his missive wasn’t particularly aimed at the flock nor at evangelism. I just thought it telling that in the same document he apologized for slavery he made a pronouncement that he can’t be particularly knowledgeable about.
I would have had much more respectful if he employed the epistemological humility to say “we don’t know much but we should be cautious “.