Well written. It seems the actual encyclical itself is actually deeply subsidiarist. The text seems to stress decisions being made at the closest level possible, protection of intermediary institutions, resistance to homogenization, pluralized participation in decision making, room for policy variability, and the safeguarding local/community agency against both centralized states and centralized corporate-technological systems
NB: there is a substantial intervention into the papal tradition on the definition of common good. He specifies that the definitions of JXXIII and GS “provides us with a valuable initial reference point,” for “it is a greater good that belongs to everyone, and it can only be achieved, nurtured and protected by our collective efforts. We can say that social action reaches its fullness when it is directed toward this shared good, just as a person’s moral action finds its fulfillment in the choice of the true good.” In this sense, we can say that the whole is “greater than the sum of its parts” So the common good is a good, not just a condition.
A constitutional reading of Magnifica Humanitas is overdue — thank you. The throughline I'd underline: AI has no independent moral compass, it amplifies the one the human brings. So "the common good" isn't a property we build into the model; it's something the human must keep supplying. Free book in that vein thru 6/3: amazon.com/dp/B0H3HY8W9F
In The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams joked that philosophers demanded “rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty” once a machine started producing answers. The modern AI panic has created the same economy. Vast numbers of academics, ethicists, and professional critics now make careers denouncing systems they scarcely understand, because alarmism pays better than technical competence and confusion is easier to sell than clarity.
Well written. It seems the actual encyclical itself is actually deeply subsidiarist. The text seems to stress decisions being made at the closest level possible, protection of intermediary institutions, resistance to homogenization, pluralized participation in decision making, room for policy variability, and the safeguarding local/community agency against both centralized states and centralized corporate-technological systems
NB: there is a substantial intervention into the papal tradition on the definition of common good. He specifies that the definitions of JXXIII and GS “provides us with a valuable initial reference point,” for “it is a greater good that belongs to everyone, and it can only be achieved, nurtured and protected by our collective efforts. We can say that social action reaches its fullness when it is directed toward this shared good, just as a person’s moral action finds its fulfillment in the choice of the true good.” In this sense, we can say that the whole is “greater than the sum of its parts” So the common good is a good, not just a condition.
A constitutional reading of Magnifica Humanitas is overdue — thank you. The throughline I'd underline: AI has no independent moral compass, it amplifies the one the human brings. So "the common good" isn't a property we build into the model; it's something the human must keep supplying. Free book in that vein thru 6/3: amazon.com/dp/B0H3HY8W9F
In The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams joked that philosophers demanded “rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty” once a machine started producing answers. The modern AI panic has created the same economy. Vast numbers of academics, ethicists, and professional critics now make careers denouncing systems they scarcely understand, because alarmism pays better than technical competence and confusion is easier to sell than clarity.
https://jbsections.substack.com/p/academics-denouncing-aino-technical