Hacker News

For the tech docs writing, just give me the bullet points and I'll send them to the AI and discuss the bullet points with it.

I feel like these tech docs you're writing might not need to be written in the first place.

Not sure what this is implying, but aspiring priests are required to have a Bachelor’s degree before entering Seminary, or it tacks at least two years onto a very rigorous six-year seminary program. The seminary program is on par with getting a Master’s degree in Philosophy and Theology. Further, only 30-50% of seminarians ultimately become ordained as priests, due to the rigorous vetting program and “discerning out.”

To be fair, faith is the crux of Catholicism.

we have vibe coding priests before GTA VI

Yeah, the Liturgy of the Hours includes many of them. (Four volume prayer set.)

Gemini 3.1 – I don't remember that verse. Is that from the old testament?

You're absolutely right! You can repent on your deathbed and skip years of church attendance!

This is how you get Grok.

Forgive me father for I have sinned. It has been three minutes since I shit posted on HN, and my greentext stories are famous on 4chan. Also, after lunch today I send 300 emails to Jeffrey Epstein using my work email and signed with my real name. What a great guy!

If I heard that, I would be upset too.

Honestly she should have changed parishes. St Rita’s is in an affluent part of Dallas. One of the priests is a former Anglican(?) with wife and children who obtained a special dispensation.

I heard a lot of bad phone it in homilies too. Today one of my favorite priests is from Benin. He serves the Francophone community but also celebrates mass in English and Spanish. He is at Mary Immaculate in Farmers Branch. He is more traditional and gives the Catholic interpretation of the day’s readings and how it applies today.

American religions are supposed to stay out of politics, or they risk their tax-exempt status.

For me, the disturbing event was shortly before the 2016 event when a Catholic Church in Lowell MA had posters urging people to vote no on marijuana legalization.

(In my case, I smelt the politization when I was a teenager so I never continued being Catholic as an adult.)

Not to write homilies though. The real danger of risking exposing private information would be pastoral work.

That's a bit harsh! I go to mass every Sunday (in France) and rarely have political stuff. When there, it's most often about abortion or euthanasia (of course in a pro-life (or anti-choice) direction, "you shall not kill")

But dull, empty homilies are (alas) very frequent.

I have heard phoned in homilies from some priests but this is not accurate in the United States based on my travels and weekly local attendance. Sorry that you had a bad experience.

This is in the US? I have rarely heard political homilies.

At some point, at least if businesses want to have AI “Agents” act as employees, then it needs to cease being stateless.

There’s a lot of hidden context in day to day work that a human often times wouldn’t even know to explain to the AI or even think that they’d have to include it, things that are just “known” by default of working somewhere for a long time.

With coding, there’s at least the entire codebase as context. With more creative tasks, it becomes murky. Even something as “simple” as sending a price increase notification to customers. There’s a lot of nuance in that, and customer relationship history you’d have to feed to the AI as context to get it right, yet a good CSR would just factor that context into their writing without a second thought.

There is a point, and it is reached very early, where it’s more costly and less productive to feed the AI as much context as you can try to imagine you’d need to give it vs. just doing it yourself. If I’m at the point of writing an entire document of history and context, into what’s effectively a full page prompt, then why bother with AI at that point.

How are you dealing with the Pope saying priests shouldn’t use your product?

Exactly.

A priest could use AI for a homily dealing with drug addiction, without specifying "Bob in row 3 is a methhead"

Its more than a nit. It only applies to confession so putting in other private information would not break a vow, but it would still be a very bad thing to do.

Was the number of partners you picked random or you chose 2137 on purpose? As it's actually somewhat related to the topic...

Confession was originally often made in public. Confessional secrecy is more about making it easier for people to freely confess their sins, free of the fear of retribution or shame, very much like why we have doctor-patient confidentiality enshrined in law today. I would imagine confessional secrecy arose very quickly, even if the norm wasn't private confession.

The first reference I could find for confessional secrecy was from a 4th century book written by the 3rd/4th century Persian bishop, Aphraates. In Demonstration VII, On Penance, he councils priests to keep a penitent's confessions secret, "lest he be exposed by his enemies and those who know him. .... If they reveal them to anyone, the whole army will suffer an adverse reputation."

Source: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_Sy0vAAAAMAAJ/page/n251/mo... That's a Syriac to Latin translation. I used Google Translate for Latin to English. There's at least one partial English translation of that book online, but I found their translation more confusing.

Catholic priests are forbidden from revealing anything they learn in confession under ANY circumstances. If someone comes in and confesses to a crime or that they are planning a crime, the priest can advise them to go to the police, they can counsel them that they may be in danger of hellfire if they do not, but they absolutely cannot tell anyone. The Catholic Church takes this very seriously. It is fully expected that a priest would die rather than break the confidentiality of confessions.

I don’t understand why you’re downvoted. “No priest would ever break rules” is such a strong and ridiculous claim that I thought solatic was trolling.

>>Bro as a kid I used to go to church every Sunday

I mean, not to dismiss your experience, but in my weekly Sunday going to church in Poland the priest would write an actual homily that felt relevant to the community. But then our small town had 3 churches, and each one had a different style - people would talk about preferring one over the other because they had more interesting "content".

But yeah, there was the message from the regional Bishop or the Archbishop of Poland or sometimes directly from the Vatican, then the reading from the old testament, then the homily which I'm 99% was written by the priest giving the mass.

>> I guarantee that not a single person from my entire village understood what the priest was saying

Well, I wouldn't say not a single person did, but yeah, we had those 3 churches, probably 10k seats each, every one was rammed on the sunday, but I'd say 90% of people there were only there to tick it off and snoozed through the whole thing. But it's not because the homily was boring, it's because going to church on sunday was(maybe still is?) a thing you have to do or people will make fun out of you.

Every single person who utilizes a navigation application to traverse a place that they have no previous independently verified experience, is taking existential risk based on a computer telling them what to do

There are literally thousands of cases of people dying or being injured because they did what a computer navigation application told them to do

This is also literally what the Target stock scheduling system does for target employees for restocking shelves

The vast majority of peoples lives are run by someone else’s computer

That’s exactly the question OP is asking.

There are some jobs where the outcome is the point, and others where having a person actually do a thing is the point. Priest is very much the latter sort of job.

Forget about AI for a moment and let's consider a more mundane tool, like an industrial robot. Is it OK to use a robot to perform some step in assembling a car? Certainly. How about programming that robot to perform Communion? Not so much. Not because using a robot to do things is inherently immoral, but because the human priest is supposed to be an integral component of Communion, it's not just a matter of transporting a cracker and some liquid into people's mouths by whatever means you choose.

You’re seething hatred is so obvious from this comment that no one should consider your opinion as anything close to valid

> Claiming that an immensely powerful being demands obedience of you, and keeps tabs on you all the time, but his orders only go through a chosen few, was a hard proposition to begin with.

You just described what Silicon Valley wants to build lol

> If it actually went over their heads, then the effort was wasted. I've heard the goal of preaching described thus: "Address the mind to move the heart to change the will." If you haven't addressed the minds of the people you're speaking to, your preaching was a failure.

Reminds me of Pauls retort about speaking in tongues with no translator. ;)

The idea being, that if it serves nobody but the person themselves, they should keep it to themselves, if you're going to "share" with the whole congregation, then it should edify the congregation.

1 Corinthians 14:27-28 (KJV)

"27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."

Indeed. As one priest in graduate school said to me (and with which I agree), one should generally keep homilies short, simple, clear, and to the point. In most cases, it isn’t the proper place for an extended theological meditation.

Of course, people ought to realize that the purpose of the mass is not the homily, but the sacrifice of the eucharist, which is the “source and summit of the Christian life”.

Why do you fear this? Did you consider discussing this with some of the congregation to know for sure?

I don't mean to pick on you personally, but your comment and the parent comment (among others here) both project feelings across wide groups of people in a hasty generalization. Their feelings could be easily confirmed with human connection. I think the article makes it clear the Pope charges priests with knowing their community. This is good advice for all of us though! So, not just you, but you, the parent poster, anyone else, if you have these fears, if you don't like your priest's homily, please, talk to the proper people about them instead of (or at least in addition to) complaining online to others! This is way outside our sphere of influence.

[dead]

Again, not defending the use of AI. My comment was more as a general response to people who maybe don't have a real life experience of listening to Catholic homilies and have unrealistic ideas of how much effort priests would normally put into them pre-ChatGPT.

In retrospect, I probably should have replied to a specific comment.

The keyword is "often". As in, it's repeated throughout the year. The homily is supposed to be, but isn't always, an explanation of the Gospel story that was told just before it. So there really shouldn't be homily repeats within the liturgical calendar.

You are supposed to attend Mass every Sunday, so I don't think the priest is intentionally accomodating infrequent churchgoers at the expense of the regulars. And it's usually not a sermon that worked well, just a long meandering story, typically about a pilgrimage or retreat the priest went on 10 years ago, that doesn't really have a point to it.

> It's very common for people to ask others questions that could be easily googled or clauded.

I'll admit I do this, asking people questions that could be answered by Google, and sometimes even if I know the answer myself, sometimes to make conversation, sometimes because I want to hear the person's perspective on it.

If I'd never ask questions I could find the answers to myself in some other way, I think I'd never ask any person any question, which sounds kind of boring.

This is true but seems to be orthogonal to the post you replied to. At a further tangent, I encounter people saying "well it's on Google" as they seem to think Google has some authority or quality threshold.

What an absolutely awful take. Asking people questions, even if it’s less efficient or has the chance to be misleading, is the absolute number one way to a) learn, and b) make connection. Even if you’re just asking a stranger the time, you don’t know what you might learn.

Are you trying to minimize human interaction?

Stephen Wolfram is the Antichrist - https://youtu.be/-yzdjziS-bo

> first wrote "not sent to the cloud", but if God is all-knowing, records of all sins are already in the cloud, just not accessible by support staff.

I heard there is a GDPR'esque Right of access(SAR) to see your records if you ask for it nicely in person.

The system in question is a distributed system, an interaction within that system such as "confession" involves ridiculous amounts of distributed processing, far beyond two nodes that were participating in that original exchange.

I am sorry if you read it as an attack on religion, it was an attack on big AI. If religion sends or even needs to send data upstream is not part of my knowledge, but AI does. But church did have the best understanding of who is who in a local society and AI companies will use this data in a more concrete way. I just drew the parallel to get the gears spinning. I agree that the organized religion was crucial glue to society trough history.

When I was a kid, we had a long shelf dedicated to storing a voluminous encyclopedia in the family room, and subscribed to periodic (annual?) updates.

This was expensive.

IIRC, these books were purchased one small stack at a time from a locally-owned grocery store, which spread the expense over a longer period. One week, they'd have the books 1-5 on display and for sale, say. And the next week, it'd be books 6-10. After a time, a family could have the whole set.

Anyway, we had that. So when I wanted to find general information about a topic back then, before Google or Altavista or Webcrawler or whatever, I'd look in the encyclopedia first and get some background.

If it was something I really wanted to dig deeper on, I'd go to the library. If I couldn't find what I needed, I asked for help. Sometimes, this meant that they'd order appropriate material (for free) using inter-library loan for me to peruse.

If I already had enough background but needed a very specific fact, then I'd call the library's reference desk and they'd find it for me and call back. They'd then read the relevant information over the phone.

And if I wanted a reference to have and keep, then: We had book stores.

---

Nowadays: Encyclopedias are basically dead, but we can carry an offline copy of Wikipedia in our pocket supercomputer if we choose. Books still get published. Libraries are still present, and as far as I can tell they broadly still find answers with a phone call.

It's not all lost, yet. The old ways still work OK if a person wants them to work. (Of course, Googling the thing or chatting with the bot is often much, much faster. We choose our own poison.)

i dont remember a world without google but surely the answer is just walk into a library?

Being older, I remember homework involving a trip to the library to look through lots of books for 1 tiny bit of information needed for the homework.

For IT-related info, dial-up was expensive, and finding things either involved altavista or Yahoo indexes. Computer magazines were also a great source of info, as were actual books.

The key difference from today is persistence, and attention span. Both of these are now in short supply.

You do not have to pay anything.

As a massive hedge fund with insane holdings managed by complex legal nuances & historical treaties, juggling critically withheld information, and having an outsize political presence as an independent state (thanks Benito Mussolini!), The Vatican has great financial incentive to have smart quants, historians, lawyers, and others on the payroll.

Based on their balance sheets I think they get it very, very, well.

Steve Jobs took a vow of poverty at Apple, too… somehow, some way, the dividends and stocks and private planes and fancy business dinners and everyone kissing his ass made a $1 salary survivable. Poor guy.

I read the other day that the Roman Empire never fell. Its emperor is the Pope.

Which is an exaggeration, but makes you thinking. This institution still has a ton of power.

Huh, this was an absolutely fascinating read. Kind of feel like the Vatican nailed it with this one lol. Did not have that statement on my 2026 bingo card. Wise words and perspective.

There must be something missing if they are religious though.

Like some sort of critical thinking isnt there.

(BS here meaning bachelor's — I misread this at first!)

"On iconoclasm and the Birch-Tate conjecture".

That is a scorching hot take right out of the gate on a Monday morning! Username really nails the thing.

I don’t know about popes, but many prominent mathematicians, philosophers and early scientists were priests or monks: Mendel, Copernicus, Bayes, Ockham, Bolzano... It was pretty much the only way to get the kind of education, intellectual culture, time and focus required for hundreds of years (at least in Europe), until the upper-middle class widened around the enlightenment and industrial revolution.

The friction between the church and science is a relatively new phenomenon, at least at the current scale. There are always exceptions like Galileo, but it took science a long time to start answering (and contradicting) some of the key questions about our world and where we come from that religion addresses.

the catholic church has traditionally been pro-science, the contrast with science is a modern development. There's a ton of Catholic clergy who were scientists[0], many of those well known (Mersenne, Mendel, Copernicus, Venturi etc).

Even the epitome of the science-church conflict, the Galileo story, started from a scientific disagreement before the religious one[1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marin_Mersenne

[0] https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-sma...

How much better?

Every honest description of Catholic Church, as any institution of this size and history, needs to be very nuanced. One of such nuances is a fact that it was one of the main, and sometimes strictly main, supporters and drivers of education and scientific progress. Other such nuance is that it very often punished and persecuted attempts to bring education and scientific progress.

Both views of the Church are true. That's what nuance is.

They often were. A lot of history has been retold more in a way to fit contemporary narrative than to maintain historical accuracy. For instance Galileo. The typical tale is something like Galileo dared claim the Earth is not the center of the universe, the Church freaked out at the violation of dogma, shunned him, and he was lucky to escape with his life. In reality the Pope was one of Galileo's biggest supporters and patrons. But they disagreed on heliocentrism vs geocentricism.

The Pope encouraged Galileo to write a book about the issue and cover both sides in neutrality. Galileo did write a book, but was rather on the Asperger's side of social behavior, and decided to frame the geocentric position (which aligned with the Pope) as idiotic, defended by an idiot - named Simplicio no less, and presented weak and easily dismantled arguments. The Pope took it as a personal insult, which it was, and the rest is history.

And notably Galileo's theory was, in general, weak. Amongst many other issues he continued to assume perfectly circular orbits which threw everything else off and required endless epicycles and the like. So his theory was still very much in the domain of philosophy rather than observable/provable science or even a clear improvement, so he was just generally acting like an antagonistic ass to a person who had supported him endlessly. And as it turns out even the Pope is quite human.

A lot of very bad things were historically done by men of science

Please be more specific. Church is 2000 years old.

The Catholic Church was funding a lot of research for a long time. E.g the Elon Musk of his time, Galileo, was famously sponsored by it and when asked to contrast his theories against the established view, sperged out so hard against the people tasked with reviewing his publications, they tossed him under the carriage.

You mean during the Napoleonic wars? Science was already fully embraced by then. Or do you think the Austrians and the French were casting spells against each other instead of firing cannon?

AI Mary, bereft of grace, paid for by sinners.

I left the church a long time ago, but this still makes me sad.

The Matrix has it wrong, the people went willingly, even excitedly

I'll accept your perspective and try to learn from it.

However I think that the comment is relevant, and you can see from the replies gathered before it was flagged that it did spark a relevant discussion.

Reminding that the speaker is a spiritual leader and not an authority on the use of technology is not a sneer and and not an ideological statement. In any context other than religion, which I understand is sensitive, a statement of that sort would be considered a contribution to the discussion, not an ideological battle. And that's precisely the problem - censoring a discussion about the relevance of religion to the matter is the ideological act.

It has to be ironic, right? Not sure what Sam Altman is qualified in apart from money making (which, of course, he's extraordinary excellent in).

Considered at length, and ultimately rejected due to lack of evidence.

I do believe (believe, not know) that consciousness is something bigger than we know, I can even believe in panpsychism sometimes but I don't think any religion have any real clue about the nature of consciousness.

I don’t necessarily disagree but how do you get to the conclusion?

Why then does it change if we take drugs?

What does “supernatural” in the context of your comment means to you?

Ah, a man (or women) after my own heart in HN.

Do you limit it to human‘s consciousness?

How could it be?

From the Wikipedia page on the Catholic Church: "By means of Catholic charities and beyond, the Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of education and health care in the world."

Just yesterday I went to see a presentation of a priest appointed to a massive parish in the rural area of South Sudan, setting up schools and bringing in aid.

I don't know enough about the current Vatican affairs. But as an anecdotal experience, I was born at a catholic hospital at a small town in Southeast Asia. And they're the best managed hospitals in the area. I'm not even religious or catholic but I respect what they did here

Ah yes, these priests killed and tortured around the world just to burn charity money.

I guess that's the point of it. It's kinda hard to doubt what they're saying anw.

A comment about how nobody can tell facades from the real thing — and the first response is someone trying to tell. I appreciate the live demo.

I used to worry that the problem was that LLMs allowed you to be stupid, but I recently realized the actual problem is that they reward you for being stupid.

AI people are a cult as well.

They simply follow (an)other god(s)... One of them clearly being Mammon.

I have been present for a sermon that smelled like chatgpt. It does make you wish you had sent your agent instead.