Zionism is one element of Jewish supremacy, but not all of it. In fact Zionism's execution was birthed from Jewish supremacy. The Rothschilds were in a unique position to receive a "state" from the British government.

Leading be example is not.

Look up Vatican land holdings across Europe, Africa and Asia.

But then, the opposition to my comment is based on religious ideology and not merit.

[flagged]

ig it's about French and Belgians in Africa, and Spanish in America.

While there's a singular author ("Leo"), these writings are often created in consultation with other people:

> Francis, for example, did not write Laudato si’ entirely on his own. The first draft was prepared by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, with input from other Church leaders. The document was then revised and reviewed by the Vatican’s Secretariat of State and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

But I meant mostly those who share "Leo's" errors and write like him ("these people [like "Leo"])

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48188156 this person is known for challenging papal authority.

ehhh, the model doesn't matter as much, the summary appears to be accurate (you can ctrl+f for keywords like "slavery", then see what's being said on the subject)

so for example with "Just War" we see this passage:

> it is important to reaffirm that the “just war” theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated.

This would clearly be thought to be an error from a Catholic viewpoint, because the right to wage "justified war" comes from the individual right to self-defense, as applied to a collective group of people legitimately defending against aggression (maybe lots of people here for example would argue Ukraine is legitimately justified in waging defensive war against Russia, for example).

Hence while it is good to promote peaceful resolutions of conflict, the document goes too far in condemning legitimate self-defense.

(So while the whole long document likely says correct things about AI and the dignity of work, it also adds in things like the above that Catholics would clearly reject. Typically Catholics would accept what a pope is writing so if you're getting someone who claims to be pope teaching erroneously, this points to a bigger problem for Catholics.)

"by providing food or housing" vs "if it was used to increase profits"

Why..not both? I know this question is naive, but there is nothing that "hard-codes" AI to only increase profits at the cost of providing food or housing for much cheaper prices. Yes a Private equity firm could later insert itself and jack up prices and play such games, but that isn't baked into the technology itself.

And as such, the technology seems the wrong thing to be litigating.

This makes me think of enlightened self interest. If the tech elite crush everyone by automating too fast then the economy collapses and people don’t have the money to pay them and their advertisers, so it will wind up hurting them directly too. Enlightened self interest SHOULD keep those same people in check finding a way to use the technology to empower advances in efficiency that empower people not just corporations. But the AI leaders don’t outwardly seem to think about these issues, and when asked just brush past them. We should not stop tech progress even if it were possible in a global competitive environment (which it is not), but there are some moral issues that should guide tech leaders in decision making, not just profit motives.