@svkenneyi
iAccount based inUnited States
About this account
- Account based in
- United States
- Connected via
- United States App Store
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
UVA/CUA. "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." 🇮🇪🇺🇸🇱🇧🇻🇦
Joined January 2009
- Tweets63.5K
- Following4.1K
- Followers3.8K
- Likes101K
Pinned Tweet
"Don't be surprised
If I demur, for, be advised
My passport's green.
No glass of ours was ever raised
To toast the Queen."
— Seamus Heaney, "Field Day Pamphlet no.2" (1983)
#irishtwitter
Seán Fhirnuin Óg Coinnigh retweeted
“Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.”
This is deeply disturbing:
Anthropic secretly invited religious leaders to SF to advise them on AI safety, had them sign NDAs, but then primarily tried to convince them Claude has a soul & moral standing, all while wining & dining them to the max. 1/ tinyurl.com/preview/296b5z8z
Seán Fhirnuin Óg Coinnigh retweeted
Hard to take seriously the philosophers who deny personhood to unborn babies but apply it to AIs.
Seán Fhirnuin Óg Coinnigh retweeted
I want the good people at @AnthropicAI to know that you wine and dine me. I like to drink wine and to dine. I will just reiterate what the pope said, but I like free food and alcohol and would like you to give me as much as you can.
NEW: According to a bombshell report in the New York Times, Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah threatened to walk out of Pope Leo XIV’s AI encyclical launch in May because the pope rejected the idea that machines can be conscious.
Olah’s team then privately lobbied the pope’s advisers “to take the possibility of model consciousness seriously.” Pope Leo XIV held firm.
For months, Anthropic has wined and dined theologians and religious scholars under nondisclosure agreements, hoping they would bless the idea that Claude has moral standing. thelettersfromleo.com/p/nyt-…
Seán Fhirnuin Óg Coinnigh retweeted
Pope Leo XIV has just made one of the most interesting distinctions I have heard in the debate about artificial intelligence: a machine may be able to generate an image, but that does not mean it has made art in the human sense. Speaking to artists and cultural figures at the Vatican today, Leo argued that there is an “ontological difference, prior even to the aesthetic, between art and what a machine can generate through statistical calculation based on millions of images created by others.” The use of the word ontological is important here I think.
The Pope is not arguing that AI-generated images must necessarily be ugly, crude or obviously artificial. Quite the opposite problem is rapidly emerging. They can be extraordinarily beautiful. AI can produce an image in seconds which might once have required days of human labour, just as it can produce music, prose and increasingly convincing film. Pope Leo's point is that technical quality does not settle the question because something fundamentally different has taken place.
When Caravaggio painted The Calling of St Matthew, a human being had looked at darkness and light, sin and grace, bodies and faces, and attempted to communicate something he had perceived about reality.
When Bach composed the St Matthew Passion, the music emerged from a particular human consciousness, formed by faith, suffering, intellect, memory, craftsmanship and experience.
A machine experiences none of those things.
It can recognise patterns within an enormous inheritance of human creativity and generate something new from them with astonishing sophistication, but it has never stood before a sunset, buried somebody it loved, experienced shame, fallen in love, prayed, doubted, forgiven an enemy or wondered what happens when we die...and this leads into what I think was the most penetrating part of Leo's address. He warned that in the technological age “the great danger is no longer just censorship, but homogenisation; not merely imposed silence, but the noise that makes listening impossible.” That is very deep and well worth considering carefully.
We have a tendency to imagine the cultural danger of technology as somebody preventing us from speaking. The Pope identifies another possibility: that we become surrounded by such an enormous quantity of instantly generated content, tailored to what algorithms already know we like, that genuinely original human voices become increasingly difficult to hear. The problem would not be silence but saturation, it would be a culture filled with images, words and music which are technically accomplished, immediately consumable and endlessly reproducible, but increasingly detached from the mysterious encounter between one human consciousness and another.
This does not mean that we must become frightened of AI. Leo himself has repeatedly rejected that simplistic conclusion, writing in Magnifica Humanitas that technology is not inherently antagonistic to humanity and can serve genuine human flourishing. Perhaps it does require us to recover a distinction we are in danger of losing. Generating something and creating something may not ultimately mean the same thing & as machines become better at the first, we may finally be forced to think much more seriously about what is uniquely human about the second. vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/…
Seán Fhirnuin Óg Coinnigh retweeted
The brain trust at Anthropic has no concept of what sin is, as evidenced by the fact that they think a free agent "could be made to choose goodness." It doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. Some famous stories that illustrate this, in fact.
nytimes.com/2026/09/29/us/an…
"Morally conflicted" -- BS.
Marketing bros getting high on their own supply is more like it. This question was settled in the 1970s by philosophers of AI and the hurdle still has not been cleared.
Anthropic is so credulous of AI consciousness that it was shocked—shocked!—to discover that the Pope disagreed, and felt morally conflicted about appearing on stage with him.
This is not the behavior of a company that is "just asking questions." It's the behavior of a company that is /already convinced/ that AI is (or will soon be) sentient—and that views to the contrary are not just wrong but /evil/, something with which Good People should decline to associate.
That company now controls one of the most powerful AI systems in the world and is valued at nearly $2 trillion.
Human error is going to happen inevitably in any large bureaucracy, I'll grant that.
Yet in an era of large data, how hard is this to verify? Might be very hard, but it seems like we should have an answer for this sort of thing w/o blowing it up into scandal. My US$0.02.
Machines can only "know that" about a thing. Only persons can "know how" a thing works.
In this era of artificial intelligence, it is becoming urgent to distinguish human art from what machines produce. There is an ontological difference, even before an aesthetic one, between art and what a machine can generate through statistical calculation based on millions of images created by others. Algorithms lack the spark of humanity. For this reason, the Church wishes to renew an alliance with artists and cultural institutions to safeguard our humanity.
Seán Fhirnuin Óg Coinnigh retweeted
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. The “ontological difference” between man and machines, and what they produce, will never disappear.
In this era of artificial intelligence, it is becoming urgent to distinguish human art from what machines produce. There is an ontological difference, even before an aesthetic one, between art and what a machine can generate through statistical calculation based on millions of images created by others. Algorithms lack the spark of humanity. For this reason, the Church wishes to renew an alliance with artists and cultural institutions to safeguard our humanity.
This is the problem with the architects of AI. They really do have a materialistic view of the human person.
Embodied persons. <<pounds desk>>
Catholic anthropology has a couple thousand year head start on these guys.
NEW: According to a bombshell report in the New York Times, Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah threatened to walk out of Pope Leo XIV’s AI encyclical launch in May because the pope rejected the idea that machines can be conscious.
Olah’s team then privately lobbied the pope’s advisers “to take the possibility of model consciousness seriously.” Pope Leo XIV held firm.
For months, Anthropic has wined and dined theologians and religious scholars under nondisclosure agreements, hoping they would bless the idea that Claude has moral standing. thelettersfromleo.com/p/nyt-…
Seán Fhirnuin Óg Coinnigh retweeted
Wonderful time this week on my annual Southwest Virginia tour with @GeorgeAllenVA and what better way than to stop by while on the way to the esteemed @VMI1839. Fantastic museum which includes a life size statue of the legendary General George Patton, a proud former VMI cadet!
This is the most UVA Room 7 analysis ever.
Seán Fhirnuin Óg Coinnigh retweeted
As enthusiastic as Democratic pros are about their prospects, Democratic donors have not yet been convinced.
Superintelligence is (of course) the name of the foundational book by Nick Bostrum that everyone has and painfully few people have read.
Seán Fhirnuin Óg Coinnigh retweeted
My long-held opinion that "test anxiety" is fake: confirmed.
You're anxious because you don't know the material! The anxiety is called not having studied hard enough!
Seán Fhirnuin Óg Coinnigh retweeted
Yes.
PSA for voters in #VA01: I get it, you’re upset about gas prices. Me too.
But elections are about choices.
Shannon Taylor chose to give the lightest possible sentence to the monster who abused NICU babies. Then she chose to double down and brag about it.
She chose to sign a commitment to abolish cash bail and release as many violent criminals as possible.
She chose to make her community’s streets less safe.
Now voters have a responsibility to choose to keep this totally deranged person as far from power as possible.
For the sake of your kids and basic decency, get to the polls and vote @ReElectWittman
Seán Fhirnuin Óg Coinnigh retweeted
In a toss-up the advantage goes to Collins. Smaller and lighter, so she'll travel higher.