novocantico

> questioning others' beliefs while asserting that you have the true answers is childish at best.

Then it's childish for you to tell a flat earther they're mistaken. The objective, historical facts are on the side of Catholicism, whether you want to admit it to yourself or not.

> it was dangerous because people assigned it reverence beyond its function

People assigned it capability beyond its ability. That's the entire problem with AI. It is not intelligence. It merely mimicks it. What atheists call human intelligence is actually an ability we have because we're God's images. Making something in our own image and calling it a god is deeply biblical and culminates in Revelation 13:15.

> Who's delusional?

Every atheist on here, but more particularly, the elitist tech communities that think science is all there is to reality, when life experience abundantly proves otherwise from every direction.

> Respectfully, if AI is the golden calf, then so were the printing press

Stupid analogy after stupid analogy. The printing press merely let us mass-transmit ideas on paper. The whole point of AI is to be able to imitate the human mind, through a neutral network created via software and data training.

I have no problem sitting by while fools use AI to create inherently doomed works of art and prose.

Now I see why this proposal is doomed. The only people who could vote it up to the people who could understand its merits, are people with very low software competence.