• cpaq47@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    6 days ago

    While humanism is often a non-religious philosophy or a worldview, federal courts have ruled that it qualifies as a religion.

    Best part of the story

  • Furbag@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    6 days ago

    “Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.”

    One religious exemption, please!

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Yep, a society based on privileging religion will support almost any wacky ideology that doesn’t oppose the state.

      This is a large part of how we got here.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    6 days ago

    So they want me to use an AI to do my job. But at the same time they haven’t fired me so presumably they understand that the AI can’t be used exclusively to do the job. So doesn’t that mean that they accept that I have better judgment than an AI and therefore my decision not to use said AI shouldn’t be a problem for them.

    I would love to see them actually try articulate exactly why the above is not true in an employment tribunal.

  • nonentity@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    7 days ago

    Freedom from religion is more important than freedom of religion.

    Time to apply this to financial economics.

  • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    6 days ago

    If Scientology can get a tax exception as a religious institution, then this guy can get title 9 coverage to not use AI at work as far as I am concerned.

    If it was anywhere but a university I would have also expected him to be on the short list for layoffs next round for such a choice as well.

  • cloudshouter@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    While I think most religious exemptions are stupidly and bullshit (looking at you, vaccine dodgers), this one can be considered to have actual theological merit. No graven images or creations. Also the fact the there are already cults of the AI. It’s still fighting bullshit with bullshit, but sometimes that’s all you have.

    • cpaq47@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 days ago

      Not really. At least to me although it seems to be similar, it’s less a focus on no god and more on being a good person and improving the lives of others. (You know, the things many religious folk think atheists are incapable of)

  • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    6 days ago

    hold up. keep your torches lit.

    It should be noted that while anyone can request a Title VII exemption, it will only be granted if the applicant has a deep moral conviction that could count as an article of faith. Aside from that, the law also states that the request should not place an “undue hardship on the employer’s business.” So, even though Durman is no longer personally required to use AI tools for his tasks, he is still expected to attend meetings and cooperate with colleagues who use AI or to submit materials to AI tools, as needed.

    TLDR; this guy won, but you probably won’t.

  • moonshadow@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    7 days ago

    I was actually thinking about this wrt healthcare access earlier. I have a genuinely religious conviction against the intimate, personal details of my condition being processed by a machine and made available online. That is the business of myself and a professional caregiver, not a tech company and whatever “partners” they feel like sharing it with. You’re supposed to be able to opt out, but practically that’s almost never possible

    Anyways I know it’s in an entirely different field, but this felt like a hopeful precedent. Thanks for sharing :)

    • isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      I view it more from the sacredness of the human voice and word.

      Civilizations that existed closer to the invention of writing treated it a mysticism and magic. The ancient Egyptians would write on their tombs, “speak my name and I shall live again.” Words are extension of the spirit. They allow a piece of yourself to transcend time, place, and even death itself. Words have power. The words you write are a piece of your soul.

      I don’t mind AI for replacing things that are not works of human expressiveness and creativity. Want to use an AI to test new compounds for potential medicinal effects? Go nuts. Want to use AI to optimize some soulless manufacturing process? Be my guest.

      But no human being should ever be forced by their employer to have a machine speak for them. Or to make art for them. Or any other endeavor where genuine human artistry and creativity are involved. My words are my own. My thoughts are my own. Everything I write, for good or ill, is an extension of my own mind and spirit. And I find something deeply morally wrong about people who take the soulless words of a machine and pass them off as their own.

      • delcake@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        You’ve expressed really well here why nothing gets under my skin quite like someone parroting off AI responses as a meat-proxy for some LLM. It’s like watching someone voluntarily give up their autonomy, or even just abdicating their birthright of consciousness.