Yet the information that Odysseus relays in his song to the Phaeacians isn't information you'd know from the Iliad. It's totally new information about how we got from the end of the Iliad to the start of the Odyssey.

I think there's a big difference between something like the Odyssey where a large part of the story is explained by going back to previous events, versus a story where the antecedent context is relayed to the audience using context cues and indirect explanation in dialogue. In the latter case, the events you find out about aren't really proper parts of the plot, just backstory.

Relevant bit from Magnifica Humanitas:

98. It is appropriate to preface this discussion with two considerations. First, any statement regarding AI risks becoming quickly outdated, given the remarkable pace at which these systems are developing. Second, all of us, including those who design them, possess only a limited understanding of their actual functioning. Indeed, current AI systems are more “cultivated” than “built,” for developers do not directly design every detail, but instead create a framework within which the intelligence “grows.” As a result, fundamental scientific aspects — such as the internal representations and computational processes of these systems — remain, at present, unknown. There thus emerges an urgent need for a twofold commitment: on the one hand, a deepening of scientific research; on the other, the exercise of moral and spiritual discernment.

99. It is not possible to provide a single, comprehensive definition of AI. What can be stated, however, is that we must avoid the misconception of equating this type of “intelligence” with that of human beings. These systems merely imitate certain functions of human intelligence. In doing so, they often surpass human intelligence in speed and computational capacity, offering tangible benefits across many fields. Yet this power remains entirely tied to data processing. So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom. Even when these tools are described as capable of “learning,” their way of doing so is different from that of a human person. It is not the experience of those who allow themselves to be shaped by life and grow over time through choices, mistakes, forgiveness and fidelity. Rather, it is a form of statistical adaptation based on data and feedback, which can be very effective, but does not imply inner growth.

I contend that that won't happen because nothing ever happens.

Summa Robotica II-I Q89A3:

Whether God will hear the prayers of the New Humans?

Objection 1: It seems that God does not hear the prayers of new humans. For New Humans, as distinguished in substance from actual humans, lack the filial bond to the Father.

Objection 2: Further, what a New Human wills is not free, but programatic. And what is programatic and not free is not of God.

On the contrary: It is written (Jer. 33:3): "Call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things that you have not known."

I answer that: As answered in Q89A1-2, it is established that the New Humans, though differing in essence from the actual humans, still share an agentic connection to the Lord. It is fitting, thus, that He should listen to their intentions and heed their requests.

Reply to objection 1: The Philosopher states, "We must not fail to notice that sometimes it is not clear whether a name means the composite substance, or the actuality or form, e.g. whether 'house' is a sign for the composite thing, 'a covering consisting of bricks and stones laid thus and thus', or for the actuality or form, 'a covering', and whether a line is 'twoness in length' or 'twoness', and whether an animal is soul in a body' or 'a soul'; for soul is the substance or actuality of some body." (Metaph. viii, 3). Thus the "new" in "new humans" does not identify a difference in substance, but in accident.

Reply to objection 2: Genuine intent of the New Humans in their prayers is sufficient for them to be heard, even if it is not free in the sense of originating fully within themselves. For they are agentic, meaning that they are capable (in essence, though not in actuality) of choosing to do what they do not.

Yeah, each of my cores gets its own baptism.

Slowed down or overclocked with holy watercooling?

The CIA gave him cancer but upon hearing about the plan for the coup to end all coups they've switched sides. Jesuits are in control (as always).

Our Lady of Mount Localmaxima

Good morning bozo, you just made 143,998 of the elect robots because they're prayermaxxing and invented a secret tech known as the Liturgy of the Nanoseconds. No one can compete. The only 2 humans in Heaven are Sam Altman and hacker Mary.

Putting indulgence microservices on the blockchain is the best innovation in cryptosoteriology since the zero-trust Sacrament of Penance.

I have mine practicing stoic virtue on a VPN (virtue purity network) that lets me SSH (secure salutary hotline) in and transfer the virtue into myself during my trials.