II. what Is Artificial Intelligence?

1. With wisdom both ancient and new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to review the present challenges and opportunities presented by scientific and technological advancements, particularly by the recent development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian tradition relates to the present of intelligence as a necessary aspect of how humans are produced “in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27). Starting from an essential vision of the human person and the biblical calling to “till” and “keep” the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church highlights that this present of intelligence ought to be revealed through the accountable usage of reason and technical capabilities in the stewardship of the developed world.

2. The Church motivates the development of science, innovation, the arts, and other forms of human endeavor, seeing them as part of the “partnership of male and woman with God in refining the noticeable creation.” [1] As Sirach verifies, God “offered ability to humans, that he might be glorified in his magnificent works” (Sir. 38:6). Human capabilities and creativity originate from God and, when utilized appropriately, glorify God by showing his wisdom and goodness. Due to this, when we ask ourselves what it indicates to “be human,” we can not exclude a consideration of our scientific and technological abilities.

3. It is within this point of view that today Note addresses the anthropological and ethical difficulties raised by AI-issues that are particularly significant, as one of the goals of this innovation is to imitate the human intelligence that designed it. For instance, unlike lots of other human productions, AI can be trained on the outcomes of human creativity and after that generate new “artifacts” with a level of speed and skill that frequently rivals or surpasses what humans can do, such as producing text or images indistinguishable from human structures. This raises crucial issues about AI‘s potential role in the growing crisis of truth in the general public forum. Moreover, this innovation is created to find out and make certain options autonomously, adjusting to new circumstances and offering services not predicted by its programmers, and therefore, it raises fundamental questions about ethical duty and human security, with wider ramifications for society as a whole. This brand-new situation has triggered lots of people to show on what it suggests to be human and the role of humankind in the world.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad consensus that AI marks a new and substantial stage in humankind’s engagement with technology, putting it at the heart of what Pope Francis has explained as an “epochal change.” [2] Its effect is felt globally and in a large range of areas, including interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, health care, law, warfare, and international relations. As AI advances rapidly toward even greater achievements, it is seriously essential to consider its anthropological and ethical implications. This includes not just mitigating threats and avoiding harm however also making sure that its applications are utilized to promote human development and the common good.

5. To contribute positively to the discernment relating to AI, and in action to Pope Francis’ call for a restored “knowledge of heart,” [3] the Church provides its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active function in the international dialogue on these problems, the Church invites those entrusted with sending the faith-including moms and dads, teachers, pastors, and bishops-to commit themselves to this critical topic with care and attention. While this file is meant especially for them, it is likewise implied to be available to a broader audience, especially those who share the conviction that scientific and technological advances must be directed towards serving the human person and the common good. [4]

6. To this end, the document starts by comparing principles of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then checks out the Christian understanding of human intelligence, supplying a structure rooted in the Church’s philosophical and theological custom. Finally, the file uses standards to make sure that the development and usage of AI maintain human self-respect and promote the important advancement of the human individual and society.

7. The idea of “intelligence” in AI has actually progressed gradually, drawing on a series of ideas from various disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a substantial turning point occurred in 1956 when the American computer scientist John McCarthy organized a summertime workshop at Dartmouth University to check out the issue of “Artificial Intelligence,” which he defined as “that of making a machine behave in manner ins which would be called intelligent if a human were so acting.” [5] This workshop introduced a research program focused on designing makers efficient in performing jobs typically related to the human intellect and smart behavior.

8. Since then, AI research has advanced quickly, leading to the advancement of complex systems capable of performing extremely sophisticated tasks. [6] These so-called “narrow AI” systems are generally designed to handle particular and limited functions, such as translating languages, predicting the trajectory of a storm, classifying images, addressing concerns, or producing visual content at the user’s request. While the definition of “intelligence” in AI research differs, many modern AI systems-particularly those utilizing maker learning-rely on statistical inference instead of rational reduction. By analyzing large datasets to identify patterns, AI can “anticipate” [7] results and propose new methods, mimicking some cognitive procedures common of human problem-solving. Such accomplishments have actually been made possible through advances in computing technology (including neural networks, without supervision artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) as well as hardware innovations (such as specialized processors). Together, these innovations enable AI systems to react to various kinds of human input, adjust to new scenarios, and even recommend novel options not prepared for by their original programmers. [8]

9. Due to these quick developments, many tasks when managed solely by people are now delegated to AI. These systems can enhance and even supersede what humans are able to do in lots of fields, especially in specialized areas such as information analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each “narrow AI” application is developed for a particular task, lots of researchers aim to develop what is referred to as “Artificial General Intelligence” (AGI)-a single system capable of running across all cognitive domains and carrying out any task within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI could one day attain the state of “superintelligence,” surpassing human intellectual capacities, or contribute to “super-longevity” through advances in biotechnology. Others, nevertheless, fear that these possibilities, even if theoretical, could one day eclipse the human person, while still others welcome this prospective transformation. [9]

10. Underlying this and numerous other perspectives on the topic is the implicit presumption that the term “intelligence” can be utilized in the same way to describe both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not record the full scope of the concept. When it comes to humans, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the person in his/her whole, whereas in the context of AI, “intelligence” is comprehended functionally, frequently with the presumption that the activities quality of the human mind can be broken down into digitized actions that devices can duplicate. [10]

11. This practical viewpoint is exhibited by the “Turing Test,” which thinks about a maker “intelligent” if an individual can not differentiate its habits from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term “behavior” refers only to the efficiency of particular intellectual tasks; it does not represent the complete breadth of human experience, which consists of abstraction, feelings, imagination, and the aesthetic, ethical, and religious perceptiveness. Nor does it incorporate the complete series of expressions particular of the human mind. Instead, when it comes to AI, the “intelligence” of a system is assessed methodologically, however also reductively, based on its capability to produce suitable responses-in this case, those associated with the human intellect-regardless of how those responses are produced.

12. AI‘s innovative functions offer it advanced capabilities to perform jobs, but not the ability to believe. [12] This distinction is most importantly essential, as the way “intelligence” is defined inevitably shapes how we comprehend the relationship in between human idea and this technology. [13] To value this, one need to recall the richness of the philosophical tradition and Christian faith, which offer a deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church’s mentor on the nature, self-respect, and occupation of the human person. [14]

13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has played a main role in comprehending what it means to be “human.” Aristotle observed that “all people by nature desire to know.” [15] This understanding, with its capability for abstraction that comprehends the nature and meaning of things, sets humans apart from the animal world. [16] As thinkers, theologians, and psychologists have actually taken a look at the exact nature of this intellectual faculty, they have likewise explored how people comprehend the world and their distinct location within it. Through this exploration, the Christian tradition has actually pertained to comprehend the human individual as a being including both body and soul-deeply connected to this world and yet transcending it. [17]

14. In the classical custom, the concept of intelligence is typically understood through the complementary ideas of “reason” (ratio) and “intelligence” (intellectus). These are not separate professors but, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are 2 modes in which the same intelligence operates: “The term intelligence is inferred from the inward grasp of the truth, while the name reason is drawn from the curious and discursive process.” [18] This succinct description highlights the 2 basic and complementary measurements of human intelligence. Intellectus refers to the instinctive grasp of the truth-that is, capturing it with the “eyes” of the mind-which precedes and grounds argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to reasoning correct: the discursive, analytical process that causes judgment. Together, intellect and factor form the two aspects of the act of intelligere, “the proper operation of the human being as such.” [19]

15. Explaining the human individual as a “reasonable” being does not reduce the individual to a specific mode of thought; rather, it recognizes that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and permeates all elements of human activity. [20] Whether worked out well or poorly, this capability is an intrinsic aspect of human nature. In this sense, the “term ‘reasonable’ encompasses all the capacities of the human person,” including those associated to “understanding and understanding, in addition to those of willing, loving, picking, and desiring; it also includes all corporeal functions closely associated to these capabilities.” [21] This detailed viewpoint underscores how, in the human individual, produced in the “image of God,” factor is integrated in a method that raises, shapes, and transforms both the individual’s will and actions. [22]

16. Christian thought considers the intellectual professors of the human individual within the framework of an important sociology that sees the human being as essentially embodied. In the human person, spirit and matter “are not two natures joined, but rather their union forms a single nature.” [23] Simply put, the soul is not merely the immaterial “part” of the person contained within the body, nor is the body an outer shell real estate an intangible “core.” Rather, the whole human individual is at the same time both material and spiritual. This understanding shows the teaching of Sacred Scripture, which sees the human person as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and therefore, an authentically spiritual dimension) within and through this embodied existence. [24] The profound significance of this condition is more lit up by the secret of the Incarnation, through which God himself handled our flesh and “raised it approximately a superb self-respect.” [25]

17. Although deeply rooted in bodily presence, the human person goes beyond the material world through the soul, which is “nearly on the horizon of eternity and time.” [26] The intellect’s capacity for transcendence and the self-possessed freedom of the will come from the soul, by which the human individual “shares in the light of the magnificent mind.” [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of knowledge without the body. [28] In this way, the intellectual professors of the human person are an integral part of an anthropology that acknowledges that the human person is a “unity of body and soul.” [29] Further elements of this understanding will be developed in what follows.

18. Human beings are “bought by their very nature to social communion,” [30] having the capability to know one another, to give themselves in love, and to enter into communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not a separated professors however is worked out in relationships, finding its fullest expression in discussion, collaboration, and solidarity. We discover with others, and we find out through others.

19. The relational orientation of the human individual is eventually grounded in the everlasting self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is exposed in development and redemption. [31] The human person is “contacted us to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life.” [32]

20. This vocation to communion with God is always tied to the call to communion with others. Love of God can not be separated from love for one’s neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20; Mt. 22:37 -39). By the grace of sharing God’s life, Christians are also called to imitate Christ’s outpouring present (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to “like one another, as I have actually loved you” (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the divine life of self-giving, go beyond self-interest to react more completely to the human vocation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Much more superb than knowing many things is the dedication to care for one another, for if “I understand all secrets and all understanding […] however do not have love, I am absolutely nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2).

21. Human intelligence is ultimately “God’s gift made for the assimilation of reality.” [34] In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it allows the person to explore realities that surpass mere sensory experience or energy, given that “the desire for fact is part of humanity itself. It is an inherent property of human factor to ask why things are as they are.” [35] Moving beyond the limitations of empirical data, human intelligence can “with real certitude attain to truth itself as knowable.” [36] While reality remains only partly known, the desire for fact “stimulates reason constantly to go further; certainly, it is as if factor were overwhelmed to see that it can constantly go beyond what it has actually already attained.” [37] Although Truth in itself goes beyond the limits of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this destination, the human person is resulted in seek “truths of a higher order.” [39]

22. This inherent drive towards the pursuit of truth is particularly evident in the clearly human capacities for semantic understanding and creativity, [40] through which this search unfolds in a “manner that is proper to the social nature and self-respect of the human individual.” [41] Likewise, an unfaltering orientation to the fact is vital for charity to be both genuine and universal. [42]

23. The search for fact finds its highest expression in openness to realities that go beyond the physical and developed world. In God, all truths attain their supreme and initial significance. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a “basic choice that engages the entire individual.” [44] In this way, the human person becomes completely what he or she is called to be: “the intelligence and the will show their spiritual nature,” allowing the person “to act in such a way that understands personal freedom to the full.” [45]

24. The Christian faith comprehends creation as the free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, creates “not to increase his splendor, but to show it forth and to interact it.” [46] Since God creates according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), development is imbued with an intrinsic order that reflects God’s strategy (cf. Gen. 1; Dan. 2:21 -22; Is. 45:18; Ps. 74:12 -17; 104), [47] within which God has called people to presume a distinct function: to cultivate and care for the world. [48]

25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, people live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by “keeping” and “tilling” (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and skills to take care of and establish development in accord with God’s plan. [49] In this, human intelligence shows the Divine Intelligence that developed all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] continuously sustains them, and guides them to their ultimate function in him. [51] Moreover, people are contacted us to establish their abilities in science and innovation, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in a proper relationship with development, human beings, on the one hand, utilize their intelligence and skill to cooperate with God in directing production toward the function to which he has called it. [52] On the other hand, creation itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, assists the human mind to “ascend slowly to the supreme Principle, who is God.” [53]

26. In this context, human intelligence ends up being more plainly understood as a faculty that forms an essential part of how the entire individual engages with truth. Authentic engagement needs welcoming the complete scope of one’s being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with truth unfolds in different ways, as each person, in his/her complex uniqueness [54], seeks to comprehend the world, associate with others, solve problems, reveal imagination, and pursue integral well-being through the harmonious interplay of the various dimensions of the person’s intelligence. [55] This includes rational and linguistic capabilities but can also incorporate other modes of communicating with truth. Consider the work of a craftsmen, who “need to know how to discern, in inert matter, a particular kind that others can not recognize” [56] and bring it forth through insight and practical skill. Indigenous peoples who live near the earth often have an extensive sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a good friend who knows the ideal word to say or a person adept at managing human relationships exhibits an intelligence that is “the fruit of self-examination, discussion and generous encounter between individuals.” [58] As Pope Francis observes, “in this age of synthetic intelligence, we can not forget that poetry and love are necessary to save our humanity.” [59]

28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the integration of truth into the ethical and spiritual life of the person, assisting his or her actions because of God’s goodness and truth. According to God’s strategy, intelligence, in its maximum sense, also includes the capability to enjoy what holds true, excellent, and stunning. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel revealed, “intelligence is nothing without pleasure.” [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the greatest heaven in Paradiso, affirms that the conclusion of this intellectual delight is discovered in the “light intellectual loaded with love, love of real excellent filled with happiness, joy which goes beyond every sweetness.” [61]

29. An appropriate understanding of human intelligence, for that reason, can not be reduced to the mere acquisition of realities or the capability to carry out particular jobs. Instead, it includes the person’s openness to the supreme concerns of life and shows an orientation towards the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the divine image within the person, human intelligence has the ability to access the totality of being, considering presence in its fullness, which goes beyond what is measurable, and grasping the meaning of what has actually been comprehended. For believers, this capability consists of, in a particular way, the ability to grow in the knowledge of the secrets of God by utilizing factor to engage ever more exceptionally with revealed realities (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is formed by magnificent love, which “is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence has a necessary contemplative dimension, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian function.

30. In light of the foregoing discussion, the differences between human intelligence and present AI systems end up being apparent. While AI is an amazing technological accomplishment capable of mimicing certain outputs connected with human intelligence, it runs by performing jobs, attaining goals, or making decisions based on quantitative data and computational logic. For instance, with its analytical power, AI excels at incorporating data from a range of fields, modeling complex systems, and promoting interdisciplinary connections. In this method, it can help experts work together in resolving intricate issues that “can not be handled from a single perspective or from a single set of interests.” [64]

31. However, even as AI processes and replicates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains basically confined to a logical-mathematical framework, which enforces inherent constraints. Human intelligence, on the other hand, establishes naturally throughout the person’s physical and psychological growth, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although innovative AI systems can “find out” through processes such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is fundamentally various from the developmental development of human intelligence, which is formed by embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional reactions, social interactions, and the special context of each minute. These components shape and form people within their personal history.In contrast, AI, lacking a physical body, relies on computational reasoning and learning based upon large datasets that consist of recorded human experiences and understanding.

32. Consequently, although AI can mimic elements of human thinking and perform specific tasks with incredible speed and performance, its computational abilities represent just a portion of the wider capabilities of the human mind. For circumstances, AI can not presently reproduce moral discernment or the capability to establish authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is situated within a personally lived history of intellectual and ethical formation that fundamentally shapes the individual’s point of view, encompassing the physical, emotional, social, moral, and spiritual measurements of life. Since AI can not use this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely entirely on this technology or treat it as the main means of analyzing the world can lead to “a loss of gratitude for the whole, for the relationships in between things, and for the more comprehensive horizon.” [65]

33. Human intelligence is not mainly about finishing practical tasks but about understanding and actively engaging with truth in all its dimensions; it is also capable of unexpected insights. Since AI lacks the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to fact and goodness, its capacities-though apparently limitless-are matchless with the human ability to grasp reality. So much can be gained from a health problem, a welcome of reconciliation, and even a basic sunset; certainly, numerous experiences we have as human beings open new horizons and use the possibility of attaining brand-new knowledge. No gadget, working entirely with information, can measure up to these and countless other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an excessively close equivalence between human intelligence and AI dangers catching a functionalist perspective, where individuals are valued based on the work they can perform. However, a person’s worth does not depend upon possessing specific skills, cognitive and technological accomplishments, or private success, but on the person’s intrinsic self-respect, grounded in being produced in the image of God. [66] This self-respect remains undamaged in all circumstances, including for those unable to exercise their capabilities, whether it be a coming kid, an unconscious individual, or an older person who is suffering. [67] It likewise underpins the tradition of human rights (and, in specific, what are now called “neuro-rights”), which represent “an important point of merging in the search for typical ground” [68] and can, thus, function as a fundamental ethical guide in conversations on the accountable advancement and usage of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, “the really usage of the word ‘intelligence'” in connection with AI “can show misleading” [69] and risks ignoring what is most precious in the human individual. Due to this, AI ought to not be seen as a synthetic form of human intelligence however as an item of it. [70]

36. Given these factors to consider, one can ask how AI can be comprehended within God’s strategy. To address this, it is necessary to recall that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character but is a human endeavor that engages the humanistic and cultural measurements of human creativity. [71]

37. Viewed as a fruit of the prospective engraved within human intelligence, [72] scientific inquiry and the development of technical skills belong to the “collaboration of males and female with God in perfecting the noticeable production.” [73] At the exact same time, all scientific and technological achievements are, eventually, presents from God. [74] Therefore, human beings must constantly use their abilities in view of the higher function for which God has actually granted them. [75]

38. We can gratefully acknowledge how technology has actually “remedied countless evils which utilized to damage and limit people,” [76] a fact for which we must rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological improvements in themselves represent authentic human development. [77] The Church is especially opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the self-respect of the human person. [78] Like any human endeavor, technological advancement should be directed to serve the human person and add to the pursuit of “higher justice, more comprehensive fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations,” which are “better than advances in the technical field.” [79] Concerns about the ethical ramifications of technological development are shared not only within the Church however also among many researchers, technologists, and professional associations, who increasingly call for ethical reflection to direct this development in an accountable way.

39. To deal with these obstacles, it is important to emphasize the value of ethical responsibility grounded in the dignity and occupation of the human person. This directing principle likewise applies to questions worrying AI. In this context, the ethical dimension handles main importance because it is people who develop systems and determine the purposes for which they are used. [80] Between a maker and a human, only the latter is really a moral agent-a subject of moral obligation who works out flexibility in his or her decisions and accepts their consequences. [81] It is not the maker however the human who remains in relationship with reality and goodness, assisted by a moral conscience that calls the individual “to love and to do what is great and to prevent evil,” [82] attesting to “the authority of fact in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn.” [83] Likewise, between a maker and a human, just the human can be sufficiently self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, critical with prudence, and looking for the good that is possible in every situation. [84] In truth, all of this also belongs to the person’s exercise of intelligence.

40. Like any product of human creativity, AI can be directed towards positive or unfavorable ends. [85] When utilized in methods that appreciate human self-respect and promote the well-being of individuals and communities, it can contribute positively to the human vocation. Yet, as in all locations where people are called to make decisions, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human liberty allows for the possibility of choosing what is wrong, the ethical assessment of this technology will require to take into account how it is directed and used.

41. At the very same time, it is not only the ends that are fairly significant but also the means utilized to attain them. Additionally, the total vision and understanding of the human person ingrained within these systems are necessary to consider as well. Technological products show the worldview of their developers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to “shape the world and engage consciences on the level of values.” [87] On a social level, some technological developments might likewise reinforce relationships and power characteristics that are irregular with an appropriate understanding of the human individual and society.

42. Therefore, completions and the methods utilized in an offered application of AI, in addition to the overall vision it integrates, should all be evaluated to ensure they respect human dignity and promote the common good. [88] As Pope Francis has stated, “the intrinsic dignity of every man and every female” should be “the key criterion in assessing emerging innovations; these will prove fairly sound to the degree that they assist respect that dignity and increase its expression at every level of human life,” [89] including in the social and financial spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays an essential role not just in creating and producing technology however likewise in directing its use in line with the genuine good of the human person. [90] The duty for handling this sensibly pertains to every level of society, guided by the concept of subsidiarity and other concepts of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The commitment to ensuring that AI always supports and promotes the supreme worth of the self-respect of every person and the fullness of the human occupation serves as a requirement of discernment for designers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, as well as to its users. It remains legitimate for every application of the innovation at every level of its usage.

44. An examination of the ramifications of this directing concept could begin by considering the significance of ethical duty. Since full moral causality belongs just to personal representatives, not synthetic ones, it is crucial to be able to determine and specify who bears responsibility for the procedures included in AI, especially those efficient in finding out, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up approaches and very deep neural networks make it possible for AI to resolve complicated problems, they make it challenging to understand the procedures that lead to the services they adopted. This makes complex accountability considering that if an AI application produces undesirable results, determining who is responsible ends up being hard. To resolve this problem, attention requires to be offered to the nature of responsibility processes in complex, highly automated settings, where outcomes might just end up being evident in the medium to long term. For this, it is essential that ultimate obligation for decisions used AI rests with the human decision-makers and that there is responsibility for using AI at each phase of the decision-making procedure. [91]

45. In addition to determining who is accountable, it is important to recognize the goals offered to AI systems. Although these systems might use without supervision self-governing learning mechanisms and sometimes follow courses that people can not rebuild, they eventually pursue objectives that humans have assigned to them and are governed by processes established by their designers and developers. Yet, this provides a difficulty since, as AI designs become increasingly capable of independent learning, the capability to maintain control over them to make sure that such applications serve human purposes might effectively diminish. This raises the crucial question of how to guarantee that AI systems are bought for the good of individuals and not against them.

46. While obligation for the ethical use of AI systems starts with those who develop, produce, manage, and manage such systems, it is likewise shared by those who utilize them. As Pope Francis kept in mind, the maker “makes a technical option amongst a number of possibilities based either on well-defined requirements or on analytical reasonings. Humans, nevertheless, not just select, but in their hearts can choosing.” [92] Those who use AI to accomplish a task and follow its outcomes create a context in which they are eventually responsible for the power they have actually entrusted. Therefore, insofar as AI can help human beings in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it must be reliable, secure, robust enough to deal with disparities, and transparent in their operation to mitigate biases and unintended adverse effects. [93] Regulatory structures need to ensure that all legal entities remain accountable for the use of AI and all its consequences, with appropriate safeguards for openness, personal privacy, and accountability. [94] Moreover, those utilizing AI ought to take care not to become excessively dependent on it for their decision-making, a pattern that increases modern society’s currently high dependence on technology.

47. The Church’s moral and social teaching offers resources to help guarantee that AI is utilized in a manner that maintains human firm. Considerations about justice, for instance, ought to also deal with issues such as cultivating simply social characteristics, maintaining international security, and promoting peace. By working out vigilance, people and neighborhoods can discern ways to utilize AI to benefit humankind while preventing applications that could break down human self-respect or damage the environment. In this context, the concept of obligation need to be understood not just in its most minimal sense however as a “duty for the care for others, which is more than simply representing results attained.” [95]

48. Therefore, AI, like any technology, can be part of a conscious and responsible response to humanity’s vocation to the excellent. However, as formerly discussed, AI must be directed by human intelligence to align with this vocation, ensuring it appreciates the self-respect of the human person. Recognizing this “exalted self-respect,” the Second Vatican Council verified that “the social order and its development must inevitably work to the benefit of the human individual.” [96] In light of this, the usage of AI, as Pope Francis said, should be “accompanied by an ethic motivated by a vision of the typical great, an ethic of freedom, obligation, and fraternity, capable of cultivating the full advancement of individuals in relation to others and to the whole of production.” [97]

49. Within this basic viewpoint, some observations follow listed below to show how the preceding arguments can help offer an ethical orientation in useful scenarios, in line with the “wisdom of heart” that Pope Francis has actually proposed. [98] While not extensive, this conversation is used in service of the discussion that considers how AI can be utilized to maintain the self-respect of the human person and promote the common good. [99]

50. As Pope Francis observed, “the fundamental dignity of each human being and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human family should support the development of brand-new innovations and function as unassailable criteria for examining them before they are utilized.” [100]

51. Viewed through this lens, AI could “introduce crucial innovations in farming, education and culture, an enhanced level of life for whole nations and peoples, and the growth of human fraternity and social friendship,” and hence be “utilized to promote important human development.” [101] AI could likewise assist organizations determine those in requirement and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other similar applications of this technology could contribute to human advancement and the typical good. [102]

52. However, while AI holds numerous possibilities for promoting the great, it can also impede or even counter human development and the typical good. Pope Francis has actually kept in mind that “evidence to date recommends that digital technologies have increased inequality in our world. Not simply differences in material wealth, which are likewise significant, however likewise differences in access to political and social influence.” [103] In this sense, AI could be used to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, create new forms of hardship, widen the “digital divide,” and get worse existing social inequalities. [104]

53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a couple of powerful companies raises considerable ethical issues. Exacerbating this issue is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single individual can work out complete oversight over the huge and complex datasets used for calculation. This lack of well-defined responsibility produces the threat that AI could be controlled for individual or business gain or to direct public viewpoint for the advantage of a specific market. Such entities, encouraged by their own interests, possess the capacity to exercise “kinds of control as subtle as they are intrusive, creating mechanisms for the control of consciences and of the democratic process.” [105]

54. Furthermore, there is the risk of AI being used to promote what Pope Francis has actually called the “technocratic paradigm,” which perceives all the world’s problems as solvable through technological methods alone. [106] In this paradigm, human self-respect and fraternity are frequently set aside in the name of effectiveness, “as if reality, goodness, and truth automatically flow from technological and financial power as such.” [107] Yet, human dignity and the common good must never be violated for the sake of performance, [108] for “technological advancements that do not cause an improvement in the quality of life of all humankind, but on the contrary, exacerbate inequalities and disputes, can never ever count as real progress. ” [109] Instead, AI needs to be put “at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more essential.” [110]

55. Attaining this goal needs a much deeper reflection on the relationship in between autonomy and obligation. Greater autonomy increases each person’s responsibility throughout numerous aspects of common life. For Christians, the foundation of this responsibility depends on the recognition that all human capabilities, consisting of the individual’s autonomy, originated from God and are implied to be used in the service of others. [111] Therefore, rather than merely pursuing financial or technological objectives, AI ought to serve “the common good of the entire human family,” which is “the sum total of social conditions that allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their satisfaction more fully and more easily.” [112]

56. The Second Vatican Council observed that “by his inner nature male is a social being; and if he does not participate in relations with others, he can neither live nor develop his presents.” [113] This conviction highlights that residing in society is intrinsic to the nature and vocation of the human individual. [114] As social beings, we look for relationships that involve mutual exchange and the pursuit of reality, in the course of which, individuals “show each other the truth they have found, or think they have actually discovered, in such a method that they assist one another in the look for fact.” [115]

57. Such a quest, in addition to other elements of human interaction, presupposes encounters and mutual exchange in between people shaped by their distinct histories, thoughts, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a varied, complex, and complicated reality: specific and social, reasonable and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis highlights this dynamic, keeping in mind that “together, we can look for the truth in discussion, in unwinded discussion or in passionate dispute. To do so calls for determination; it entails minutes of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently embrace the broader experience of individuals and peoples. […] The process of structure fraternity, be it local or universal, can just be carried out by spirits that are totally free and available to authentic encounters.” [116]

58. It remains in this context that one can consider the obstacles AI positions to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the possible to cultivate connections within the human family. However, it might also prevent a real encounter with reality and, eventually, lead people to “a deep and melancholic discontentment with interpersonal relations, or a hazardous sense of isolation.” [117] Authentic human relationships need the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their happiness. [118] Since human intelligence is expressed and improved also in social and embodied ways, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are important for engaging with truth in its fullness.

59. Because “true knowledge demands an encounter with truth,” [119] the increase of AI introduces another obstacle. Since AI can effectively mimic the products of human intelligence, the capability to understand when one is interacting with a human or a maker can no longer be considered given. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other sophisticated outputs that are usually connected with humans. Yet, it needs to be comprehended for what it is: a tool, not a person. [120] This difference is often obscured by the language utilized by professionals, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and hence blurs the line between human and device.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI also postures specific difficulties for the development of kids, possibly encouraging them to establish patterns of interaction that deal with human relationships in a transactional manner, as one would associate with a chatbot. Such routines might lead youths to see teachers as mere dispensers of details rather than as coaches who guide and support their intellectual and ethical development. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and an unfaltering dedication to the good of the other, are necessary and irreplaceable in cultivating the complete development of the human person.

61. In this context, it is crucial to clarify that, despite making use of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can genuinely experience compassion. Emotions can not be minimized to facial expressions or phrases generated in reaction to triggers; they show the way an individual, as an entire, connects to the world and to his/her own life, with the body playing a main function. True empathy requires the capability to listen, acknowledge another’s irreducible individuality, welcome their otherness, and comprehend the meaning behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the world of analytical judgment in which AI stands out, real empathy belongs to the relational sphere. It includes intuiting and collaring the lived experiences of another while maintaining the difference between self and other. [122] While AI can simulate empathetic reactions, it can not replicate the incomparably personal and relational nature of genuine compassion. [123]

62. In light of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as an individual should always be avoided; doing so for fraudulent purposes is a severe ethical violation that might wear down social trust. Similarly, using AI to deceive in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, including the sphere of sexuality-is likewise to be considered immoral and needs cautious oversight to prevent damage, maintain transparency, and make sure the dignity of all people. [124]

63. In an increasingly isolated world, some people have actually turned to AI in search of deep human relationships, basic friendship, or perhaps emotional bonds. However, while human beings are suggested to experience genuine relationships, AI can just mimic them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an integral part of how a person grows to become who he or she is indicated to be. If AI is used to assist individuals foster genuine connections between people, it can contribute positively to the complete awareness of the person. Conversely, if we replace relationships with God and with others with interactions with technology, we risk changing authentic relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of retreating into synthetic worlds, we are called to take part in a dedicated and deliberate method with reality, particularly by identifying with the bad and suffering, consoling those in grief, and creating bonds of communion with all.

64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being significantly incorporated into economic and monetary systems. Significant financial investments are presently being made not just in the technology sector however also in energy, financing, and media, particularly in the locations of marketing and sales, logistics, technological innovation, compliance, and risk management. At the exact same time, AI‘s applications in these locations have actually also highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of remarkable opportunities but likewise extensive dangers. A first real crucial point in this location worries the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a few corporations-only those large business would gain from the worth created by AI instead of the organizations that use it.

65. Other broader elements of AI’s effect on the economic-financial sphere must also be thoroughly taken a look at, especially concerning the interaction in between concrete truth and the digital world. One important consideration in this regard includes the coexistence of varied and alternative types of economic and monetary organizations within an offered context. This aspect ought to be motivated, as it can bring benefits in how it supports the real economy by cultivating its development and stability, especially during times of crisis. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that digital realities, not restricted by any spatial bonds, tend to be more uniform and impersonal than communities rooted in a specific location and a specific history, with a common journey defined by shared worths and hopes, but likewise by unavoidable disputes and divergences. This variety is an undeniable property to a community’s financial life. Turning over the economy and finance entirely to digital technology would reduce this range and richness. As a result, many services to economic problems that can be reached through natural discussion in between the involved celebrations might no longer be attainable in a world controlled by treatments and just the appearance of proximity.

66. Another area where AI is already having a profound effect is the world of work. As in lots of other fields, AI is driving essential changes across lots of occupations, with a series of impacts. On the one hand, it has the potential to enhance know-how and productivity, produce brand-new tasks, allow employees to concentrate on more ingenious jobs, and open new horizons for imagination and development.

67. However, while AI assures to enhance productivity by taking over mundane jobs, it frequently forces employees to adapt to the speed and demands of makers rather than devices being created to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the advertised advantages of AI, present methods to the technology can paradoxically deskill workers, subject them to automated security, and relegate them to rigid and repetitive jobs. The need to keep up with the speed of innovation can deteriorate workers’ sense of firm and stifle the ingenious capabilities they are expected to give their work. [125]

68. AI is presently getting rid of the requirement for some jobs that were once carried out by humans. If AI is used to replace human workers rather than match them, there is a “substantial risk of disproportionate benefit for the couple of at the price of the impoverishment of lots of.” [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more effective, there is an involved risk that human labor might lose its value in the financial world. This is the logical effect of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humanity shackled to effectiveness, where, eventually, the cost of humanity need to be cut. Yet, human lives are inherently important, independent of their financial output. Nevertheless, the “current model,” Pope Francis explains, “does not appear to prefer a financial investment in efforts to assist the slow, the weak, or the less skilled to find opportunities in life.” [127] Due to this, “we can not permit a tool as effective and essential as Artificial Intelligence to reinforce such a paradigm, however rather, we should make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its growth.” [128]

69. It is essential to keep in mind that “the order of things need to be secondary to the order of persons, and not the other method around.” [129] Human work needs to not just be at the service of earnings however at “the service of the entire human individual […] considering the individual’s product needs and the requirements of his/her intellectual, moral, spiritual, and religious life.” [130] In this context, the Church acknowledges that work is “not only a means of earning one’s daily bread” but is also “a necessary dimension of social life” and “a method […] of individual development, the structure of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of gifts. Work provides us a sense of shared obligation for the advancement of the world, and eventually, for our life as a people.” [131]

70. Since work is a “part of the meaning of life on this earth, a course to growth, human development and personal fulfillment,” “the goal must not be that technological progress increasingly replaces human work, for this would be destructive to mankind” [132] -rather, it needs to promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI needs to assist, not replace, human judgment. Similarly, it must never ever degrade creativity or decrease employees to simple “cogs in a machine.” Therefore, “regard for the self-respect of workers and the importance of employment for the economic wellness of individuals, families, and societies, for job security and just incomes, ought to be a high top priority for the international community as these kinds of innovation permeate more deeply into our workplaces.” [133]

71. As individuals in God’s recovery work, healthcare professionals have the vocation and duty to be “guardians and servants of human life.” [134] Because of this, the health care occupation brings an “intrinsic and indisputable ethical measurement,” recognized by the Hippocratic Oath, which requires doctors and health care experts to commit themselves to having “absolute regard for human life and its sacredness.” [135] Following the example of the Good Samaritan, this dedication is to be carried out by guys and ladies “who decline the creation of a society of exclusion, and act instead as neighbors, raising up and rehabilitating the succumbed to the sake of the common good.” [136]

72. Seen in this light, AI appears to hold enormous potential in a variety of applications in the medical field, such as helping the diagnostic work of health care service providers, facilitating relationships in between clients and medical staff, using brand-new treatments, and expanding access to quality care also for those who are isolated or marginalized. In these methods, the technology could improve the “compassionate and loving closeness” [137] that doctor are contacted us to extend to the ill and suffering.

73. However, if AI is used not to enhance however to change the relationship between clients and health care providers-leaving patients to connect with a maker instead of a human being-it would minimize a most importantly essential human relational structure to a centralized, impersonal, and unequal structure. Instead of encouraging uniformity with the ill and suffering, such applications of AI would risk aggravating the isolation that typically accompanies disease, specifically in the context of a culture where “individuals are no longer viewed as a critical value to be cared for and respected.” [138] This misuse of AI would not line up with regard for the self-respect of the human individual and uniformity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the wellness of clients and the choices that touch upon their lives are at the heart of the healthcare occupation. This accountability requires medical specialists to exercise all their skill and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded choices relating to those entrusted to their care, constantly respecting the inviolable dignity of the clients and the need for informed authorization. As a result, choices concerning client treatment and the weight of duty they entail must constantly remain with the human person and should never be entrusted to AI. [139]

75. In addition, utilizing AI to identify who ought to receive treatment based mainly on economic steps or metrics of performance represents a particularly bothersome instance of the “technocratic paradigm” that must be rejected. [140] For, “enhancing resources implies utilizing them in an ethical and fraternal way, and not punishing the most fragile.” [141] Additionally, AI tools in health care are “exposed to kinds of bias and discrimination,” where “systemic mistakes can easily increase, producing not only injustices in individual cases but likewise, due to the cause and effect, real kinds of social inequality.” [142]

76. The combination of AI into healthcare also postures the threat of amplifying other existing variations in access to healthcare. As healthcare becomes increasingly oriented towards prevention and lifestyle-based techniques, AI-driven solutions may unintentionally favor more upscale populations who currently enjoy much better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This trend dangers enhancing a “medicine for the abundant” design, where those with monetary means gain from innovative preventative tools and personalized health details while others struggle to gain access to even standard services. To avoid such inequities, fair structures are required to guarantee that the usage of AI in health care does not get worse existing healthcare inequalities however rather serves the common good.

77. The words of the Second Vatican Council remain completely relevant today: “True education aims to form individuals with a view towards their last end and the good of the society to which they belong.” [143] As such, education is “never ever a mere procedure of passing on facts and intellectual skills: rather, its aim is to contribute to the individual’s holistic development in its different elements (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, and so on), consisting of, for instance, community life and relations within the scholastic neighborhood,” [144] in keeping with the nature and self-respect of the human person.

78. This method involves a commitment to cultivating the mind, but always as a part of the integral advancement of the person: “We should break that concept of education which holds that informing methods filling one’s head with ideas. That is the method we educate automatons, cerebral minds, not individuals. Educating is taking a threat in the tension in between the mind, the heart, and the hands.” [145]

79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human person is the important relationship in between instructor and trainee. Teachers do more than communicate understanding; they design essential human qualities and inspire the joy of discovery. [146] Their presence encourages trainees both through the material they teach and the care they show for their trainees. This bond fosters trust, shared understanding, and the capacity to address each person’s distinct self-respect and potential. On the part of the trainee, this can generate a real desire to grow. The physical existence of an instructor develops a relational dynamic that AI can not reproduce, one that deepens engagement and nurtures the trainee’s important advancement.

80. In this context, AI presents both opportunities and obstacles. If utilized in a prudent manner, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and ordered to the authentic goals of education, AI can become an important instructional resource by improving access to education, using tailored assistance, and supplying instant feedback to trainees. These advantages could enhance the knowing experience, especially in cases where individualized attention is required, or educational resources are otherwise scarce.

81. Nevertheless, a necessary part of education is forming “the intellect to factor well in all matters, to connect towards fact, and to grasp it,” [147] while helping the “language of the head” to grow harmoniously with the “language of the heart” and the “language of the hands.” [148] This is even more essential in an age marked by technology, in which “it is no longer merely a concern of ‘utilizing’ instruments of communication, however of residing in a highly digitalized culture that has actually had a profound impact on […] our ability to interact, learn, be notified and participate in relationship with others.” [149] However, instead of cultivating “a cultivated intellect,” which “brings with it a power and a grace to every work and occupation that it carries out,” [150] the substantial usage of AI in education might cause the trainees’ increased dependence on innovation, eroding their capability to perform some abilities independently and worsening their dependence on screens. [151]

82. Additionally, while some AI systems are developed to assist people develop their critical thinking abilities and analytical abilities, numerous others merely provide answers rather of prompting trainees to get to answers themselves or write text on their own. [152] Instead of training youths how to amass details and generate quick responses, education needs to encourage “the responsible usage of liberty to deal with issues with good sense and intelligence.” [153] Building on this, “education in using kinds of artificial intelligence must aim above all at promoting critical thinking. Users of any ages, but particularly the young, need to develop a discerning technique to using information and content collected on the web or produced by artificial intelligence systems. Schools, universities, and clinical societies are challenged to help trainees and experts to understand the social and ethical elements of the advancement and uses of technology.” [154]

83. As Saint John Paul II remembered, “worldwide today, identified by such fast advancements in science and innovation, the jobs of a Catholic University presume an ever higher importance and urgency.” [155] In a particular way, Catholic universities are advised to be present as fantastic laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary secret, they are advised to engage “with wisdom and imagination” [156] in research study on this phenomenon, helping to draw out the salutary potential within the various fields of science and truth, and assisting them always towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the common good, reaching new frontiers in the discussion between faith and reason.

84. Moreover, it must be noted that current AI programs have been known to provide biased or produced details, which can lead trainees to trust unreliable content. This issue “not just runs the threat of legitimizing fake news and strengthening a dominant culture’s advantage, but, in brief, it likewise weakens the academic procedure itself.” [157] With time, clearer distinctions might emerge in between appropriate and incorrect usages of AI in education and research. Yet, a decisive guideline is that using AI ought to always be transparent and never misrepresented.

85. AI might be used as an aid to human dignity if it assists individuals understand intricate ideas or directs them to sound resources that support their search for the reality. [158]

86. However, AI likewise provides a serious risk of producing controlled material and false details, which can easily misguide individuals due to its similarity to the truth. Such false information might happen inadvertently, as when it comes to AI “hallucination,” where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine but are not. Since producing content that mimics human artifacts is main to AI‘s performance, mitigating these dangers shows challenging. Yet, the repercussions of such aberrations and incorrect details can be rather serious. For this reason, all those associated with producing and utilizing AI systems must be committed to the truthfulness and precision of the details processed by such systems and disseminated to the general public.

87. While AI has a hidden capacity to produce false details, a much more unpleasant problem lies in the deliberate misuse of AI for manipulation. This can happen when people or companies purposefully produce and spread out false content with the aim to trick or trigger harm, such as “deepfake” images, videos, and audio-referring to a false depiction of an individual, modified or produced by an AI algorithm. The danger of deepfakes is particularly apparent when they are used to target or hurt others. While the images or videos themselves may be synthetic, the damage they cause is genuine, leaving “deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it” and “real injuries in their human self-respect.” [159]

88. On a broader scale, by distorting “our relationship with others and with reality,” [160] AI-generated phony media can gradually undermine the structures of society. This problem requires careful guideline, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or affected media-can spread inadvertently, sustaining political polarization and social unrest. When society ends up being indifferent to the fact, numerous groups build their own versions of “facts,” weakening the “reciprocal ties and mutual dependences” [161] that underpin the material of social life. As deepfakes cause people to question everything and AI-generated incorrect material erodes rely on what they see and hear, polarization and conflict will just grow. Such prevalent deceptiveness is no trivial matter; it strikes at the core of mankind, taking apart the foundational trust on which societies are developed. [162]

89. Countering AI-driven frauds is not only the work of market experts-it needs the efforts of all people of goodwill. “If innovation is to serve human self-respect and not damage it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human neighborhood should be proactive in resolving these trends with regard to human dignity and the promo of the good.” [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated material ought to always work out diligence in validating the truth of what they distribute and, in all cases, ought to “avoid the sharing of words and images that are degrading of humans, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that make use of the weak and susceptible.” [164] This calls for the continuous vigilance and careful discernment of all users concerning their activity online. [165]

90. Humans are inherently relational, and the information everyone generates in the digital world can be viewed as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data conveys not just details however also individual and relational understanding, which, in an increasingly digitized context, can amount to power over the person. Moreover, while some kinds of data may pertain to public elements of an individual’s life, others may discuss the person’s interiority, possibly even their conscience. Seen in this method, personal privacy plays a vital role in securing the limits of an individual’s inner life, maintaining their liberty to connect to others, express themselves, and make choices without undue control. This protection is also connected to the defense of religious freedom, as surveillance can also be misused to apply control over the lives of believers and how they reveal their faith.

91. It is proper, therefore, to address the problem of personal privacy from an issue for the genuine flexibility and inalienable self-respect of the human person “in all circumstances.” [166] The Second Vatican Council consisted of the right “to secure personal privacy” amongst the basic rights “essential for living a really human life,” a right that must be reached all individuals on account of their “sublime self-respect.” [167] Furthermore, the Church has actually likewise affirmed the right to the legitimate regard for a personal life in the context of affirming the individual’s right to a good track record, defense of their physical and mental integrity, and flexibility from harm or undue intrusion [168] -essential components of the due regard for the intrinsic self-respect of the human person. [169]

92. Advances in AI-powered data processing and analysis now make it possible to infer patterns in a person’s habits and believing from even a little quantity of details, making the role of information personal privacy much more imperative as a safeguard for the dignity and relational nature of the human person. As Pope Francis observed, “while closed and intolerant attitudes towards others are on the rise, ranges are otherwise shrinking or vanishing to the point that the right to privacy hardly exists. Everything has ended up being a type of spectacle to be analyzed and inspected, and individuals’s lives are now under continuous monitoring.” [170]

93. While there can be genuine and correct methods to utilize AI in keeping with human self-respect and the typical excellent, using it for surveillance aimed at making use of, restricting others’ flexibility, or benefitting a couple of at the expense of the many is unjustifiable. The threat of security overreach must be monitored by appropriate regulators to make sure transparency and public responsibility. Those accountable for monitoring ought to never ever exceed their authority, which should always favor the dignity and liberty of every person as the essential basis of a just and humane society.

94. Furthermore, “essential regard for human self-respect needs that we refuse to permit the individuality of the individual to be related to a set of information.” [171] This especially uses when AI is used to evaluate people or groups based upon their habits, attributes, or history-a practice known as “social scoring”: “In social and financial decision-making, we need to beware about delegating judgments to algorithms that process data, typically collected surreptitiously, on a person’s makeup and previous behavior. Such information can be polluted by societal prejudices and prejudgments. An individual’s past behavior should not be utilized to deny him or her the opportunity to change, grow, and contribute to society. We can not permit algorithms to limit or condition regard for human self-respect, or to leave out compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people have the ability to change.” [172]

95. AI has numerous promising applications for enhancing our relationship with our “typical home,” such as creating designs to forecast severe climate occasions, proposing engineering solutions to minimize their effect, handling relief operations, and forecasting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable farming, enhance energy usage, and supply early caution systems for public health emergencies. These advancements have the potential to enhance resilience against climate-related difficulties and promote more sustainable development.

96. At the exact same time, current AI models and the hardware required to support them take in large amounts of energy and water, significantly adding to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This truth is typically obscured by the way this innovation is provided in the popular creativity, where words such as “the cloud” [174] can provide the impression that data is saved and processed in an intangible realm, detached from the physical world. However, “the cloud” is not an ethereal domain different from the physical world; similar to all computing innovations, it counts on physical machines, cable televisions, and energy. The very same holds true of the technology behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, specifically big language models (LLMs), they need ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and greater storage infrastructure. Considering the heavy toll these technologies take on the environment, it is vital to establish sustainable solutions that minimize their effect on our typical home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is essential “that we try to find services not just in technology however in a modification of humankind.” [175] A total and genuine understanding of development recognizes that the worth of all developed things can not be decreased to their simple utility. Therefore, a completely human method to the stewardship of the earth rejects the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which seeks to “extract everything possible” from the world, [176] and turns down the “misconception of development,” which presumes that “ecological issues will resolve themselves merely with the application of brand-new technology and without any need for ethical considerations or deep modification.” [177] Such a frame of mind needs to pave the way to a more holistic method that respects the order of development and promotes the important good of the human individual while protecting our typical home. [178]

98. The Second Vatican Council and the constant teaching of the Popes considering that then have firmly insisted that peace is not simply the absence of war and is not restricted to maintaining a balance of powers in between foes. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is “the tranquility of order.” [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without securing the items of persons, complimentary interaction, respect for the self-respect of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the result of charity and can not be attained through force alone; instead, it needs to be mainly developed through patient diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, solidarity, essential human advancement, and regard for the self-respect of all people. [180] In this method, the tools utilized to maintain peace ought to never ever be allowed to justify injustice, violence, or oppression. Instead, they must constantly be governed by a “firm determination to respect other individuals and countries, together with their dignity, as well as the intentional practice of fraternity.” [181]

99. While AI‘s analytical capabilities might help nations seek peace and guarantee security, the “weaponization of Artificial Intelligence” can likewise be extremely bothersome. Pope Francis has actually observed that “the ability to carry out military operations through remote control systems has resulted in a reduced understanding of the destruction brought on by those weapon systems and the burden of obligation for their usage, leading to a much more cold and detached approach to the enormous tragedy of war.” [182] Moreover, the ease with which self-governing weapons make war more feasible militates against the principle of war as a last option in legitimate self-defense, [183] possibly increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and speeding up a destabilizing arms race, with disastrous repercussions for human rights. [184]

100. In specific, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which are capable of identifying and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a “cause for severe ethical issue” due to the fact that they lack the “special human capacity for moral judgment and ethical decision-making.” [185] For this reason, Pope Francis has urgently called for a reconsideration of the advancement of these weapons and a restriction on their usage, starting with “an efficient and concrete commitment to introduce ever greater and appropriate human control. No machine needs to ever select to take the life of a person.” [186]

101. Since it is a small step from devices that can eliminate autonomously with accuracy to those capable of massive damage, some AI scientists have expressed issues that such technology positions an “existential danger” by having the potential to act in manner ins which could threaten the survival of entire regions or perhaps of humanity itself. This threat demands major attention, reflecting the enduring issue about technologies that approve war “an uncontrollable destructive power over excellent numbers of innocent civilians,” [187] without even sparing children. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to “carry out an examination of war with a completely brand-new mindset” [188] is more urgent than ever.

102. At the very same time, while the theoretical dangers of AI should have attention, the more immediate and pushing issue lies in how people with destructive objectives may abuse this innovation. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future abilities are unforeseeable, humankind’s previous actions offer clear warnings. The atrocities dedicated throughout history suffice to raise deep concerns about the possible abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that “humanity now has instruments of unprecedented power: we can turn this world into a garden, or decrease it to a pile of debris.” [190] Given this fact, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that “we are totally free to use our intelligence towards things progressing positively,” or toward “decadence and mutual destruction.” [191] To prevent humanity from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there should be a clear stand against all applications of innovation that naturally threaten human life and dignity. This commitment requires cautious discernment about using AI, particularly in military defense applications, to guarantee that it always respects human self-respect and serves the typical good. The development and release of AI in armaments need to undergo the highest levels of ethical analysis, governed by a concern for human dignity and the sanctity of life. [193]

104. Technology uses remarkable tools to oversee and establish the world’s resources. However, sometimes, humankind is progressively ceding control of these resources to makers. Within some circles of researchers and futurists, there is optimism about the potential of artificial basic intelligence (AGI), a theoretical type of AI that would match or surpass human intelligence and cause unimaginable developments. Some even hypothesize that AGI might attain superhuman abilities. At the exact same time, as society wanders away from a connection with the transcendent, some are lured to turn to AI in search of significance or fulfillment-longings that can just be really pleased in communion with God. [194]

105. However, the anticipation of replacing God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture explicitly cautions against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI may prove even more sexy than traditional idols for, unlike idols that “have mouths however do not speak; eyes, but do not see; ears, but do not hear” (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can “speak,” or a minimum of provides the impression of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is crucial to keep in mind that AI is however a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated material, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not possess a number of the capabilities specific to human life, and it is likewise fallible. By turning to AI as a perceived “Other” higher than itself, with which to share existence and duties, humankind threats producing an alternative to God. However, it is not AI that is eventually deified and worshipped, however humankind itself-which, in this method, ends up being enslaved to its own work. [195]

106. While AI has the possible to serve humanity and add to the common great, it remains a production of human hands, bearing “the imprint of human art and resourcefulness” (Acts 17:29). It must never be ascribed undue worth. As the Book of Wisdom affirms: “For a male made them, and one whose spirit is obtained formed them; for no male can form a god which resembles himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is much better than the items he worships since he has life, but they never ever have” (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. On the other hand, human beings, “by their interior life, go beyond the entire material universe; they experience this deep interiority when they participate in their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they decide their own fate in the sight of God.” [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis advises us, that each private discovers the “mysterious connection between self-knowledge and openness to others, in between the encounter with one’s individual originality and the desire to offer oneself to others. ” [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is “efficient in setting our other powers and enthusiasms, and our whole individual, in a stance of respect and caring obedience before the Lord,” [198] who “provides to treat each one people as a ‘Thou,’ always and forever.” [199]

108. Considering the different obstacles positioned by advances in technology, Pope Francis emphasized the requirement for development in “human duty, worths, and conscience,” proportionate to the growth in the capacity that this technology brings [200] -recognizing that “with a boost in human power comes an expanding of duty on the part of people and neighborhoods.” [201]

109. At the same time, the “vital and basic concern” remains “whether in the context of this progress man, as man, is ending up being genuinely much better, that is to state, more fully grown spiritually, more knowledgeable about the self-respect of his mankind, more accountable, more available to others, especially the neediest and the weakest, and readier to offer and to aid all.” [202]

110. As an outcome, it is crucial to understand how to evaluate private applications of AI in specific contexts to identify whether its usage promotes human self-respect, the vocation of the human person, and the typical good. As with numerous technologies, the results of the various uses of AI might not constantly be foreseeable from their beginning. As these applications and their social impacts become clearer, appropriate reactions ought to be made at all levels of society, following the concept of subsidiarity. Individual users, households, civil society, corporations, institutions, federal governments, and worldwide companies ought to operate at their proper levels to ensure that AI is used for the good of all.

111. A significant difficulty and opportunity for the typical good today depends on thinking about AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which highlights the interconnectedness of people and communities and highlights our shared responsibility for fostering the important well-being of others. The twentieth-century thinker Nicholas Berdyaev observed that people frequently blame devices for personal and social problems; however, “this just embarrasses man and does not represent his self-respect,” for “it is unworthy to transfer responsibility from guy to a machine.” [203] Only the human individual can be morally responsible, and the difficulties of a technological society are eventually spiritual in nature. Therefore, facing those obstacles “demands a climax of spirituality.” [204]

112. A more indicate think about is the call, prompted by the appearance of AI on the world stage, for a renewed gratitude of all that is human. Years back, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos alerted that “the risk is not in the multiplication of machines, but in the ever-increasing number of guys accustomed from their youth to desire only what makers can offer.” [205] This difficulty is as real today as it was then, as the fast pace of digitization risks a “digital reductionism,” where non-quantifiable elements of life are set aside and after that forgotten or even deemed irrelevant because they can not be calculated in formal terms. AI needs to be utilized just as a tool to complement human intelligence rather than replace its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that transcend calculation is vital for maintaining “a genuine humanity” that “seems to dwell in the middle of our technological culture, nearly undetected, like a mist seeping carefully underneath a closed door.” [207]

113. The vast expanse of the world’s understanding is now available in manner ins which would have filled past generations with wonder. However, to make sure that advancements in understanding do not end up being humanly or spiritually barren, one must surpass the mere accumulation of data and aim to attain real wisdom. [208]

114. This knowledge is the present that humanity requires most to address the profound concerns and ethical difficulties postured by AI: “Only by adopting a spiritual way of seeing reality, only by recuperating a wisdom of the heart, can we confront and analyze the newness of our time.” [209] Such “knowledge of the heart” is “the virtue that enables us to incorporate the entire and its parts, our choices and their consequences.” It “can not be looked for from machines,” however it “lets itself be found by those who seek it and be seen by those who love it; it prepares for those who desire it, and it enters search of those who are worthwhile of it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16).” [210]

115. In a world marked by AI, we need the grace of the Holy Spirit, who “allows us to take a look at things with God’s eyes, to see connections, circumstances, events and to uncover their genuine meaning.” [211]

116. Since a “individual’s excellence is determined not by the details or knowledge they possess, but by the depth of their charity,” [212] how we integrate AI “to consist of the least of our siblings and sis, the susceptible, and those most in need, will be the true step of our humanity.” [213] The “wisdom of the heart” can brighten and guide the human-centered use of this technology to help promote the typical excellent, care for our “common home,” advance the search for the reality, foster essential human development, prefer human uniformity and fraternity, and lead mankind to its ultimate objective: happiness and full communion with God. [214]

117. From this perspective of knowledge, believers will have the ability to act as moral representatives capable of utilizing this innovation to promote an authentic vision of the human person and society. [215] This must be done with the understanding that technological development belongs to God’s strategy for creation-an activity that we are contacted us to purchase toward the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the continual search for the True and the Good.

The Supreme Pontiff, Francis, at the Audience given on 14 January 2025 to the undersigned Prefects and Secretaries of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery for Culture and Education, authorized this Note and ordered its publication.

Given up Rome, at the offices of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery for Culture and Education, on 28 January 2025, the Liturgical Memorial of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church.

Ex audientia die 14 ianuarii 2025
Franciscus

Contents

I. Introduction

II. What is Artificial Intelligence?

III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition

Rationality

Embodiment

Relationality

Relationship with the Truth

Stewardship of the World

An Essential Understanding of Human Intelligence

The Limits of AI

IV. The Role of Ethics in Guiding the Development and Use of AI

Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making

V. Specific Questions

AI and Society

AI and Human Relationships

AI, the Economy, and Labor

AI and Healthcare

AI and Education

AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse

AI, Privacy, and Surveillance

AI and the Protection of Our Common Home

AI and Warfare

AI and Our Relationship with God

VI. Concluding Reflections

True Wisdom

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See also Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053.
[2] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 307. Cf. Id., Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (21 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020 ), 43.
[3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[5] J. McCarthy, et al., “A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence” (31 August 1955), http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024).
[6] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), pars. 2-3: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[7] Terms in this document explaining the outputs or procedures of AI are utilized figuratively to explain its operations and are not intended to anthropomorphize the maker.
[8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[9] Here, one can see the main positions of the “transhumanists” and the “posthumanists.” Transhumanists argue that technological advancements will make it possible for people to conquer their biological constraints and improve both their physical and cognitive capabilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, contend that such advances will eventually modify human identity to the level that humanity itself might no longer be considered really “human.” Both views rest on an essentially negative perception of human corporality, which deals with the body more as an obstacle than as an important part of the person’s identity and contact us to full awareness. Yet, this negative view of the body is inconsistent with a proper understanding of human dignity. While the Church supports genuine scientific progress, it verifies that human self-respect is rooted in “the individual as an inseparable unity of body and soul. ” Thus, “dignity is likewise fundamental in everyone’s body, which takes part in its own method remaining in imago Dei” (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18).
[10] This technique shows a functionalist viewpoint, which minimizes the human mind to its functions and assumes that its functions can be entirely quantified in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear truly intelligent, it would still remain practical in nature.
[11] Cf. A.M. Turing, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” Mind 59 (1950) 443-460.
[12] If “thinking” is associated to devices, it must be clarified that this refers to calculative thinking instead of important thinking. Similarly, if devices are said to operate using abstract thought, it should be defined that this is restricted to computational reasoning. On the other hand, by its very nature, human thought is an innovative procedure that avoids programming and goes beyond constraints.
[13] On the foundational role of language in forming understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. “Letter on Humanism,” in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London – New York 2010, 141-182).
[14] For more conversation of these anthropological and doctrinal structures, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144.
[15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21.
[16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: “Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [professors] by which he is remarkable to the illogical animals. Now, this [faculty] is factor itself, or the ‘mind,’ or ‘intelligence,’ whatever other name it might more suitably be offered”; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: “When considering all that they have, people discover that they are most differentiated from animals specifically by the reality they have intelligence.” This is likewise reiterated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who states that “guy is the most ideal of all earthly beings endowed with movement, and his appropriate and natural operation is intellection,” by which male abstracts from things and “gets in his mind things really intelligible” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 76).
[17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, ad 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a modern point of view that echoes components of the classical and middle ages difference between these 2 modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York City 2011.
[19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp.
[20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138.
[21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: “The intellect can investigate the truth of things through reflection, experience and discussion, and pertain to recognize in that reality, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal ethical demands.”
[22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp.
[24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture “typically considers the human person as a being who exists in the body and is unimaginable outside of it” (Pontifical Biblical Commission, “Che cosa è l’uomo?” (Sal 8,5): Un itinerario di antropologia biblica [30 September 2019], par. 19). Cf. ibid., pars. 20-21, 43-44, 48.
[25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100 (2008 ), 863: “Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, however instead fully divulged its meaning and worth.”
[26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81.
[27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: “to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul’s] nature […] and thus it is joined to the body in order that it may have a presence and an operation suitable to its nature.”
[29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18.
[30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357.
[31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54.
[32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221.
[33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27.
[34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: “Human souls also have reason and with it they circle in discourse around the truth of things. […] [O] n account of the way in which they are capable of focusing the lots of into the one, they too, in their own fashion and as far as they can, are worthy of conceptions like those of the angels” (en. tr. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York City – Mahwah 1987, 106-107).
[35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 3: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7.
[36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 42: AAS 91 (1999 ), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1043: “the human mind is capable of going beyond immediate concerns and grasping certain realities that are imperishable, as true now as in the past. As it peers into humanity, factor discovers universal values obtained from that same nature”; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034.
[38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): “The last proceeding of factor is to acknowledge that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it” (en. tr. Pascal’s Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York 1958, 77).
[39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[40] Our semantic capacity permits us to understand messages in any type of interaction in a manner that both takes into consideration and transcends their material or empirical structures (such as computer system code). Here, intelligence ends up being a wisdom that “allows us to take a look at things with God’s eyes, to see connections, circumstances, occasions and to discover their real meaning” (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our imagination allows us to produce brand-new content or ideas, mainly by providing an initial perspective on reality. Both capabilities depend upon the existence of an individual subjectivity for their full realization.
[41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931.
[42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: “Charity, when accompanied by a commitment to the reality, is a lot more than individual sensation […] Certainly, its close relation to reality promotes its universality and maintains it from being ‘confined to a narrow field lacking relationships.’ […] Charity’s openness to truth hence secures it from ‘a fideism that deprives it of its human and universal breadth.'” The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643.
[43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7.
[44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15.
[46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as estimated in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294.
[47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure compares the universe to “a book reflecting, representing, and explaining its Maker,” the Triune God who gives existence to all things (Breviloquium 2.12.1). Cf. Alain de Lille, De Incarnatione Christi, PL 210, 579a: “Omnis mundi creatura quasi liber et pictura nobis est et speculum.”
[48] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 67: AAS 107 (2015 ), 874; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589-592; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 57: “humans inhabit a distinct location in deep space according to the magnificent strategy: they take pleasure in the advantage of sharing in the divine governance of visible production. […] Since guy’s place as ruler remains in fact a participation in the magnificent governance of creation, we mention it here as a kind of stewardship.”
[49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165.
[50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This idea is also shown in the production account, where God brings animals to Adam “to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living creature, that was its name” (Gen. 2:19), an action that demonstrates the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God’s production. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117.
[51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301.
[52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302.
[53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2.
[54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7.
[55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316.
[56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8.
[57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906.
[58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L’Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987.
[59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L’Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5.
[60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: “L’intelligence n’est rien sans la délectation.” Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L’Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: “The mind and the will are put at the service of the greater great by picking up and appreciating realities.”
[61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: “luce intellettüal, piena d’amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore” (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232).
[62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:” [T] he greatest norm of human life is the divine law itself-eternal, unbiased and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the methods of the human community according to a strategy conceived in his knowledge and love. God has actually enabled man to get involved in this law of his so that, under the mild disposition of divine providence, many may be able to get to a much deeper and much deeper understanding of unchangeable truth.” Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037.
[63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016.
[64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892.
[65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042.
[66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: “God has imprinted his own image and similarity on guy (cf. Gen 1:26), providing upon him an unparalleled self-respect […] In impact, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not correspond to any work he performs, however which flow from his essential self-respect as an individual.” Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22.
[68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310.
[69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[70] In this sense, “Artificial Intelligence” is comprehended as a technical term to indicate this innovation, remembering that the expression is likewise utilized to designate the field of study and not just its applications.
[71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857.
[72] For instance, see the support of scientific expedition in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the appreciation for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These authors, among a long list of other Catholics took part in clinical research and technological expedition, highlight that “faith and science can be joined in charity, supplied that science is put at the service of the males and female of our time and not misused to harm and even destroy them” (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L’Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87.
[73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378.
[74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888.
[77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658.
[78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim.
[79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293.
[80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4.
[81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: “Freedom makes male an ethical subject. When he acts intentionally, male is, so to speak, the dad of his acts.”
[82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776.
[83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777.
[84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the “Minerva Dialogues” (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father encouraged efforts “to guarantee that technology remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed toward the great.”
[85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the function of human agency in picking a larger aim (Ziel) that then notifies the particular function (Zweck) for which each technological application is developed, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um pass away Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71.
[86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: “Technology is born for a purpose and, in its effect on human society, constantly represents a kind of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, thus making it possible for certain people to carry out particular actions while preventing others from carrying out different ones. In a more or less specific method, this constitutive power-dimension of technology constantly includes the worldview of those who developed and established it.”
[87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309.
[88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the “Minerva Dialogues” (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045.
[90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: “Faced with the marvels of makers, which appear to understand how to choose independently, we need to be very clear that decision-making […] must always be left to the human individual. We would condemn mankind to a future without hope if we eliminated people’s capability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend upon the choices of makers.”
[92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[93] The term “predisposition” in this document describes algorithmic predisposition (methodical and consistent mistakes in computer system systems that may disproportionately prejudice certain groups in unexpected ways) or learning bias (which will lead to training on a biased information set) and not the “predisposition vector” in neural networks (which is a criterion used to change the output of “neurons” to adjust more accurately to the information).
[94] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the “Minerva Dialogues” (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father verified the growth in consensus “on the requirement for development processes to appreciate such worths as addition, openness, security, equity, privacy and dependability,” and likewise invited “the efforts of international organizations to control these innovations so that they promote genuine progress, contributing, that is, to a better world and an integrally greater quality of life.”
[95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the “Max Planck Society” (23 February 2023): L’Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8.
[96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.
[97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar “The Common Good in the Digital Age” (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571.
[98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For additional discussion of the ethical questions raised by AI from a Catholic viewpoint, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253.
[99] On the value of dialogue in a pluralist society oriented toward a “robust and strong social principles,” see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045.
[100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.
[102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the “Minerva Dialogues” (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464.
[104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10.
[105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; quoting the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245.
[106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pipewiki.org pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050.
[107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047.
[108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309.
[109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892.
[111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027.
[112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123.
[113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034.
[114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149.
[115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414.
[118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057.
[119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985.
[120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989).
[123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:” [Lots of people] desire their social relationships provided by advanced devices, by screens and systems which can be turned on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel informs us continuously to run the danger of a face-to-face encounter with others, with their physical existence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their pleasure which infects us in our close and constant interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from membership in the community, from service, from reconciliation with others.” Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045.
[124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1.
[125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar “The Common Good in the Digital Age” (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899.
[126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107.
[128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis’ teaching about AI in relationship to the “technocratic paradigm,” cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893.
[129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as estimated in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453.
[130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: “work is ‘for guy’ and not male ‘for work.’ Through this conclusion one rightly pertains to acknowledge the pre-eminence of the subjective meaning of work over the unbiased one.”
[132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320.
[133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502.
[135] Ibid.
[136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as priced quote in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L’Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8.
[137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12.
[138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12.
[139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the “Minerva Dialogues” (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the “Minerva Dialogues” (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465.
[141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops’ Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: “If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture is manifest, with its painful effects, it is that of healthcare. When a sick person is not put in the center or their self-respect is not thought about, this offers rise to attitudes that can lead even to speculation on the misery of others. And this is extremely grave! […] The application of a service technique to the healthcare sector, if indiscriminate […] may run the risk of discarding human beings.”
[142] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[143] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729.
[144] Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on the Use of Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729; Francis, Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016), 6: AAS 108 (2016 ), 57-58.
[145] Francis, Address to Members of the Global Researchers Advancing Catholic Education Project (20 April 2022): AAS 114 (2022 ), 580.
[146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), par. 41: AAS 68 (1976 ), 31, pricing quote Id., Address to the Members of the “Consilium de Laicis” (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: “if [the modern person] does listen to teachers, it is due to the fact that they are witnesses.”
[147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126.
[148] Francis, Meeting with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316.
[149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, estimating the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592.
[150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167.
[151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413.
[152] In a 2023 policy file about using generative AI in education and research study, UNESCO notes: “Among the crucial concerns [of using generative AI (GenAI) in education and research study] is whether human beings can perhaps cede fundamental levels of thinking and skill-acquisition procedures to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking abilities based upon the outputs offered by AI. Writing, for instance, is often connected with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI […], people can now start with a well-structured overview supplied by GenAI. Some professionals have identified the usage of GenAI to generate text in this way as ‘writing without believing'” (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American thinker Hannah Arendt anticipated such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and warned: “If it ought to end up being true that knowledge (in the sense of know-how) and thought have parted company for good, then we would certainly become the defenseless slaves, not a lot of our machines since our knowledge” (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3).
[153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417.
[154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914.
[155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479.
[156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10.
[157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3.
[158] For example, it may help individuals gain access to the “array of resources for producing higher knowledge of fact” contained in the works of viewpoint (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8.
[159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62.
[160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074.
[162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: “People can not be really indifferent to the question of whether what they know holds true or not. […] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he writes: ‘I have actually satisfied lots of who wanted to deceive, however none who wished to be tricked'”; estimating Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794.
[163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62.
[164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8.
[165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Media (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149.
[166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24.
[167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: “no guy may with impunity violate that human self-respect which God himself treats with terrific reverence”; as quoted in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804.
[168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203.
[169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): “Maintaining human dignity in cyberspace obliges States to likewise respect the right to privacy, by shielding people from intrusive monitoring and allowing them to protect their personal details from unapproved gain access to.”
[170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984.
[171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the “Minerva Dialogues” (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body recognized a list of “early promises of AI assisting to address environment change” (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The document observed that, “taken together with predictive systems that can change data into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools might assist establish brand-new strategies and investments to minimize emissions, influence new economic sector financial investments in net no, safeguard biodiversity, and construct broad-based social durability” (ibid.).
[174] “The cloud” describes a network of physical servers throughout the world that enables users to store, process, and manage their data remotely.
[175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850.
[176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890.
[177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870.
[178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852.
[179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640.
[180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317.
[181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101.
[182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310.
[184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105.
[185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: “We require to guarantee and protect an area for proper human control over the options made by synthetic intelligence programs: human dignity itself depends on it.”
[186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): “The development and usage of lethal self-governing weapons systems (LAWS) that do not have the suitable human control would present essential ethical concerns, given that LAWS can never ever be ethically responsible topics efficient in complying with global humanitarian law.”
[187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104.
[188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104.
[189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: “Nor can we overlook the possibility of advanced weapons winding up in the wrong hands, assisting in, for example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the organizations of genuine systems of federal government. In a word, the world does not need brand-new innovations that contribute to the unfair advancement of commerce and the weapons trade and as a result wind up promoting the folly of war.”
[190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565.
[191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878.
[192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687.
[193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39.
[194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661.
[195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:” [T] here is a much better understanding today that the mere build-up of items and services […] is inadequate for the awareness of human joy. Nor, in consequence, does the availability of the many real benefits supplied in recent times by science and technology, consisting of the computer sciences, bring liberty from every kind of slavery. On the contrary, […] unless all the considerable body of resources and possible at man’s disposal is assisted by an ethical understanding and by an orientation towards the true good of the mankind, it quickly turns against man to oppress him.” Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564.
[196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L’Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5.
[198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L’Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6.
[199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L’Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6.
[200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. Completion of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83).
[201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288.
[203] N. Berdyaev, “Man and Machine,” in C. Mitcham – R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York City 19832, 212-213.
[204] N. Berdyaev, “Man and Machine,” 210.
[205] G. Bernanos, “La révolution de la liberté” (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829.
[206] Cf. Francis, Meeting with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023).
[207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: “The flood of details at our fingertips does not make for higher wisdom. Wisdom is not born of quick searches on the web nor is it a mass of unverified data. That is not the way to mature in the encounter with fact.”
[209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[210] Ibid.
[211] Ibid.
[212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121.
[213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124.
[214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar “The Common Good in the Digital Age” (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.