II. what Is Artificial Intelligence?

1. With knowledge both ancient and brand-new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to assess the present difficulties and chances positioned by scientific and technological improvements, especially by the recent advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian tradition relates to the present of intelligence as a vital aspect of how people are produced “in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27). Beginning with an essential vision of the human person and the scriptural contacting us to “till” and “keep” the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church highlights that this gift of intelligence must be expressed through the accountable use of factor and technical capabilities in the stewardship of the produced world.

2. The Church motivates the development of science, technology, the arts, and other types of human endeavor, seeing them as part of the “partnership of males and female with God in refining the noticeable production.” [1] As Sirach verifies, God “offered skill to humans, that he might be glorified in his splendid works” (Sir. 38:6). Human abilities and creativity come from God and, when utilized rightly, glorify God by reflecting his knowledge and goodness. Due to this, when we ask ourselves what it means to “be human,” we can not exclude a factor to consider of our clinical and technological capabilities.

3. It is within this point of view that the present Note addresses the anthropological and ethical challenges raised by AI-issues that are especially considerable, as one of the goals of this technology is to imitate the human intelligence that developed it. For instance, unlike many other human developments, AI can be trained on the results of human creativity and then create brand-new “artifacts” with a level of speed and ability that often measures up to or surpasses what human beings can do, such as producing text or images equivalent from human structures. This raises vital issues about AI‘s potential function in the growing crisis of fact in the public online forum. Moreover, this innovation is created to find out and make certain choices autonomously, adapting to brand-new circumstances and offering options not visualized by its programmers, and thus, it raises fundamental questions about ethical duty and human security, with more comprehensive implications for society as a whole. This new scenario has prompted lots of people to assess what it means to be human and the role of mankind on the planet.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad agreement that AI marks a brand-new and significant phase in humanity’s engagement with technology, putting it at the heart of what Pope Francis has actually explained as an “epochal change.” [2] Its effect is felt worldwide and in a large variety of locations, including interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, healthcare, law, warfare, and worldwide relations. As AI advances quickly toward even higher achievements, it is seriously essential to consider its anthropological and ethical implications. This includes not only mitigating dangers and avoiding harm but also ensuring that its applications are used to promote human progress and the typical good.

5. To contribute positively to the discernment regarding AI, and in reaction to Pope Francis’ require a restored “wisdom of heart,” [3] the Church uses 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 welcomes those turned over with transmitting the faith-including parents, instructors, pastors, and bishops-to commit themselves to this vital subject with care and attention. While this file is intended especially for them, it is also indicated to be available to a wider audience, particularly those who share the conviction that clinical and technological advances must be directed toward serving the human individual and the typical good. [4]

6. To this end, the document begins by comparing concepts 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 tradition. Finally, the document offers guidelines to guarantee that the development and use of AI maintain human dignity and promote the integral development of the human individual and society.

7. The idea of “intelligence” in AI has actually evolved over time, making use of a variety of ideas from various disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a considerable milestone happened in 1956 when the American computer system researcher John McCarthy organized a summertime workshop at Dartmouth University to check out the problem of “Artificial Intelligence,” which he defined as “that of making a maker act in methods that would be called smart if a human were so acting.” [5] This workshop released a research study program concentrated on developing devices efficient in carrying out jobs normally connected with the human intelligence and intelligent behavior.

8. Ever since, AI research study has advanced rapidly, resulting in the development of complex systems efficient in performing extremely advanced jobs. [6] These so-called “narrow AI” systems are typically developed to deal with specific and restricted functions, such as translating languages, forecasting the trajectory of a storm, categorizing images, addressing concerns, or creating visual material at the user’s demand. While the meaning of “intelligence” in AI research study varies, most contemporary AI systems-particularly those utilizing device learning-rely on analytical inference instead of logical reduction. By evaluating large datasets to identify patterns, AI can “forecast” [7] results and propose brand-new approaches, imitating some cognitive procedures typical of human problem-solving. Such achievements have actually been made possible through advances in calculating innovation (consisting of neural networks, not being watched artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) along with hardware innovations (such as specialized processors). Together, these technologies enable AI systems to respond to numerous kinds of human input, adjust to brand-new circumstances, and even suggest unique solutions not prepared for by their initial programmers. [8]

9. Due to these fast advancements, many jobs once managed solely by human beings are now delegated to AI. These systems can enhance and even supersede what people have the ability to perform in numerous fields, especially in specialized areas such as information analysis, image acknowledgment, and medical diagnosis. While each “narrow AI” application is developed for a specific job, numerous researchers aim to establish what is referred to as “Artificial General Intelligence” (AGI)-a single system capable of operating throughout all cognitive domains and carrying out any job within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI might 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 potential improvement. [9]

10. Underlying this and numerous other perspectives on the subject 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 catch the full scope of the concept. In the case of human beings, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the individual in his/her entirety, whereas in the context of AI, “intelligence” is understood functionally, typically with the presumption that the activities characteristic of the human mind can be broken down into digitized steps that devices can duplicate. [10]

11. This practical viewpoint is exemplified by the “Turing Test,” which considers a machine “intelligent” if an individual can not differentiate its habits from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term “habits” refers only to the efficiency of particular intellectual jobs; it does not account for the complete breadth of human experience, that includes abstraction, emotions, creativity, and the aesthetic, ethical, and spiritual sensibilities. Nor does it incorporate the full range of expressions particular of the human mind. Instead, when it comes to AI, the “intelligence” of a system is examined methodologically, however likewise reductively, based on its capability to produce proper responses-in this case, those associated with the human intellect-regardless of how those reactions are generated.

12. AI’s sophisticated features offer it sophisticated capabilities to perform tasks, but not the ability to think. [12] This difference is most importantly crucial, as the way “intelligence” is specified undoubtedly shapes how we comprehend the relationship in between human thought and this technology. [13] To value this, one must remember the richness of the philosophical tradition and Christian faith, which offer a much deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church’s mentor on the nature, dignity, and vocation of the human person. [14]

13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has played a main function in understanding what it indicates to be “human.” Aristotle observed that “all people by nature desire to understand.” [15] This knowledge, with its capability for abstraction that comprehends the nature and meaning of things, sets human beings apart from the animal world. [16] As theorists, theologians, and psychologists have examined the precise nature of this intellectual faculty, they have actually likewise checked out how human beings understand the world and their unique location within it. Through this exploration, the Christian custom has actually pertained to understand the human individual as a being consisting of both body and soul-deeply connected to this world and yet transcending it. [17]

14. In the classical tradition, the idea of intelligence is frequently comprehended through the complementary principles of “reason” (ratio) and “intellect” (intellectus). These are not separate faculties however, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are 2 modes in which the exact same intelligence runs: “The term intellect is presumed from the inward grasp of the fact, while the name reason is drawn from the curious and discursive process.” [18] This concise description highlights the 2 fundamental and complementary measurements of human intelligence. Intellectus refers to the user-friendly grasp of the truth-that is, apprehending it with the “eyes” of the mind-which precedes and premises argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to reasoning correct: the discursive, analytical process that results in judgment. Together, intelligence and reason form the two elements of the act of intelligere, “the appropriate operation of the human being as such.” [19]

15. Explaining the human individual as a “rational” being does not reduce the individual to a particular mode of thought; rather, it recognizes that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and permeates all aspects of human activity. [20] Whether exercised well or inadequately, this capability is an intrinsic aspect of human nature. In this sense, the “term ‘rational’ includes all the capacities of the human individual,” including those related to “understanding and comprehending, in addition to those of prepared, loving, picking, and wanting; it likewise includes all corporeal functions carefully related to these capabilities.” [21] This detailed point of view highlights how, in the human person, produced in the “picture of God,” reason is integrated in such a way that raises, shapes, and changes both the individual’s will and actions. [22]

16. Christian thought considers the intellectual faculties of the human person within the structure of an integral sociology that sees the human being as essentially embodied. In the human individual, spirit and matter “are not two natures unified, however rather their union forms a single nature.” [23] To put it simply, the soul is not merely the immaterial “part” of the person contained within the body, nor is the body an external shell real estate an intangible “core.” Rather, the entire human person is concurrently both material and spiritual. This understanding reflects the teaching of Sacred Scripture, which views the human person as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and hence, an authentically spiritual measurement) within and through this embodied existence. [24] The profound significance of this condition is further brightened by the secret of the Incarnation, through which God himself handled our flesh and “raised it approximately a sublime dignity.” [25]

17. Although deeply rooted in bodily existence, the human individual goes beyond the material world through the soul, which is “nearly on the horizon of eternity and time.” [26] The intelligence’s capability for transcendence and the self-possessed liberty of the will belong to the soul, by which the human person “shares in the light of the magnificent mind.” [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its regular mode of knowledge without the body. [28] In this method, the intellectual professors of the human person are an important part of an anthropology that recognizes that the human individual is a “unity of body and soul.” [29] Further aspects of this understanding will be developed in what follows.

18. People are “bought by their very nature to interpersonal communion,” [30] having the capacity to know one another, to provide themselves in love, and to get in into communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not an isolated faculty however is exercised in relationships, finding its max expression in discussion, partnership, and solidarity. We learn with others, and we find out through others.

19. The relational orientation of the human person is ultimately grounded in the eternal self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is exposed in creation and redemption. [31] The human person is “called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life.” [32]

20. This occupation 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 contacted us to mimic Christ’s outpouring present (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to “love one another, as I have actually liked you” (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the divine life of self-giving, transcend self-interest to respond more totally to the human occupation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Even more superb than understanding numerous things is the dedication to care for one another, for if “I comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge […] however do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2).

21. Human intelligence is ultimately “God’s gift made for the assimilation of fact.” [34] In the double sense of intellectus-ratio, it makes it possible for the individual to check out truths that go beyond mere sensory experience or energy, given that “the desire for fact is part of humanity itself. It is a natural home of human factor to ask why things are as they are.” [35] Moving beyond the limitations of empirical information, human intelligence can “with authentic certitude attain to reality itself as knowable.” [36] While reality remains just partially known, the desire for fact “stimulates reason constantly to go further; certainly, it is as if reason were overwhelmed to see that it can always exceed what it has actually already attained.” [37] Although Truth in itself goes beyond the borders of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this attraction, the human person is caused seek “realities of a higher order.” [39]

22. This inherent drive towards the pursuit of fact is especially obvious in the clearly human capabilities for semantic understanding and creativity, [40] through which this search unfolds in a “way that is proper to the social nature and dignity of the human individual.” [41] Likewise, a steadfast orientation to the reality is essential for charity to be both authentic and universal. [42]

23. The search for truth discovers its greatest expression in openness to realities that go beyond the physical and created world. In God, all facts attain their ultimate and original meaning. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a “basic decision that engages the whole individual.” [44] In this method, the human person ends up being fully what he or she is called to be: “the intelligence and the will show their spiritual nature,” enabling the person “to act in such a way that realizes individual liberty to the full.” [45]

24. The Christian faith comprehends creation as the complimentary act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, produces “not to increase his magnificence, but to show it forth and to communicate it.” [46] Since God produces 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 actually called human beings to assume an unique function: to cultivate and look after the world. [48]

25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, humans 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 care for and develop production in accord with God’s strategy. [49] In this, human intelligence reflects the Divine Intelligence that created all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] continuously sustains them, and guides them to their supreme function in him. [51] Moreover, people are called to establish their capabilities in science and innovation, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in a correct relationship with production, human beings, on the one hand, utilize their intelligence and ability to comply with God in directing development towards the purpose to which he has actually called it. [52] On the other hand, production itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, assists the human mind to “rise gradually 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 important part of how the entire person engages with truth. Authentic engagement needs embracing the complete scope of one’s being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with truth unfolds in numerous methods, as each person, in his/her multifaceted individuality [54], seeks to understand the world, relate to others, fix issues, reveal creativity, and pursue important well-being through the unified interaction of the various dimensions of the individual’s intelligence. [55] This includes sensible and linguistic capabilities but can likewise include other modes of connecting with reality. Consider the work of an artisan, who “should know how to determine, in inert matter, a specific form that others can not recognize” [56] and bring it forth through insight and practical skill. Indigenous individuals who live near to the earth frequently possess a profound sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a buddy who knows the best word to state or an individual skilled at handling human relationships exhibits an intelligence that is “the fruit of self-examination, dialogue and generous encounter in between persons.” [58] As Pope Francis observes, “in this age of artificial intelligence, we can not forget that poetry and love are essential to conserve our mankind.” [59]

28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the combination of truth into the moral and spiritual life of the individual, assisting his/her actions because of God’s goodness and reality. According to God’s plan, intelligence, in its fullest sense, also consists of the ability to enjoy what holds true, great, and beautiful. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel revealed, “intelligence is absolutely nothing without pleasure.” [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the highest paradise in Paradiso, affirms that the culmination of this intellectual pleasure is discovered in the “light intellectual filled with love, love of true good filled with happiness, happiness which transcends every sweet taste.” [61]

29. A proper understanding of human intelligence, for that reason, can not be decreased to the simple acquisition of facts or the ability to perform particular jobs. Instead, it involves the person’s openness to the supreme questions of life and shows an orientation towards the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the magnificent image within the person, human intelligence has the capability to access the totality of being, contemplating presence in its fullness, which surpasses what is measurable, and grasping the meaning of what has actually been comprehended. For followers, this capacity includes, in a particular way, the ability to grow in the understanding of the secrets of God by utilizing reason to engage ever more profoundly with revealed realities (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is shaped 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 vital contemplative measurement, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian purpose.

30. In light of the foregoing conversation, the differences between human intelligence and current AI systems end up being apparent. While AI is a remarkable technological accomplishment capable of imitating certain outputs related to human intelligence, it runs by performing tasks, attaining objectives, or making choices based upon quantitative data and computational reasoning. For instance, with its analytical power, AI excels at integrating data from a variety of fields, modeling complex systems, and promoting interdisciplinary connections. In this method, it can assist professionals collaborate in solving intricate issues that “can not be dealt with from a single viewpoint or from a single set of interests.” [64]

31. However, even as AI processes and simulates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains fundamentally confined to a logical-mathematical framework, which enforces fundamental constraints. Human intelligence, on the other hand, establishes naturally throughout the person’s physical and psychological development, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although advanced AI systems can “discover” through procedures such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is fundamentally various from the developmental development of human intelligence, which is formed by embodied experiences, consisting of sensory input, psychological actions, social interactions, and the special context of each minute. These components shape and kind people within their individual history.In contrast, AI, lacking a physical body, depends on computational thinking and learning based upon large datasets that consist of taped human experiences and understanding.

32. Consequently, although AI can mimic aspects of human reasoning and carry out particular jobs with amazing speed and efficiency, its computational capabilities represent just a fraction of the broader capacities of the human mind. For example, AI can not currently duplicate ethical discernment or the capability to establish authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is located within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral formation that fundamentally shapes the person’s point of view, incorporating the physical, emotional, social, ethical, and spiritual dimensions of life. Since AI can not offer this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely entirely on this technology or treat it as the main ways of analyzing the world can lead to “a loss of gratitude for the entire, for the relationships between things, and for the wider horizon.” [65]

33. Human intelligence is not mainly about finishing functional tasks but about understanding and actively engaging with reality in all its dimensions; it is likewise capable of unexpected insights. Since AI lacks the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to truth and goodness, its capacities-though relatively limitless-are unparalleled with the human capability to comprehend truth. So much can be gained from an illness, a welcome of reconciliation, and even a basic sunset; certainly, numerous experiences we have as humans open new horizons and offer the possibility of attaining new wisdom. No device, working entirely with information, can measure up to these and many other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an overly close equivalence in between human intelligence and AI dangers succumbing to a functionalist viewpoint, where individuals are valued based on the work they can perform. However, a person’s worth does not depend upon having specific skills, cognitive and technological achievements, or individual success, however on the person’s intrinsic dignity, grounded in being developed in the image of God. [66] This self-respect remains intact in all situations, consisting of for those unable to exercise their capabilities, whether it be a coming kid, an unconscious individual, or an older individual who is suffering. [67] It also underpins the custom of human rights (and, in specific, what are now called “neuro-rights”), which represent “a crucial point of merging in the search for commonalities” [68] and can, therefore, work as a basic ethical guide in discussions on the responsible advancement and usage of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, “the extremely usage of the word ‘intelligence'” in connection with AI “can prove misleading” [69] and dangers neglecting what is most precious in the human individual. Due to this, AI must not be viewed as an artificial 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 plan. To address this, it is essential to remember that techno-scientific activity is not in character but is a human undertaking that engages the humanistic and cultural dimensions of human imagination. [71]

37. Viewed as a fruit of the prospective inscribed within human intelligence, [72] scientific query and the advancement of technical abilities belong to the “partnership of males and female with God in improving the noticeable creation.” [73] At the same time, all scientific and technological accomplishments are, ultimately, presents from God. [74] Therefore, humans need to always use their abilities in view of the greater function for which God has actually approved them. [75]

38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has actually “corrected many evils which used to damage and restrict human beings,” [76] a fact for which we need to rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological developments in themselves represent real human development. [77] The Church is particularly opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human person. [78] Like any human undertaking, kenpoguy.com technological advancement should be directed to serve the human individual 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 advancement are shared not just within the Church however likewise amongst many scientists, technologists, and expert associations, who progressively require ethical reflection to direct this advancement in an accountable way.

39. To address these obstacles, it is vital to highlight the value of ethical duty grounded in the dignity and vocation of the human person. This assisting concept also applies to questions concerning AI. In this context, the ethical measurement handles main significance due to the fact that it is people who develop systems and figure out the functions for which they are used. [80] Between a machine and a person, just the latter is really a moral agent-a topic of ethical responsibility who exercises freedom in his/her decisions and accepts their effects. [81] It is not the maker but the human who remains in relationship with reality and goodness, assisted by a moral conscience that calls the individual “to like and to do what is excellent and to avoid wicked,” [82] bearing witness to “the authority of reality in referral 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, discerning with vigilance, and looking for the great that is possible in every situation. [84] In truth, all of this likewise belongs to the individual’s workout of intelligence.

40. Like any item of human imagination, AI can be directed toward favorable or negative ends. [85] When used in manner ins which appreciate human dignity and promote the well-being of individuals and neighborhoods, it can contribute positively to the human occupation. Yet, as in all areas where human beings are called to make decisions, the shadow of evil likewise looms here. Where human liberty enables the possibility of selecting what is wrong, the ethical examination of this innovation will require to take into account how it is directed and used.

41. At the same time, it is not just completions that are fairly substantial however likewise the ways used to attain them. Additionally, the general vision and understanding of the human individual ingrained within these systems are essential to consider also. Technological products show the worldview of their designers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to “form the world and engage consciences on the level of worths.” [87] On a societal level, some technological developments might also reinforce relationships and power dynamics that are irregular with a proper understanding of the human person and society.

42. Therefore, completions and the methods utilized in a provided application of AI, as well as the overall vision it incorporates, need to all be assessed to ensure they respect human self-respect and promote the common good. [88] As Pope Francis has actually specified, “the intrinsic self-respect of every male and every woman” must be “the essential requirement in evaluating emerging technologies; these will prove fairly sound to the degree that they help respect that self-respect and increase its expression at every level of human life,” [89] including in the social and economic spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays a vital function not just in developing and producing technology however also in directing its usage in line with the genuine good of the human individual. [90] The responsibility for handling this sensibly pertains to every level of society, directed by the principle of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The commitment to guaranteeing that AI always supports and promotes the supreme value of the dignity of every person and the fullness of the human vocation works as a criterion of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, as well as to its users. It remains legitimate for every application of the technology at every level of its use.

44. An examination of the implications of this guiding principle could begin by thinking about the importance of moral duty. Since complete moral causality belongs just to personal agents, not artificial ones, it is crucial to be able to recognize and define who bears duty for the procedures included in AI, particularly those efficient in learning, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up techniques and very deep neural networks enable AI to solve complex issues, they make it challenging to understand the processes that cause the services they adopted. This makes complex accountability considering that if an AI application produces undesired outcomes, determining who is responsible ends up being challenging. To resolve this issue, attention needs to be offered to the nature of responsibility processes in complex, extremely automated settings, where results might only end up being evident in the medium to long term. For this, it is essential that supreme responsibility for choices made utilizing AI rests with the human decision-makers and that there is accountability for using AI at each phase of the decision-making process. [91]

45. In addition to determining who is responsible, it is important to determine the objectives given to AI systems. Although these systems might utilize not being watched autonomous learning mechanisms and sometimes follow paths that humans can not reconstruct, they ultimately pursue objectives that humans have appointed to them and are governed by procedures developed by their designers and developers. Yet, this presents a difficulty since, as AI models become significantly efficient in independent learning, the capability to maintain control over them to make sure that such applications serve human functions may successfully lessen. This raises the critical concern 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 establish, produce, handle, and supervise such systems, it is also shared by those who utilize them. As Pope Francis kept in mind, the machine “makes a technical choice among a number of possibilities based either on distinct requirements or on statistical reasonings. Human beings, however, not only pick, but in their hearts can deciding.” [92] Those who use AI to achieve a task and follow its results develop a context in which they are ultimately accountable for the power they have handed over. Therefore, insofar as AI can help human beings in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it must be reliable, safe, robust enough to handle inconsistencies, and transparent in their operation to alleviate biases and unintentional negative effects. [93] Regulatory frameworks need to make sure that all legal entities remain responsible for making use of AI and all its repercussions, with proper safeguards for openness, personal privacy, and responsibility. [94] Moreover, those using AI should take care not to become excessively based on it for their decision-making, a pattern that increases modern society’s already high reliance on innovation.

47. The Church’s ethical and social mentor offers resources to help guarantee that AI is used in a way that maintains human company. Considerations about justice, for example, should likewise attend to concerns such as cultivating just social dynamics, maintaining worldwide security, and promoting peace. By working out vigilance, individuals and neighborhoods can determine ways to use AI to benefit humanity while preventing applications that could degrade human dignity or damage the environment. In this context, the idea of responsibility ought to be comprehended not only in its most limited sense however as a “obligation for the look after others, which is more than merely representing outcomes attained.” [95]

48. Therefore, AI, like any innovation, can be part of a mindful and accountable answer to humanity’s vocation to the good. However, as formerly gone over, AI needs to be directed by human intelligence to line up with this vocation, ensuring it respects the dignity of the human individual. Recognizing this “exalted self-respect,” the Second Vatican Council affirmed that “the social order and its development need to inevitably work to the benefit of the human person.” [96] Due to this, using AI, as Pope Francis said, must be “accompanied by an ethic motivated by a vision of the common good, a principles of freedom, duty, and fraternity, capable of promoting the complete advancement of individuals in relation to others and to the whole of production.” [97]

49. Within this general viewpoint, some observations follow below to illustrate how the preceding arguments can assist offer an ethical orientation in practical circumstances, in line with the “wisdom of heart” that Pope Francis has proposed. [98] While not exhaustive, this discussion is offered in service of the discussion that thinks about how AI can be used to maintain the self-respect of the human individual and promote the common good. [99]

50. As Pope Francis observed, “the fundamental self-respect of each human and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human family must undergird the advancement of brand-new innovations and function as unassailable criteria for examining them before they are used.” [100]

51. Viewed through this lens, AI might “introduce essential developments in farming, education and culture, an improved level of life for entire countries and individuals, and the growth of human fraternity and social relationship,” and hence be “used to promote important human advancement.” [101] AI might likewise help companies identify those in requirement and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other comparable applications of this innovation might contribute to human advancement and the common good. [102]

52. However, while AI holds lots of possibilities for promoting the great, it can also impede or perhaps counter human development and the common good. Pope Francis has noted that “evidence to date recommends that digital technologies have increased inequality in our world. Not simply differences in material wealth, which are also substantial, but likewise differences in access to political and social influence.” [103] In this sense, AI might be utilized to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, produce new forms of poverty, broaden 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 few powerful business raises considerable ethical concerns. Exacerbating this issue is the intrinsic nature of AI systems, where no single person can work out complete oversight over the huge and complicated datasets utilized for calculation. This absence of distinct responsibility develops the threat that AI might be controlled for personal or corporate gain or to direct popular opinion for the advantage of a specific market. Such entities, encouraged by their own interests, have the capability to exercise “kinds of control as subtle as they are intrusive, creating mechanisms for the manipulation of consciences and of the democratic process.” [105]

54. Furthermore, there is the danger of AI being used to promote what Pope Francis has actually called the “technocratic paradigm,” which views all the world’s problems as solvable through technological methods alone. [106] In this paradigm, human dignity and fraternity are frequently set aside in the name of performance, “as if reality, goodness, and fact automatically stream from technological and financial power as such.” [107] Yet, human dignity and the common great must never ever be violated for the sake of effectiveness, [108] for “technological developments that do not result in an enhancement in the quality of life of all humankind, but on the contrary, aggravate inequalities and disputes, can never ever count as real development. ” [109] Instead, AI must be put “at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more important.” [110]

55. Attaining this objective requires a deeper reflection on the relationship in between autonomy and responsibility. Greater autonomy heightens everyone’s duty throughout various elements of communal life. For Christians, the foundation of this responsibility lies in the acknowledgment that all human capacities, including the person’s autonomy, come from God and are indicated to be used in the service of others. [111] Therefore, instead of simply pursuing financial or technological goals, AI ought to serve “the typical good of the whole human family,” which is “the sum overall of social conditions that enable individuals, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more totally and more easily.” [112]

56. The Second Vatican Council observed that “by his inner nature man is a social being; and if he does not enter into relations with others, he can neither live nor develop his presents.” [113] This conviction highlights that living in society is intrinsic to the nature and vocation of the human person. [114] As social beings, we seek relationships that include mutual exchange and the pursuit of fact, in the course of which, people “share with each other the truth they have actually discovered, or believe they have discovered, in such a method that they help one another in the search for fact.” [115]

57. Such a quest, together with other aspects of human interaction, presupposes encounters and shared exchange in between people formed by their unique histories, ideas, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a diverse, diverse, and complex reality: private and social, reasonable and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis highlights this vibrant, noting that “together, we can seek the reality in dialogue, in unwinded discussion or in passionate argument. To do so requires perseverance; it entails minutes of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently embrace the broader experience of individuals and individuals. […] The process of building fraternity, be it regional or universal, can only be carried out by spirits that are free and available to genuine encounters.” [116]

58. It remains in this context that a person can consider the difficulties AI postures to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the possible to promote connections within the human family. However, it might likewise hinder a real encounter with reality and, ultimately, lead people to “a deep and melancholic discontentment with social relations, or a harmful sense of seclusion.” [117] Authentic human relationships require the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their joy. [118] Since human intelligence is revealed and enhanced also in interpersonal and embodied methods, genuine and spontaneous encounters with others are essential for engaging with reality in its fullness.

59. Because “true knowledge demands an encounter with truth,” [119] the increase of AI presents another difficulty. Since AI can efficiently imitate the items of human intelligence, the capability to understand when one is engaging with a human or a maker can no longer be considered approved. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other sophisticated outputs that are usually associated with human beings. Yet, it needs to be understood for what it is: a tool, not a person. [120] This difference is often obscured by the language utilized by specialists, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and thus blurs the line in between human and device.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI also poses particular obstacles for the development of children, possibly encouraging them to develop patterns of interaction that treat human relationships in a transactional way, as one would relate to a chatbot. Such routines might lead young individuals to see teachers as simple dispensers of details instead of as coaches who direct and support their intellectual and moral growth. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and a steadfast dedication to the good of the other, are vital and irreplaceable in promoting the full development of the human individual.

61. In this context, it is essential to clarify that, despite the use of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can really experience empathy. Emotions can not be lowered to facial expressions or phrases generated in action to prompts; they reflect the way a person, as an entire, connects to the world and to his or her own life, with the body playing a main function. True empathy requires the capability to listen, recognize another’s irreducible individuality, welcome their otherness, and grasp the significance behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the world of analytical judgment in which AI stands out, real compassion belongs to the relational sphere. It includes intuiting and collaring the lived experiences of another while maintaining the distinction in between self and other. [122] While AI can mimic compassionate actions, it can not duplicate the incomparably personal and relational nature of genuine compassion. [123]

62. Because of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as an individual need to always be avoided; doing so for deceitful functions is a grave ethical violation that might erode social trust. Similarly, utilizing AI to deceive in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, consisting of the sphere of sexuality-is also to be considered immoral and requires mindful oversight to prevent harm, maintain openness, and ensure the self-respect of all people. [124]

63. In a significantly isolated world, some individuals have actually turned to AI looking for deep human relationships, simple companionship, and even psychological bonds. However, while humans are meant to experience authentic relationships, AI can only replicate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an integral part of how an individual grows to become who she or he is implied to be. If AI is used to assist people foster authentic connections in between people, it can contribute favorably to the full realization of the person. Conversely, if we replace relationships with God and with others with interactions with innovation, we run the risk of changing genuine relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of pulling back into artificial worlds, we are contacted us to engage in a committed and deliberate way with truth, particularly by relating to the bad and suffering, consoling those in sorrow, and forging bonds of communion with all.

64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being significantly incorporated into financial and financial systems. Significant financial investments are presently being made not only in the technology sector however also in energy, finance, and media, particularly in the areas of marketing and sales, logistics, technological innovation, compliance, and risk management. At the exact same time, AI‘s applications in these locations have also highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of tremendous opportunities however likewise extensive threats. A very first genuine crucial point in this area worries the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a few corporations-only those big business would gain from the worth created by AI rather than the services that utilize it.

65. Other more comprehensive elements of AI‘s impact on the economic-financial sphere should also be carefully examined, especially concerning the interaction in between concrete reality and the digital world. One important factor to consider in this regard includes the coexistence of diverse and alternative types of financial and banks within an offered context. This element must be motivated, as it can bring advantages in how it supports the real economy by fostering its advancement and stability, particularly during times of crisis. Nevertheless, it must 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 typical journey defined by shared values and hopes, however likewise by unavoidable disagreements and divergences. This variety is an undeniable property to a community’s economic life. Turning over the economy and financing completely to digital technology would reduce this variety and richness. As an outcome, numerous services to economic issues that can be reached through natural dialogue between the involved celebrations may no longer be attainable in a world controlled by treatments and only the appearance of nearness.

66. Another location where AI is already having a profound impact is the world of work. As in lots of other fields, AI is driving essential changes throughout many occupations, with a series of effects. On the one hand, it has the possible to enhance know-how and efficiency, develop new jobs, allow employees to concentrate on more ingenious jobs, and open brand-new horizons for imagination and innovation.

67. However, while AI promises to improve performance by taking over ordinary jobs, it frequently requires workers to adapt to the speed and opensourcebridge.science demands of devices instead of makers being designed to support those who work. As an outcome, contrary to the advertised benefits of AI, existing methods to the technology can paradoxically deskill employees, subject them to automated monitoring, and relegate them to rigid and repetitive jobs. The requirement to stay up to date with the rate of technology can deteriorate workers’ sense of firm and stifle the innovative abilities they are expected to bring to their work. [125]

68. AI is currently getting rid of the requirement for some jobs that were once performed by human beings. If AI is used to change human workers rather than match them, there is a “considerable risk of out of proportion benefit for the few at the price of the impoverishment of lots of.” [126] Additionally, as AI becomes more powerful, there is an associated threat that human labor might lose its value in the financial world. This is the logical repercussion of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humankind oppressed to efficiency, where, ultimately, the expense of humanity must be cut. Yet, human lives are inherently valuable, independent of their financial output. Nevertheless, the “existing model,” Pope Francis explains, “does not appear to prefer an investment in efforts to help the slow, the weak, or the less gifted to discover chances in life.” [127] Due to this, “we can not enable a tool as powerful and important as Artificial Intelligence to strengthen such a paradigm, but 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 subordinate to the order of individuals, and not the other method around.” [129] Human work should not just be at the service of revenue however at “the service of the entire human individual […] taking into account the person’s material needs and the requirements of his/her intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and spiritual life.” [130] In this context, the Church recognizes that work is “not only a way of earning one’s daily bread” but is likewise “an essential dimension of social life” and “a way […] of personal development, the structure of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of presents. Work offers us a sense of shared obligation for the development of the world, and ultimately, for our life as a people.” [131]

70. Since work is a “part of the significance of life on this earth, a course to development, human development and individual fulfillment,” “the goal ought to not be that technological development progressively replaces human work, for this would be damaging to mankind” [132] -rather, it needs to promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI needs to assist, not replace, human judgment. Similarly, it needs to never ever break down creativity or decrease workers to mere “cogs in a machine.” Therefore, “respect for the self-respect of workers and the significance of work for the economic well-being of individuals, families, and societies, for task security and just salaries, ought to be a high priority for the worldwide community as these types of technology permeate more deeply into our workplaces.” [133]

71. As participants in God’s healing work, health care professionals have the occupation and responsibility to be “guardians and servants of human life.” [134] Because of this, the health care occupation brings an “intrinsic and undeniable ethical measurement,” acknowledged by the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges physicians and health care specialists to commit themselves to having “absolute respect for human life and its sacredness.” [135] Following the example of the Do-gooder, this dedication is to be carried out by men and ladies “who decline the development of a society of exemption, and act rather as next-door neighbors, raising up and fixing up the succumbed to the sake of the common good.” [136]

72. Seen in this light, AI seems to hold enormous potential in a range of applications in the medical field, such as assisting the diagnostic work of healthcare service providers, assisting in relationships in between clients and medical personnel, providing new treatments, and broadening access to quality care also for those who are separated or marginalized. In these ways, the technology might boost the “thoughtful and loving closeness” [137] that doctor are contacted us to encompass the ill and suffering.

73. However, if AI is used not to enhance however to change the relationship in between clients and health care providers-leaving patients to interact with a maker rather than a human being-it would reduce a crucially crucial human relational structure to a centralized, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of motivating uniformity with the sick and suffering, such applications of AI would run the risk of worsening the isolation that typically accompanies health problem, especially in the context of a culture where “persons are no longer viewed as a vital worth to be cared for and appreciated.” [138] This abuse of AI would not line up with respect for the self-respect of the human individual and uniformity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the well-being of clients and the choices that discuss their lives are at the heart of the health care occupation. This accountability requires medical experts to exercise all their skill and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options concerning those delegated to their care, always respecting the inviolable self-respect of the clients and the need for informed consent. As a result, decisions regarding patient treatment and the weight of duty they entail must always remain with the human individual and needs to never ever be delegated to AI. [139]

75. In addition, utilizing AI to identify who ought to get treatment based mainly on economic steps or metrics of performance represents an especially bothersome circumstances of the “technocratic paradigm” that need to be rejected. [140] For, “optimizing resources implies utilizing them in an ethical and fraternal way, and not penalizing the most vulnerable.” [141] Additionally, AI tools in healthcare are “exposed to types of predisposition and discrimination,” where “systemic errors can easily increase, producing not just oppressions in private cases however also, due to the cause and effect, real types of social inequality.” [142]

76. The integration of AI into health care likewise postures the threat of amplifying other existing variations in access to treatment. As health care becomes significantly oriented towards prevention and lifestyle-based techniques, AI-driven services might unintentionally prefer more wealthy populations who currently enjoy better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This trend threats reinforcing a “medicine for the abundant” model, where those with monetary means gain from advanced preventative tools and individualized health details while others battle to gain access to even fundamental services. To avoid such inequities, fair frameworks are required to guarantee that using AI in healthcare does not aggravate existing health care inequalities however rather serves the typical good.

77. The words of the Second Vatican Council remain totally relevant today: “True education aims to form individuals with a view toward their final end and the good of the society to which they belong.” [143] As such, education is “never ever a simple process of handing down realities and intellectual skills: rather, its aim is to add to the individual’s holistic formation in its numerous aspects (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, and so on), consisting of, for example, neighborhood life and relations within the academic community,” [144] in keeping with the nature and self-respect of the human person.

78. This technique involves a dedication to cultivating the mind, however always as a part of the integral development of the individual: “We must break that idea of education which holds that educating methods filling one’s head with concepts. That is the method we inform automatons, cerebral minds, not people. Educating is taking a risk 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 vital relationship between teacher and trainee. Teachers do more than communicate understanding; they model important human qualities and motivate the delight of discovery. [146] Their existence encourages trainees both through the content they teach and the care they demonstrate for their trainees. This bond cultivates trust, good understanding, and the capacity to deal with each individual’s special self-respect and capacity. On the part of the trainee, this can produce a real desire to grow. The physical existence of a teacher creates a relational dynamic that AI can not replicate, one that deepens engagement and supports the trainee’s important development.

80. In this context, AI provides both opportunities and obstacles. If used in a sensible way, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and bought to the authentic objectives of education, AI can end up being an important educational resource by improving access to education, using tailored assistance, and offering instant feedback to trainees. These advantages could improve the knowing experience, specifically in cases where customized attention is needed, or academic resources are otherwise limited.

81. Nevertheless, an important part of education is forming “the intellect to reason well in all matters, to connect towards fact, and to understand it,” [147] while assisting the “language of the head” to grow harmoniously with the “language of the heart” and the “language of the hands.” [148] This is all the more vital in an age marked by technology, in which “it is no longer simply a question of ‘using’ instruments of communication, however of living in a highly digitalized culture that has actually had an extensive effect on […] our capability to communicate, find out, be informed and participate in relationship with others.” [149] However, instead of cultivating “a cultivated intelligence,” which “brings with it a power and a grace to every work and occupation that it carries out,” [150] the comprehensive usage of AI in education might lead to the trainees’ increased dependence on technology, deteriorating their capability to perform some skills individually and worsening their dependence on screens. [151]

82. Additionally, while some AI systems are developed to help people develop their vital thinking capabilities and analytical abilities, lots of others merely offer answers rather of triggering trainees to show up at answers themselves or compose text on their own. [152] Instead of training young individuals how to amass details and generate fast reactions, education should motivate “the accountable usage of liberty to deal with concerns with good sense and intelligence.” [153] Building on this, “education in using kinds of expert system ought to aim above all at promoting critical thinking. Users of all ages, however particularly the young, need to develop a discerning approach to using information and content collected on the web or produced by expert system systems. Schools, universities, and clinical societies are challenged to help trainees and professionals to comprehend the social and ethical aspects of the development and uses of technology.” [154]

83. As Saint John Paul II recalled, “on the planet today, defined by such fast developments in science and innovation, the jobs of a Catholic University presume an ever greater value and seriousness.” [155] In a particular method, Catholic universities are urged to be present as terrific laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary secret, they are advised to engage “with wisdom and creativity” [156] in cautious research on this phenomenon, assisting to extract the salutary potential within the various fields of science and truth, and directing them always towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the common great, reaching brand-new frontiers in the dialogue in between faith and reason.

84. Moreover, it needs to be noted that existing AI programs have been known to supply prejudiced or produced details, which can lead trainees to rely on inaccurate content. This issue “not only risks of legitimizing phony news and strengthening a dominant culture’s advantage, however, in other words, it also weakens the instructional process itself.” [157] With time, clearer distinctions might emerge between appropriate and improper uses of AI in education and research. Yet, a decisive standard is that the use of AI should constantly be transparent and never misrepresented.

85. AI could be utilized as an aid to human self-respect if it helps individuals comprehend complex ideas or directs them to sound resources that support their search for the truth. [158]

86. However, AI also provides a severe risk of creating manipulated content and incorrect details, which can easily misguide individuals due to its similarity to the fact. Such misinformation might happen unintentionally, as in the case of AI “hallucination,” where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine however are not. Since generating material that simulates human artifacts is main to AI’s performance, reducing these dangers proves challenging. Yet, the repercussions of such aberrations and incorrect details can be quite serious. For this factor, all those included in producing and utilizing AI systems must be committed to the truthfulness and precision of the details processed by such systems and shared to the general public.

87. While AI has a hidden capacity to generate false details, a a lot more uncomfortable issue lies in the purposeful abuse of AI for control. This can take place when people or organizations deliberately create and spread out false material with the aim to trick or cause harm, such as “deepfake” images, videos, and audio-referring to an incorrect depiction of a person, modified or generated by an AI algorithm. The risk of deepfakes is particularly obvious when they are utilized to target or harm others. While the images or videos themselves may be artificial, the damage they cause is real, leaving “deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it” and “genuine wounds in their human dignity.” [159]

88. On a broader scale, by misshaping “our relationship with others and with truth,” [160] AI-generated phony media can slowly weaken the structures of society. This issue requires careful policy, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or influenced media-can spread inadvertently, sustaining political polarization and social unrest. When society ends up being indifferent to the fact, different groups build their own variations of “realities,” deteriorating the “reciprocal ties and mutual dependences” [161] that underpin the fabric of social life. As deepfakes trigger individuals to question whatever and AI-generated false content 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, dismantling the fundamental trust on which societies are developed. [162]

89. Countering AI-driven frauds is not only the work of market experts-it requires the efforts of all people of goodwill. “If innovation is to serve human self-respect and not hurt it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human community must be proactive in attending to these patterns with regard to human dignity and the promo of the good.” [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated content ought to always work out diligence in confirming the truth of what they share and, in all cases, must “prevent the sharing of words and images that are degrading of human beings, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that make use of the weak and vulnerable.” [164] This calls for the ongoing prudence and mindful discernment of all users regarding their activity online. [165]

90. Humans are naturally relational, and the information each individual generates in the digital world can be seen as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data communicates not just details however also personal and relational knowledge, which, in a significantly digitized context, can amount to power over the person. Moreover, while some types of data may pertain to public elements of an individual’s life, others might discuss the individual’s interiority, maybe even their conscience. Seen in this way, personal privacy plays an important role in safeguarding the borders of an individual’s inner life, maintaining their freedom to connect to others, express themselves, and make decisions without unnecessary control. This defense 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 suitable, therefore, to resolve the issue of privacy from an issue for the genuine flexibility and inalienable dignity of the human person “in all scenarios.” [166] The Second Vatican Council consisted of the right “to safeguard privacy” amongst the fundamental rights “required for living a genuinely human life,” a right that needs to be extended to all people on account of their “superb self-respect.” [167] Furthermore, the Church has likewise verified the right to the legitimate regard for a private life in the context of verifying the individual’s right to an excellent track record, defense of their physical and psychological integrity, and freedom from harm or undue invasion [168] -essential elements of the due regard for the intrinsic self-respect of the human person. [169]

92. Advances in AI-powered information processing and analysis now make it possible to infer patterns in a person’s behavior and thinking from even a little quantity of details, making the role of data personal privacy a lot more important as a safeguard for the self-respect and relational nature of the human person. As Pope Francis observed, “while closed and intolerant mindsets towards others are on the increase, distances are otherwise shrinking or disappearing to the point that the right to privacy hardly exists. Everything has ended up being a kind of phenomenon to be examined and examined, and people’s lives are now under consistent surveillance.” [170]

93. While there can be genuine and correct ways to utilize AI in keeping with human dignity and the common good, using it for surveillance aimed at exploiting, limiting others’ liberty, or benefitting a couple of at the expense of the numerous is unjustifiable. The danger of security overreach should be monitored by appropriate regulators to make sure transparency and public responsibility. Those responsible for surveillance must never surpass their authority, which should constantly favor the dignity and freedom of everyone as the essential basis of a just and gentle society.

94. Furthermore, “basic regard for human self-respect needs that we decline to enable the originality of the individual to be related to a set of information.” [171] This especially applies when AI is utilized to examine individuals or groups based on their behavior, attributes, or history-a practice referred to as “social scoring”: “In social and financial decision-making, we must beware about handing over judgments to algorithms that process information, often collected surreptitiously, on a person’s makeup and previous behavior. Such information can be contaminated by social bias and preconceptions. A person’s previous behavior must not be used to reject him or her the opportunity to change, grow, and add to society. We can not permit algorithms to restrict or condition respect for human dignity, or to omit compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that individuals are able to change.” [172]

95. AI has numerous appealing applications for improving our relationship with our “common home,” such as creating models to anticipate extreme environment occasions, proposing engineering solutions to lower their effect, handling relief operations, and anticipating population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable agriculture, optimize energy usage, and supply early caution systems for public health emergency situations. These improvements have the prospective to enhance resilience against climate-related challenges and promote more sustainable development.

96. At the very same time, existing AI designs and the hardware needed to support them take in huge quantities of energy and water, considerably adding to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This reality is frequently obscured by the method this technology is presented in the popular creativity, where words such as “the cloud” [174] can give the impression that data is saved and processed in an intangible realm, separated from the real world. However, “the cloud” is not a heavenly domain separate from the physical world; as with all computing innovations, it depends on physical devices, cables, and energy. The exact same holds true of the technology behind AI. As these systems grow in complexity, especially big language models (LLMs), they require ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and higher storage infrastructure. Considering the heavy toll these technologies handle the environment, it is vital to establish sustainable services that minimize their impact on our typical home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is essential “that we search for options not only in innovation however in a modification of humankind.” [175] A complete and genuine understanding of creation recognizes that the value of all created things can not be minimized to their mere energy. Therefore, a completely human approach to the stewardship of the earth rejects the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which seeks to “draw out whatever possible” from the world, [176] and rejects the “myth of progress,” which presumes that “ecological problems will fix themselves simply with the application of new innovation and with no need for ethical factors to consider or deep modification.” [177] Such a mindset should provide way to a more holistic method that appreciates the order of creation and promotes the important good of the human individual while protecting our common home. [178]

98. The Second Vatican Council and the consistent mentor of the Popes because then have actually insisted that peace is not simply the absence of war and is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between enemies. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is “the harmony of order.” [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without safeguarding the items of individuals, free interaction, respect for the self-respect of individuals and individuals, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity and can not be attained through force alone; instead, it should be mainly constructed through client diplomacy, the active promo of justice, uniformity, essential human advancement, and regard for the dignity of all individuals. [180] In this method, the tools utilized to maintain peace ought to never be permitted to justify oppression, violence, or oppression. Instead, they must constantly be governed by a “firm decision to regard other people and nations, together with their self-respect, along with the deliberate practice of fraternity.” [181]

99. While AI’s analytical capabilities could help countries look for peace and guarantee security, the “weaponization of Artificial Intelligence” can also be highly bothersome. Pope Francis has observed that “the capability to perform military operations through remote control systems has actually caused a minimized perception of the devastation caused by those weapon systems and the problem of duty for their use, resulting in a much more cold and removed method to the immense tragedy of war.” [182] Moreover, the ease with which autonomous weapons make war more practical militates against the concept of war as a last option in legitimate self-defense, [183] potentially increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and precipitating a destabilizing arms race, with disastrous consequences for human rights. [184]

100. In specific, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which can determining and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a “cause for severe ethical concern” due to the fact that they lack the “unique human capacity for ethical judgment and ethical decision-making.” [185] For this factor, Pope Francis has actually urgently called for a reconsideration of the development of these weapons and a restriction on their use, beginning with “an effective and concrete commitment to present ever higher and appropriate human control. No maker should ever choose to take the life of a human being.” [186]

101. Since it is a small step from makers that can kill autonomously with precision to those capable of large-scale destruction, some AI scientists have actually expressed issues that such innovation poses an “existential risk” by having the potential to act in manner ins which could threaten the survival of whole areas and even of humankind itself. This danger needs severe attention, reflecting the enduring issue about technologies that grant war “an uncontrollable devastating power over multitudes of innocent civilians,” [187] without even sparing kids. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to “carry out an assessment of war with an entirely brand-new attitude” [188] is more immediate than ever.

102. At the same time, while the theoretical dangers of AI should have attention, the more instant and pressing issue depends on how individuals with malicious intents may misuse this innovation. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future capabilities are unforeseeable, mankind’s previous actions provide clear cautions. The atrocities dedicated throughout history suffice to raise deep issues about the potential abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that “humankind now has instruments of unmatched power: we can turn this world into a garden, or minimize it to a pile of rubble.” [190] Given this truth, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that “we are complimentary to apply our intelligence towards things progressing favorably,” or towards “decadence and mutual destruction.” [191] To prevent humankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there must be a clear stand against all applications of technology that naturally threaten human life and dignity. This dedication requires careful discernment about the use of AI, especially in military defense applications, to make sure that it constantly respects human dignity and serves the typical good. The advancement and deployment of AI in armaments need to undergo the greatest levels of ethical examination, governed by an issue for human self-respect and the sanctity of life. [193]

104. Technology offers impressive tools to supervise and establish the world’s resources. However, in many cases, humanity is significantly ceding control of these resources to machines. Within some circles of researchers and futurists, there is optimism about the capacity of synthetic general intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical form of AI that would match or go beyond human intelligence and bring about unimaginable improvements. Some even hypothesize that AGI might attain superhuman abilities. At the same time, as society wanders away from a connection with the transcendent, some are lured to turn to AI searching for meaning or fulfillment-longings that can just be truly satisfied in communion with God. [194]

105. However, the presumption 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 a lot more seductive than traditional idols for, unlike idols that “have mouths but do not speak; eyes, however do not see; ears, however do not hear” (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can “speak,” or at least gives the impression of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is essential to remember 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 have a lot of the capabilities particular to human life, and it is likewise fallible. By turning to AI as a viewed “Other” higher than itself, with which to share existence and responsibilities, mankind threats developing a replacement for God. However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, however humanity itself-which, in this way, ends up being enslaved to its own work. [195]

106. While AI has the prospective to serve humankind and contribute to the typical excellent, it remains a development of human hands, bearing “the imprint of human art and resourcefulness” (Acts 17:29). It must never be ascribed excessive worth. As the Book of Wisdom verifies: “For a guy made them, and one whose spirit is obtained formed them; for no male can form a god which is like himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is much better than the objects he worships considering that he has life, however they never ever have” (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. In contrast, humans, “by their interior life, go beyond the whole material universe; they experience this deep interiority when they get in into their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they choose their own destiny in the sight of God.” [196] It is within the heart, genbecle.com as Pope Francis reminds us, that each specific discovers the “strange connection between self-knowledge and openness to others, in between the encounter with one’s individual uniqueness and the desire to provide oneself to others. ” [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is “capable of setting our other powers and enthusiasms, and our entire person, in a position of reverence and caring obedience before the Lord,” [198] who “provides to deal with every one people as a ‘Thou,’ always and permanently.” [199]

108. Considering the different difficulties presented by advances in innovation, Pope Francis emphasized the need for growth in “human obligation, values, and conscience,” proportionate to the development in the potential that this innovation brings [200] -recognizing that “with a boost in human power comes a broadening of responsibility on the part of individuals and neighborhoods.” [201]

109. At the very same time, the “necessary and fundamental concern” remains “whether in the context of this development male, as male, is ending up being genuinely much better, that is to state, more fully grown spiritually, more familiar with the dignity of his humanity, more responsible, more available to others, specifically the neediest and the weakest, and readier to give and to aid all.” [202]

110. As an outcome, it is crucial to know how to evaluate specific applications of AI in specific contexts to figure out whether its use promotes human self-respect, the vocation of the human individual, and the typical good. Just like lots of technologies, the results of the different usages of AI might not constantly be predictable from their inception. As these applications and their social effects become clearer, appropriate actions should be made at all levels of society, following the principle of subsidiarity. Individual users, families, civil society, corporations, institutions, federal governments, and global organizations ought to work at their appropriate levels to ensure that AI is used for the good of all.

111. A substantial challenge and chance for the common excellent today depends on considering AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which highlights the interconnectedness of individuals and communities and highlights our shared responsibility for fostering the integral well-being of others. The twentieth-century thinker Nicholas Berdyaev observed that individuals frequently blame machines for individual and social problems; nevertheless, “this only embarrasses man and does not represent his self-respect,” for “it is unworthy to move obligation from man to a device.” [203] Only the human individual can be ethically accountable, and the obstacles of a technological society are eventually spiritual in nature. Therefore, facing those challenges “demands an intensification of spirituality.” [204]

112. An additional indicate consider is the call, triggered by the look of AI on the world stage, for a restored gratitude of all that is human. Years earlier, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos warned that “the danger is not in the multiplication of devices, but in the ever-increasing variety of males accustomed from their childhood to desire only what machines can offer.” [205] This challenge is as true today as it was then, as the fast rate of digitization runs the risk of a “digital reductionism,” where non-quantifiable elements of life are set aside and then forgotten or even considered irrelevant because they can not be computed in formal terms. AI needs to be utilized only as a tool to complement human intelligence instead of replace its richness. [206] Cultivating those elements of human life that transcend computation is crucial for maintaining “an authentic humanity” that “seems to dwell in the middle of our technological culture, nearly unnoticed, like a mist leaking carefully below a closed door.” [207]

113. The vast stretch of the world’s understanding is now available in methods that would have filled past generations with wonder. However, to ensure that developments in knowledge do not become humanly or spiritually barren, one must go beyond the simple build-up of data and aim to attain real wisdom. [208]

114. This wisdom is the present that humanity requires most to address the profound questions and ethical challenges postured by AI: “Only by adopting a spiritual way of viewing truth, only by recovering a knowledge of the heart, can we challenge and analyze the newness of our time.” [209] Such “wisdom of the heart” is “the virtue that allows us to integrate the entire and its parts, our choices and their consequences.” It “can not be looked for from makers,” but it “lets itself be discovered by those who seek it and be seen by those who like it; it expects those who prefer it, and it enters search of those who deserve 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, occasions and to reveal their real meaning.” [211]

116. Since a “individual’s perfection is measured not by the details or understanding they possess, but by the depth of their charity,” [212] how we include AI “to include the least of our bros and sisters, the vulnerable, and those most in need, will be the real procedure of our humankind.” [213] The “knowledge of the heart” can light up and assist the human-centered usage of this technology to help promote the typical good, care for our “common home,” advance the look for the truth, foster important human development, prefer human uniformity and fraternity, and lead humankind to its ultimate objective: happiness and full communion with God. [214]

117. From this viewpoint of knowledge, followers will be able to function as moral representatives efficient in using this technology to promote a genuine vision of the human person and society. [215] This must be done with the understanding that technological progress is part of God’s prepare for creation-an activity that we are contacted us to order toward the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the continual search for the True and the Good.

The Supreme Pontiff, Francis, at the Audience approved 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, approved this Note and ordered its publication.

Given in Rome, at the workplaces 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 pass away 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, forum.pinoo.com.tr 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 likewise 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 Proposition 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 file explaining the outputs or procedures of AI are utilized figuratively to explain its operations and are not intended to anthropomorphize the machine.
[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 developments will allow human beings to overcome their biological constraints and enhance both their physical and cognitive capabilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, contend that such advances will ultimately alter human identity to the degree that humanity itself might no longer be thought about truly “human.” Both views rest on a fundamentally negative perception of human corporality, which treats the body more as an obstacle than as an essential part of the individual’s identity and call to complete awareness. Yet, this negative view of the body is inconsistent with a correct understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports authentic clinical progress, it affirms that human self-respect is rooted in “the individual as an inseparable unity of body and soul. ” Thus, “dignity is also fundamental in everyone’s body, which takes part in its own way in remaining in imago Dei” (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18).
[10] This method reflects a functionalist perspective, which reduces the human mind to its functions and assumes that its functions can be totally measured in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear genuinely intelligent, it would still remain practical in nature.
[11] Cf. A.M. Turing, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” Mind 59 (1950) 443-460.
[12] If “believing” is associated to machines, it should be clarified that this refers to calculative thinking rather than crucial thinking. Similarly, if devices are said to operate using logical thinking, it needs to be specified that this is limited to computational reasoning. On the other hand, by its very nature, human idea is a creative process that avoids shows and goes beyond constraints.
[13] On the foundational function 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 City 2010, 141-182).
[14] For further discussion of these anthropological and doctrinal foundations, 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 advertisement litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: “Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [professors] by which he is exceptional to the unreasonable animals. Now, this [faculty] is factor itself, or the ‘mind,’ or ‘intelligence,’ whatever other name it might more suitably be provided”; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: “When considering all that they have, humans find that they are most identified from animals specifically by the fact they have intelligence.” This is likewise repeated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who mentions that “male is the most ideal of all earthly beings endowed with motion, 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 contemporary point of view that echoes aspects of the classical and middle ages difference in between these 2 modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York 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 examine the reality of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and pertain to acknowledge because truth, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal moral 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 “generally thinks about the human person as a being who exists in the body and is unimaginable beyond 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, but instead fully disclosed its significance 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 for this reason it is joined to the body in order that it might have an existence and an operation appropriate 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 likewise have reason and with it they circle in discourse around the truth of things. […] [O] n account of the manner in which they are capable of focusing the numerous into the one, they too, in their own style and as far as they can, are deserving 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 can going beyond immediate issues and comprehending certain facts that are unchanging, as real now as in the past. As it peers into humanity, factor finds universal values obtained from that very same nature”; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034.
[38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): “The last case of reason is to acknowledge that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it” (en. tr. Pascal’s Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York City 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 capability enables us to understand messages in any type of interaction in a way that both considers and transcends their material or empirical structures (such as computer code). Here, intelligence ends up being a knowledge that “allows us to take a look at things with God’s eyes, to see connections, situations, events and to uncover their real significance” (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our creativity enables us to generate new content or concepts, mainly by using an original perspective on reality. Both capabilities depend on the presence of an individual subjectivity for their full awareness.
[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 truth, is much more than individual sensation […] Certainly, its close relation to truth cultivates its universality and maintains it from being ‘restricted to a narrow field without relationships.’ […] Charity’s openness to fact therefore safeguards it from ‘a fideism that denies 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 priced quote 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: bphomesteading.com 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 the universe according to the magnificent strategy: they delight in the opportunity of sharing in the magnificent governance of visible development. […] Since male’s location as ruler remains in reality a participation in the divine governance of development, we mention it here as a type 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 likewise reflected in the production account, where God brings creatures to Adam “to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living animal, that was its name” (Gen. 2:19), an action that shows the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God’s creation. 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 excellent by noticing and relishing 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 standard of human life is the divine law itself-eternal, objective and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the ways of the human community according to a plan developed in his knowledge and love. God has made it possible for man to take part in this law of his so that, under the mild personality of divine providence, many might be able to get to a deeper and deeper understanding of unchangeable reality.” 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 actually imprinted his own image and likeness on guy (cf. Gen 1:26), giving upon him an incomparable dignity […] In impact, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not represent any work he performs, however which flow from his essential dignity 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 understood as a technical term to suggest this innovation, remembering that the expression is likewise utilized to designate the discipline and not only 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 example, see the support of scientific exploration in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the gratitude for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These writers, among a long list of other Catholics participated in scientific research study and technological exploration, illustrate that “faith and science can be unified in charity, offered that science is put at the service of the males and lady of our time and not misused to harm or 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 man an ethical subject. When he acts intentionally, man is, so to speak, the daddy 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 motivated efforts “to make sure that innovation remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed toward the excellent.”
[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 company in selecting a larger aim (Ziel) that then notifies the particular function (Zweck) for which each technological application is produced, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um die 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 function and, in its impact on human society, always represents a type of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, hence making it possible for certain people to carry out particular actions while avoiding others from carrying out various ones. In a basically specific method, this constitutive power-dimension of innovation constantly consists of the worldview of those who created 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 seem to know how to pick separately, we ought to be really clear that decision-making […] should always be delegated the human person. We would condemn mankind to a future without hope if we took away people’s ability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend on the choices of machines.”
[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 file describes algorithmic predisposition (organized and constant mistakes in computer systems that may disproportionately prejudice certain groups in unintended ways) or finding out bias (which will lead to training on a biased data set) and not the “predisposition vector” in neural networks (which is a specification utilized to adjust the output of “nerve cells” to change more accurately to the data).
[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 need for advancement procedures to respect such values as addition, openness, security, equity, personal privacy and reliability,” and also invited “the efforts of global organizations to manage these innovations so that they promote genuine development, 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 further conversation of the ethical concerns raised by AI from a Catholic point of view, 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 significance of dialogue in a pluralist society oriented towards a “robust and strong social ethics,” 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; pricing estimate 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), 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:” [Many people] want their interpersonal relationships offered by sophisticated devices, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel informs us continuously to risk of a face-to-face encounter with others, with their physical presence 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 subscription in the neighborhood, 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 priced quote 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 man ‘for work.’ Through this conclusion one rightly pertains to recognize the pre-eminence of the subjective significance of work over the objective 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 estimated 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 appears, with its painful consequences, it is that of healthcare. When a sick individual is not put in the center or their self-respect is not considered, this provides increase to mindsets that can lead even to speculation on the misery of others. And this is really serious! […] The application of a company approach to the healthcare sector, if indiscriminate […] may run the risk of discarding humans.”
[142] Francis, bphomesteading.com 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 estimate Id., Address to the Members of the “Consilium de Laicis” (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: “if [the contemporary person] does listen to instructors, 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, quoting 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 document about making use of generative AI in education and research study, UNESCO notes: “Among the crucial concerns [of making use of generative AI (GenAI) in education and research] is whether humans can perhaps cede basic levels of thinking and skill-acquisition processes to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking abilities based upon the outputs provided by AI. Writing, for instance, is frequently related to the structuring of thinking. With GenAI […], people can now begin with a well-structured summary offered by GenAI. Some professionals have actually identified the use of GenAI to create text in this way as ‘writing without thinking'” (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American thinker Hannah Arendt foresaw such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and warned: “If it ought to end up being real that understanding (in the sense of knowledge) and thought have parted business for excellent, then we would certainly become the powerless servants, not so much of our devices since our know-how” (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 instance, it may assist individuals gain access to the “range of resources for producing greater understanding of reality” contained in the works of approach (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 truly indifferent to the concern of whether what they understand is real or not. […] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he writes: ‘I have actually met lots of who wished to deceive, however none who wished to be deceived'”; pricing estimate 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 Network (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 male may with impunity breach that human dignity which God himself treats with excellent respect”; as priced quote 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 citizens from invasive security and enabling them to safeguard 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 identified a list of “early guarantees of AI assisting to attend to climate modification” (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 information into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools might help establish new strategies and investments to lower emissions, affect new economic sector financial investments in net no, safeguard biodiversity, and develop broad-based social resilience” (ibid.).
[174] “The cloud” refers to a network of physical servers throughout the world that allows users to shop, procedure, and handle their information 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), niaskywalk.com 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 need to make sure and safeguard an area for correct human control over the choices made by expert system programs: human self-respect 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 advancement and usage of deadly self-governing weapons systems (LAWS) that lack the suitable human control would posture essential ethical issues, offered that LAWS can never ever be ethically responsible topics efficient in abiding by worldwide 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 ignore the possibility of sophisticated weapons ending up in the wrong hands, facilitating, for example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the organizations of legitimate systems of government. In a word, the world does not require new technologies that add to the unfair advancement of commerce and the weapons trade and subsequently end up promoting the recklessness 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 better understanding today that the simple build-up of items and services […] is inadequate for the realization of human happiness. Nor, in repercussion, does the availability of the lots of real benefits offered in current times by science and innovation, consisting of the computer technology, bring freedom from every kind of slavery. On the contrary, […] unless all the significant body of resources and potential at man’s disposal is directed by an ethical understanding and by an orientation towards the real good of the human race, it easily turns against male 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 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 greater knowledge. Wisdom is not born of fast searches on the web nor is it a mass of unverified data. That is not the way to develop in the encounter with truth.”
[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.