II. what Is Artificial Intelligence?

1. With knowledge both ancient and new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to review the current obstacles and chances presented by clinical and technological improvements, especially by the recent advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian custom relates to the present of intelligence as a vital element of how humans are developed „in the image of God“ (Gen. 1:27). Beginning with an integral vision of the human person and the scriptural calling to „till“ and „keep“ the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church highlights that this gift of intelligence should be revealed through the accountable use of factor and technical abilities in the stewardship of the created world.

2. The Church motivates the advancement of science, technology, the arts, and other kinds of human endeavor, seeing them as part of the „partnership of males and female with God in perfecting the visible production.“ [1] As Sirach affirms, God „offered skill to human beings, that he may be glorified in his magnificent works“ (Sir. 38:6). Human abilities and creativity originate from God and, when used rightly, glorify God by reflecting his wisdom and goodness. In light of this, when we ask ourselves what it suggests to „be human,“ we can not omit a consideration of our clinical and technological capabilities.

3. It is within this viewpoint that the present Note addresses the anthropological and ethical difficulties raised by AI-issues that are especially considerable, as one of the goals of this technology is to imitate the human intelligence that created it. For circumstances, unlike lots of other human productions, AI can be trained on the outcomes of human creativity and after that create new „artifacts“ with a level of speed and ability that often equals or exceeds what humans can do, such as producing text or images equivalent from human compositions. This raises critical concerns about AI‘s potential function in the growing crisis of truth in the public forum. Moreover, this innovation is created to find out and make certain options autonomously, adapting to brand-new situations and supplying solutions not foreseen by its developers, and hence, it raises essential concerns about ethical duty and human safety, with broader ramifications for society as a whole. This brand-new circumstance has actually triggered many individuals to assess what it indicates to be human and the role of mankind in the world.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad agreement that AI marks a brand-new and substantial phase in humanity’s engagement with innovation, positioning it at the heart of what Pope Francis has explained as an „epochal modification.“ [2] Its impact is felt globally and in a wide variety of areas, including interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, healthcare, law, warfare, and global relations. As AI advances rapidly toward even greater achievements, it is seriously crucial to consider its anthropological and ethical ramifications. This involves not only mitigating risks and preventing harm but also guaranteeing that its applications are used to promote human progress and the common good.

5. To contribute favorably to the discernment concerning AI, and in response to Pope Francis’ call for a renewed „wisdom of heart,“ [3] the Church offers its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active function in the international discussion on these concerns, the Church welcomes those turned over with sending the faith-including parents, instructors, pastors, and bishops-to commit themselves to this critical subject with care and attention. While this file is intended specifically for them, it is likewise suggested to be available to a broader audience, especially those who share the conviction that clinical and technological advances need to be directed towards serving the human person and the common good. [4]

6. To this end, the file begins by distinguishing between concepts of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then explores the Christian understanding of human intelligence, supplying a structure rooted in the Church’s philosophical and doctrinal tradition. Finally, the file offers standards to ensure that the development and use of AI maintain human dignity and promote the important development of the human person and society.

7. The idea of „intelligence“ in AI has developed in time, making use of a range of ideas from numerous disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a significant turning point happened in 1956 when the American computer researcher John McCarthy organized a summer workshop at Dartmouth University to check out the issue of „Artificial Intelligence,“ which he specified as „that of making a maker act in manner ins which would be called smart if a human were so acting.“ [5] This workshop launched a research study program focused on creating machines efficient in carrying out tasks normally connected with the human intelligence and smart habits.

8. Ever since, AI research has actually advanced rapidly, leading to the advancement of complex systems capable of performing extremely sophisticated tasks. [6] These so-called „narrow AI“ systems are generally developed to manage specific and restricted functions, such as translating languages, forecasting the trajectory of a storm, categorizing images, addressing questions, or creating visual content at the user’s demand. While the definition of „intelligence“ in AI research study differs, many contemporary AI systems-particularly those using maker learning-rely on statistical inference rather than sensible reduction. By evaluating big datasets to determine patterns, AI can „anticipate“ [7] outcomes and propose new techniques, imitating some cognitive procedures normal of human analytical. Such achievements have actually been enabled through advances in calculating innovation (consisting of neural networks, unsupervised artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) as well as hardware developments (such as specialized processors). Together, these technologies make it possible for AI systems to respond to different kinds of human input, adapt to brand-new situations, and even recommend novel services not anticipated by their original developers. [8]

9. Due to these quick developments, numerous jobs as soon as managed exclusively by people are now turned over to AI. These systems can enhance or even supersede what people are able to do in lots of fields, particularly in specialized locations such as data analysis, image acknowledgment, and medical diagnosis. While each „narrow AI“ application is developed for a particular job, numerous researchers aim to develop what is called „Artificial General Intelligence“ (AGI)-a single system capable of running throughout all cognitive domains and carrying out any task within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI might one day attain the state of „superintelligence,“ going beyond human intellectual capacities, or contribute to „super-longevity“ through advances in biotechnology. Others, nevertheless, fear that these possibilities, even if theoretical, might one day eclipse the human individual, while still others welcome this prospective change. [9]

10. Underlying this and many other point of views on the subject is the implicit assumption that the term „intelligence“ can be used in the same way to describe both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not capture the complete scope of the idea. When it comes to human beings, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the individual in his/her totality, whereas in the context of AI, „intelligence“ is understood functionally, frequently with the presumption that the activities quality of the human mind can be broken down into digitized actions that devices can reproduce. [10]

11. This functional point of view is exemplified by the „Turing Test,“ which considers a device „intelligent“ if an individual can not identify its behavior from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term „behavior“ refers only to the performance of specific intellectual tasks; it does not account for the complete breadth of human experience, that includes abstraction, feelings, imagination, and the visual, moral, and spiritual perceptiveness. Nor does it include the complete variety of expressions characteristic of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the „intelligence“ of a system is evaluated methodologically, but likewise reductively, based upon its ability to produce appropriate responses-in this case, those connected with the human intellect-regardless of how those actions are produced.

12. AI‘s innovative functions offer it sophisticated capabilities to perform jobs, but not the ability to think. [12] This distinction is most importantly essential, as the method „intelligence“ is defined undoubtedly forms how we comprehend the relationship in between human idea and this technology. [13] To value this, one should recall the richness of the philosophical custom and Christian faith, which use 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 individual. [14]

13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has actually played a main function in comprehending what it means to be „human.“ Aristotle observed that „all individuals by nature desire to know.“ [15] This knowledge, with its capability for abstraction that grasps the nature and meaning of things, sets humans apart from the animal world. [16] As thinkers, theologians, and psychologists have actually examined the specific nature of this intellectual faculty, they have actually also checked out how humans understand the world and their distinct place within it. Through this exploration, the Christian custom has actually pertained to understand the human individual as a being including both body and soul-deeply connected to this world and yet transcending it. [17]

14. In the classical tradition, the principle of intelligence is often comprehended through the complementary principles of „factor“ (ratio) and „intelligence“ (intellectus). These are not different faculties however, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are two modes in which the same intelligence runs: „The term intelligence is presumed from the inward grasp of the truth, while the name factor is taken from the inquisitive and discursive procedure.“ [18] This concise description highlights the 2 fundamental and complementary measurements of human intelligence. Intellectus describes the intuitive grasp of the truth-that is, capturing it with the „eyes“ of the mind-which precedes and premises argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to thinking correct: the discursive, analytical procedure that results in judgment. Together, intellect and factor form the 2 aspects of the act of intelligere, „the proper operation of the human being as such.“ [19]

15. Explaining the human individual as a „logical“ being does not minimize the individual to a particular mode of idea; rather, it acknowledges that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and penetrates all elements of human activity. [20] Whether worked out well or inadequately, this capability is an intrinsic element of humanity. In this sense, the „term ‘rational’ includes all the capabilities of the human individual,“ including those related to „understanding and comprehending, as well as those of willing, caring, choosing, and wanting; it also consists of all corporeal functions carefully associated to these capabilities.“ [21] This detailed perspective highlights how, in the human individual, produced in the „picture of God,“ factor is incorporated in such a way that raises, shapes, and transforms both the individual’s will and actions. [22]

16. Christian believed considers the intellectual faculties of the human individual within the structure of an essential anthropology that views the human being as basically embodied. In the human person, spirit and matter „are not 2 natures joined, but rather their union forms a single nature.“ [23] In other words, the soul is not simply the immaterial „part“ of the person contained within the body, nor is the body an external shell housing an intangible „core.“ Rather, the entire human person is concurrently both material and spiritual. This understanding shows the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which sees 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 extensive meaning of this condition is more illuminated by the mystery of the Incarnation, through which God himself took on our flesh and „raised it approximately a superb self-respect.“ [25]

17. Although deeply rooted in physical existence, the human individual goes beyond the material world through the soul, which is „almost on the horizon of eternity and time.“ [26] The intelligence’s capacity for transcendence and the self-possessed liberty of the will come from the soul, by which the human individual „shares in the light of the divine mind.“ [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its typical mode of understanding without the body. [28] In this method, the intellectual professors of the human individual are an essential part of a sociology that acknowledges that the human person is a „unity of body and soul.“ [29] Further elements of this understanding will be developed in what follows.

18. People are „ordered by their very nature to social communion,“ [30] having the capability to know one another, to give themselves in love, and to participate in communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not a separated professors but is exercised in relationships, discovering its max expression in discussion, cooperation, and uniformity. We discover with others, and we find out through others.

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

20. This vocation to communion with God is necessarily connected 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 likewise contacted us to imitate Christ’s outpouring gift (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to „like one another, as I have loved you“ (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the divine life of self-giving, transcend self-interest to react more fully to the human occupation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Much more sublime than understanding many things is the dedication to look after one another, for if „I comprehend all mysteries and all understanding […] however do not have love, I am absolutely nothing“ (1 Cor. 13:2).

21. Human intelligence is ultimately „God’s present made for the assimilation of truth.“ [34] In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it allows the individual to check out truths that go beyond mere sensory experience or energy, given that „the desire for truth becomes part of humanity itself. It is a natural property of human reason to ask why things are as they are.“ [35] Moving beyond the limitations of empirical data, human intelligence can „with genuine certitude attain to reality itself as knowable.“ [36] While reality remains just partially understood, the desire for truth „stimulates reason constantly to go even more; certainly, it is as if factor were overwhelmed to see that it can constantly surpass what it has currently attained.“ [37] Although Truth in itself transcends the borders of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this destination, the human person is resulted in seek „truths of a greater order.“ [39]

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

23. The search for fact discovers its highest expression in openness to truths that transcend the physical and developed world. In God, all realities attain their supreme and original significance. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a „basic decision that engages the entire individual.“ [44] In this way, the human person ends up being fully what she or he is contacted us to be: „the intellect and the will display their spiritual nature,“ enabling the individual „to act in a manner that realizes personal liberty to the complete.“ [45]

24. The Christian faith understands creation as the complimentary act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, creates „not to increase his magnificence, but to show it forth and to interact it.“ [46] Since God develops according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), development is imbued with an intrinsic order that shows God’s plan (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 presume an unique role: to cultivate and take care of the world. [48]

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

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

27. This engagement with reality unfolds in different ways, as each person, in his or her diverse individuality [54], looks for to understand the world, connect to others, solve issues, reveal imagination, and pursue essential wellness through the unified interaction of the different dimensions of the individual’s intelligence. [55] This involves rational and linguistic capabilities but can also incorporate other modes of engaging with truth. Consider the work of an artisan, who „need to know how to determine, in inert matter, a particular form that others can not recognize“ [56] and bring it forth through insight and useful skill. Indigenous peoples who live near to the earth often have an extensive sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a good friend who knows the best word to state or a person proficient at handling human relationships exhibits an intelligence that is „the fruit of self-examination, discussion and generous encounter between persons.“ [58] As Pope Francis observes, „in this age of expert system, we can not forget that poetry and love are necessary to conserve our mankind.“ [59]

28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the combination of reality into the ethical and spiritual life of the individual, directing his or her actions in light of God’s goodness and truth. According to God’s strategy, intelligence, in its max sense, also consists of the ability to appreciate what holds true, good, and beautiful. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel expressed, „intelligence is nothing without delight.“ [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the greatest heaven in Paradiso, testifies that the culmination of this intellectual delight is discovered in the „light intellectual loaded with love, love of real good filled with delight, happiness which transcends every sweetness.“ [61]

29. An appropriate understanding of human intelligence, for that reason, can not be reduced to the mere acquisition of truths or the ability to perform particular jobs. Instead, it includes the individual’s openness to the ultimate questions of life and shows an orientation towards the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the divine image within the individual, human intelligence has the ability to access the totality of being, contemplating existence in its fullness, which surpasses what is measurable, and grasping the meaning of what has actually been comprehended. For followers, this capability includes, in a specific method, the ability to grow in the understanding of the mysteries of God by using factor to engage ever more profoundly with revealed facts (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is shaped by divine love, which „is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit“ (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence possesses a vital contemplative dimension, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian purpose.

30. Because of the foregoing conversation, the distinctions in between human intelligence and present AI systems become apparent. While AI is a remarkable technological achievement capable of mimicing certain outputs connected with human intelligence, it operates by carrying out jobs, attaining objectives, or making decisions based on quantitative data and computational reasoning. For example, with its analytical power, AI excels at incorporating information from a variety of fields, modeling complex systems, and fostering interdisciplinary connections. In this method, it can help experts collaborate in resolving complex issues that „can not be handled from a single point of view or from a single set of interests.“ [64]

31. However, even as AI processes and replicates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains fundamentally restricted to a logical-mathematical structure, which imposes intrinsic constraints. Human intelligence, on the other hand, develops organically throughout the individual’s physical and mental development, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although sophisticated AI systems can „find out“ through procedures such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is fundamentally various from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is formed by embodied experiences, including sensory input, psychological responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment. These elements shape and type people within their individual history.In contrast, AI, lacking a physique, counts on computational thinking and knowing based upon large datasets that include tape-recorded human experiences and knowledge.

32. Consequently, although AI can mimic elements of human reasoning and perform specific tasks with incredible speed and performance, its computational capabilities represent just a portion of the broader capabilities of the human mind. For instance, AI can not presently reproduce ethical discernment or the capability to establish authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is positioned within a personally lived history of intellectual and ethical formation that essentially shapes the person’s point of view, encompassing the physical, psychological, social, moral, and spiritual measurements of life. Since AI can not use this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely exclusively on this innovation or treat it as the main means of interpreting the world can lead to „a loss of gratitude for the whole, for the relationships between things, and for the broader horizon.“ [65]

33. Human intelligence is not mainly about finishing practical jobs but about understanding and actively engaging with truth in all its dimensions; it is likewise efficient in unexpected insights. Since AI does not have the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to fact and goodness, its capacities-though apparently limitless-are matchless with the human ability to understand truth. So much can be gained from a disease, an accept of reconciliation, and even a basic sundown; certainly, numerous experiences we have as people open new horizons and offer the possibility of attaining brand-new wisdom. No gadget, working solely with information, can measure up to these and numerous other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an extremely close equivalence between human intelligence and AI risks catching a functionalist point of view, where individuals are valued based on the work they can carry out. However, an individual’s worth does not depend on possessing particular abilities, cognitive and technological accomplishments, or individual success, but on the individual’s fundamental dignity, grounded in being developed in the image of God. [66] This self-respect remains intact in all circumstances, including for those unable to exercise their abilities, whether it be a coming child, an unconscious individual, or an older person who is suffering. [67] It also underpins the custom of human rights (and, in particular, what are now called „neuro-rights“), which represent „an essential point of merging in the look for commonalities“ [68] and can, therefore, work as a fundamental ethical guide in discussions on the accountable advancement and use of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, „the very use of the word ‘intelligence'“ in connection with AI „can prove deceptive“ [69] and dangers neglecting what is most valuable in the human individual. Because of this, AI should not be viewed as a synthetic form of human intelligence however as an item of it. [70]

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

37. Seen as a fruit of the prospective inscribed within human intelligence, [72] scientific inquiry and the advancement of technical skills are part of the „cooperation of males and female with God in perfecting the noticeable development.“ [73] At the very same time, all scientific and technological accomplishments are, eventually, presents from God. [74] Therefore, human beings must always use their capabilities in view of the greater function for which God has actually approved them. [75]

38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has „corrected numerous evils which utilized to hurt and restrict human beings,“ [76] a fact for which we should rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological developments in themselves represent real human progress. [77] The Church is especially opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human individual. [78] Like any human undertaking, technological advancement must be directed to serve the human individual and add to the pursuit of „greater justice, more extensive fraternity, and a more gentle order of social relations,“ which are „more important than advances in the technical field.“ [79] Concerns about the ethical implications of technological advancement are shared not only within the Church but also among numerous researchers, technologists, and professional associations, who progressively call for ethical reflection to guide this advancement in a responsible method.

39. To resolve these challenges, it is important to emphasize the value of ethical obligation grounded in the self-respect and occupation of the human person. This directing concept also uses to concerns worrying 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 purposes for which they are used. [80] Between a machine and a human, only the latter is genuinely a moral agent-a topic of moral obligation who works out liberty in his/her decisions and accepts their repercussions. [81] It is not the machine but the human who remains in relationship with fact and goodness, guided by an ethical conscience that calls the individual „to enjoy and to do what is good and to prevent evil,“ [82] attesting to „the authority of reality in referral to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn.“ [83] Likewise, in between a maker and a human, just the human can be adequately self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, discerning with vigilance, and seeking the excellent that is possible in every scenario. [84] In fact, all of this also comes from the individual’s workout of intelligence.

40. Like any product of human creativity, AI can be directed towards favorable or unfavorable ends. [85] When utilized in manner ins which respect human dignity and promote the wellness of individuals and communities, it can contribute positively to the human occupation. Yet, as in all areas where humans are contacted us to make choices, the shadow of evil likewise looms here. Where human flexibility permits the possibility of picking what is incorrect, the moral assessment of this innovation will need to consider how it is directed and used.

41. At the exact same time, it is not only completions that are fairly substantial however likewise the methods employed to attain them. Additionally, the total vision and understanding of the human individual ingrained within these systems are crucial to think about too. Technological products reflect the worldview of their developers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to „shape the world and engage consciences on the level of worths.“ [87] On a social level, some technological developments might also enhance relationships and power dynamics that are irregular with a correct understanding of the human individual and society.

42. Therefore, completions and the means utilized in an offered application of AI, as well as the overall vision it integrates, need to all be assessed to ensure they appreciate human dignity and promote the common good. [88] As Pope Francis has actually specified, „the intrinsic dignity of every man and every female“ need to be „the crucial criterion in examining emerging innovations; these will show fairly sound to the degree that they assist respect that self-respect and increase its expression at every level of human life,“ [89] including in the social and financial spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays a vital role not just in creating and producing innovation however also in directing its use in line with the authentic good of the human person. [90] The responsibility for managing this wisely pertains to every level of society, directed by the concept of subsidiarity and other concepts of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The dedication to making sure that AI always supports and promotes the supreme value of the self-respect of every person and the fullness of the human vocation functions as a criterion of discernment for designers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, along with to its users. It remains legitimate for each application of the technology at every level of its usage.

44. An assessment of the ramifications of this guiding principle might begin by considering the significance of moral duty. Since complete ethical causality belongs only to individual agents, not synthetic ones, it is essential to be able to recognize and specify who bears responsibility for the procedures included in AI, especially those capable of finding out, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up techniques and really deep neural networks make it possible for AI to fix intricate problems, they make it difficult to understand the procedures that lead to the solutions they embraced. This complicates accountability because if an AI application produces undesirable outcomes, identifying who is accountable ends up being difficult. To resolve this issue, attention requires to be offered to the nature of responsibility procedures in complex, extremely automated settings, where results may just end up being obvious in the medium to long term. For this, it is necessary that ultimate obligation for decisions used AI rests with the human decision-makers and that there is accountability for using AI at each stage of the decision-making procedure. [91]

45. In addition to identifying who is accountable, it is vital to identify the objectives offered to AI systems. Although these systems might utilize unsupervised self-governing learning mechanisms and in some cases follow paths that people can not rebuild, they eventually pursue goals that people have assigned to them and are governed by procedures developed by their designers and programmers. Yet, this provides a challenge since, as AI designs end up being progressively efficient in independent knowing, the ability to maintain control over them to make sure that such applications serve human purposes might effectively reduce. This raises the critical question of how to guarantee that AI systems are ordered for the good of people and not against them.

46. While responsibility for the ethical use of AI systems starts with those who establish, produce, manage, and oversee such systems, it is likewise shared by those who utilize them. As Pope Francis kept in mind, the maker „makes a technical option amongst a number of possibilities based either on well-defined requirements or on statistical reasonings. People, however, not just choose, however in their hearts can choosing.“ [92] Those who use AI to accomplish a job and follow its results develop a context in which they are ultimately responsible for the power they have actually entrusted. Therefore, insofar as AI can help humans in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it ought to be trustworthy, safe, robust enough to deal with inconsistencies, and transparent in their operation to reduce biases and unintended adverse effects. [93] Regulatory structures must guarantee that all legal entities remain liable for using AI and all its consequences, with suitable safeguards for transparency, personal privacy, and accountability. [94] Moreover, those using AI needs to take care not to end up being extremely depending on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases modern society’s already high reliance on technology.

47. The Church’s ethical and social teaching provides resources to assist guarantee that AI is used in such a way that maintains human agency. Considerations about justice, for example, should also attend to issues such as promoting simply social dynamics, maintaining global security, and promoting peace. By exercising prudence, individuals and neighborhoods can discern methods to utilize AI to benefit humanity while preventing applications that might degrade human dignity or harm the environment. In this context, the principle of duty should be comprehended not just in its most restricted sense however as a „responsibility for the look after others, which is more than merely accounting for results attained.“ [95]

48. Therefore, AI, like any innovation, can be part of a mindful and accountable response to humankind’s occupation to the great. However, as previously discussed, AI needs to be directed by human intelligence to align with this occupation, guaranteeing it appreciates the self-respect of the human individual. Recognizing this „exalted self-respect,“ the Second Vatican Council affirmed that „the social order and its development should inevitably work to the advantage of the human person.“ [96] In light of this, using AI, as Pope Francis said, must be „accompanied by an ethic motivated by a vision of the typical excellent, an ethic of freedom, responsibility, and fraternity, efficient in cultivating the full development of individuals in relation to others and to the entire of production.“ [97]

49. Within this general perspective, some observations follow below to show how the preceding arguments can assist provide an ethical orientation in useful situations, in line with the „wisdom of heart“ that Pope Francis has actually proposed. [98] While not extensive, this discussion is offered in service of the dialogue that considers how AI can be used to maintain the dignity of the human person and promote the common good. [99]

50. As Pope Francis observed, „the inherent self-respect of each human and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human family need to undergird the development of brand-new innovations and function as unassailable requirements for assessing them before they are used.“ [100]

51. Viewed through this lens, AI could „present essential developments in agriculture, education and culture, a better level of life for whole countries and peoples, and the development of human fraternity and social relationship,“ and hence be „used to promote important human advancement.“ [101] AI might likewise help organizations identify those in requirement and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other similar applications of this innovation might add to human advancement and the common good. [102]

52. However, while AI holds lots of possibilities for promoting the good, it can also hinder and even counter human development and the common good. Pope Francis has actually kept in mind that „evidence to date recommends that digital innovations have increased inequality in our world. Not just distinctions in product wealth, which are also substantial, however also distinctions in access to political and social impact.“ [103] In this sense, AI might be utilized to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, develop new forms of poverty, broaden the „digital divide,“ and aggravate existing social inequalities. [104]

53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a few powerful companies raises substantial ethical concerns. Exacerbating this issue is the intrinsic nature of AI systems, where no single person can work out complete oversight over the vast and complicated datasets used for calculation. This lack of well-defined accountability produces the risk that AI might be manipulated for personal or business gain or to direct public opinion for the benefit of a particular industry. Such entities, encouraged by their own interests, have the capability to exercise „kinds of control as subtle as they are invasive, developing mechanisms for the manipulation of consciences and of the democratic procedure.“ [105]

54. Furthermore, there is the threat of AI being utilized to promote what Pope Francis has called the „technocratic paradigm,“ which perceives all the world’s issues as understandable through technological means alone. [106] In this paradigm, human dignity and fraternity are often reserved in the name of efficiency, „as if truth, goodness, and truth immediately stream from technological and economic power as such.“ [107] Yet, human dignity and the common good needs to never be violated for the sake of effectiveness, [108] for „technological developments that do not result in an enhancement in the lifestyle of all mankind, however on the contrary, exacerbate inequalities and disputes, can never count as true progress. “ [109] Instead, AI must be put „at the service of another kind of development, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral.“ [110]

55. Attaining this objective requires a deeper reflection on the relationship between autonomy and obligation. Greater autonomy heightens everyone’s duty across numerous elements of communal life. For Christians, the foundation of this responsibility depends on the recognition that all human capabilities, including the person’s autonomy, come from God and are implied to be utilized in the service of others. [111] Therefore, rather than merely pursuing economic or technological goals, AI needs to serve „the typical good of the entire human household,“ which is „the amount overall of social conditions that permit people, either as groups or as people, to reach their satisfaction more totally and more easily.“ [112]

56. The Second Vatican Council observed that „by his innermost nature guy is a social being; and if he does not get in into relations with others, he can neither live nor establish his presents.“ [113] This conviction highlights that residing in society is intrinsic to the nature and vocation of the human person. [114] As social beings, we seek relationships that involve shared exchange and the pursuit of truth, in the course of which, individuals „show each other the fact they have actually found, or believe they have actually found, in such a way that they help one another in the look for reality.“ [115]

57. Such a mission, along with other aspects of human interaction, presupposes encounters and mutual exchange in between people formed by their special histories, ideas, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a varied, complex, and intricate reality: private and social, rational and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis highlights this vibrant, keeping in mind that „together, we can look for the truth in discussion, in unwinded conversation or in enthusiastic dispute. To do so requires determination; it entails minutes of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently accept the broader experience of individuals and individuals. […] The process of structure fraternity, be it regional or universal, can only be undertaken by spirits that are free and available to genuine encounters.“ [116]

58. It remains in this context that one can consider the challenges AI postures to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the possible to promote connections within the human household. However, it might likewise hinder a true encounter with truth and, eventually, lead individuals to „a deep and melancholic dissatisfaction with interpersonal relations, or a harmful sense of isolation.“ [117] Authentic human relationships need the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their delight. [118] Since human intelligence is expressed and enriched likewise in social and embodied methods, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are vital for engaging with reality in its fullness.

59. Because „true knowledge demands an encounter with reality,“ [119] the rise of AI introduces another difficulty. Since AI can successfully mimic the products of human intelligence, the capability to know when one is interacting with a human or a device can no longer be considered approved. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other sophisticated outputs that are generally connected with humans. Yet, it should be understood for what it is: a tool, not a person. [120] This distinction is typically obscured by the language used by specialists, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and therefore blurs the line between human and maker.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI likewise positions specific challenges for the development of children, possibly encouraging them to develop patterns of interaction that treat human relationships in a transactional way, as one would connect to a chatbot. Such routines might lead youths to see teachers as simple dispensers of details rather than as mentors who assist and nurture their intellectual and moral growth. Genuine relationships, rooted in empathy and a steadfast dedication to the good of the other, are necessary and irreplaceable in fostering the full development of the human individual.

61. In this context, it is necessary to clarify that, in spite of making use of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can genuinely experience empathy. Emotions can not be decreased to facial expressions or expressions created in response to prompts; they show the way a person, as an entire, relates to the world and to his or her own life, with the body playing a main role. True compassion needs the ability to listen, recognize another’s irreducible originality, welcome their otherness, and grasp the meaning behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the realm of analytical judgment in which AI excels, real empathy comes from the relational sphere. It involves intuiting and capturing the lived experiences of another while maintaining the distinction between self and other. [122] While AI can imitate understanding reactions, it can not replicate the eminently personal and relational nature of authentic compassion. [123]

62. Due to the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as an individual must constantly be prevented; doing so for fraudulent functions is a grave ethical violation that might deteriorate 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 thought about unethical and needs cautious oversight to prevent damage, maintain transparency, and guarantee the dignity of all individuals. [124]

63. In a significantly isolated world, some people have actually turned to AI searching for deep human relationships, simple friendship, or even emotional bonds. However, while human beings are indicated to experience genuine relationships, AI can just simulate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an integral part of how a person grows to become who she or he is suggested to be. If AI is used to help individuals foster real connections between people, it can contribute favorably to the complete awareness of the individual. Conversely, if we change relationships with God and with others with interactions with technology, we run the risk of changing authentic relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of pulling back into artificial worlds, we are called to take part in a committed and deliberate method with truth, specifically by recognizing with the poor and suffering, consoling those in sadness, and forging bonds of communion with all.

64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being progressively incorporated into economic and monetary systems. Significant financial investments are presently being made not only in the technology sector but also in energy, finance, and media, especially in the locations of marketing and sales, logistics, technological development, compliance, and threat management. At the same time, AI‘s applications in these locations have likewise highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of incredible chances but also extensive threats. A first real crucial point in this location concerns the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a couple of corporations-only those large business would gain from the value created by AI rather than the companies that use it.

65. Other more comprehensive elements of AI‘s influence on the economic-financial sphere must also be carefully analyzed, especially concerning the interaction in between concrete truth and the digital world. One crucial consideration in this regard includes the coexistence of diverse and alternative forms of economic and financial institutions within a given context. This aspect must be encouraged, as it can bring advantages in how it supports the genuine economy by cultivating its advancement and stability, particularly throughout times of crisis. Nevertheless, it ought to 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, but likewise by inescapable disagreements and divergences. This variety is an indisputable asset to a neighborhood’s economic life. Turning over the economy and financing totally to digital technology would minimize this range and richness. As an outcome, numerous services to financial issues that can be reached through natural discussion between the involved parties might no longer be attainable in a world controlled by procedures and just the appearance of proximity.

66. Another area where AI is already having an extensive effect is the world of work. As in lots of other fields, AI is driving essential improvements throughout lots of occupations, with a variety of effects. On the one hand, it has the prospective to improve proficiency and performance, develop new jobs, enable employees to concentrate on more innovative tasks, and open new horizons for imagination and development.

67. However, while AI guarantees to enhance productivity by taking over mundane jobs, it often forces workers to adjust to the speed and demands of machines rather than machines being designed to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the advertised benefits of AI, existing approaches to the innovation can paradoxically deskill employees, subject them to automated monitoring, and relegate them to stiff and repeated jobs. The requirement to keep up with the speed of technology can wear down workers’ sense of agency and stifle the ingenious capabilities they are expected to give their work. [125]

68. AI is currently getting rid of the need for some tasks that were as soon as performed by people. If AI is utilized to change human workers rather than complement them, there is a „considerable threat of disproportionate advantage for the couple of at the cost of the impoverishment of many.“ [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more powerful, there is an involved danger that human labor may lose its worth in the economic world. This is the logical consequence of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humanity oppressed to performance, where, ultimately, the cost of humankind must be cut. Yet, human lives are fundamentally valuable, independent of their financial output. Nevertheless, the „present design,“ Pope Francis explains, „does not appear to favor a financial investment in efforts to assist the slow, the weak, or the less talented to find opportunities in life.“ [127] In light of this, „we can not permit a tool as powerful and vital as Artificial Intelligence to strengthen such a paradigm, but rather, we should make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its expansion.“ [128]

69. It is necessary to keep in mind that „the order of things need to be secondary to the order of persons, and not the other way around.“ [129] Human work must not only be at the service of profit but at „the service of the entire human person […] considering the individual’s product needs and the requirements of his or her intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and religious life.“ [130] In this context, the Church acknowledges that work is „not only a method of making one’s daily bread“ but is also „a necessary dimension of social life“ and „a means […] of personal growth, the structure of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of gifts. Work provides us a sense of shared duty for the development of the world, and ultimately, for our life as an individuals.“ [131]

70. Since work is a „part of the meaning of life on this earth, a course to growth, human development and individual satisfaction,“ „the objective ought to not be that technological progress progressively replaces human work, for this would be detrimental to humanity“ [132] -rather, it should promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI should help, not change, human judgment. Similarly, it must never ever break down creativity or minimize workers to simple „cogs in a device.“ Therefore, „regard for the dignity of laborers and the significance of employment for the economic wellness of people, families, and societies, for task security and just incomes, ought to be a high top priority for the worldwide neighborhood as these types of technology penetrate more deeply into our offices.“ [133]

71. As participants in God’s healing work, health care professionals have the vocation and responsibility to be „guardians and servants of human life.“ [134] Because of this, the healthcare occupation brings an „intrinsic and indisputable ethical dimension,“ acknowledged by the Hippocratic Oath, which requires doctors and health care experts to devote themselves to having „absolute regard for human life and its sacredness.“ [135] Following the example of the Do-gooder, this dedication is to be performed by males and females „who reject the creation of a society of exclusion, and act rather as neighbors, raising up and rehabilitating the succumbed to the sake of the common good.“ [136]

72. Seen in this light, AI appears to hold immense capacity in a range of applications in the medical field, such as helping the diagnostic work of healthcare service providers, facilitating relationships between clients and medical personnel, offering new treatments, and broadening access to quality care also for those who are separated or marginalized. In these methods, the technology could enhance the „thoughtful and loving closeness“ [137] that doctor are called to reach the sick and suffering.

73. However, if AI is used not to improve however to replace the relationship between clients and healthcare providers-leaving patients to interact with a device rather than a human being-it would minimize a crucially essential human relational structure to a centralized, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of motivating solidarity with the ill and suffering, such applications of AI would run the risk of getting worse the solitude that frequently accompanies disease, particularly in the context of a culture where „persons are no longer seen as a paramount value to be cared for and respected.“ [138] This misuse of AI would not align with regard for the dignity of the human person and uniformity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the well-being of patients and the choices that discuss their lives are at the heart of the health care profession. This accountability requires physician to exercise all their ability and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options concerning those entrusted to their care, constantly respecting the inviolable self-respect of the patients and the need for notified authorization. As an outcome, decisions regarding client treatment and the weight of obligation they entail need to always remain with the human person and must never ever be entrusted to AI. [139]

75. In addition, using AI to determine who must get treatment based mainly on financial procedures or metrics of effectiveness represents a particularly bothersome instance of the „technocratic paradigm“ that need to be rejected. [140] For, „optimizing resources indicates utilizing them in an ethical and fraternal method, and not punishing the most fragile.“ [141] Additionally, AI tools in healthcare are „exposed to kinds of bias and discrimination,“ where „systemic errors can quickly multiply, producing not only injustices in specific cases however also, due to the cause and effect, real forms of social inequality.“ [142]

76. The combination of AI into healthcare also poses the threat of magnifying other existing variations in access to medical care. As healthcare becomes progressively oriented toward prevention and lifestyle-based approaches, AI-driven services may unintentionally prefer more upscale populations who currently take pleasure in better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This trend dangers reinforcing a „medication for the rich“ design, where those with monetary means gain from innovative preventative tools and personalized health details while others struggle to gain access to even fundamental services. To avoid such inequities, fair frameworks are required to make sure that the use of AI in health care does not worsen existing health care inequalities but rather serves the common good.

77. The words of the Second Vatican Council remain completely relevant today: „True education aims to form individuals with a view towards their last end and the good of the society to which they belong.“ [143] As such, education is „never a mere procedure of handing down realities and intellectual skills: rather, its aim is to contribute to the individual’s holistic formation in its different aspects (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, etc), consisting of, for example, community life and relations within the scholastic community,“ [144] in keeping with the nature and dignity of the human person.

78. This technique includes a dedication to cultivating the mind, but always as a part of the integral development of the individual: „We should break that idea of education which holds that informing methods filling one’s head with concepts. That is the method we educate automatons, cerebral minds, not people. Educating is taking a danger in the stress in between the mind, the heart, and the hands.“ [145]

79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human individual is the vital relationship in 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 show for their trainees. This bond cultivates trust, good understanding, and the capacity to address each individual’s special dignity and potential. On the part of the trainee, this can generate a real desire to grow. The physical presence of a teacher develops a relational dynamic that AI can not replicate, one that deepens engagement and supports the trainee’s essential development.

80. In this context, AI presents both opportunities and challenges. If used in a sensible manner, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and bought to the genuine objectives of education, AI can become an important instructional resource by boosting access to education, providing tailored support, and providing instant feedback to trainees. These benefits could boost the knowing experience, particularly in cases where customized attention is required, or academic resources are otherwise scarce.

81. Nevertheless, a vital part of education is forming „the intelligence to reason well in all matters, to connect towards reality, 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 even more crucial in an age marked by innovation, in which „it is no longer simply a question of ‘utilizing’ instruments of interaction, but of residing in a highly digitalized culture that has actually had an extensive effect on […] our capability to communicate, learn, be notified and get in into relationship with others.“ [149] However, instead of cultivating „a cultivated intellect,“ which „brings with it a power and a grace to every work and occupation that it undertakes,“ [150] the comprehensive use of AI in education could cause the trainees’ increased reliance on innovation, deteriorating their capability to perform some abilities separately and aggravating their reliance on screens. [151]

82. Additionally, while some AI systems are created to assist individuals develop their critical believing capabilities and problem-solving skills, lots of others merely provide responses rather of prompting trainees to get to answers themselves or write text for themselves. [152] Instead of training young individuals how to amass details and produce fast responses, education must encourage „the responsible usage of liberty to face concerns with excellent sense and intelligence.“ [153] Building on this, „education in using kinds of synthetic intelligence must aim above all at promoting critical thinking. Users of any ages, but particularly the young, need to develop a critical method to using data and content gathered online or produced by synthetic intelligence systems. Schools, universities, and scientific societies are challenged to help trainees and experts to understand the social and ethical aspects of the development and usages of innovation.“ [154]

83. As Saint John Paul II recalled, „worldwide today, characterized by such rapid advancements in science and technology, the jobs of a Catholic University assume an ever higher significance and seriousness.“ [155] In a specific method, Catholic universities are advised to be present as excellent labs of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary key, they are prompted to engage „with wisdom and imagination“ [156] in mindful research study on this phenomenon, helping to draw out the salutary capacity within the different fields of science and reality, 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 factor.

84. Moreover, it must be noted that current AI programs have actually been understood to supply biased or made details, which can lead trainees to trust incorrect material. This issue „not only risks of legitimizing phony news and reinforcing a dominant culture’s benefit, but, in brief, it also undermines the academic procedure itself.“ [157] With time, clearer differences might emerge in between correct and improper usages of AI in education and research study. Yet, a definitive guideline is that the usage of AI need to constantly be transparent and never ever misrepresented.

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

86. However, AI also provides a severe threat of generating manipulated content and false details, which can quickly deceive people due to its similarity to the fact. Such misinformation might happen unintentionally, as when it comes to AI „hallucination,“ where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine but are not. Since producing content that simulates human artifacts is main to AI‘s performance, mitigating these dangers proves tough. Yet, the repercussions of such aberrations and incorrect details can be quite serious. For this reason, all those associated with producing and using AI systems need to be devoted to the truthfulness and accuracy of the details processed by such systems and disseminated to the public.

87. While AI has a hidden potential to create false details, a a lot more uncomfortable issue depends on the deliberate abuse of AI for control. This can happen when people or organizations purposefully create and spread out false content with the aim to trick or cause damage, such as „deepfake“ images, videos, and audio-referring to a false representation of an individual, modified or produced by an AI algorithm. The risk of deepfakes is particularly apparent when they are used to target or hurt others. While the images or videos themselves might be synthetic, the damage they cause is genuine, leaving „deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it“ and „genuine injuries in their human dignity.“ [159]

88. On a broader scale, by distorting „our relationship with others and with truth,“ [160] AI-generated fake media can slowly undermine the structures of society. This problem needs careful regulation, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or influenced media-can spread unintentionally, sustaining political polarization and social discontent. When society ends up being indifferent to the reality, various groups build their own versions of „realities,“ deteriorating the „mutual ties and mutual reliances“ [161] that underpin the material of social life. As deepfakes trigger individuals to question everything and AI-generated incorrect content deteriorates rely on what they see and hear, polarization and conflict will only grow. Such prevalent deceptiveness is no unimportant matter; it strikes at the core of humankind, taking apart the fundamental trust on which societies are developed. [162]

89. Countering AI-driven frauds is not only the work of market experts-it needs the efforts of all people of goodwill. „If innovation is to serve human self-respect and not harm it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human neighborhood should be proactive in addressing these trends with regard to human dignity and the promotion of the good.“ [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated content must always work out diligence in validating the fact of what they distribute and, in all cases, must „prevent the sharing of words and images that are degrading of people, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that exploit the weak and vulnerable.“ [164] This calls for the continuous vigilance and cautious discernment of all users concerning their activity online. [165]

90. Humans are inherently relational, and the data everyone creates in the digital world can be viewed as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data communicates not just details but likewise individual and relational understanding, which, in an increasingly digitized context, can amount to power over the individual. Moreover, while some kinds of data might pertain to public elements of an individual’s life, others might discuss the person’s interiority, possibly even their conscience. Seen in this method, privacy plays an essential role in protecting the limits of an individual’s inner life, maintaining their freedom to associate with others, express themselves, and make choices without undue control. This protection is also connected to the defense of religious freedom, as security can also be misused to put in control over the lives of followers and how they reveal their faith.

91. It is proper, for that reason, to attend to the problem of privacy from a concern for the genuine flexibility and inalienable self-respect of the human individual „in all situations.“ [166] The Second Vatican Council consisted of the right „to secure privacy“ amongst the basic rights „essential for living a really human life,“ a right that must be reached all individuals on account of their „sublime dignity.“ [167] Furthermore, the Church has actually likewise affirmed the right to the legitimate respect for a personal life in the context of verifying the person’s right to an excellent track record, defense of their physical and mental integrity, and liberty from harm or undue invasion [168] -essential elements of the due regard for the intrinsic dignity of the human individual. [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 percentage of details, making the role of data personal privacy much more crucial as a secure for the self-respect and relational nature of the human person. As Pope Francis observed, „while closed and intolerant attitudes towards others are on the rise, distances are otherwise shrinking or disappearing to the point that the right to privacy scarcely exists. Everything has ended up being a sort of phenomenon to be taken a look at and examined, and people’s lives are now under consistent monitoring.“ [170]

93. While there can be legitimate and appropriate methods to use AI in keeping with human dignity and the common excellent, utilizing it for security aimed at exploiting, restricting others’ liberty, sitiosecuador.com or benefitting a couple of at the expenditure of the lots of is unjustifiable. The threat of surveillance overreach must be kept an eye on by appropriate regulators to make sure openness and public responsibility. Those accountable for monitoring should never ever surpass their authority, which need to constantly prefer the self-respect and liberty of every person as the vital basis of a just and gentle society.

94. Furthermore, „essential respect for human self-respect demands that we decline to permit the individuality of the person to be recognized with a set of data.“ [171] This particularly uses when AI is utilized to examine individuals or groups based upon their habits, attributes, or history-a practice understood as „social scoring“: „In social and economic decision-making, we ought to be careful about delegating judgments to algorithms that process data, often collected surreptitiously, on a person’s makeup and previous behavior. Such information can be infected by social prejudices and prejudgments. An individual’s previous behavior must not be utilized to reject him or her the chance to change, grow, and contribute to society. We can not enable algorithms to limit or condition respect for human dignity, or to omit empathy, grace, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that individuals are able to alter.“ [172]

95. AI has numerous promising applications for improving our relationship with our „typical home,“ such as developing models to forecast severe environment occasions, proposing engineering solutions to reduce their effect, handling relief operations, and anticipating population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable agriculture, optimize energy use, and offer early caution systems for public health emergency situations. These advancements have the potential to reinforce strength against climate-related challenges and promote more sustainable development.

96. At the very same time, existing AI models and the hardware required to support them consume large amounts of energy and water, significantly contributing to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This reality is frequently obscured by the way this technology exists in the popular imagination, where words such as „the cloud“ [174] can provide the impression that information is saved and processed in an intangible realm, separated from the physical world. However, „the cloud“ is not an ethereal domain separate from the physical world; similar to all calculating innovations, it depends on physical machines, cables, and energy. The exact same is real of the technology behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, particularly large language models (LLMs), they need ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and greater storage facilities. Considering the heavy toll these technologies handle the environment, it is important to establish sustainable services that lower their effect on our typical home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is vital „that we search for solutions not only in innovation but in a change of humanity.“ [175] A complete and authentic understanding of development acknowledges that the worth of all developed things can not be decreased to their simple utility. Therefore, a fully human approach to the stewardship of the earth turns down the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which looks for to „draw out whatever possible“ from the world, [176] and turns down the „misconception of development,“ which presumes that „eco-friendly problems will resolve themselves simply with the application of new technology and with no requirement for ethical factors to consider or deep modification.“ [177] Such a frame of mind needs to offer way to a more holistic method that respects the order of production and promotes the integral good of the human person while protecting our typical home. [178]

98. The Second Vatican Council and the consistent mentor of the Popes since then have insisted that peace is not merely the lack of war and is not restricted to maintaining a balance of powers in between enemies. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is „the tranquility of order.“ [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without safeguarding the items of individuals, free communication, respect for the dignity of individuals and peoples, 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 must be mainly built through client diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, uniformity, integral human advancement, and regard for the dignity of all people. [180] In this way, the tools used to maintain peace should never ever be allowed to validate injustice, violence, or injustice. Instead, they should always be governed by a „firm determination to respect other individuals and countries, in addition to their dignity, as well as the purposeful practice of fraternity.“ [181]

99. While AI‘s analytical abilities might assist countries seek peace and guarantee security, the „weaponization of Artificial Intelligence“ can also be highly problematic. Pope Francis has actually observed that „the ability to carry out military operations through remote control systems has actually led to a lessened understanding of the destruction triggered by those weapon systems and the concern of responsibility for their usage, resulting in a a lot more cold and separated approach to the immense catastrophe of war.“ [182] Moreover, the ease with which autonomous weapons make war more feasible militates against the principle 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 devastating effects for human rights. [184]

100. In particular, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which can determining and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a „cause for serious ethical issue“ since they lack the „unique human capacity for moral 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 usage, beginning with „an effective and concrete commitment to introduce ever higher and correct human control. No maker ought to ever select to take the life of a human.“ [186]

101. Since it is a little step from makers that can eliminate autonomously with precision to those capable of large-scale destruction, some AI researchers have actually revealed concerns that such innovation poses an „existential threat“ by having the potential to act in manner ins which might threaten the survival of whole regions or even of humankind itself. This threat needs major attention, showing the long-standing issue about innovations that grant war „an unmanageable harmful power over terrific numbers of innocent civilians,“ [187] without even sparing kids. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to „undertake an evaluation of war with a completely new attitude“ [188] is more immediate than ever.

102. At the same time, while the theoretical dangers of AI are worthy of attention, the more instant and pushing concern depends on how individuals with destructive intents might misuse this technology. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future capabilities are unforeseeable, humankind’s past actions supply clear warnings. The atrocities devoted throughout history are enough to raise deep issues about the possible abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that „humanity now has instruments of extraordinary power: we can turn this world into a garden, or reduce it to a stack of debris.“ [190] Given this fact, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that „we are totally free to use our intelligence towards things progressing favorably,“ or toward „decadence and mutual destruction.“ [191] To prevent humanity from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there need to be a clear stand against all applications of innovation that inherently threaten human life and self-respect. This commitment needs careful discernment about making use of AI, especially in military defense applications, to make sure that it always respects human dignity and serves the common good. The advancement and deployment of AI in armaments need to go through the greatest levels of ethical scrutiny, governed by an issue for human dignity and the sanctity of life. [193]

104. Technology provides amazing tools to oversee and establish the world’s resources. However, in some cases, humanity is increasingly ceding control of these resources to machines. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, there is optimism about the capacity of synthetic basic intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical type of AI that would match or exceed human intelligence and bring about unimaginable developments. Some even speculate that AGI might attain superhuman abilities. At the same time, as society drifts away from a connection with the transcendent, some are tempted to turn to AI looking for significance or fulfillment-longings that can just be genuinely satisfied in communion with God. [194]

105. However, the presumption of replacing God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture clearly cautions against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI might prove a lot more seductive than traditional idols for, unlike idols that „have mouths however do not speak; eyes, however do not see; ears, however do not hear“ (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can „speak,“ or a minimum of offers the impression of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is essential to keep in mind that AI is however a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated material, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not possess many of the capabilities specific to human life, and it is also fallible. By turning to AI as a viewed „Other“ greater than itself, with which to share presence and duties, mankind risks developing a replacement for God. However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, however mankind itself-which, in this method, ends up being enslaved to its own work. [195]

106. While AI has the prospective to serve mankind and contribute to the common good, it remains a development of human hands, bearing „the imprint of human art and ingenuity“ (Acts 17:29). It must never ever be ascribed unnecessary 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 resembles himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is better than the items he worships since he has life, however they never have“ (Wis. 15:16 -17).

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

108. Considering the numerous obstacles posed by advances in innovation, Pope Francis stressed the need for growth in „human duty, values, and conscience,“ proportionate to the development in the capacity that this innovation brings [200] -recognizing that „with an increase in human power comes a broadening of duty on the part of people and communities.“ [201]

109. At the exact same time, the „necessary and essential question“ remains „whether in the context of this progress guy, as male, is becoming genuinely much better, that is to state, more mature spiritually, more familiar with the self-respect of his humanity, more responsible, more available to others, especially the neediest and the weakest, and readier to provide and to aid all.“ [202]

110. As a result, it is vital to know how to examine individual applications of AI in specific contexts to determine whether its usage promotes human dignity, the vocation of the human individual, and the common good. As with lots of technologies, the impacts of the various usages of AI might not always be foreseeable from their creation. As these applications and their social impacts become clearer, proper actions need to be made at all levels of society, following the principle of subsidiarity. Individual users, families, civil society, corporations, institutions, governments, and worldwide companies need to work at their proper levels to guarantee that AI is utilized for the good of all.

111. A considerable difficulty and opportunity for the common good today depends on thinking about AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which highlights the interconnectedness of people and neighborhoods and highlights our shared duty for cultivating the integral wellness of others. The twentieth-century philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev observed that people frequently blame machines for personal and social problems; nevertheless, „this just humiliates male and does not correspond to his dignity,“ for „it is not worthy to move duty from man to a maker.“ [203] Only the human individual can be morally accountable, and the difficulties of a technological society are eventually spiritual in nature. Therefore, facing those challenges „demands a climax of spirituality.“ [204]

112. A further indicate consider is the call, prompted by the appearance of AI on the world phase, for a restored appreciation of all that is human. Years ago, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos cautioned that „the threat is not in the multiplication of makers, however in the ever-increasing variety of guys accustomed from their youth to desire only what devices can provide.“ [205] This obstacle is as true today as it was then, as the rapid pace of digitization risks a „digital reductionism,“ where non-quantifiable aspects of life are reserved and then forgotten or even considered unimportant due to the fact that they can not be computed in official terms. AI should be utilized only as a tool to match human intelligence rather than change its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that transcend calculation is vital for maintaining „a genuine mankind“ that „appears to stay in the middle of our technological culture, practically undetected, like a mist permeating gently underneath a closed door.“ [207]

113. The huge area of the world’s understanding is now available in methods that would have filled past generations with awe. However, to make sure that improvements in understanding do not become humanly or spiritually barren, one must surpass the simple build-up of information and aim to attain real wisdom. [208]

114. This wisdom is the present that humanity needs most to deal with the extensive concerns and ethical obstacles posed by AI: „Only by embracing a spiritual way of viewing reality, just by recuperating a knowledge of the heart, can we confront and analyze the newness of our time.“ [209] Such „wisdom of the heart“ is „the virtue that enables us to incorporate the whole and its parts, our choices and their repercussions.“ It „can not be sought from devices,“ but it „lets itself be found by those who seek it and be seen by those who like it; it expects those who desire it, and it goes in 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 look at things with God’s eyes, to see connections, scenarios, occasions and to uncover their genuine meaning.“ [211]

116. Since a „person’s perfection is measured not by the details or knowledge they possess, but by the depth of their charity,“ [212] how we incorporate AI „to include the least of our siblings and sisters, the susceptible, and those most in requirement, will be the true measure of our mankind.“ [213] The „wisdom of the heart“ can brighten and guide the human-centered usage of this innovation to help promote the common excellent, look after our „typical home,“ advance the search for the truth, foster integral human development, favor human uniformity and fraternity, and lead mankind to its supreme goal: joy and complete communion with God. [214]

117. From this point of view of wisdom, followers will be able to serve as ethical representatives efficient in utilizing this technology to promote a genuine vision of the human person and society. [215] This ought to be done with the understanding that technological development becomes part of God’s plan 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, authorized this Note and purchased its publication.

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

Ex audientia die 14 ianuarii 2025
Franciscus

Contents

I. Introduction

II. What is Artificial Intelligence?

III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition

Rationality

Embodiment

Relationality

Relationship with the Truth

Stewardship of the World

An Important Understanding of Human Intelligence

The Limits of AI

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

Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making

V. Specific Questions

AI and Society

AI and Human Relationships

AI, the Economy, and Labor

AI and Healthcare

AI and Education

AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse

AI, Privacy, and Surveillance

AI and the Protection of Our Common Home

AI and Warfare

AI and Our Relationship with God

VI. Concluding Reflections

True Wisdom

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See also Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053.
[2] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 307. Cf. Id., Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (21 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020 ), 43.
[3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[5] J. McCarthy, et al., „A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence“ (31 August 1955), http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024).
[6] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), pars. 2-3: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[7] Terms in this file explaining the outputs or procedures of AI are utilized figuratively to explain its operations and are not intended to anthropomorphize the maker.
[8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[9] Here, one can see the main positions of the „transhumanists“ and the „posthumanists.“ Transhumanists argue that technological advancements will enable people to overcome their biological constraints and improve both their physical and cognitive abilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, contend that such advances will eventually change human identity to the extent that mankind itself may no longer be thought about really „human.“ Both views rest on an essentially negative understanding of human corporality, which treats the body more as an obstacle than as an integral part of the and contact us to full realization. Yet, this unfavorable view of the body is inconsistent with an appropriate understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports genuine clinical progress, it verifies that human dignity is rooted in „the individual as an inseparable unity of body and soul. “ Thus, „self-respect is likewise fundamental in each individual’s body, which takes part in its own method in remaining in imago Dei“ (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18).
[10] This technique shows a functionalist perspective, which decreases 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 truly intelligent, it would still remain practical in nature.
[11] Cf. A.M. Turing, „Computing Machinery and Intelligence,“ Mind 59 (1950) 443-460.
[12] If „thinking“ is attributed to makers, it must be clarified that this describes calculative thinking rather than critical thinking. Similarly, if makers are said to operate using abstract thought, it must be specified that this is restricted to computational logic. On the other hand, by its very nature, human idea is an innovative procedure that avoids programs and goes beyond constraints.
[13] On the fundamental 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 2010, 141-182).
[14] For further conversation 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 [faculty] by which he transcends to the unreasonable animals. Now, this [professors] is factor itself, or the ‘mind,’ or ‘intelligence,’ whatever other name it might more suitably be given“; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: „When considering all that they have, humans discover that they are most differentiated from animals exactly by the reality they possess intelligence.“ This is also repeated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who specifies that „guy is the most best of all earthly beings endowed with movement, and his appropriate and natural operation is intellection,“ by which man 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 viewpoint that echoes elements of the classical and middle ages difference 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 discussion, and pertain to recognize because reality, 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 „normally considers the human person as a being who exists in the body and is unthinkable 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, however instead fully revealed its meaning and value.“
[26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81.
[27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: „to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul’s] nature […] and thus it is united to the body in order that it might have a presence and an operation ideal 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, forum.batman.gainedge.org VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: „Human souls also have reason and with it they circle in discourse around the reality of things. […] [O] n account of the manner in which they are capable of focusing the many into the one, they too, in their own fashion and as far as they can, deserve 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 transcending instant concerns and understanding certain realities that are unvarying, as true now as in the past. As it peers into humanity, reason discovers universal values obtained from that same nature“; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034.
[38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): „The last proceeding of factor is to recognize that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it“ (en. tr. Pascal’s Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York 1958, 77).
[39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[40] Our semantic capacity allows us to comprehend messages in any form of interaction in a way that both takes into consideration and transcends their product or empirical structures (such as computer code). Here, intelligence ends up being a wisdom that „allows us to look at things with God’s eyes, to see connections, scenarios, occasions and to uncover their genuine meaning“ (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our creativity allows us to generate brand-new material or ideas, mainly by offering an original perspective on truth. Both capacities depend upon the presence of a personal subjectivity for their full realization.
[41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931.
[42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: „Charity, when accompanied by a commitment to the truth, is a lot more than personal feeling […] Certainly, its close relation to truth promotes its universality and maintains it from being ‘restricted to a narrow field devoid of relationships.’ […] Charity’s openness to reality therefore protects it from ‘a fideism that deprives it of its human and universal breadth.'“ The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643.
[43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7.
[44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15.
[46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as 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 likens deep space to „a book reflecting, representing, and explaining its Maker,“ the Triune God who gives existence to all things (Breviloquium 2.12.1). Cf. Alain de Lille, De Incarnatione Christi, PL 210, 579a: „Omnis mundi creatura quasi liber et pictura nobis est et speculum.“
[48] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 67: AAS 107 (2015 ), 874; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589-592; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 57: „human beings occupy a special place in deep space according to the divine plan: they take pleasure in the advantage of sharing in the divine governance of noticeable creation. […] Since guy’s place as ruler remains in fact an involvement in the magnificent governance of development, we speak of 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 concept is also reflected in the development account, where God brings animals to Adam „to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living creature, that was its name“ (Gen. 2:19), an action that demonstrates the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God’s development. 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 good by picking up and enjoying facts.“
[61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: „luce intellettüal, piena d’amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore“ (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232).
[62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:“ [T] he greatest norm of human life is the divine law itself-eternal, unbiased and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the ways of the human neighborhood according to a plan conceived in his wisdom and love. God has made it possible for guy to take part in this law of his so that, under the mild personality of divine providence, lots of may be able to come to a deeper and much deeper understanding of unchangeable truth.“ Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037.
[63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016.
[64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892.
[65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042.
[66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: „God has actually inscribed his own image and similarity on male (cf. Gen 1:26), providing upon him a matchless dignity […] In result, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not correspond to any work he carries out, but which flow from his necessary self-respect as a person.“ Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22.
[68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310.
[69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[70] In this sense, „Artificial Intelligence“ is comprehended as a technical term to suggest this technology, recalling that the expression is likewise used 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, amongst a long list of other Catholics took part in clinical research study and technological expedition, highlight that „faith and science can be joined in charity, offered that science is put at the service of the males and female of our time and not misused to harm or perhaps ruin 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 deliberately, guy 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 encouraged efforts „to make sure that technology remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed towards 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 role of human company in selecting a broader aim (Ziel) that then informs 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 purpose and, in its effect on human society, always represents a kind of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, thus making it possible for certain individuals to perform particular actions while preventing others from performing various ones. In a more or less explicit method, this constitutive power-dimension of technology always includes the worldview of those who created and developed 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: „Confronted with the marvels of machines, which appear to know how to choose independently, we ought to be really clear that decision-making […] must always be left to the human person. We would condemn humanity to a future without hope if we removed individuals’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 document describes algorithmic bias (methodical and consistent mistakes in computer system systems that might disproportionately prejudice certain groups in unexpected methods) or learning bias (which will result in training on a prejudiced information set) and not the „predisposition vector“ in neural networks (which is a specification used to change the output of „nerve cells“ to adjust more precisely 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 affirmed the growth in agreement „on the requirement for advancement processes to appreciate such values as inclusion, openness, security, equity, personal privacy and reliability,“ and likewise invited „the efforts of international companies to control these technologies so that they promote genuine progress, contributing, that is, to a much better world and an integrally greater quality of life.“
[95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the „Max Planck Society“ (23 February 2023): L’Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8.
[96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.
[97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar „The Common Good in the Digital Age“ (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571.
[98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For additional 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 importance of dialogue in a pluralist society oriented toward 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 quote 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 individuals] desire their social relationships offered by sophisticated equipment, by screens and systems which can be turned on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel informs us constantly to run the threat of an in person encounter with others, with their physical existence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their pleasure which contaminates us in our close and continuous 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 ), forum.batman.gainedge.org 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 estimate 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 man’ and not guy ‘for work.’ Through this conclusion one rightly pertains to recognize the pre-eminence of the subjective meaning of work over the unbiased one.“
[132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320.
[133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502.
[135] Ibid.
[136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as 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 person is not put in the center or their self-respect is ruled out, this triggers attitudes that can lead even to speculation on the misery of others. And this is very severe! […] The application of a service approach to the healthcare sector, if indiscriminate […] may risk discarding people.“
[142] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[143] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729.
[144] Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on making 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, pricing estimate 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 the usage of generative AI in education and research study, UNESCO notes: „One of the key concerns [of using generative AI (GenAI) in education and research study] is whether people can possibly deliver fundamental levels of thinking and skill-acquisition processes to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking skills based on the outputs provided by AI. Writing, for instance, is typically associated with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI […], people can now start with a well-structured outline provided by GenAI. Some specialists have identified making use of GenAI to create text in this way as ‘writing without believing'“ (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American philosopher Hannah Arendt predicted such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and cautioned: „If it needs to turn out to be real that understanding (in the sense of know-how) and thought have actually parted company for good, then we would certainly end up being the defenseless servants, not a lot of our machines 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 example, it might assist individuals gain access to the „variety of resources for creating higher understanding of fact“ contained in the works of philosophy (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 question of whether what they understand is real or not. […] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he composes: ‘I have actually fulfilled many who wished to trick, but 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 man might with impunity violate that human self-respect which God himself treats with excellent respect“; as estimated 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 self-respect in cyberspace requires States to also appreciate the right to privacy, by protecting people from invasive surveillance and enabling them to secure their personal details from unauthorized 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 determined a list of „early promises of AI assisting to deal with climate change“ (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The document observed that, „taken together with predictive systems that can transform data into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools might assist develop brand-new strategies and investments to reduce emissions, affect new private sector financial investments in net absolutely no, secure biodiversity, and construct broad-based social resilience“ (ibid.).
[174] „The cloud“ refers to a network of physical servers throughout the world that makes it possible for users to shop, process, and manage their information from another location.
[175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850.
[176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890.
[177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870.
[178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852.
[179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640.
[180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317.
[181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101.
[182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310.
[184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105.
[185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: „We need to guarantee and protect a space for correct human control over the options made by synthetic intelligence programs: human dignity itself depends on it.“
[186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): „The development and usage of deadly self-governing weapons systems (LAWS) that do not have the appropriate human control would pose fundamental ethical issues, offered that LAWS can never be morally responsible subjects efficient in abiding by global humanitarian law.“
[187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104.
[188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104.
[189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: „Nor can we overlook the possibility of sophisticated weapons ending up in the incorrect hands, facilitating, for circumstances, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the organizations of legitimate systems of government. In a word, the world does not require brand-new technologies that add to the unfair advancement of commerce and the weapons trade and consequently wind up promoting the folly of war.“
[190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565.
[191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878.
[192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687.
[193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39.
[194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661.
[195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:“ [T] here is a much better understanding today that the simple accumulation of products and services […] is not enough for the realization of human joy. Nor, in repercussion, does the availability of the many real benefits provided in current times by science and innovation, consisting of the computer technology, bring liberty from every kind of slavery. On the contrary, […] unless all the considerable body of resources and prospective at guy’s disposal is assisted 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. The End of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83).
[201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288.
[203] N. Berdyaev, „Man and Machine,“ in C. Mitcham – R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York City 19832, 212-213.
[204] N. Berdyaev, „Man and Machine,“ 210.
[205] G. Bernanos, „La révolution de la liberté“ (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829.
[206] Cf. Francis, Meeting with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023).
[207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: „The flood of details at our fingertips does not make for greater knowledge. Wisdom is not born of fast searches on the internet nor is it a mass of unverified information. That is not the way to mature in the encounter with fact.“
[209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[210] Ibid.
[211] Ibid.
[212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121.
[213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124.
[214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar „The Common Good in the Digital Age“ (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.