II. what Is Artificial Intelligence?

1. With wisdom both ancient and brand-new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to review the existing obstacles and chances posed by scientific and technological developments, particularly by the recent development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian custom concerns the gift of intelligence as a vital element of how human beings are created „in the image of God“ (Gen. 1:27). Beginning with an important vision of the human individual and the scriptural contacting us to „till“ and „keep“ the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church emphasizes that this gift of intelligence need to be expressed through the responsible use of reason and technical abilities in the stewardship of the developed world.

2. The Church motivates the improvement of science, technology, the arts, and other kinds of human undertaking, viewing them as part of the „cooperation of man and lady with God in perfecting the noticeable production.“ [1] As Sirach verifies, wiki.eqoarevival.com God „gave skill to people, that he might be glorified in his wonderful works“ (Sir. 38:6). Human capabilities and creativity originate from God and, when used appropriately, glorify God by reflecting his wisdom and goodness. In light of this, when we ask ourselves what it means to „be human,“ we can not exclude a factor to consider of our clinical and technological capabilities.

3. It is within this viewpoint that the present Note addresses the anthropological and ethical challenges raised by AI-issues that are particularly significant, as one of the goals of this innovation is to mimic the human intelligence that created it. For circumstances, unlike numerous other human productions, AI can be trained on the outcomes of human imagination and then create brand-new „artifacts“ with a level of speed and ability that typically measures up to or exceeds what people can do, such as producing text or images identical from human compositions. This raises critical issues about AI‘s possible role in the growing crisis of fact in the public online forum. Moreover, this technology is created to learn and make certain choices autonomously, adapting to brand-new circumstances and providing solutions not visualized by its programmers, and therefore, it raises fundamental questions about ethical obligation and human safety, with wider ramifications for society as a whole. This brand-new situation has prompted lots of people to assess what it indicates to be human and the function of humankind on the planet.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad agreement that AI marks a brand-new and substantial stage in humankind’s engagement with technology, positioning it at the heart of what Pope Francis has explained as an „epochal modification.“ [2] Its impact is felt globally and in a large range of areas, consisting of social relationships, education, work, art, healthcare, law, warfare, and worldwide relations. As AI advances rapidly toward even greater achievements, it is seriously essential to consider its anthropological and ethical implications. This involves not just mitigating risks and preventing harm but likewise guaranteeing that its applications are utilized to promote human progress and the typical good.

5. To contribute favorably to the discernment regarding AI, and in reaction to Pope Francis’ call for a restored „knowledge of heart,“ [3] the Church uses its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active function in the worldwide discussion on these issues, the Church welcomes those entrusted with transferring the faith-including parents, teachers, pastors, and bishops-to dedicate themselves to this vital topic with care and attention. While this file is intended specifically for them, it is likewise implied to be available to a more comprehensive audience, particularly those who share the conviction that clinical and macphersonwiki.mywikis.wiki technological advances should be directed towards serving the human individual and the common good. [4]

6. To this end, the file starts by comparing ideas of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then explores the Christian understanding of human intelligence, providing a framework rooted in the Church’s philosophical and theological custom. Finally, the document offers standards to ensure that the advancement and usage of AI maintain human self-respect and promote the essential advancement of the human individual and society.

7. The idea of „intelligence“ in AI has developed with time, making use of a series of ideas from different disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a substantial milestone occurred in 1956 when the American computer system researcher John McCarthy organized a summer workshop at Dartmouth University to explore the problem of „Artificial Intelligence,“ which he defined as „that of making a maker act in methods that would be called intelligent if a human were so behaving.“ [5] This workshop released a research study program concentrated on developing devices capable of carrying out tasks usually related to the human intellect and smart habits.

8. Ever since, AI research study has advanced quickly, leading to the development of complex systems efficient in carrying out highly sophisticated jobs. [6] These so-called „narrow AI“ systems are typically created to manage specific and minimal functions, such as equating languages, predicting the trajectory of a storm, categorizing images, responding to questions, or creating visual content at the user’s demand. While the definition of „intelligence“ in AI research varies, many modern AI systems-particularly those utilizing device learning-rely on analytical inference rather than logical deduction. By evaluating large datasets to recognize patterns, AI can „forecast“ [7] outcomes and propose brand-new methods, simulating some cognitive procedures normal of human analytical. Such achievements have been made possible through advances in computing innovation (consisting of neural networks, not being watched artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) as well as hardware innovations (such as specialized processors). Together, these innovations enable AI systems to respond to numerous forms of human input, adjust to new circumstances, and even recommend novel services not anticipated by their initial developers. [8]

9. Due to these rapid advancements, numerous jobs as soon as managed specifically by people are now entrusted to AI. These systems can enhance or even supersede what people are able to perform in numerous fields, especially in specialized areas such as information analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each „narrow AI“ application is designed for a specific job, lots of researchers aim to develop what is known as „Artificial General Intelligence“ (AGI)-a single system capable of operating across all cognitive domains and carrying out any job within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI could one day attain the state of „superintelligence,“ going beyond human intellectual capacities, or add to „super-longevity“ through advances in biotechnology. Others, nevertheless, fear that these possibilities, even if theoretical, might one day eclipse the human person, while still others invite this potential transformation. [9]

10. Underlying this and many other point of views on the subject is the implicit presumption that the term „intelligence“ can be utilized in the very same way to describe both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not capture the full scope of the idea. When it comes to people, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the person in his/her totality, whereas in the context of AI, „intelligence“ is comprehended functionally, often with the presumption that the activities quality of the human mind can be broken down into digitized steps that devices can duplicate. [10]

11. This practical viewpoint is exemplified by the „Turing Test,“ which thinks about a device „intelligent“ if an individual can not differentiate its behavior from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term „behavior“ refers only to the efficiency of particular intellectual jobs; it does not represent the complete breadth of human experience, which includes abstraction, emotions, creativity, and the aesthetic, ethical, and religious perceptiveness. Nor does it include the complete range of expressions particular of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the „intelligence“ of a system is assessed methodologically, however also reductively, based upon its ability to produce appropriate responses-in this case, those related to the human intellect-regardless of how those reactions are produced.

12. AI‘s advanced functions provide it sophisticated capabilities to carry out tasks, however not the capability to believe. [12] This distinction is crucially important, as the method „intelligence“ is specified undoubtedly shapes how we comprehend the relationship in between human thought and this technology. [13] To appreciate this, one must 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 played a main role in understanding what it suggests to be „human.“ Aristotle observed that „all people by nature desire to understand.“ [15] This knowledge, with its capability for abstraction that understands the nature and meaning of things, sets humans apart from the animal world. [16] As philosophers, theologians, and psychologists have actually taken a look at the specific nature of this intellectual professors, they have actually also checked out how human beings comprehend the world and their special location within it. Through this exploration, the Christian tradition has actually pertained to understand the human person as a being including both body and soul-deeply linked to this world and yet transcending it. [17]

14. In the classical custom, the principle of intelligence is often understood through the complementary principles of „reason“ (ratio) and „intelligence“ (intellectus). These are not separate professors however, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are 2 modes in which the very same intelligence runs: „The term intellect is presumed from the inward grasp of the fact, while the name reason is taken from the inquisitive and discursive procedure.“ [18] This succinct description highlights the two essential and complementary dimensions of human intelligence. Intellectus describes the intuitive grasp of the truth-that is, nabbing it with the „eyes“ of the mind-which precedes and premises argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to reasoning proper: the discursive, analytical process that leads to judgment. Together, intelligence 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 „reasonable“ being does not lower the person to a specific mode of idea; rather, it acknowledges that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and penetrates all aspects of human activity. [20] Whether worked out well or inadequately, this capacity is an intrinsic aspect of humanity. In this sense, the „term ‘logical’ encompasses all the capacities of the human individual,“ including those associated to „knowing and understanding, along with those of willing, caring, choosing, and desiring; it also consists of all corporeal functions carefully associated to these abilities.“ [21] This detailed viewpoint underscores how, in the human individual, developed in the „image of God,“ factor is integrated in a manner that raises, shapes, and changes both the person’s will and actions. [22]

16. Christian believed thinks about the intellectual faculties of the human person within the structure of an important 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] To put it simply, the soul is not merely the immaterial „part“ of the individual contained within the body, nor is the body an outer shell real estate an intangible „core.“ Rather, the whole human individual is at the same time both product and spiritual. This understanding shows the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which views the human individual 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 additional lit up by the mystery of the Incarnation, through which God himself handled our flesh and „raised it up to a sublime dignity.“ [25]

17. Although deeply rooted in bodily existence, the human individual goes beyond the material world through the soul, which is „nearly on the horizon of eternity and time.“ [26] The intelligence’s capability for transcendence and the self-possessed flexibility of the will belong to the soul, by which the human individual „shares in the light of the magnificent mind.“ [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of understanding without the body. [28] In this way, the intellectual faculties of the human individual are an integral part of an anthropology that recognizes 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 „purchased by their very nature to interpersonal communion,“ [30] possessing the capability to understand one another, to give themselves in love, and to participate in communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not a separated professors however is exercised in relationships, discovering its maximum expression in dialogue, cooperation, and solidarity. We discover with others, and we discover through others.

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

20. This vocation to communion with God is always 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 called to mimic Christ’s outpouring gift (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to „enjoy one another, as I have enjoyed you“ (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the magnificent life of self-giving, transcend self-interest to respond more totally to the human vocation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Even more sublime than knowing numerous things is the commitment to look after one another, for if „I comprehend all secrets and all understanding […] however do not have love, I am absolutely nothing“ (1 Cor. 13:2).

21. Human intelligence is eventually „God’s gift fashioned for the assimilation of reality.“ [34] In the double sense of intellectus-ratio, it makes it possible for the person to explore truths that exceed simple sensory experience or energy, considering that „the desire for fact is part of human nature itself. It is a natural residential or commercial property of human factor to ask why things are as they are.“ [35] Moving beyond the limitations of empirical data, human intelligence can „with real certitude attain to reality itself as knowable.“ [36] While reality remains just partially understood, the desire for reality „spurs reason constantly to go further; certainly, it is as if reason were overwhelmed to see that it can constantly surpass what it has actually currently attained.“ [37] Although Truth in itself transcends the boundaries of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this attraction, the human person is caused seek „realities of a higher order.“ [39]

22. This natural drive toward the pursuit of reality is specifically obvious in the distinctly human capabilities for semantic understanding and creativity, [40] through which this search unfolds in a „way that is suitable to the social nature and self-respect of the human individual.“ [41] Likewise, a steadfast orientation to the truth is necessary for charity to be both authentic and universal. [42]

23. The look for fact discovers its highest expression in openness to truths that go beyond the physical and developed world. In God, all truths attain their supreme and initial meaning. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a „essential choice that engages the entire person.“ [44] In this method, the human person ends up being totally what he or she is called to be: „the intelligence and the will display their spiritual nature,“ making it possible for the individual „to act in a method that understands personal freedom to the complete.“ [45]

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

25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, people live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by „keeping“ and „tilling“ (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and skills to take care of and establish creation in accord with God’s plan. [49] In this, human intelligence reflects the Divine Intelligence that created all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] continuously sustains them, and guides them to their ultimate purpose in him. [51] Moreover, humans are contacted us to develop their abilities in science and technology, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in an appropriate relationship with production, people, on the one hand, use their intelligence and ability to work together with God in assisting development towards the purpose to which he has called it. [52] On the other hand, creation itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, assists the human mind to „rise slowly to the supreme Principle, who is God.“ [53]

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

27. This engagement with reality unfolds in numerous ways, as each individual, in his or her multifaceted individuality [54], seeks to understand the world, associate with others, fix problems, reveal imagination, and pursue integral wellness through the unified interplay of the numerous dimensions of the individual’s intelligence. [55] This involves logical and linguistic capabilities but can also include other modes of engaging with truth. Consider the work of a craftsmen, who „should understand how to discern, in inert matter, a particular form that others can not recognize“ [56] and bring it forth through insight and useful ability. Indigenous peoples who live close to the earth often have an extensive sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a buddy who knows the right word to say or a person adept at handling human relationships exhibits an intelligence that is „the fruit of self-examination, discussion and generous encounter between individuals.“ [58] As Pope Francis observes, „in this age of artificial intelligence, we can not forget that poetry and love are essential to conserve our humanity.“ [59]

28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the combination of truth into the moral and spiritual life of the individual, guiding his/her actions because of God’s goodness and fact. According to God’s strategy, intelligence, in its fullest sense, also consists of the capability to relish what holds true, excellent, and lovely. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel revealed, „intelligence is nothing without pleasure.“ [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the greatest heaven in Paradiso, affirms that the culmination of this intellectual pleasure is discovered in the „light intellectual loaded with love, love of true excellent filled with happiness, happiness which goes beyond every sweet taste.“ [61]

29. A proper understanding of human intelligence, therefore, can not be reduced to the mere acquisition of facts or the ability to carry out particular tasks. Instead, it involves the individual’s openness to the ultimate concerns of life and reflects an orientation toward the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the magnificent image within the individual, human intelligence has the ability to access the totality of being, considering presence in its fullness, which goes beyond what is quantifiable, and grasping the meaning of what has actually been comprehended. For followers, this capacity consists of, in a specific way, the capability to grow in the understanding of the mysteries of God by utilizing factor to engage ever more exceptionally with exposed facts (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is formed 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 an essential contemplative measurement, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian function.

30. In light of the foregoing discussion, the differences between human intelligence and current AI systems become obvious. While AI is a remarkable technological accomplishment efficient in imitating certain outputs connected with human intelligence, it runs by performing jobs, attaining goals, or making decisions based on quantitative information and computational reasoning. For example, with its analytical power, AI stands out at integrating data from a range of fields, modeling complex systems, and fostering interdisciplinary connections. In this method, it can assist experts collaborate in solving intricate problems that „can not be handled from a single perspective or from a single set of interests.“ [64]

31. However, even as AI processes and replicates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains basically confined to a logical-mathematical structure, which imposes fundamental constraints. Human intelligence, in contrast, develops naturally throughout the person’s physical and mental growth, formed by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although advanced AI systems can „learn“ through processes such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is basically different from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, consisting of sensory input, emotional actions, social interactions, and the special context of each minute. These components shape and form individuals within their individual history.In contrast, AI, doing not have a physical body, counts on computational thinking and knowing based upon huge datasets that include taped human experiences and knowledge.

32. Consequently, although AI can replicate aspects of human reasoning and carry out specific tasks with incredible speed and effectiveness, its computational abilities represent just a fraction of the more comprehensive capabilities of the human mind. For example, AI can not presently duplicate moral discernment or the capability to establish authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is positioned within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral formation that fundamentally forms the individual’s point of view, including the physical, psychological, social, ethical, and spiritual dimensions of life. Since AI can not use this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely entirely on this innovation or treat it as the main methods of interpreting the world can cause „a loss of appreciation for the whole, for the relationships in between things, and for the more comprehensive horizon.“ [65]

33. Human intelligence is not mainly about completing functional tasks however about understanding and actively engaging with reality in all its measurements; it is also efficient in unexpected insights. Since AI does not have the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to reality and goodness, its capacities-though apparently limitless-are matchless with the human capability to grasp reality. So much can be gained from an illness, an accept of reconciliation, and even an easy sundown; certainly, many experiences we have as human beings open new horizons and provide the possibility of attaining brand-new knowledge. No device, working exclusively with data, can measure up to these and numerous other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an extremely close equivalence in between human intelligence and AI threats catching a functionalist perspective, where individuals are valued based on the work they can perform. However, an individual’s worth does not depend on having specific abilities, cognitive and technological achievements, or specific success, however on the person’s inherent dignity, grounded in being created in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains undamaged in all circumstances, including for those not able to exercise their abilities, whether it be an unborn child, an unconscious individual, or an older person who is suffering. [67] It likewise underpins the custom of human rights (and, in specific, what are now called „neuro-rights“), which represent „a crucial point of convergence in the look for typical ground“ [68] and can, thus, function as a fundamental ethical guide in discussions on the responsible advancement and use of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, „the very usage of the word ‘intelligence'“ in connection with AI „can prove deceptive“ [69] and risks overlooking what is most valuable in the human person. Due to this, AI needs to not be seen as an artificial form of human intelligence but as a product of it. [70]

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

37. Seen as a fruit of the potential inscribed within human intelligence, [72] clinical inquiry and the development of technical skills belong to the „partnership of male and woman with God in improving the visible development.“ [73] At the exact same time, all clinical and technological accomplishments are, eventually, presents from God. [74] Therefore, human beings should constantly use their abilities in view of the greater function for which God has actually granted them. [75]

38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has „remedied many evils which utilized to damage and limit people,“ [76] a truth for which we need to rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological developments in themselves represent real human development. [77] The Church is especially opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human person. [78] Like any human venture, technological advancement should be directed to serve the human individual and contribute to the pursuit of „higher justice, more extensive fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations,“ which are „more important than advances in the technical field.“ [79] Concerns about the ethical implications of technological development are shared not only within the Church but also among many researchers, technologists, and professional associations, who increasingly require ethical reflection to direct this advancement in a responsible method.

39. To address these difficulties, it is vital to stress the importance of ethical obligation grounded in the dignity and occupation of the human individual. This assisting principle also applies to concerns concerning AI. In this context, the ethical measurement takes on main significance since it is people who design systems and determine the purposes for which they are used. [80] Between a machine and a human, just the latter is genuinely an ethical agent-a subject of moral obligation who exercises flexibility in his or her choices and accepts their consequences. [81] It is not the device however the human who remains in relationship with reality and goodness, directed by a moral conscience that calls the individual „to enjoy and to do what is excellent and to avoid evil,“ [82] attesting to „the authority of fact in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn.“ [83] Likewise, between a maker and a human, just the human can be adequately self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, critical with prudence, and looking for the good that is possible in every circumstance. [84] In truth, all of this likewise comes from the person’s workout of intelligence.

40. Like any item of human imagination, AI can be directed toward positive or negative ends. [85] When utilized in ways that appreciate human self-respect and promote the wellness of individuals and communities, it can contribute positively to the human occupation. Yet, as in all locations where humans are called to make choices, the shadow of evil likewise looms here. Where human freedom permits the possibility of choosing what is wrong, the moral evaluation of this technology will require to take into account how it is directed and utilized.

41. At the same time, it is not just the ends that are fairly significant but likewise the ways employed to attain them. Additionally, the total vision and understanding of the human individual ingrained within these systems are necessary to consider also. Technological items show the worldview of their designers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to „form the world and engage consciences on the level of worths.“ [87] On a social level, some technological developments could likewise strengthen relationships and power dynamics that are irregular with an appropriate understanding of the human person and society.

42. Therefore, completions and the means utilized in a provided application of AI, along with the overall vision it integrates, must all be examined to guarantee they respect human dignity and promote the typical good. [88] As Pope Francis has mentioned, „the intrinsic dignity of every male and every lady“ should be „the crucial criterion in evaluating emerging technologies; these will show fairly sound to the extent that they help respect that dignity and increase its expression at every level of human life,“ [89] consisting of in the social and economic spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays a crucial role not only in developing and producing innovation however likewise in directing its usage in line with the genuine good of the human person. [90] The obligation for handling this sensibly pertains to every level of society, directed by the concept of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The commitment to ensuring that AI always supports and promotes the supreme worth of the dignity of every human and the fullness of the human vocation serves as a criterion of discernment for designers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, as well as to its users. It remains valid for each application of the innovation at every level of its usage.

44. An assessment of the ramifications of this guiding concept could start by thinking about the significance of moral obligation. Since full moral causality belongs just to individual agents, not artificial ones, it is crucial to be able to identify and specify who bears obligation for the processes included in AI, especially those capable of learning, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up methods and very deep neural networks allow AI to fix complex issues, they make it hard to comprehend the procedures that result in the options they adopted. This makes complex accountability given that if an AI application produces undesirable outcomes, identifying who is accountable ends up being difficult. To address this problem, attention needs to be provided to the nature of responsibility processes in complex, extremely automated settings, where outcomes might just end up being apparent in the medium to long term. For this, it is very important that supreme obligation for decisions made using AI rests with the human decision-makers and that there is responsibility for making use of AI at each stage of the decision-making process. [91]

45. In addition to determining who is accountable, it is vital to identify the goals offered to AI systems. Although these systems may use unsupervised self-governing learning mechanisms and sometimes follow courses that humans can not rebuild, they eventually pursue objectives that people have actually assigned to them and are governed by processes established by their designers and developers. Yet, this presents a challenge since, as AI models become increasingly efficient in independent knowing, the ability to maintain control over them to ensure that such applications serve human purposes may effectively lessen. This raises the critical question of how to guarantee that AI systems are bought for the good of people and not against them.

46. While duty for the ethical use of AI systems starts with those who establish, produce, handle, and oversee such systems, it is also shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis noted, the device „makes a technical option among a number of possibilities based either on well-defined requirements or on analytical inferences. Humans, nevertheless, not just select, however in their hearts are capable of choosing.“ [92] Those who use AI to accomplish a task and follow its results produce a context in which they are eventually responsible for the power they have delegated. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist people in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it ought to be trustworthy, safe and secure, robust enough to manage disparities, and transparent in their operation to alleviate biases and unintentional negative effects. [93] Regulatory frameworks must ensure that all legal entities remain liable for making use of AI and all its consequences, with proper safeguards for transparency, personal privacy, and responsibility. [94] Moreover, those using AI needs to be careful not to end up being overly dependent on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases modern society’s currently high reliance on innovation.

47. The Church’s ethical and social teaching offers resources to assist guarantee that AI is utilized in a way that maintains human firm. Considerations about justice, for example, ought to also address issues such as promoting just social dynamics, maintaining worldwide security, and promoting peace. By exercising prudence, individuals and communities can recognize methods to use AI to benefit humankind while preventing applications that might deteriorate human self-respect or damage the environment. In this context, the principle of duty need to be comprehended not just in its most limited sense however as a „duty for the take care of others, which is more than simply accounting for results attained.“ [95]

48. Therefore, AI, like any innovation, can be part of a conscious and responsible answer to mankind’s vocation to the good. However, as formerly gone over, AI must be directed by human intelligence to align with this vocation, ensuring it respects the self-respect of the human individual. Recognizing this „exalted dignity,“ the Second Vatican Council affirmed that „the social order and its advancement should usually work to the benefit of the human person.“ [96] Due to this, the usage of AI, as Pope Francis said, should be „accompanied by an ethic influenced by a vision of the common excellent, an ethic of flexibility, obligation, and fraternity, efficient in cultivating the complete development of people in relation to others and to the entire of creation.“ [97]

49. Within this general point of view, some observations follow below to highlight how the preceding arguments can help offer an ethical orientation in practical scenarios, in line with the „wisdom of heart“ that Pope Francis has proposed. [98] While not extensive, this discussion is used in service of the dialogue that considers how AI can be utilized to maintain the dignity of the human individual and promote the common good. [99]

50. As Pope Francis observed, „the fundamental dignity of each human being and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human household must support the development of brand-new innovations and serve as unassailable criteria for assessing them before they are used.“ [100]

51. Viewed through this lens, AI could „present essential developments in agriculture, education and culture, an improved level of life for entire nations and peoples, and the development of human fraternity and social friendship,“ and thus be „utilized to promote integral human development.“ [101] AI might also assist companies recognize those in requirement and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other comparable applications of this innovation could add to human advancement and the common good. [102]

52. However, while AI holds many possibilities for promoting the great, it can also impede or perhaps counter human development and the typical good. Pope Francis has actually kept in mind that „evidence to date suggests that digital innovations have actually increased inequality in our world. Not simply differences in product wealth, which are also significant, however also distinctions in access to political and social impact.“ [103] In this sense, AI might be utilized to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, produce new kinds of poverty, widen 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 business raises considerable ethical concerns. Exacerbating this issue is the fundamental nature of AI systems, where no single individual can exercise complete oversight over the huge and intricate datasets utilized for computation. This lack of distinct responsibility creates the danger that AI could be manipulated for personal or business gain or to direct popular opinion for the benefit of a specific market. Such entities, encouraged by their own interests, have the capability to exercise „types of control as subtle as they are intrusive, creating mechanisms for the control of consciences and of the democratic procedure.“ [105]

54. Furthermore, there is the danger of AI being used to promote what Pope Francis has called the „technocratic paradigm,“ which perceives all the world’s issues as solvable through technological methods alone. [106] In this paradigm, human self-respect and fraternity are typically reserved in the name of performance, „as if reality, goodness, and truth immediately flow from technological and financial power as such.“ [107] Yet, human dignity and the typical good must never ever be broken for the sake of effectiveness, [108] for „technological advancements that do not lead to an improvement in the quality of life of all mankind, but on the contrary, intensify inequalities and disputes, can never count as real progress. “ [109] Instead, AI should 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 in between autonomy and duty. Greater autonomy heightens everyone’s obligation throughout numerous elements of common life. For Christians, the structure of this duty depends on the recognition that all human capacities, consisting of the individual’s autonomy, come from God and are indicated to be utilized in the service of others. [111] Therefore, rather than merely pursuing financial or technological objectives, AI needs to serve „the common good of the whole human household,“ which is „the sum overall of social conditions that allow individuals, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more totally and more quickly.“ [112]

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

57. Such a quest, along with other elements of human interaction, presupposes encounters and shared exchange in between people formed by their special histories, thoughts, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a diverse, complex, and complicated reality: specific and social, rational and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis highlights this vibrant, noting that „together, we can seek the fact in discussion, in relaxed conversation or in passionate debate. To do so calls for perseverance; it entails minutes of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently accept the broader experience of individuals and peoples. […] The procedure of building fraternity, be it local or universal, can only be undertaken by spirits that are complimentary and available to authentic encounters.“ [116]

58. It remains in this context that a person can think about the obstacles AI presents to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the possible to foster connections within the human household. However, it could likewise hinder a true encounter with reality and, ultimately, lead people to „a deep and melancholic dissatisfaction with social relations, or a hazardous sense of isolation.“ [117] Authentic human relationships require the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their pleasure. [118] Since human intelligence is expressed and enriched likewise in social and embodied methods, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are indispensable for engaging with truth in its fullness.

59. Because „true knowledge demands an encounter with reality,“ [119] the increase of AI presents another difficulty. Since AI can successfully mimic the items of human intelligence, the ability to know when one is communicating with a human or a device can no longer be considered approved. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other innovative outputs that are usually connected with humans. Yet, it needs to be comprehended for what it is: a tool, not an individual. [120] This difference is frequently obscured by the language utilized by practitioners, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and thus blurs the line in between human and maker.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI also presents specific challenges for the development of kids, potentially encouraging them to develop patterns of interaction that deal with human relationships in a transactional manner, as one would relate to a chatbot. Such routines might lead youths to see teachers as simple dispensers of details instead of as mentors who assist and support their intellectual and ethical development. Genuine relationships, rooted in empathy and a steadfast dedication to the good of the other, are vital and irreplaceable in promoting the complete development of the human individual.

61. In this context, it is essential to clarify that, regardless of making use of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can truly experience empathy. Emotions can not be minimized to facial expressions or expressions produced in response to triggers; they show the method an individual, as a whole, relates to the world and to his/her own life, with the body playing a main function. True empathy needs the capability to listen, recognize another’s irreducible originality, welcome their otherness, and grasp the meaning behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the world of analytical judgment in which AI stands out, true compassion comes from the relational sphere. It involves intuiting and collaring the lived experiences of another while maintaining the difference between self and other. [122] While AI can simulate understanding actions, 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 infraction that might erode social trust. Similarly, using AI to trick in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, consisting of the sphere of sexuality-is likewise to be considered immoral and needs mindful oversight to avoid damage, maintain transparency, and guarantee the dignity of all people. [124]

63. In an increasingly separated world, some people have actually turned to AI in search of deep human relationships, basic companionship, and even psychological bonds. However, while human beings are suggested to experience authentic relationships, AI can only simulate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an important part of how a person grows to become who he or she is suggested to be. If AI is used to assist people foster real connections in between people, it can contribute favorably to the complete awareness of the individual. Conversely, if we replace relationships with God and with others with interactions with innovation, we run the risk of replacing authentic relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of retreating into artificial worlds, we are contacted us to engage in a dedicated and intentional way with truth, specifically by relating to the bad and suffering, consoling those in grief, and creating bonds of communion with all.

64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being significantly integrated into economic and financial systems. Significant investments are currently being made not only in the technology sector but likewise in energy, finance, and media, particularly in the areas of marketing and sales, logistics, technological development, compliance, and threat management. At the same time, AI’s applications in these areas have actually also highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of significant chances however likewise profound dangers. A very first real crucial point in this area concerns the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a few corporations-only those big business would gain from the value produced by AI rather than the companies that utilize it.

65. Other broader aspects of AI‘s effect on the economic-financial sphere must likewise be carefully taken a look at, especially worrying the interaction between concrete truth and the digital world. One essential consideration in this regard involves the coexistence of diverse and alternative kinds of economic and financial organizations within a given context. This aspect needs to be motivated, as it can bring advantages in how it supports the genuine economy by promoting its advancement and stability, specifically throughout times of crisis. Nevertheless, it ought to be stressed that digital realities, not restricted by any spatial bonds, tend to be more homogeneous and impersonal than communities rooted in a particular location and a specific history, with a common journey identified by shared worths and hopes, however 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 decrease this range and richness. As an outcome, many options to financial issues that can be reached through natural discussion between the included celebrations may no longer be attainable in a world controlled by treatments and only the appearance of proximity.

66. Another location where AI is already having an extensive effect is the world of work. As in lots of other fields, AI is driving fundamental changes throughout many occupations, with a range of impacts. On the one hand, it has the prospective to improve proficiency and productivity, create brand-new tasks, allow workers to concentrate on more innovative tasks, and open new horizons for creativity and innovation.

67. However, while AI promises to improve efficiency by taking over mundane jobs, it regularly requires workers to adjust to the speed and demands of machines instead of makers being designed to support those who work. As an outcome, contrary to the marketed benefits of AI, existing approaches to the innovation can paradoxically deskill employees, subject them to automated security, and relegate them to stiff and repeated tasks. The need to keep up with the pace of technology can erode workers’ sense of company and stifle the innovative abilities they are anticipated to give their work. [125]

68. AI is presently removing the need for some tasks that were once performed by humans. If AI is utilized to change human workers rather than complement them, there is a „significant threat of disproportionate benefit for the few at the rate of the impoverishment of numerous.“ [126] Additionally, as AI becomes more effective, there is an involved threat that human labor might lose its value in the economic realm. This is the sensible consequence of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humankind enslaved to effectiveness, where, ultimately, the cost of mankind should be cut. Yet, human lives are intrinsically valuable, independent of their financial output. Nevertheless, the „existing design,“ Pope Francis explains, „does not appear to prefer an investment in efforts to help the sluggish, the weak, or the less gifted to discover chances in life.“ [127] In light of this, „we can not allow a tool as effective and important as Artificial Intelligence to strengthen such a paradigm, but rather, we need to make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its expansion.“ [128]

69. It is very important to remember that „the order of things must be subordinate to the order of individuals, and not the other way around.“ [129] Human work should not just be at the service of revenue however at „the service of the entire human person […] taking into account the person’s product needs and the requirements of his/her intellectual, moral, spiritual, and spiritual life.“ [130] In this context, the Church recognizes that work is „not just a means of earning one’s daily bread“ however is also „a vital measurement of social life“ and „a means […] of individual growth, the structure of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of gifts. Work offers us a sense of shared obligation for the development of the world, and eventually, for our life as an individuals.“ [131]

70. Since work is a „part of the significance of life on this earth, a course to growth, human advancement and individual fulfillment,“ „the goal should not be that technological progress progressively replaces human work, for this would be damaging to humankind“ [132] -rather, it should promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI should assist, not replace, human judgment. Similarly, it must never degrade imagination or decrease employees to simple „cogs in a maker.“ Therefore, „regard for the dignity of workers and the significance of employment for the financial wellness of individuals, households, and societies, for task security and just incomes, ought to be a high concern for the global community as these types of innovation penetrate more deeply into our offices.“ [133]

71. As participants in God’s recovery work, healthcare specialists have the vocation and duty to be „guardians and servants of human life.“ [134] Because of this, the healthcare profession brings an „intrinsic and indisputable ethical measurement,“ recognized by the Hippocratic Oath, which requires physicians and health care specialists to commit 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 development of a society of exemption, and act rather as next-door neighbors, raising up and fixing up the succumbed to the sake of the common good.“ [136]

72. Seen in this light, AI appears to hold tremendous capacity in a range of applications in the medical field, such as assisting the diagnostic work of health care companies, assisting in relationships between patients and medical personnel, providing brand-new treatments, and expanding access to quality care likewise for those who are separated or marginalized. In these methods, the innovation might improve the „caring and loving nearness“ [137] that doctor are called to extend to the ill and suffering.

73. However, if AI is used not to boost but to replace the relationship between patients and healthcare providers-leaving patients to engage with a device rather than a human being-it would decrease a crucially essential human relational structure to a centralized, impersonal, and unequal structure. Instead of motivating solidarity with the sick and suffering, such applications of AI would risk intensifying the solitude that frequently accompanies illness, particularly in the context of a culture where „persons are no longer seen as a vital worth to be cared for and appreciated.“ [138] This abuse of AI would not align with respect for the self-respect of the human person and solidarity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the well-being of clients and the decisions that discuss their lives are at the heart of the health care occupation. This responsibility needs doctor to work out all their ability and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options concerning those entrusted to their care, constantly respecting the inviolable dignity of the clients and the requirement for notified consent. As an outcome, decisions regarding patient treatment and the weight of duty they entail must always remain with the human person and must never ever be handed over to AI. [139]

75. In addition, using AI to determine who must get treatment based mainly on economic steps or metrics of effectiveness represents an especially problematic instance of the „technocratic paradigm“ that should be rejected. [140] For, „enhancing resources implies utilizing them in an ethical and fraternal method, and not penalizing the most vulnerable.“ [141] Additionally, AI tools in healthcare are „exposed to kinds of predisposition and discrimination,“ where „systemic mistakes can quickly increase, producing not just oppressions in private cases however likewise, due to the cause and effect, genuine types of social inequality.“ [142]

76. The combination of AI into healthcare also positions the threat of enhancing other existing variations in access to treatment. As healthcare ends up being significantly oriented towards avoidance and lifestyle-based methods, AI-driven services might accidentally favor more upscale populations who currently take pleasure in much better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This trend threats strengthening a „medicine for the rich“ model, where those with financial methods gain from innovative preventative tools and customized health details while others struggle to gain access to even basic services. To avoid such injustices, fair structures are required to make sure that making use of AI in health care does not aggravate existing health care inequalities but rather serves the common good.

77. The words of the Second Vatican Council remain totally appropriate today: „True education aims to form people with a view towards their final end and the good of the society to which they belong.“ [143] As such, education is „never ever a simple process of handing down truths and intellectual skills: rather, its aim is to add to the person’s holistic development in its different elements (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, etc), consisting of, for example, neighborhood life and relations within the scholastic neighborhood,“ [144] in keeping with the nature and dignity of the human individual.

78. This approach includes a commitment to cultivating the mind, but constantly as a part of the integral advancement of the person: „We should break that idea of education which holds that educating means filling one’s head with concepts. That is the way we educate robots, cerebral minds, not individuals. Educating is taking a threat in the stress between the mind, the heart, and the hands.“ [145]

79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human person is the important relationship between teacher and trainee. Teachers do more than convey understanding; they design important human qualities and inspire the delight of discovery. [146] Their presence inspires trainees both through the material they teach and the care they demonstrate for their trainees. This bond promotes trust, shared understanding, and the capacity to deal with each individual’s unique dignity and potential. On the part of the trainee, this can produce an authentic desire to grow. The physical existence of a teacher develops a relational dynamic that AI can not reproduce, one that deepens engagement and nurtures the trainee’s important advancement.

80. In this context, AI presents both opportunities and obstacles. If used in a sensible way, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and ordered to the genuine objectives of education, AI can end up being an important instructional resource by improving access to education, providing tailored support, and supplying immediate feedback to trainees. These advantages might boost the learning experience, specifically in cases where customized attention is needed, or academic resources are otherwise scarce.

81. Nevertheless, an important part of education is forming „the intellect 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 essential in an age marked by technology, in which „it is no longer merely a question of ‘utilizing’ instruments of interaction, but of living in a highly digitalized culture that has had a profound influence on […] our ability to communicate, find out, be notified and participate in relationship with others.“ [149] However, instead of cultivating „a cultivated intelligence,“ which „brings with it a power and a grace to every work and profession that it undertakes,“ [150] the comprehensive usage of AI in education might result in the trainees’ increased dependence on innovation, eroding their ability to carry out some skills separately and worsening their dependence on screens. [151]

82. Additionally, while some AI systems are developed to assist individuals establish their vital thinking capabilities and problem-solving abilities, many others merely supply answers rather of triggering trainees to reach answers themselves or compose text for themselves. [152] Instead of training youths how to accumulate details and produce quick actions, education should encourage „the responsible use of liberty to face concerns with common sense and intelligence.“ [153] Building on this, „education in using kinds of expert system need to aim above all at promoting vital thinking. Users of all ages, however especially the young, need to establish a critical approach to making use of information and content gathered on the web or produced by expert system systems. Schools, universities, and scientific societies are challenged to help trainees and professionals to comprehend the social and ethical aspects of the development and uses of technology.“ [154]

83. As Saint John Paul II remembered, „in the world today, characterized by such quick developments in science and innovation, the tasks of a Catholic University assume an ever greater significance and urgency.“ [155] In a specific method, Catholic universities are advised to be present as fantastic laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary secret, they are prompted to engage „with knowledge and imagination“ [156] in careful research on this phenomenon, helping to extract the salutary potential within the different fields of science and reality, and guiding them always towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the typical great, reaching brand-new frontiers in the discussion in between faith and factor.

84. Moreover, it ought to be noted that existing AI programs have been understood to provide biased or made details, which can lead trainees to rely on inaccurate material. This problem „not only risks of legitimizing phony news and reinforcing a dominant culture’s advantage, however, in brief, it also weakens the instructional procedure itself.“ [157] With time, clearer distinctions might emerge between appropriate and improper uses of AI in education and research. Yet, a decisive standard is that using AI ought to constantly be transparent and never ever misrepresented.

85. AI could be utilized as an aid to human dignity if it helps individuals understand intricate principles or directs them to sound resources that support their search for the reality. [158]

86. However, AI also provides a severe risk of producing controlled content and false details, which can easily misguide individuals due to its similarity to the reality. Such misinformation may occur inadvertently, as in the case of AI „hallucination,“ where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine however are not. Since creating material that simulates human artifacts is main to AI‘s performance, mitigating these threats shows challenging. Yet, the repercussions of such aberrations and false details can be rather severe. For this factor, all those associated with producing and using AI systems need to be dedicated to the truthfulness and accuracy of the details processed by such systems and distributed to the general public.

87. While AI has a latent potential to create false details, an even more troubling issue lies in the deliberate abuse of AI for manipulation. This can take place when people or companies deliberately create and spread false material with the aim to deceive or cause harm, such as „deepfake“ images, videos, and audio-referring to a false representation of a person, modified or produced by an AI algorithm. The danger of deepfakes is especially evident when they are used to target or damage 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 „real wounds in their human self-respect.“ [159]

88. On a broader scale, by distorting „our relationship with others and with reality,“ [160] AI-generated phony media can slowly undermine the foundations of society. This concern needs careful policy, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or influenced media-can spread accidentally, sustaining political polarization and social discontent. When society ends up being indifferent to the fact, different groups construct their own variations of „truths,“ deteriorating the „reciprocal ties and mutual dependencies“ [161] that underpin the fabric of social life. As deepfakes cause individuals to question whatever and AI-generated false content erodes rely on what they see and hear, polarization and dispute will just grow. Such extensive deception is no trivial matter; it strikes at the core of mankind, dismantling the fundamental trust on which societies are built. [162]

89. Countering AI-driven frauds is not only the work of market experts-it requires the efforts of all people of goodwill. „If technology is to serve human dignity and not harm it, and if it is to promote peace instead of violence, then the human neighborhood must be proactive in attending to these patterns with regard to human self-respect and the promo of the good.“ [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated material should always exercise diligence in verifying the fact of what they distribute and, in all cases, ought to „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 susceptible.“ [164] This requires the continuous vigilance and mindful discernment of all users regarding their activity online. [165]

90. Humans are naturally relational, and the information everyone produces in the digital world can be viewed as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data communicates not only details however likewise personal and relational understanding, which, in an increasingly digitized context, can total up to power over the person. Moreover, while some kinds of information might pertain to public aspects of an individual’s life, others might touch upon the individual’s interiority, perhaps even their conscience. Seen in this way, privacy plays an essential role in securing the boundaries of a person’s inner life, maintaining their flexibility to relate to others, reveal themselves, and make decisions without unnecessary control. This security is likewise connected to the defense of religious freedom, as monitoring can likewise be misused to exert control over the lives of believers and how they reveal their faith.

91. It is suitable, therefore, to attend to the issue of privacy from a concern for the legitimate flexibility and inalienable self-respect of the human individual „in all circumstances.“ [166] The Second Vatican Council included the right „to secure privacy“ among the essential rights „needed for living a really human life,“ a right that should be reached all people on account of their „superb dignity.“ [167] Furthermore, the Church has likewise affirmed the right to the genuine regard for a personal life in the context of affirming the person’s right to an excellent track record, defense of their physical and psychological stability, and flexibility from harm or excessive intrusion [168] -necessary elements of the due respect for the intrinsic self-respect of the human individual. [169]

92. Advances in AI-powered data processing and analysis now make it possible to presume patterns in an individual’s habits and thinking from even a small amount of details, making the role of information privacy even more necessary as a secure for the dignity and relational nature of the human individual. As Pope Francis observed, „while closed and intolerant attitudes towards others are on the increase, distances are otherwise diminishing or vanishing to the point that the right to personal privacy hardly exists. Everything has actually ended up being a type of spectacle to be taken a look at and checked, and individuals’s lives are now under continuous monitoring.“ [170]

93. While there can be genuine and appropriate ways to use AI in keeping with human self-respect and the common great, using it for security aimed at making use of, limiting others’ freedom, or benefitting a few at the cost of the many is unjustifiable. The danger of monitoring overreach need to be monitored by suitable regulators to guarantee openness and public accountability. Those accountable for surveillance must never surpass their authority, which must constantly favor the dignity and flexibility of every individual as the essential basis of a simply and gentle society.

94. Furthermore, „fundamental regard for human dignity needs that we refuse to permit the originality of the person to be related to a set of data.“ [171] This especially uses when AI is used to assess individuals or groups based on their behavior, characteristics, or history-a practice referred to as „social scoring“: „In social and financial decision-making, we should beware about handing over judgments to algorithms that process information, frequently collected surreptitiously, on an individual’s makeup and previous behavior. Such data can be polluted by social bias and preconceptions. An individual’s past behavior need to not be used to deny him or her the chance to change, grow, and add to society. We can not permit algorithms to restrict or condition regard for human self-respect, or to exclude compassion, grace, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able to change.“ [172]

95. AI has many appealing applications for improving our relationship with our „typical home,“ such as producing designs to forecast extreme environment occasions, proposing engineering solutions to decrease their impact, handling relief operations, and forecasting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable agriculture, optimize energy usage, and supply early warning systems for public health emergencies. These developments have the possible to strengthen strength against climate-related obstacles and promote more sustainable development.

96. At the very same time, existing AI designs and the hardware needed to support them consume large quantities of energy and water, considerably adding to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This reality is typically obscured by the method this innovation is presented in the popular creativity, where words such as „the cloud“ [174] can provide the impression that information is kept and processed in an intangible realm, detached from the real world. However, „the cloud“ is not an ethereal domain separate from the real world; similar to all computing technologies, it counts on physical machines, cables, and energy. The same is real of the innovation behind AI. As these systems grow in complexity, especially big language designs (LLMs), they need ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and greater storage infrastructure. Considering the heavy toll these innovations handle the environment, it is important to establish sustainable solutions that minimize their influence on our common home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is vital „that we look for services not only in technology but in a change of mankind.“ [175] A complete and genuine understanding of creation recognizes that the value of all developed things can not be lowered to their mere energy. Therefore, a completely human technique to the stewardship of the earth turns down the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which seeks to „extract everything possible“ from the world, [176] and declines the „misconception of development,“ which assumes that „eco-friendly issues will resolve themselves simply with the application of brand-new innovation and with no requirement for ethical factors to consider or deep change.“ [177] Such a frame of mind should give way to a more holistic method that appreciates the order of development and the important good of the human person while securing our common home. [178]

98. The Second Vatican Council and the consistent mentor of the Popes ever since have firmly insisted that peace is not simply the lack of war and is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between enemies. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is „the harmony of order.“ [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without protecting the goods of persons, complimentary communication, respect for the dignity of individuals and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the result of charity and can not be attained through force alone; rather, it must be mainly developed through patient diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, solidarity, important human advancement, and regard for the dignity of all people. [180] In this method, the tools utilized to maintain peace should never be permitted to validate injustice, violence, or injustice. Instead, they should constantly be governed by a „firm determination to respect other people and nations, in addition to their self-respect, along with the deliberate practice of fraternity.“ [181]

99. While AI‘s analytical capabilities could assist countries look for peace and make sure security, the „weaponization of Artificial Intelligence“ can also be extremely bothersome. Pope Francis has actually observed that „the ability to carry out military operations through push-button control systems has resulted in a reduced understanding of the devastation brought on by those weapon systems and the burden of duty for their usage, resulting in a much more cold and separated method to the tremendous tragedy of war.“ [182] Moreover, the ease with which self-governing weapons make war more feasible militates against the concept of war as a last hope in genuine self-defense, [183] potentially increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and speeding up a destabilizing arms race, with disastrous repercussions for human rights. [184]

100. In specific, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which are capable of determining and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a „cause for serious ethical issue“ since they do not have the „unique human capacity for ethical judgment and ethical decision-making.“ [185] For this reason, Pope Francis has urgently required a reconsideration of the advancement of these weapons and a restriction on their use, starting with „an effective and concrete commitment to present ever greater and appropriate human control. No device ought to ever pick to take the life of a human being.“ [186]

101. Since it is a small step from devices that can eliminate autonomously with accuracy to those efficient in massive destruction, some AI scientists have revealed concerns that such technology postures an „existential threat“ by having the possible to act in manner ins which might threaten the survival of entire regions or even of humanity itself. This threat demands serious attention, showing the enduring concern about technologies that grant war „an unmanageable harmful power over excellent numbers of innocent civilians,“ [187] without even sparing children. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to „undertake an evaluation of war with a completely new mindset“ [188] is more immediate than ever.

102. At the very same time, while the theoretical risks of AI should have attention, the more immediate and pressing concern depends on how people with malicious objectives may abuse this technology. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future capabilities are unforeseeable, humankind’s previous actions supply clear cautions. The atrocities devoted throughout history are enough to raise deep concerns about the prospective abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that „humankind now has instruments of unmatched power: we can turn this world into a garden, or minimize it to a pile of rubble.“ [190] Given this truth, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that „we are complimentary to apply our intelligence towards things progressing positively,“ or toward „decadence and mutual damage.“ [191] To avoid humankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there must be a clear stand against all applications of innovation that inherently threaten human life and self-respect. This dedication requires cautious discernment about making use of AI, especially in military defense applications, to ensure that it always respects human dignity and serves the typical good. The advancement and implementation of AI in weaponries ought to undergo the greatest levels of ethical analysis, governed by an issue for human self-respect and the sanctity of life. [193]

104. Technology provides impressive tools to supervise and establish the world’s resources. However, in some cases, humankind is significantly ceding control of these resources to makers. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, there is optimism about the capacity of synthetic basic intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical form of AI that would match or exceed human intelligence and cause unimaginable advancements. Some even hypothesize that AGI could attain superhuman abilities. At the same time, as society wanders away from a connection with the transcendent, some are lured to turn to AI searching for significance or fulfillment-longings that can only be genuinely pleased in communion with God. [194]

105. However, the presumption of substituting God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture clearly alerts against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI may prove much more seductive than traditional idols for, unlike idols that „have mouths but do not speak; eyes, however do not see; ears, however do not hear“ (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can „speak,“ or at least provides the impression of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is crucial to bear in mind that AI is however a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated product, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not have a lot of the abilities particular to human life, and it is likewise fallible. By turning to AI as a viewed „Other“ higher than itself, with which to share presence and obligations, mankind dangers developing an alternative for God. However, it is not AI that is eventually deified and worshipped, but humanity itself-which, in this method, becomes enslaved to its own work. [195]

106. While AI has the possible to serve humanity and add to the common good, it remains a development of human hands, bearing „the imprint of human art and ingenuity“ (Acts 17:29). It needs to never 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 much better than the things he worships since he has life, but they never have“ (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. On the other hand, human beings, „by their interior life, transcend the whole material universe; they experience this deep interiority when they participate in their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they decide their own destiny in the sight of God.“ [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis advises us, that each specific discovers the „strange connection between self-knowledge and openness to others, between the encounter with one’s personal uniqueness and the desire to offer oneself to others. “ [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is „capable of setting our other powers and enthusiasms, and our whole individual, in a position of respect and caring obedience before the Lord,“ [198] who „offers to deal with every one people as a ‘Thou,’ constantly and permanently.“ [199]

108. Considering the different challenges presented by advances in technology, Pope Francis highlighted the need for development in „human duty, values, and conscience,“ proportionate to the development in the potential that this technology brings [200] -recognizing that „with an increase in human power comes a broadening of responsibility on the part of people and neighborhoods.“ [201]

109. At the same time, the „important and fundamental concern“ remains „whether in the context of this progress male, as guy, is becoming really much better, that is to state, more mature spiritually, more conscious of the self-respect of his mankind, more responsible, more available to others, especially the neediest and the weakest, and readier to give and to aid all.“ [202]

110. As a result, it is vital to know how to assess private applications of AI in specific contexts to figure out whether its use promotes human self-respect, the occupation of the human individual, and the typical good. Similar to lots of technologies, the results of the numerous uses of AI may not constantly be predictable from their inception. As these applications and their social effects end up being clearer, proper responses ought to be made at all levels of society, following the principle of subsidiarity. Individual users, families, civil society, corporations, institutions, federal governments, and international companies should operate at their appropriate levels to guarantee that AI is used for the good of all.

111. A substantial difficulty and opportunity for the common excellent today depends on considering AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of individuals and communities and highlights our shared duty for promoting the integral well-being of others. The twentieth-century thinker Nicholas Berdyaev observed that people frequently blame makers for personal and social issues; however, „this just embarrasses guy and does not correspond to his dignity,“ for „it is unworthy to move obligation from male to a device.“ [203] Only the human individual can be morally accountable, and the obstacles of a technological society are ultimately spiritual in nature. Therefore, dealing with those obstacles „demands an augmentation of spirituality.“ [204]

112. An additional point to think about is the call, triggered by the look of AI on the world phase, for a restored appreciation of all that is human. Years back, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos warned that „the danger is not in the reproduction of devices, however in the ever-increasing variety of guys accustomed from their childhood to desire just what devices can provide.“ [205] This challenge is as true today as it was then, as the rapid pace of digitization risks a „digital reductionism,“ where non-quantifiable elements of life are reserved and after that forgotten and even considered irrelevant because they can not be calculated in official terms. AI must be utilized just as a tool to complement human intelligence rather than replace its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that transcend computation is vital for maintaining „an authentic humanity“ that „seems to stay in the midst of our technological culture, nearly undetected, like a mist leaking gently below a closed door.“ [207]

113. The huge stretch of the world’s understanding is now available in manner ins which would have filled previous generations with wonder. However, to guarantee that advancements in understanding do not become humanly or spiritually barren, one must exceed the simple accumulation of data and aim to attain true wisdom. [208]

114. This knowledge is the present that mankind requires most to resolve the profound questions and ethical challenges posed by AI: „Only by adopting a spiritual method of viewing truth, only by recovering a wisdom of the heart, can we confront and translate the newness of our time.“ [209] Such „knowledge of the heart“ is „the virtue that enables us to incorporate the whole and its parts, our decisions and their repercussions.“ It „can not be looked for from machines,“ but it „lets itself be discovered by those who seek it and be seen by those who like it; it prepares for those who prefer 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 require the grace of the Holy Spirit, who „allows us to take a look at things with God’s eyes, to see connections, scenarios, events and to reveal their real meaning.“ [211]

116. Since a „individual’s excellence is determined not by the details or knowledge they have, but by the depth of their charity,“ [212] how we integrate AI „to include the least of our siblings and siblings, the vulnerable, and those most in requirement, will be the real step of our humanity.“ [213] The „knowledge of the heart“ can brighten and direct the human-centered usage of this innovation to assist promote the common great, take care of our „common home,“ advance the look for the truth, foster important human advancement, prefer human solidarity and fraternity, and lead mankind to its supreme goal: happiness and full communion with God. [214]

117. From this point of view of knowledge, followers will have the ability to act as ethical representatives efficient in utilizing this technology to promote a genuine vision of the human person and society. [215] This need to be done with the understanding that technological progress becomes part of God’s prepare for creation-an activity that we are contacted us to buy toward the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the continual search for the True and the Good.

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

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

Ex audientia pass away 14 ianuarii 2025
Franciscus

Contents

I. Introduction

II. What is Artificial Intelligence?

III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition

Rationality

Embodiment

Relationality

Relationship with the Truth

Stewardship of the World

An Essential Understanding of Human Intelligence

The Limits of AI

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

Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making

V. Specific Questions

AI and Society

AI and Human Relationships

AI, the Economy, 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 used figuratively to explain its operations and are not intended to anthropomorphize the device.
[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 improvements will enable humans to conquer their biological constraints and enhance both their physical and cognitive capabilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, contend that such advances will ultimately modify human identity to the extent that mankind itself might no longer be considered truly „human.“ Both views rest on a basically unfavorable understanding of human corporality, which deals with the body more as a challenge than as an essential part of the person’s identity and call to full awareness. Yet, this unfavorable view of the body is irregular with a proper understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports real clinical development, it verifies that human self-respect is rooted in „the individual as an inseparable unity of body and soul. “ Thus, „dignity is also inherent in everyone’s body, which gets involved in its own way in remaining in imago Dei“ (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18).
[10] This approach shows a functionalist viewpoint, which reduces the human mind to its functions and presumes that its functions can be completely quantified in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear really smart, it would still remain practical in nature.
[11] Cf. A.M. Turing, „Computing Machinery and Intelligence,“ Mind 59 (1950) 443-460.
[12] If „believing“ is associated to machines, it needs to be clarified that this refers to calculative thinking instead of critical thinking. Similarly, if machines are said to operate using logical thinking, it must be defined that this is restricted to computational reasoning. On the other hand, by its very nature, human thought is an imaginative process that avoids shows and goes beyond constraints.
[13] On the foundational role of language in shaping understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. „Letter on Humanism,“ in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London – New York 2010, 141-182).
[14] For more discussion of these anthropological and doctrinal foundations, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144.
[15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21.
[16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: „Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [professors] by which he is remarkable to the unreasonable animals. Now, this [professors] is factor itself, or the ‘mind,’ or ‘intelligence,’ whatever other name it may more appropriately be given“; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: „When thinking about all that they have, human beings find that they are most distinguished from animals exactly by the reality they have intelligence.“ This is also repeated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who states that „male is the most best of all earthly beings enhanced with movement, and his proper and natural operation is intellection,“ by which male abstracts from things and „gets in his mind things in fact 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, advertisement 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a contemporary point of view that echoes aspects of the classical and medieval distinction in between these 2 modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York City 2011.
[19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp.
[20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138.
[21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: „The intelligence can investigate the reality of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and pertain to acknowledge 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 „generally 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, but rather fully divulged its significance 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 unified to the body in order that it might have a presence and an operation suitable to its nature.“
[29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18.
[30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357.
[31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54.
[32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221.
[33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27.
[34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: „Human souls also possess factor and with it they circle in discourse around the truth of things. […] [O] n account of the way in which they can focusing the lots of 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 immediate concerns and grasping certain facts that are constant, as real now as in the past. As it peers into humanity, factor finds universal values obtained from that very same nature“; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034.
[38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): „The last case of factor is to acknowledge that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it“ (en. tr. Pascal’s Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York 1958, 77).
[39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[40] Our semantic capacity enables us to comprehend messages in any type of interaction in a manner that both takes into consideration and transcends their material or empirical structures (such as computer code). Here, intelligence becomes a knowledge that „allows us to take a look at things with God’s eyes, to see connections, circumstances, events and to uncover their real significance“ (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our imagination enables us to generate new content or concepts, mainly by offering an initial perspective on reality. Both capabilities depend upon the presence of an individual subjectivity for their full awareness.
[41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931.
[42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: „Charity, when accompanied by a dedication to the reality, is much more than personal feeling […] Certainly, its close relation to reality fosters its universality and maintains it from being ‘confined to a narrow field without relationships.’ […] Charity’s openness to reality therefore secures it from ‘a fideism that deprives it of its human and universal breadth.'“ The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643.
[43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7.
[44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15.
[46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as estimated in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294.
[47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure compares the universe to „a book reflecting, representing, and explaining its Maker,“ the Triune God who gives presence 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 the universe according to the divine strategy: they take pleasure in the advantage of sharing in the magnificent governance of noticeable creation. […] Since male’s place as ruler remains in truth a participation in the divine governance of development, we speak of it here as a kind of stewardship.“
[49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165.
[50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This concept is also shown in the development account, where God brings creatures 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 shows the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God’s creation. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117.
[51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301.
[52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302.
[53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2.
[54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7.
[55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316.
[56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8.
[57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906.
[58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L’Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987.
[59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L’Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5.
[60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: „L’intelligence n’est rien sans la délectation.“ Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L’Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: „The mind and the will are put at the service of the higher good by sensing 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 highest 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 community according to a plan developed in his knowledge and love. God has made it possible for guy to take part in this law of his so that, under the mild disposition of magnificent providence, lots of may be able to come to a deeper and deeper understanding of unchangeable fact.“ Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037.
[63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016.
[64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892.
[65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042.
[66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: „God has imprinted his own image and likeness on male (cf. Gen 1:26), providing upon him an incomparable dignity […] In impact, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not represent any work he performs, however which flow from his essential dignity as 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 understood as a technical term to show this innovation, recalling that the expression is also used to designate the field of study and not just its applications.
[71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857.
[72] For example, see the motivation of scientific expedition in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the appreciation for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These writers, among a long list of other Catholics engaged in clinical research and technological expedition, show that „faith and science can be unified in charity, provided that science is put at the service of the guys and lady of our time and not misused to damage or even destroy them“ (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L’Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87.
[73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378.
[74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888.
[77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658.
[78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim.
[79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293.
[80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): forum.altaycoins.com L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4.
[81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: „Freedom makes male an ethical subject. When he acts 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 motivated efforts „to ensure that innovation remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed toward the great.“
[85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the function of human firm in selecting a larger aim (Ziel) that then notifies the specific purpose (Zweck) for which each technological application is created, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um die Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71.
[86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: „Technology is born for a function and, in its effect on human society, always represents a kind of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, hence enabling certain individuals to perform particular actions while preventing others from performing different ones. In a more or less explicit way, this constitutive power-dimension of innovation always includes the worldview of those who invented 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: „Faced with the marvels of devices, which appear to understand how to pick independently, we should be really clear that decision-making […] must constantly be delegated the human person. We would condemn humankind to a future without hope if we took away individuals’s capability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend on the choices of makers.“
[92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[93] The term „bias“ in this document refers to algorithmic predisposition (systematic and constant mistakes in computer system systems that may disproportionately bias certain groups in unintended methods) or finding out predisposition (which will result in training on a prejudiced data set) and not the „bias vector“ in neural networks (which is a criterion used to change the output of „nerve cells“ to adjust more accurately to the information).
[94] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the „Minerva Dialogues“ (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father verified the growth in agreement „on the requirement for advancement processes to appreciate such worths as addition, transparency, security, equity, privacy and reliability,“ and also welcomed „the efforts of international organizations to control these innovations so that they promote real development, contributing, that is, to a better world and an integrally greater quality of life.“
[95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the „Max Planck Society“ (23 February 2023): L’Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8.
[96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.
[97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar „The Common Good in the Digital Age“ (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571.
[98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For more discussion of the ethical concerns raised by AI from a Catholic perspective, 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 towards a „robust and solid social principles,“ see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045.
[100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.
[102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the „Minerva Dialogues“ (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464.
[104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10.
[105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; 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:“ [Lots of people] want their social relationships supplied by advanced devices, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel tells us continuously to risk of an in person encounter with others, with their physical existence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their delight which infects us in our close and constant interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from subscription in the neighborhood, from service, from reconciliation with others.“ Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045.
[124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1.
[125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar „The Common Good in the Digital Age“ (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899.
[126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107.
[128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis’ teaching about AI in relationship to the „technocratic paradigm,“ cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893.
[129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as estimated in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453.
[130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: „work is ‘for guy’ and not guy ‘for work.’ Through this conclusion one appropriately pertains to acknowledge the pre-eminence of the subjective significance 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 quoted in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L’Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8.
[137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12.
[138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12.
[139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the „Minerva Dialogues“ (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the „Minerva Dialogues“ (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465.
[141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops’ Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: „If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture appears, with its painful consequences, it is that of healthcare. When a sick individual is not put in the center or their self-respect is not thought about, this generates mindsets that can lead even to speculation on the bad luck of others. And this is very serious! […] The application of a company approach to the health care sector, if indiscriminate […] may run the risk of 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 the Use of Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729; Francis, Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016), 6: AAS 108 (2016 ), 57-58.
[145] Francis, Address to Members of the Global Researchers Advancing Catholic Education Project (20 April 2022): AAS 114 (2022 ), 580.
[146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), par. 41: AAS 68 (1976 ), 31, estimating Id., Address to the Members of the „Consilium de Laicis“ (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: „if [the modern individual] 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, Consulting With the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316.
[149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, estimating the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592.
[150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167.
[151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413.
[152] In a 2023 policy file about making use of generative AI in education and research, UNESCO notes: „Among the key concerns [of the usage of generative AI (GenAI) in education and research study] is whether human beings can possibly deliver basic levels of thinking and skill-acquisition processes to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking skills based upon the outputs supplied by AI. Writing, for instance, is frequently associated with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI […], humans can now start with a well-structured summary provided by GenAI. Some specialists have defined making use of GenAI to generate text in this way as ‘writing without thinking'“ (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American thinker Hannah Arendt anticipated such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and cautioned: „If it needs to turn out to be true that knowledge (in the sense of know-how) and believed have actually parted company for good, then we would certainly end up being the helpless slaves, not so much of our makers 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 help individuals gain access to the „variety of resources for creating higher knowledge of truth“ contained in the works of approach (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8.
[159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62.
[160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074.
[162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: „People can not be really indifferent to the question of whether what they understand is real or not. […] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he writes: ‘I have met lots of who wanted to trick, but none who desired to be tricked'“; estimating Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794.
[163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62.
[164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8.
[165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social 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 guy may with impunity violate that human self-respect which God himself treats with great reverence“; as priced quote in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804.
[168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203.
[169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): „Maintaining human self-respect in cyberspace requires States to likewise appreciate the right to privacy, by shielding residents from intrusive monitoring and permitting them to safeguard their individual 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 recognized a list of „early promises of AI helping to address environment change“ (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The file observed that, „taken together with predictive systems that can change information into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools might assist develop brand-new methods and investments to reduce emissions, influence new economic sector financial investments in net zero, protect biodiversity, and build broad-based social durability“ (ibid.).
[174] „The cloud“ describes a network of physical servers throughout the world that allows users to shop, procedure, and handle their data 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 require to guarantee and safeguard an area for proper human control over the choices 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 use of lethal self-governing weapons systems (LAWS) that lack the proper human control would posture essential ethical issues, provided that LAWS can never be morally responsible subjects efficient in adhering to international 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, helping with, for instance, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the organizations of legitimate systems of government. In a word, the world does not need new innovations that contribute to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and subsequently wind up promoting the recklessness of war.“
[190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565.
[191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878.
[192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687.
[193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39.
[194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661.
[195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:“ [T] here is a better understanding today that the mere accumulation of products and services […] is insufficient for the realization of human joy. Nor, in repercussion, does the availability of the many genuine benefits offered in recent times by science and technology, consisting of the computer technology, bring freedom from every type of slavery. On the contrary, […] unless all the substantial body of resources and potential at male’s disposal is assisted by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the true good of the human race, it quickly turns against guy 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, Consulting 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 produce greater wisdom. Wisdom is not born of fast searches on the web nor is it a mass of unverified data. That is not the way to mature in the encounter with truth.“
[209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[210] Ibid.
[211] Ibid.
[212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121.
[213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124.
[214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar „The Common Good in the Digital Age“ (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.