II. What Is Artificial Intelligence
1. With knowledge both ancient and new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are contacted us to assess the existing obstacles and opportunities postured by scientific and technological advancements, especially by the current advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian tradition concerns the gift of intelligence as an important element of how people are created "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Beginning with an integral vision of the human person and the scriptural contacting us to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church highlights that this present of intelligence must be revealed through the responsible usage of factor and technical abilities in the stewardship of the developed world.
2. The Church motivates the advancement of science, technology, the arts, and other forms of human undertaking, viewing them as part of the "collaboration of male and woman with God in improving the noticeable production." [1] As Sirach affirms, God "gave ability to humans, that he may be glorified in his wonderful works" (Sir. 38:6). Human capabilities and creativity come from God and, when utilized appropriately, glorify God by reflecting his wisdom and goodness. Due to this, when we ask ourselves what it implies to "be human," we can not omit a consideration of our scientific and technological capabilities.
3. It is within this point of view that the present Note addresses the anthropological and ethical obstacles raised by AI-issues that are particularly considerable, as one of the goals of this technology is to mimic the human intelligence that created it. For example, unlike lots of other human productions, AI can be trained on the outcomes of human creativity and then produce new "artifacts" with a level of speed and ability that often rivals or iwatex.com surpasses what human beings can do, such as producing text or images equivalent from human compositions. This raises critical issues about AI's possible function in the growing crisis of reality in the general public forum. Moreover, this innovation is developed to discover and make certain choices autonomously, adapting to brand-new scenarios and supplying services not predicted by its programmers, and therefore, it raises fundamental questions about ethical duty and human security, with wider implications for society as a whole. This new situation has actually prompted lots of individuals to review what it suggests to be human and the role of mankind worldwide.
4. Taking all this into account, there is broad consensus that AI marks a brand-new and significant stage in mankind's engagement with innovation, putting it at the heart of what Pope Francis has explained as an "epochal modification." [2] Its effect is felt worldwide and in a vast array of areas, consisting of social relationships, education, work, art, healthcare, law, warfare, and global relations. As AI advances quickly toward even greater accomplishments, it is critically important to consider its anthropological and ethical ramifications. This involves not just mitigating dangers and avoiding harm however also ensuring that its applications are used to promote human progress and the common good.
5. To contribute favorably to the discernment concerning AI, and in reaction to Pope Francis' call for a restored "wisdom of heart," [3] the Church uses its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active function in the international dialogue on these concerns, the Church invites those delegated with transmitting the faith-including moms and dads, instructors, pastors, and bishops-to commit themselves to this crucial subject with care and attention. While this file is planned particularly for them, it is also implied to be available to a more comprehensive audience, especially those who share the conviction that clinical and technological advances should be directed towards serving the human person and the typical good. [4]
6. To this end, the document starts by differentiating in between principles of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then checks out the Christian understanding of human intelligence, supplying a framework rooted in the Church's philosophical and doctrinal custom. Finally, the file offers guidelines to ensure that the advancement and usage of AI maintain human self-respect and promote the integral development of the human individual and society.
7. The idea of "intelligence" in AI has developed gradually, making use of a range of concepts from different disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a considerable milestone took place in 1956 when the American computer researcher John McCarthy arranged a summer season 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 acting." [5] This workshop released a research program concentrated on developing devices efficient in performing jobs typically connected with the human intellect and intelligent habits.
8. Ever since, AI research study has advanced quickly, resulting in the advancement of complex systems capable of carrying out extremely sophisticated jobs. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are usually developed to manage specific and minimal functions, such as translating languages, anticipating the trajectory of a storm, categorizing images, responding to concerns, or creating visual material at the user's demand. While the meaning of "intelligence" in AI research study differs, many contemporary AI systems-particularly those utilizing machine learning-rely on analytical inference rather than logical reduction. By analyzing big datasets to determine patterns, AI can "anticipate" [7] outcomes and propose new techniques, imitating some cognitive procedures typical of human analytical. Such achievements have been enabled through advances in computing technology (consisting of neural networks, not being watched artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) as well as hardware innovations (such as specialized processors). Together, these technologies allow AI systems to respond to numerous kinds of human input, adapt to new circumstances, and even recommend unique solutions not expected by their original developers. [8]
9. Due to these fast advancements, numerous jobs once handled specifically by humans are now delegated to AI. These systems can enhance or even supersede what people are able to carry out in numerous fields, particularly in specialized areas such as data analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is created for a particular task, numerous scientists aim to establish what is referred to as "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system capable of operating across all cognitive domains and performing any task within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI might one day attain the state of "superintelligence," exceeding human intellectual capabilities, or add to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, nevertheless, fear that these possibilities, even if theoretical, could one day eclipse the human person, while still others invite this prospective transformation. [9]
10. Underlying this and lots of other perspectives on the subject is the implicit presumption that the term "intelligence" can be utilized in the very same method to describe both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not record the complete scope of the principle. In the case of human beings, intelligence is a professors that pertains to the individual in his/her entirety, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is understood functionally, frequently with the presumption that the activities characteristic of the human mind can be broken down into digitized actions that makers can duplicate. [10]
11. This functional perspective is exhibited by the "Turing Test," which considers a maker "intelligent" if an individual can not identify its habits from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "habits" refers only to the efficiency of particular intellectual jobs; it does not represent the complete breadth of human experience, which consists of abstraction, feelings, imagination, and the aesthetic, moral, and spiritual sensibilities. Nor does it incorporate the complete variety of expressions characteristic of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the "intelligence" of a system is assessed methodologically, however also reductively, based on its ability to produce suitable responses-in this case, those related to the human intellect-regardless of how those actions are produced.
12. AI's innovative functions offer it sophisticated abilities to carry out tasks, but not the ability to believe. [12] This difference is most importantly essential, as the method "intelligence" is specified undoubtedly forms how we understand the relationship between human thought and this technology. [13] To value this, one should remember the richness of the philosophical custom and Christian faith, which offer a deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's mentor on the nature, dignity, and vocation of the human person. [14]
13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has played a main role in understanding what it indicates to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all people by nature desire to understand." [15] This knowledge, with its capability for abstraction that comprehends the nature and meaning of things, sets human beings apart from the animal world. [16] As philosophers, theologians, and psychologists have examined the specific nature of this intellectual faculty, they have likewise checked out how human beings comprehend the world and their special place within it. Through this exploration, the Christian tradition has actually pertained to understand the human person as a being consisting of both body and soul-deeply linked to this world and yet transcending it. [17]
14. In the classical custom, the principle of intelligence is frequently understood through the complementary concepts of "factor" (ratio) and "intelligence" (intellectus). These are not separate professors however, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are 2 modes in which the same intelligence operates: "The term intellect is inferred from the inward grasp of the fact, while the name factor is drawn from the inquisitive and discursive procedure." [18] This concise description highlights the 2 basic and complementary dimensions of human intelligence. Intellectus refers to the instinctive grasp of the truth-that is, nabbing it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and premises argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to reasoning correct: the discursive, analytical procedure that leads to judgment. Together, intelligence and factor form the two elements of the act of intelligere, "the proper operation of the human being as such." [19]
15. Explaining the human person as a "reasonable" being does not lower the person to a particular mode of idea; rather, it acknowledges that the ability for intellectual understanding shapes and permeates all aspects of human activity. [20] Whether worked out well or improperly, this capacity is an intrinsic aspect of humanity. In this sense, the "term 'reasonable' encompasses all the capabilities of the human individual," including those associated to "knowing and understanding, along with those of ready, caring, selecting, and preferring; it likewise consists of all corporeal functions carefully related to these capabilities." [21] This detailed perspective highlights how, in the human person, developed in the "image of God," reason is integrated in such a way that raises, shapes, and changes both the person's will and actions. [22]
16. Christian thought considers the intellectual professors of the human person within the framework of an integral anthropology that views the human being as essentially embodied. In the human individual, spirit and matter "are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature." [23] To put it simply, the soul is not merely the immaterial "part" of the person contained within the body, nor is the body an external shell real estate an intangible "core." Rather, the entire human person is simultaneously both material 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 thus, an authentically spiritual dimension) within and through this embodied presence. [24] The extensive meaning of this condition is more lit up by the mystery of the Incarnation, through which God himself handled our flesh and "raised it as much as a superb dignity." [25]
17. Although deeply rooted in physical existence, the human person transcends the material world through the soul, which is "practically on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intelligence's capacity for transcendence and the self-possessed liberty of the will come from the soul, by which the human individual "shares in the light of the divine mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of understanding without the body. [28] In this method, the intellectual professors of the human person are an integral part of a sociology that recognizes that the human person is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further aspects of this understanding will be developed in what follows.
18. People are "bought by their very nature to interpersonal communion," [30] having the capability to understand one another, to offer themselves in love, and to enter into communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not an isolated professors but is worked out in relationships, discovering its maximum expression in dialogue, cooperation, and solidarity. We find out with others, and we discover through others.
19. The relational orientation of the human individual is eventually grounded in the everlasting self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is exposed in development and redemption. [31] The human person is "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 next-door neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20; Mt. 22:37 -39). By the grace of sharing God's life, Christians are also contacted us to mimic Christ's outpouring gift (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "like one another, as I have loved you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the 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 many things is the dedication to care for one another, for if "I comprehend all secrets and all understanding [...] however do not have love, I am nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2).
21. Human intelligence is ultimately "God's present made for the assimilation of truth." [34] In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it allows the individual to check out truths that go beyond mere sensory experience or energy, since "the desire for fact is part of human nature itself. It is an innate residential or commercial property of human factor to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limitations of empirical information, human intelligence can "with authentic certitude attain to truth itself as knowable." [36] While reality remains just partially known, the desire for fact "stimulates factor always to go even more; certainly, it is as if factor were overwhelmed to see that it can constantly exceed what it has currently attained." [37] Although Truth in itself transcends the limits of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this tourist attraction, the human individual is resulted in seek "truths of a higher order." [39]
22. This inherent drive towards the pursuit of fact is specifically evident in the clearly human capacities for semantic understanding and creativity, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "way that is suitable to the social nature and dignity of the human individual." [41] Likewise, an unfaltering orientation to the reality is vital for charity to be both genuine and universal. [42]
23. The look for fact finds its greatest expression in openness to truths that go beyond the physical and created world. In God, all realities attain their supreme and original meaning. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "fundamental choice that engages the entire individual." [44] In this way, the human person becomes fully what she or he is contacted us to be: "the intelligence and the will show their spiritual nature," allowing the individual "to act in such a way that realizes personal freedom to the full." [45]
24. The Christian faith understands production as the complimentary act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, produces "not to increase his splendor, however to show it forth and to interact it." [46] Since God creates according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), development is imbued with an intrinsic order that shows God's plan (cf. Gen. 1; Dan. 2:21 -22; Is. 45:18; Ps. 74:12 -17; 104), [47] within which God has actually called people to assume a special function: to cultivate and care for the world. [48]
25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, human beings live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and abilities to take care of and establish creation in accord with God's plan. [49] In this, human intelligence shows the Divine Intelligence that developed all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] continuously sustains them, and guides them to their supreme function in him. [51] Moreover, people are called to establish their abilities in science and technology, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in an appropriate relationship with production, human beings, on the one hand, use their intelligence and ability to comply with God in directing creation toward the purpose to which he has called it. [52] On the other hand, development itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, helps the human mind to "rise gradually to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]
26. In this context, human intelligence ends up being more plainly comprehended as a professors that forms an integral part of how the entire individual engages with reality. Authentic engagement needs accepting the complete scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.
27. This engagement with reality unfolds in various ways, as each person, in his or her complex individuality [54], seeks to understand the world, relate to others, fix problems, express creativity, and pursue integral well-being through the unified interaction of the different dimensions of the individual's intelligence. [55] This involves rational and linguistic capabilities but can likewise incorporate other modes of interacting with truth. Consider the work of an artisan, who "need to understand how to determine, in inert matter, a particular type that others can not recognize" [56] and bring it forth through insight and useful skill. Indigenous individuals who live near the earth frequently have an extensive sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a good friend who knows the best word to say or an individual proficient at handling human relationships exhibits an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, dialogue and generous encounter in between individuals." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of expert system, we can not forget that poetry and love are necessary to save our humanity." [59]
28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the integration of reality into the ethical and spiritual life of the person, directing his or her actions due to God's goodness and truth. According to God's plan, intelligence, in its max sense, also consists of the capability to relish what holds true, great, and stunning. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel revealed, "intelligence is absolutely nothing without pleasure." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the greatest paradise in Paradiso, affirms that the conclusion of this intellectual delight is found in the "light intellectual filled with love, love of real great filled with happiness, joy which goes beyond every sweetness." [61]
29. A correct understanding of human intelligence, therefore, can not be minimized to the mere acquisition of truths or the ability to carry out particular jobs. Instead, it includes the person's openness to the supreme questions of life and shows an orientation toward the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the magnificent image within the person, human intelligence has the ability to access the totality of being, contemplating existence in its fullness, which goes beyond what is quantifiable, and comprehending the meaning of what has actually been understood. For believers, this capability consists of, in a particular way, the capability to grow in the understanding of the mysteries of God by utilizing factor to engage ever more exceptionally with revealed realities (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is formed by magnificent love, which "is put forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence has a necessary reflective measurement, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any practical function.
30. Because of the foregoing conversation, the differences between human intelligence and current AI systems end up being obvious. While AI is an amazing technological achievement capable of imitating certain outputs connected with human intelligence, it runs by performing jobs, attaining goals, or making decisions based on quantitative data and computational reasoning. For example, with its analytical power, AI stands out at integrating information from a variety of fields, modeling complex systems, and cultivating interdisciplinary connections. In this method, it can assist professionals team up in fixing complex problems that "can not be dealt with from a single perspective or from a single set of interests." [64]
31. However, even as AI procedures and mimics certain expressions of intelligence, it remains basically restricted to a logical-mathematical structure, which enforces inherent constraints. Human intelligence, in contrast, establishes organically throughout the person's physical and psychological growth, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although sophisticated AI systems can "learn" through procedures such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is fundamentally different from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional reactions, social interactions, and the unique context of each minute. These components shape and kind individuals within their personal history.In contrast, AI, lacking a physique, relies on computational reasoning and knowing based upon vast datasets that consist of taped human experiences and knowledge.
32. Consequently, although AI can replicate elements of human thinking and carry out specific jobs with incredible speed and efficiency, its computational abilities represent just a fraction of the broader capabilities of the human mind. For circumstances, AI can not currently replicate ethical discernment or the capability to develop authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is situated within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral formation that essentially shapes the individual's point of view, including the physical, psychological, social, moral, and spiritual dimensions of life. Since AI can not provide this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely exclusively on this technology or treat it as the main methods of translating the world can lead to "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 dimensions; it is also efficient in surprising insights. Since AI lacks the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to reality and goodness, its capacities-though apparently limitless-are incomparable with the human capability to grasp truth. A lot can be gained from an illness, a welcome of reconciliation, and even a simple sundown; certainly, lots of experiences we have as human beings open brand-new horizons and offer the possibility of attaining new wisdom. No device, working solely with data, can measure up to these and numerous other experiences present in our lives.
34. Drawing an excessively close equivalence in between human intelligence and AI threats catching a functionalist point of view, where people are valued based upon the work they can carry out. However, a person's worth does not depend upon having specific skills, cognitive and technological achievements, or private success, but on the individual's inherent self-respect, grounded in being developed in the image of God. [66] This self-respect remains undamaged in all circumstances, including for those unable to exercise their capabilities, whether it be a coming kid, an unconscious individual, or an older person who is suffering. [67] It likewise underpins the tradition of human rights (and, in particular, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "a crucial point of convergence in the search for commonalities" [68] and can, thus, function as an essential ethical guide in discussions on the responsible development and usage of AI.
35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the really use of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can prove misleading" [69] and dangers ignoring what is most precious in the human person. Because of this, AI should not be viewed as an artificial type of human intelligence however as a product of it. [70]
36. Given these factors to consider, one can ask how AI can be understood within God's strategy. To answer this, it is essential to remember that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character but is a human endeavor that engages the humanistic and cultural measurements of human creativity. [71]
37. Seen as a fruit of the possible engraved within human intelligence, [72] scientific questions and the development of technical abilities are part of the "collaboration of man and lady with God in improving the visible creation." [73] At the very same time, all clinical and technological accomplishments are, ultimately, presents from God. [74] Therefore, human beings must always utilize their abilities in view of the greater function for which God has given them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how technology has actually "corrected countless evils which used to damage and limit human beings," [76] a fact for which we ought to rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological developments in themselves represent real human progress. [77] The Church is especially opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human individual. [78] Like any human endeavor, technological development must be directed to serve the human individual and add to the pursuit of "greater justice, more extensive fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations," which are "better than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical ramifications of technological advancement are shared not just within the Church but also among many scientists, technologists, and professional associations, who progressively call for ethical reflection to assist this development in an accountable method.
39. To address these obstacles, it is important to stress the value of ethical obligation grounded in the dignity and occupation of the human person. This guiding concept likewise uses to questions worrying AI. In this context, the ethical dimension handles main significance due to the fact that it is individuals who develop systems and determine the functions for which they are used. [80] Between a machine and a human, only the latter is truly an ethical agent-a subject of moral responsibility who works out flexibility in his/her decisions and accepts their repercussions. [81] It is not the machine but the human who remains in relationship with reality and goodness, directed by a moral conscience that calls the person "to love and to do what is excellent and to avoid wicked," [82] bearing witness to "the authority of truth in recommendation to the supreme Good to which the human individual is drawn." [83] Likewise, in between a machine and a human, only the human can be sufficiently self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, discerning with prudence, and seeking the excellent that is possible in every scenario. [84] In reality, all of this also belongs to the person's workout of intelligence.
40. Like any item of human imagination, AI can be directed toward positive or negative ends. [85] When used in manner ins which respect human dignity and promote the well-being of people and communities, it can contribute favorably to the human occupation. Yet, as in all locations where human beings are contacted us to make decisions, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human liberty permits the possibility of choosing what is wrong, the ethical examination of this innovation will need to take into consideration how it is directed and utilized.
41. At the exact same time, it is not only completions that are fairly significant however also the means used to attain them. Additionally, the overall vision and understanding of the human person ingrained within these systems are necessary to think about also. Technological products show the worldview of their designers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to "form the world and engage consciences on the level of values." [87] On a societal level, some technological advancements could likewise reinforce relationships and power characteristics that are irregular with a proper understanding of the human individual and society.
42. Therefore, the ends and the methods used in a provided application of AI, in addition to the general vision it integrates, must all be examined to ensure they appreciate human self-respect and promote the common good. [88] As Pope Francis has specified, "the intrinsic dignity of every male and every woman" must be "the key requirement in assessing emerging technologies; these will show fairly sound to the level that they help regard that dignity and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] including in the social and financial spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays an important function not only in developing and producing innovation but likewise in directing its usage in line with the genuine good of the human person. [90] The duty for handling this wisely pertains to every level of society, assisted by the principle of subsidiarity and other concepts of Catholic Social Teaching.
43. The dedication to making sure that AI constantly supports and promotes the supreme worth of the self-respect of every person and the fullness of the human occupation works as a requirement of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, along with to its users. It remains valid for each application of the innovation at every level of its use.
44. An examination of the implications of this guiding principle could start by thinking about the value of moral responsibility. Since full moral causality belongs just to individual agents, not synthetic ones, it is crucial to be able to recognize and specify who bears obligation for the procedures involved in AI, especially those capable of finding out, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up techniques and extremely deep neural networks allow AI to solve complicated problems, they make it challenging to comprehend the processes that cause the solutions they embraced. This makes complex responsibility considering that if an AI application produces undesired outcomes, determining who is accountable ends up being hard. To address this issue, attention requires to be provided to the nature of accountability processes in complex, extremely automated settings, where results might just end up being obvious in the medium to long term. For this, it is very important that ultimate duty for decisions made using AI rests with the human decision-makers and that there is accountability for making use of AI at each phase of the decision-making procedure. [91]
45. In addition to identifying who is responsible, it is necessary to determine the goals given to AI systems. Although these systems may utilize not being watched autonomous knowing systems and often follow courses that human beings can not reconstruct, they ultimately pursue goals that humans have appointed to them and are governed by processes developed by their designers and programmers. Yet, this provides an obstacle since, as AI models become increasingly capable of independent knowing, the capability to maintain control over them to ensure that such applications serve human purposes may efficiently decrease. This raises the vital concern of how to make sure that AI systems are bought for the good of people and not against them.
46. While responsibility for the ethical use of AI systems begins with those who develop, produce, manage, and oversee such systems, it is likewise shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis noted, the device "makes a technical choice among numerous possibilities based either on well-defined criteria or on statistical reasonings. Humans, however, not just pick, but in their hearts can choosing." [92] Those who use AI to accomplish a job and follow its outcomes develop a context in which they are ultimately accountable for the power they have actually delegated. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist human beings in making choices, the algorithms that govern it must be reliable, safe and secure, robust enough to manage inconsistencies, and transparent in their operation to mitigate biases and unintentional side effects. [93] Regulatory frameworks need to make sure that all legal entities remain liable for using AI and all its repercussions, with proper safeguards for openness, privacy, and accountability. [94] Moreover, those utilizing AI needs to beware not to end up being overly reliant on it for their decision-making, a pattern that increases modern society's currently high dependence on innovation.
47. The Church's ethical and social teaching provides resources to assist ensure that AI is utilized in a manner that maintains human agency. Considerations about justice, for example, must likewise attend to problems such as promoting just social characteristics, maintaining global security, and promoting peace. By working out prudence, individuals and communities can discern ways to utilize AI to benefit mankind while avoiding applications that might degrade human self-respect or harm the environment. In this context, the idea of obligation should be understood not only in its most limited sense but as a "responsibility for the care for others, which is more than merely representing outcomes attained." [95]
48. Therefore, AI, like any innovation, can be part of a conscious and accountable answer to humankind's occupation to the good. However, as previously gone over, AI must be directed by human intelligence to align with this vocation, guaranteeing it appreciates the self-respect of the human person. Recognizing this "exalted self-respect," the Second Vatican Council affirmed that "the social order and its development need to usually work to the advantage of the human individual." [96] In light of this, the usage of AI, as Pope Francis said, should be "accompanied by an ethic inspired by a vision of the common excellent, an ethic of flexibility, duty, and fraternity, efficient in cultivating the full development of individuals in relation to others and to the entire of development." [97]
49. Within this basic viewpoint, some observations follow listed below to highlight how the preceding arguments can help offer an ethical orientation in useful circumstances, in line with the "wisdom of heart" that Pope Francis has proposed. [98] While not exhaustive, this discussion is offered in service of the discussion that considers how AI can be used to maintain the dignity of the human individual and promote the typical good. [99]
50. As Pope Francis observed, "the fundamental self-respect of each human and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human family should support the advancement of brand-new technologies and function as unassailable criteria for evaluating them before they are utilized." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI might "present essential innovations in agriculture, education and culture, a better level of life for whole countries and peoples, and the growth of human fraternity and social friendship," and therefore be "utilized to promote important human development." [101] AI might likewise assist organizations identify those in need and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other comparable applications of this technology might add to human advancement and the typical good. [102]
52. However, while AI holds many possibilities for promoting the good, it can also impede or even counter human advancement and the typical good. Pope Francis has kept in mind that "evidence to date suggests that digital innovations have actually increased inequality in our world. Not just differences in material wealth, which are also significant, however likewise distinctions in access to political and social impact." [103] In this sense, AI could be utilized to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, develop new forms of hardship, broaden the "digital divide," and get worse existing social inequalities. [104]
53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a few powerful companies raises considerable ethical concerns. Exacerbating this issue is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single person can exercise complete oversight over the huge and intricate datasets used for calculation. This absence of distinct responsibility creates the threat that AI might be manipulated for individual or business gain or to direct public opinion for the advantage of a specific industry. Such entities, inspired by their own interests, possess the capacity to exercise "forms of control as subtle as they are intrusive, creating mechanisms for the manipulation of consciences and of the democratic process." [105]
54. Furthermore, there is the threat of AI being utilized to promote what Pope Francis has actually called the "technocratic paradigm," which views all the world's issues as solvable through technological methods alone. [106] In this paradigm, human self-respect and fraternity are typically set aside 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 common excellent needs to never ever be broken for the sake of performance, [108] for "technological developments that do not result in an enhancement in the lifestyle of all humanity, however on the contrary, aggravate inequalities and disputes, can never count as real development. " [109] Instead, AI ought to be put "at the service of another kind of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more important." [110]
55. Attaining this goal requires a much deeper reflection on the relationship in between autonomy and responsibility. Greater autonomy heightens everyone's obligation throughout different aspects of common life. For Christians, the foundation of this duty lies in the recognition that all human capabilities, consisting of the individual's autonomy, originated from God and are implied to be utilized in the service of others. [111] Therefore, rather than simply pursuing financial or technological goals, AI needs to serve "the common good of the whole human household," which is "the sum overall of social conditions that allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their satisfaction more completely and more easily." [112]
56. The Second Vatican Council observed that "by his innermost nature guy is a social being; and if he does not participate in relations with others, he can neither live nor develop his gifts." [113] This conviction underscores that living in society is intrinsic to the nature and vocation of the human individual. [114] As social beings, we look for relationships that involve shared exchange and the pursuit of truth, in the course of which, people "show each other the fact they have found, or think they have discovered, in such a way that they assist one another in the look for reality." [115]
57. Such a quest, along with other aspects of human communication, presupposes encounters and mutual exchange between people formed by their unique histories, ideas, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a varied, multifaceted, and intricate reality: individual and social, reasonable and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis highlights this dynamic, noting that "together, we can seek the reality in discussion, in unwinded conversation or in enthusiastic dispute. To do so calls for determination; it entails minutes of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently welcome the wider experience of people and peoples. [...] The procedure of building fraternity, be it regional or universal, can just be carried out by spirits that are complimentary and available to genuine encounters." [116]
58. It remains in this context that one can think about the obstacles AI poses to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the potential to promote connections within the human household. However, it might likewise impede a real encounter with reality and, eventually, lead people to "a deep and melancholic dissatisfaction with social relations, or a hazardous sense of seclusion." [117] Authentic human relationships need the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their joy. [118] Since human intelligence is expressed and enriched also in interpersonal and embodied methods, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are important for engaging with reality in its fullness.
59. Because "real knowledge requires an encounter with reality," [119] the increase of AI introduces another difficulty. Since AI can effectively imitate the products of human intelligence, the ability to understand when one is communicating with a human or a device can no longer be taken for given. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other innovative outputs that are generally connected with people. Yet, it must be understood for what it is: a tool, not an individual. [120] This difference is typically obscured by the language used by specialists, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and thus blurs the line in between human and maker.
60. Anthropomorphizing AI also poses specific obstacles for the advancement of kids, potentially motivating them to develop patterns of interaction that deal with human relationships in a transactional manner, as one would associate with a chatbot. Such habits might lead youths to see instructors as mere dispensers of details rather than as mentors who assist and support their intellectual and moral development. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and an unfaltering dedication to the good of the other, are necessary and irreplaceable in fostering the full advancement of the human person.
61. In this context, it is necessary to clarify that, despite using anthropomorphic language, no AI application can genuinely experience compassion. Emotions can not be minimized to facial expressions or expressions generated in reaction to prompts; they show the method an individual, as an entire, connects to the world and to his or her own life, with the body playing a main role. True empathy requires the ability to listen, acknowledge another's irreducible uniqueness, invite their otherness, and grasp the significance behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the realm of analytical judgment in which AI excels, true compassion comes from the relational sphere. It involves intuiting and capturing the lived experiences of another while maintaining the difference between self and other. [122] While AI can simulate empathetic actions, it can not reproduce the incomparably personal and relational nature of authentic compassion. [123]
62. Because of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as a person need to always be prevented; doing so for fraudulent purposes is a severe ethical infraction that could wear down social trust. Similarly, utilizing AI to trick in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, including the sphere of sexuality-is also to be considered immoral and requires mindful oversight to avoid damage, maintain openness, and make sure the self-respect of all individuals. [124]
63. In a progressively isolated world, some individuals have actually turned to AI looking for deep human relationships, simple friendship, and even emotional bonds. However, while human beings are implied to experience genuine relationships, AI can only imitate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an essential part of how an individual grows to become who he or she is implied to be. If AI is utilized to help people foster real connections in between individuals, it can contribute positively to the complete realization of the individual. Conversely, if we change relationships with God and with others with interactions with technology, we run the risk of changing authentic relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of retreating into synthetic worlds, we are called to take part in a dedicated and intentional method with truth, especially by determining with the bad and suffering, consoling those in sorrow, and creating bonds of communion with all.
64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being progressively integrated into economic and monetary systems. Significant financial investments are currently being made not just in the technology sector but also in energy, financing, and media, especially in the areas of marketing and sales, logistics, technological innovation, compliance, and danger management. At the very same time, AI's applications in these locations have likewise highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of remarkable opportunities however also extensive threats. A first genuine crucial point in this location concerns the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a couple of corporations-only those big business would gain from the worth produced by AI instead of business that use it.
65. Other more comprehensive elements of AI's effect on the economic-financial sphere must likewise be thoroughly examined, especially worrying the interaction in between concrete truth and the digital world. One crucial factor to consider in this regard includes the coexistence of varied and alternative kinds of financial and banks within an offered context. This element needs to be encouraged, as it can bring advantages in how it supports the real economy by promoting its advancement and stability, particularly throughout times of crisis. Nevertheless, it ought to be stressed that digital truths, not limited by any spatial bonds, tend to be more homogeneous and impersonal than communities rooted in a specific location and a specific history, with a common journey characterized by shared values and hopes, but also by inescapable disputes and divergences. This diversity is an undeniable asset to a community's economic life. Turning over the economy and financing totally to digital innovation would reduce this variety and richness. As a result, lots of services to financial issues that can be reached through natural discussion in between the involved parties might no longer be attainable in a world dominated by procedures and only the appearance of nearness.
66. Another location where AI is already having a profound effect is the world of work. As in numerous other fields, AI is driving basic improvements across numerous professions, with a series of effects. On the one hand, it has the potential to enhance know-how and productivity, create brand-new tasks, make it possible for employees to concentrate on more innovative tasks, and open new horizons for imagination and innovation.
67. However, while AI promises to improve efficiency by taking control of mundane jobs, it often forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines rather than devices being created to support those who work. As an outcome, contrary to the advertised advantages of AI, existing techniques to the innovation can paradoxically deskill workers, subject them to automated surveillance, and relegate them to stiff and repetitive tasks. The need to keep up with the pace of technology can deteriorate workers' sense of agency and stifle the ingenious abilities they are anticipated to give their work. [125]
68. AI is presently removing the requirement for some tasks that were once performed by human beings. If AI is used to replace human workers rather than match them, there is a "considerable risk of disproportionate advantage for the couple of at the price of the impoverishment of many." [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more effective, there is an associated threat that human labor may lose its worth in the financial world. This is the logical effect of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humanity oppressed to efficiency, where, ultimately, the cost of humanity should be cut. Yet, human lives are fundamentally important, independent of their economic output. Nevertheless, the "current model," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to favor a financial investment in efforts to assist the slow, the weak, or the less talented to find chances in life." [127] Due to this, "we can not enable a tool as powerful and indispensable as Artificial Intelligence to enhance such a paradigm, however rather, we must make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its growth." [128]
69. It is very important to keep in mind that "the order of things must be subordinate to the order of individuals, and not the other method around." [129] Human work needs to not just be at the service of earnings however at "the service of the entire human person [...] taking into consideration the person's material requirements and the requirements of his or her intellectual, moral, spiritual, and spiritual life." [130] In this context, the Church acknowledges that work is "not just a method of making one's daily bread" however is likewise "a vital measurement of social life" and "a way [...] of personal growth, the building of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of presents. Work gives 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 meaning of life on this earth, a path to development, human advancement and individual fulfillment," "the objective needs to not be that technological development significantly replaces human work, for this would be harmful to humanity" [132] -rather, it ought to promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI needs to help, not replace, human judgment. Similarly, it should never ever deteriorate creativity or minimize employees to simple "cogs in a device." Therefore, "respect for the self-respect of workers and the significance of employment for the economic well-being of people, families, and societies, for job security and just incomes, ought to be a high priority for the worldwide neighborhood as these forms of technology penetrate more deeply into our work environments." [133]
71. As participants in God's recovery work, health care experts have the occupation and duty to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the health care profession carries an "intrinsic and undeniable ethical measurement," acknowledged by the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges doctors and healthcare experts to devote themselves to having "absolute respect for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Do-gooder, this commitment is to be performed by males and females "who turn down the creation of a society of exemption, and act instead as next-door neighbors, raising up and restoring the succumbed to the sake of the typical good." [136]
72. Seen in this light, AI appears to hold tremendous capacity in a variety of applications in the medical field, such as helping the diagnostic work of health care suppliers, facilitating relationships in between clients and medical personnel, using new treatments, and broadening access to quality care also for those who are isolated or marginalized. In these ways, the innovation might boost the "caring and loving nearness" [137] that health care companies are contacted us to reach the sick and suffering.
73. However, if AI is utilized not to boost but to change the relationship between clients and health care providers-leaving patients to engage with a machine instead of a human being-it would decrease a crucially essential human relational structure to a centralized, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of encouraging solidarity with the ill and suffering, such applications of AI would run the risk of aggravating the loneliness that often accompanies disease, especially in the context of a culture where "persons are no longer viewed as a paramount worth to be looked after and respected." [138] This abuse of AI would not align with respect for the dignity of the human individual and uniformity with the suffering.
74. Responsibility for the well-being of patients and the decisions that discuss their lives are at the heart of the healthcare profession. This responsibility needs doctor to work out all their ability and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded choices regarding those entrusted to their care, always respecting the inviolable dignity of the patients and the requirement for notified approval. As a result, choices relating to patient treatment and the weight of obligation they entail need to constantly remain with the human individual and ought to never be handed over to AI. [139]
75. In addition, using AI to identify who should receive treatment based mainly on economic measures or metrics of effectiveness represents an especially problematic circumstances of the "technocratic paradigm" that must be rejected. [140] For, "optimizing resources implies using them in an ethical and fraternal method, and not penalizing the most delicate." [141] Additionally, AI tools in health care are "exposed to kinds of bias and discrimination," where "systemic mistakes can easily multiply, producing not only oppressions in individual cases however also, due to the domino result, genuine forms of social inequality." [142]
76. The combination of AI into healthcare also postures the threat of magnifying other existing disparities in access to treatment. As healthcare becomes progressively oriented toward avoidance and lifestyle-based techniques, AI-driven options might inadvertently favor more wealthy populations who already delight in better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This trend threats reinforcing a "medicine for the rich" model, where those with monetary ways gain from advanced preventative tools and customized health details while others struggle to gain access to even standard services. To avoid such inequities, fair structures are required to make sure that the usage of AI in health care does not aggravate existing healthcare inequalities however rather serves the typical good.
77. The words of the Second Vatican Council remain completely pertinent today: "True education aims to form individuals with a view toward their final end and the good of the society to which they belong." [143] As such, education is "never ever a simple process of handing down facts and intellectual skills: rather, its aim is to contribute to the individual's holistic development in its numerous elements (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, etc), consisting of, for instance, neighborhood life and relations within the academic neighborhood," [144] in keeping with the nature and dignity of the human individual.
78. This method includes a commitment to cultivating the mind, but always as a part of the integral advancement of the individual: "We should break that idea of education which holds that educating means filling one's head with ideas. That is the method we educate robots, cerebral minds, not people. Educating is taking a danger in the tension in between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]
79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human person is the indispensable relationship in between instructor and trainee. Teachers do more than communicate understanding; they model necessary human qualities and influence the delight of discovery. [146] Their existence encourages trainees both through the material they teach and the care they demonstrate for their trainees. This bond cultivates trust, shared understanding, and the capability to attend to everyone's special self-respect and potential. On the part of the trainee, this can create an authentic desire to grow. The physical presence of an instructor creates a relational dynamic that AI can not duplicate, one that deepens engagement and nurtures the trainee's integral development.
80. In this context, AI presents both opportunities and difficulties. If used in a sensible manner, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and bought to the authentic goals of education, AI can become an important educational resource by enhancing access to education, providing tailored support, and supplying immediate feedback to trainees. These advantages might boost the learning experience, especially in cases where individualized attention is required, or instructional resources are otherwise scarce.
81. Nevertheless, an important part of education is forming "the intelligence to factor well in all matters, to reach out towards fact, and to comprehend it," [147] while helping the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is even more essential in an age marked by innovation, in which "it is no longer merely a question of 'using' instruments of interaction, however of residing in a highly digitalized culture that has actually had an extensive effect on [...] our ability to communicate, find out, be informed and participate in relationship with others." [149] However, instead of cultivating "a cultivated intelligence," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and occupation that it carries out," [150] the comprehensive use of AI in education might lead to the trainees' increased reliance on innovation, deteriorating their ability to carry out some abilities independently and intensifying their reliance on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are developed to help individuals develop their vital believing capabilities and problem-solving abilities, many others merely supply responses rather of triggering trainees to reach responses themselves or write text on their own. [152] Instead of training young individuals how to amass details and create quick actions, education should encourage "the accountable use of freedom to face problems with common sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in making use of types of expert system must aim above all at promoting crucial thinking. Users of all ages, however especially the young, require to develop a discerning method to the usage of information and content gathered on the internet or produced by synthetic intelligence systems. Schools, universities, and clinical societies are challenged to help trainees and experts to comprehend the social and ethical elements of the development and uses of technology." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II remembered, "on the planet today, defined by such quick developments in science and innovation, the jobs of a Catholic University assume an ever higher importance and urgency." [155] In a specific way, Catholic universities are prompted to be present as fantastic laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary key, they are advised to engage "with wisdom and creativity" [156] in careful research on this phenomenon, assisting to extract the salutary potential within the various fields of science and reality, and guiding them constantly towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the typical good, reaching new frontiers in the dialogue in between faith and factor.
84. Moreover, it ought to be kept in mind that present AI programs have actually been known to offer biased or fabricated details, which can lead trainees to rely on inaccurate material. This problem "not only risks of legitimizing fake news and strengthening a dominant culture's advantage, however, simply put, it also undermines the academic procedure itself." [157] With time, clearer distinctions might emerge in between proper and incorrect usages of AI in education and research study. Yet, a definitive standard is that using AI ought to constantly be transparent and never misrepresented.
85. AI might be used as an aid to human self-respect if it helps people understand intricate principles or directs them to sound resources that support their search for the reality. [158]
86. However, AI likewise provides a major risk of generating controlled material and false details, which can easily misinform individuals due to its similarity to the reality. Such misinformation may take place accidentally, as in the case of AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear real but are not. Since creating content that imitates human artifacts is main to AI's performance, mitigating these dangers proves difficult. Yet, the repercussions of such aberrations and incorrect details can be rather severe. For this factor, all those involved in producing and utilizing AI systems ought to be dedicated to the truthfulness and accuracy of the details processed by such systems and shared to the public.
87. While AI has a latent capacity to generate incorrect details, a a lot more unpleasant issue depends on the purposeful abuse of AI for manipulation. This can occur when individuals or companies deliberately produce and spread false content with the aim to deceive or cause harm, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to an incorrect depiction of a person, edited or generated by an AI algorithm. The threat of deepfakes is especially apparent when they are used to target or harm others. While the images or videos themselves might be artificial, the damage they cause is genuine, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "genuine wounds in their human dignity." [159]
88. On a wider scale, by distorting "our relationship with others and with reality," [160] AI-generated phony media can gradually undermine the structures of society. This problem needs mindful policy, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or influenced media-can spread inadvertently, sustaining political polarization and social unrest. When society becomes indifferent to the truth, various groups construct their own versions of "realities," compromising the "mutual ties and shared reliances" [161] that underpin the material of social life. As deepfakes cause people to question whatever and AI-generated incorrect content wears down rely on what they see and hear, polarization and dispute will just grow. Such widespread deceptiveness is no insignificant matter; it strikes at the core of humankind, taking apart the foundational trust on which societies are constructed. [162]
89. Countering AI-driven frauds is not just the work of industry experts-it requires the efforts of all people of goodwill. "If innovation is to serve human dignity and not hurt it, and if it is to promote peace instead of violence, then the human neighborhood needs to be proactive in resolving these patterns with respect to human dignity and the promotion of the great." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated material ought to always work out diligence in confirming the fact of what they share and, in all cases, must "prevent the sharing of words and images that are deteriorating of human beings, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that make use of the weak and susceptible." [164] This requires the continuous vigilance and careful discernment of all users regarding their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are naturally relational, and the information each person creates in the digital world can be seen as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data communicates not just details but also individual and relational understanding, which, in an increasingly digitized context, can amount to power over the individual. Moreover, while some kinds of information may pertain to public aspects of an individual's life, others might discuss the individual's interiority, maybe even their conscience. Seen in this way, privacy plays an essential function in protecting the boundaries of an individual's inner life, maintaining their freedom to relate to others, express themselves, and make choices without undue control. This defense is also connected to the defense of spiritual flexibility, as surveillance can likewise be misused to apply control over the lives of believers and how they reveal their faith.
91. It is proper, for that reason, to address the issue of privacy from an issue for the legitimate liberty and inalienable dignity of the human individual "in all scenarios." [166] The Second Vatican Council included the right "to secure privacy" amongst the fundamental rights "needed for living a truly human life," a right that should be reached all individuals on account of their "sublime self-respect." [167] Furthermore, the Church has also verified the right to the legitimate respect for a personal life in the context of verifying the individual's right to an excellent reputation, defense of their physical and psychological integrity, and flexibility from damage or undue invasion [168] -essential elements of the due respect for the intrinsic self-respect of the human person. [169]
92. Advances in AI-powered information processing and analysis now make it possible to presume patterns in a person's habits and believing from even a small amount of details, making the role of information personal privacy even more imperative as a protect 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 disappearing to the point that the right to personal privacy rarely exists. Everything has ended up being a sort of phenomenon to be examined and checked, and individuals's lives are now under constant monitoring." [170]
93. While there can be legitimate and correct ways to utilize AI in keeping with human dignity and the typical great, utilizing it for monitoring aimed at making use of, limiting others' freedom, or benefitting a couple of at the expenditure of the many is unjustifiable. The threat of monitoring overreach need to be monitored by proper regulators to guarantee openness and public responsibility. Those accountable for must never exceed their authority, which must constantly favor the dignity and liberty of every individual as the necessary basis of a simply and gentle society.
94. Furthermore, "fundamental regard for human self-respect demands that we refuse to permit the uniqueness of the individual to be related to a set of information." [171] This particularly applies when AI is utilized to assess individuals or groups based on their habits, characteristics, or history-a practice referred to as "social scoring": "In social and financial decision-making, we need to be mindful about delegating judgments to algorithms that process data, frequently collected surreptitiously, on an individual's makeup and previous habits. Such information can be contaminated by societal prejudices and prejudgments. An individual's past habits should not be utilized to deny him or her the chance to change, grow, and add to society. We can not allow algorithms to limit or condition respect for human dignity, or to omit compassion, grace, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that individuals are able to change." [172]
95. AI has lots of appealing applications for enhancing our relationship with our "common home," such as producing designs to anticipate extreme climate occasions, proposing engineering services to minimize their effect, managing relief operations, and forecasting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable agriculture, enhance energy use, and supply early warning systems for public health emergency situations. These improvements have the potential to strengthen durability against climate-related difficulties and promote more sustainable development.
96. At the very same time, present AI designs and the hardware needed to support them consume huge amounts of energy and water, considerably adding to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This truth is often obscured by the way this innovation is presented in the popular creativity, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can provide the impression that data is kept and processed in an intangible world, removed from the physical world. However, "the cloud" is not an ethereal domain separate from the real world; as with all computing technologies, it counts on physical machines, cable televisions, and energy. The very same holds true of the innovation behind AI. As these systems grow in complexity, particularly big language designs (LLMs), they require ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and greater storage facilities. Considering the heavy toll these innovations take on the environment, it is vital to establish sustainable options that minimize their effect on our typical home.
97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is vital "that we look for solutions not only in technology however in a change of humankind." [175] A complete and genuine understanding of creation acknowledges that the value of all produced things can not be lowered to their simple energy. Therefore, a completely human method to the stewardship of the earth declines 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 fix themselves merely with the application of new innovation and without any need for ethical considerations or deep modification." [177] Such a frame of mind must pave the way to a more holistic technique that appreciates the order of development and promotes the important good of the human individual while securing our common home. [178]
98. The Second Vatican Council and the consistent teaching of the Popes because then have actually firmly insisted that peace is not merely the absence of war and is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers in between enemies. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the serenity of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without protecting the goods of persons, free communication, regard for the self-respect of individuals and individuals, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity and can not be attained through force alone; instead, it needs to be mainly developed through patient diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, solidarity, essential human advancement, and respect for the self-respect of all individuals. [180] In this way, the tools utilized to maintain peace should never ever be allowed to validate injustice, violence, or injustice. Instead, they must always be governed by a "firm decision to respect other individuals and countries, along with their dignity, as well as the deliberate practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical capabilities could help countries seek peace and make sure security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can also be highly bothersome. Pope Francis has observed that "the capability to conduct military operations through push-button control systems has actually led to a minimized understanding of the destruction triggered by those weapon systems and the burden of duty for their use, leading to a much more cold and removed technique to the tremendous tragedy of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which autonomous weapons make war more practical militates against the concept of war as a last hope in genuine self-defense, [183] possibly increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and speeding up a destabilizing arms race, with disastrous effects for human rights. [184]
100. In specific, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which can identifying and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for grave ethical issue" due to the fact that they do not have the "distinct human capability for moral judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this factor, Pope Francis has actually urgently required a reconsideration of the advancement of these weapons and a prohibition on their usage, beginning with "an effective and concrete commitment to present ever higher and proper human control. No machine ought to ever choose to take the life of a human being." [186]
101. Since it is a little step from makers that can kill autonomously with precision to those efficient in large-scale destruction, some AI scientists have expressed concerns that such technology presents an "existential risk" by having the possible to act in methods that might threaten the survival of entire regions and even of humanity itself. This danger demands major attention, reflecting the enduring concern about innovations that grant war "an unmanageable damaging power over fantastic numbers of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing kids. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "carry out an examination of war with a totally brand-new attitude" [188] is more immediate than ever.
102. At the exact same time, while the theoretical risks of AI are worthy of attention, the more immediate and pressing concern depends on how individuals with destructive intentions may misuse this innovation. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future abilities are unforeseeable, humanity's past actions provide clear warnings. The atrocities dedicated throughout history suffice to raise deep issues about the potential abuses of AI.
103. Saint John Paul II observed that "humankind now has instruments of extraordinary power: we can turn this world into a garden, or reduce it to a pile of debris." [190] Given this truth, the Church advises us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are totally free to apply our intelligence towards things developing positively," or towards "decadence and mutual destruction." [191] To prevent humankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there must be a clear stand against all applications of technology that naturally threaten human life and self-respect. This dedication requires careful discernment about using AI, particularly in military defense applications, to ensure that it always respects human dignity and serves the typical good. The advancement and deployment of AI in armaments should be subject to the greatest levels of ethical scrutiny, governed by a concern for human dignity and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology provides impressive tools to manage and develop the world's resources. However, in some cases, humanity is increasingly delivering control of these resources to makers. Within some circles of researchers and futurists, there is optimism about the capacity of synthetic basic intelligence (AGI), a theoretical form of AI that would match or go beyond human intelligence and produce inconceivable advancements. Some even hypothesize that AGI might attain superhuman capabilities. At the very same time, as society wanders away from a connection with the transcendent, some are tempted to turn to AI in search of meaning or fulfillment-longings that can just be truly pleased in communion with God. [194]
105. However, the anticipation of replacing God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture clearly cautions against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI might prove even more seductive than conventional idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths but do not speak; eyes, however do not see; ears, but do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or at least offers the illusion of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is vital to bear in mind that AI is but 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 much of the abilities specific to human life, and it is also imperfect. By turning to AI as a viewed "Other" higher than itself, with which to share existence and duties, humankind dangers creating a replacement for God. However, it is not AI that is eventually deified and worshipped, however humankind itself-which, in this method, becomes enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the prospective to serve mankind and add to the common excellent, it remains a creation of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and ingenuity" (Acts 17:29). It needs to never ever be ascribed unnecessary worth. As the Book of Wisdom verifies: "For a male made them, and one whose spirit is obtained formed them; for no guy 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 objects he worships since he has life, but they never ever have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).
107. In contrast, human beings, "by their interior life, transcend the whole material universe; they experience this deep interiority when they get in into their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they decide their own destiny in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis reminds us, that each private discovers the "mysterious connection between self-knowledge and openness to others, in between the encounter with one's individual uniqueness and the determination to provide oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "efficient in setting our other powers and passions, and our entire individual, in a stance of reverence and caring obedience before the Lord," [198] who "uses to deal with each one of us as a 'Thou,' constantly and permanently." [199]
108. Considering the numerous obstacles postured by advances in technology, Pope Francis stressed the need for growth in "human duty, worths, and conscience," proportionate to the growth in the capacity that this technology brings [200] -recognizing that "with a boost in human power comes a widening of obligation on the part of individuals and neighborhoods." [201]
109. At the same time, the "important and basic question" remains "whether in the context of this development guy, as man, is becoming truly much better, that is to say, more fully grown spiritually, more knowledgeable about the dignity of his humankind, more responsible, more available to others, particularly the neediest and the weakest, and readier to provide and to aid all." [202]
110. As a result, it is vital to know how to examine specific applications of AI in specific contexts to determine whether its usage promotes human self-respect, the occupation of the human individual, and the typical good. Similar to many technologies, the results of the numerous usages of AI may not constantly be predictable from their inception. As these applications and their social effects end up being clearer, suitable responses must be made at all levels of society, following the concept of subsidiarity. Individual users, families, civil society, corporations, organizations, federal governments, and global companies should work at their correct levels to guarantee that AI is used for the good of all.
111. A substantial obstacle and chance for the common great today depends on considering AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which highlights the interconnectedness of people and neighborhoods and highlights our shared obligation for cultivating the integral wellness of others. The twentieth-century theorist Nicholas Berdyaev observed that individuals often blame devices for personal and social issues; nevertheless, "this just embarrasses man and does not correspond to his self-respect," for "it is not worthy to move obligation from man to a maker." [203] Only the human individual can be morally accountable, and the difficulties of a technological society are ultimately spiritual in nature. Therefore, facing those difficulties "demands an intensification of spirituality." [204]
112. An additional indicate consider is the call, triggered by the appearance of AI on the world phase, for a restored gratitude of all that is human. Years earlier, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos cautioned that "the risk is not in the reproduction of devices, however in the ever-increasing number of men accustomed from their youth to desire only what makers can offer." [205] This difficulty is as true today as it was then, as the quick speed of digitization runs the risk of a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable aspects of life are set aside and after that forgotten and even deemed irrelevant due to the fact that they can not be calculated in formal terms. AI must be used only as a tool to complement human intelligence instead of change its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that go beyond computation is crucial for maintaining "an authentic mankind" that "appears to dwell in the midst of our technological culture, nearly unnoticed, like a mist permeating carefully underneath a closed door." [207]
113. The vast expanse of the world's understanding is now available in ways that would have filled previous generations with awe. However, to ensure that advancements in understanding do not become humanly or spiritually barren, one must surpass the simple build-up of information and aim to attain real wisdom. [208]
114. This knowledge is the present that humankind requires most to attend to the profound concerns and ethical obstacles postured by AI: "Only by adopting a spiritual way of viewing truth, just by recovering a knowledge of the heart, can we challenge and analyze the newness of our time." [209] Such "knowledge of the heart" is "the virtue that enables us to incorporate the entire and its parts, our decisions and their repercussions." It "can not be sought from machines," however it "lets itself be found by those who seek it and be seen by those who like it; it expects those who want it, and it enters search of those who deserve it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]
115. In a world marked by AI, we need the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "allows us to look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, scenarios, events and to reveal their genuine meaning." [211]
116. Since a "individual's excellence is determined not by the details or knowledge they possess, however by the depth of their charity," [212] how we incorporate AI "to include the least of our bros and sis, the susceptible, and those most in need, will be the real procedure of our humankind." [213] The "knowledge of the heart" can brighten and guide the human-centered usage of this innovation to help promote the typical excellent, look after our "typical home," advance the look for the reality, foster integral human development, prefer human uniformity and fraternity, and lead humanity to its supreme objective: joy and complete communion with God. [214]
117. From this viewpoint of knowledge, followers will have the ability to act as moral agents capable of utilizing this technology to promote an authentic vision of the human person and society. [215] This should be finished with the understanding that technological development is part of God's plan for creation-an activity that we are called to purchase towards the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the continual look for the True and the Good.
The Supreme Pontiff, Francis, at the Audience granted on 14 January 2025 to the undersigned Prefects and Secretaries of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery for Culture and Education, approved this Note and ordered its publication.
Given in Rome, at the offices of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery for Culture and Education, on 28 January 2025, the Liturgical Memorial of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church.
Ex audientia 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 likewise Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053.
[2] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 307. Cf. Id., Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (21 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020 ), 43.
[3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[5] J. McCarthy, et al., "A 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 processes of AI are utilized figuratively to explain its operations and are not meant to anthropomorphize the machine.
[8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[9] Here, one can see the main positions of the "transhumanists" and the "posthumanists." Transhumanists argue that technological advancements will make it possible for human beings to conquer their biological constraints and boost both their physical and cognitive abilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, compete that such advances will ultimately alter human identity to the level that humanity itself may no longer be thought about truly "human." Both views rest on a fundamentally unfavorable understanding of human corporality, which treats the body more as a challenge than as an important part of the individual's identity and contact us to full awareness. Yet, this negative view of the body is inconsistent with a proper understanding of human dignity. While the Church supports genuine scientific development, it affirms that human dignity is rooted in "the individual as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "dignity is also intrinsic in each individual's body, which takes part in its own method remaining in imago Dei" (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18).
[10] This method shows a functionalist point of view, which reduces the human mind to its functions and presumes that its functions can be totally measured in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear truly smart, it would still remain functional in nature.
[11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460.
[12] If "thinking" is attributed to devices, it should be clarified that this refers to calculative thinking rather than crucial thinking. Similarly, if machines are said to operate utilizing rational thinking, it needs to be specified that this is restricted to computational logic. On the other hand, by its very nature, human thought is an innovative procedure that eludes programming and transcends constraints.
[13] On the foundational function of language in forming understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York 2010, 141-182).
[14] For additional discussion of these anthropological and theological foundations, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144.
[15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21.
[16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi advertisement litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [faculty] by which he transcends to the unreasonable animals. Now, this [professors] is factor itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it might more appropriately be offered"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When considering all that they have, people discover that they are most differentiated from animals precisely by the fact they possess intelligence." This is likewise repeated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who mentions that "male is the most perfect of all earthly beings enhanced with movement, and his proper and natural operation is intellection," by which guy abstracts from things and "gets in his mind things actually intelligible" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 76).
[17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, ad 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a contemporary viewpoint that echoes aspects of the classical and medieval distinction between these two modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York 2011.
[19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp.
[20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138.
[21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intelligence can examine the reality of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and pertain to recognize because truth, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal ethical needs."
[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 "usually considers the human individual as a being who exists in the body and is unimaginable beyond it" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Che cosa è l'uomo?" (Sal 8,5): Un itinerario di antropologia biblica [30 September 2019], par. 19). Cf. ibid., pars. 20-21, 43-44, 48.
[25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100 (2008 ), 863: "Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, however rather totally revealed its significance and worth."
[26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81.
[27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and thus it is joined to the body in order that it might have a presence and an operation ideal to its nature."
[29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18.
[30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357.
[31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54.
[32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221.
[33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27.
[34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls likewise have factor and with it they circle in discourse around the reality of things. [...] [O] n account of the way in which they can focusing the numerous into the one, they too, in their own fashion and as far as they can, are deserving of conceptions like those of the angels" (en. tr. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York - Mahwah 1987, 106-107).
[35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 3: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7.
[36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 42: AAS 91 (1999 ), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1043: "the human mind can going beyond instant concerns and understanding certain truths that are unchanging, as true now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, reason finds universal worths obtained from that very same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034.
[38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last proceeding of reason is to acknowledge that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York City 1958, 77).
[39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[40] Our semantic capability enables us to comprehend messages in any form of communication in a manner that both considers and transcends their material or empirical structures (such as computer system code). Here, intelligence ends up being a wisdom that "allows us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, scenarios, events and to discover their genuine meaning" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our imagination allows us to create brand-new material or ideas, mainly by providing an original perspective on reality. Both capacities depend upon the existence of a personal subjectivity for their full realization.
[41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931.
[42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a dedication to the reality, is much more than individual feeling [...] Certainly, its close relation to truth promotes its universality and maintains it from being 'confined to a narrow field without relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to fact therefore protects it from 'a fideism that deprives it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643.
[43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7.
[44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15.
[46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as priced estimate in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294.
[47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure likens deep space to "a book showing, 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 inhabit a special location in the universe according to the magnificent strategy: they take pleasure in the privilege of sharing in the divine governance of noticeable production. [...] Since man's location as ruler remains in reality an involvement in the magnificent governance of creation, we mention it here as a kind of stewardship."
[49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165.
[50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This idea is also reflected in the development account, where God brings animals to Adam "to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living animal, that was its name" (Gen. 2:19), an action that shows the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's creation. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117.
[51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301.
[52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302.
[53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2.
[54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7.
[55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316.
[56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8.
[57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906.
[58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987.
[59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5.
[60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: "L'intelligence n'est rien sans la délectation." Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: "The mind and the will are put at the service of the higher good by noticing and appreciating facts."
[61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232).
[62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he greatest standard of human life is the divine law itself-eternal, unbiased and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the methods of the human neighborhood according to a plan developed in his wisdom and love. God has actually enabled guy to get involved in this law of his so that, under the mild disposition of magnificent providence, numerous might be able to reach a deeper and deeper knowledge of unchangeable truth." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037.
[63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016.
[64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892.
[65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042.
[66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has actually inscribed his own image and similarity on guy (cf. Gen 1:26), conferring upon him a matchless dignity [...] In result, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not represent any work he carries out, but which circulation from his vital self-respect as an individual." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22.
[68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310.
[69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is comprehended as a technical term to show this innovation, remembering that the expression is also utilized to designate the field of study and not only its applications.
[71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857.
[72] For example, see the motivation of clinical exploration 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, amongst a long list of other Catholics engaged in scientific research study and technological expedition, show that "faith and science can be united in charity, supplied that science is put at the service of the men and woman of our time and not misused to harm or even destroy them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87.
[73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378.
[74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888.
[77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658.
[78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim.
[79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293.
[80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4.
[81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes male a moral topic. 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 guarantee that technology remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed toward the good."
[85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the role of human firm in choosing a wider aim (Ziel) that then notifies the particular purpose (Zweck) for which each technological application is produced, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um pass away Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71.
[86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a purpose and, in its effect on human society, constantly represents a type of order in social relations and a plan of power, therefore allowing certain people to carry out specific actions while preventing others from performing various ones. In a more or less specific method, this constitutive power-dimension of technology 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: "Confronted with the marvels of makers, which seem to understand how to choose separately, we should be very clear that decision-making [...] need to always be left to the human individual. We would condemn humankind to a future without hope if we took away people's ability to make choices about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend upon the options of devices."
[92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[93] The term "predisposition" in this file describes algorithmic predisposition (organized and consistent errors in computer system systems that might disproportionately bias certain groups in unintended ways) or finding out bias (which will result in training on a biased data set) and not the "predisposition vector" in neural networks (which is a criterion utilized to change the output of "nerve cells" to change more precisely 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 affirmed the growth in agreement "on the need for development processes to appreciate such values as inclusion, transparency, security, equity, personal privacy and dependability," and likewise invited "the efforts of international companies to manage these technologies so that they promote genuine development, contributing, that is, to a much better world and an integrally higher quality of life."
[95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8.
[96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.
[97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571.
[98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For additional discussion of the ethical concerns raised by AI from a Catholic point of view, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253.
[99] On the importance of discussion 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 estimate the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245.
[106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050.
[107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047.
[108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309.
[109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892.
[111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027.
[112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123.
[113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034.
[114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149.
[115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414.
[118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057.
[119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985.
[120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989).
[123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Many people] desire their social relationships offered by advanced devices, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel informs us constantly to run the risk of an in person encounter with others, with their physical existence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their pleasure which infects us in our close and continuous interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from membership 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 quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453.
[130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: "work is 'for man' and not guy 'for work.' Through this conclusion one rightly pertains to acknowledge the pre-eminence of the subjective significance of work over the objective one."
[132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320.
[133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502.
[135] Ibid.
[136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as priced estimate 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 effects, it is that of healthcare. When an ill person is not positioned in the center or their dignity is not thought about, this triggers attitudes that can lead even to speculation on the bad luck of others. And this is extremely serious! [...] The application of a service approach to the health care sector, if indiscriminate [...] might risk discarding humans."
[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, quoting 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, Meeting the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316.
[149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, pricing estimate the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592.
[150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167.
[151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413.
[152] In a 2023 policy document about making use of generative AI in education and research, UNESCO notes: "One of the crucial questions [of using generative AI (GenAI) in education and research study] is whether people can possibly cede standard levels of thinking and skill-acquisition procedures to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking skills based upon the outputs offered by AI. Writing, for example, is frequently connected with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], people can now start with a well-structured overview provided by GenAI. Some professionals have characterized using GenAI to generate text in this method as 'writing without believing'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American philosopher Hannah Arendt foresaw such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and warned: "If it ought to end up being true that knowledge (in the sense of knowledge) and thought have parted business for good, then we would certainly become the powerless slaves, not a lot of our makers since our knowledge" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3).
[153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417.
[154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914.
[155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479.
[156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10.
[157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3.
[158] For instance, it may assist individuals gain access to the "range of resources for creating greater understanding of reality" contained in the works of viewpoint (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8.
[159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62.
[160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074.
[162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be truly indifferent to the question of whether what they know is real or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he composes: 'I have actually met numerous who wished to deceive, however none who wanted to be deceived'"; pricing estimate Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794.
[163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62.
[164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8.
[165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Media (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149.
[166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24.
[167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no guy may with impunity violate that human self-respect which God himself treats with fantastic respect"; as priced estimate 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 obliges States to likewise appreciate the right to personal privacy, by shielding people from intrusive security and enabling 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 assisting to address environment modification" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The document observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can transform information into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools might help develop new strategies and financial investments to decrease emissions, influence brand-new economic sector investments in net absolutely no, protect biodiversity, and build broad-based social resilience" (ibid.).
[174] "The cloud" refers to a network of physical servers throughout the world that enables users to shop, process, and manage their information remotely.
[175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850.
[176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890.
[177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870.
[178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852.
[179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640.
[180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), 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 a space for appropriate human control over the options made by expert system programs: human self-respect itself depends on it."
[186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The development and use of deadly autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) that do not have the appropriate human control would present essential ethical concerns, provided that LAWS can never ever be ethically accountable topics capable of complying with 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 neglect the possibility of advanced weapons winding up in the wrong hands, helping with, for example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the institutions of genuine systems of government. In a word, the world does not need new technologies that add to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and as a result wind up promoting the folly of war."
[190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565.
[191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878.
[192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687.
[193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39.
[194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661.
[195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a better understanding today that the mere accumulation of products and services [...] is insufficient for the awareness of human joy. Nor, in repercussion, does the availability of the many real advantages supplied in recent times by science and innovation, including the computer sciences, bring flexibility from every type of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the significant body of resources and possible at guy's disposal is directed by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the real good of the human race, it easily turns against male to oppress him." Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564.
[196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5.
[198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6.
[199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6.
[200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. The End of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83).
[201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288.
[203] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," in C. Mitcham - R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York 19832, 212-213.
[204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210.
[205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829.
[206] Cf. Francis, Meeting 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 quick searches on the internet nor is it a mass of unproven data. That is not the way to develop in the encounter with reality."
[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.