II. What Is Artificial Intelligence

1. With knowledge both ancient and brand-new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are contacted us to reflect on the current obstacles and opportunities postured by scientific and technological advancements, particularly by the recent development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian custom to the gift of intelligence as a vital aspect of how humans are developed "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Beginning with an integral vision of the human person and the biblical 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 produced world.


2. The Church encourages the improvement of science, technology, the arts, and other kinds of human endeavor, seeing them as part of the "cooperation of man and woman with God in refining the noticeable development." [1] As Sirach affirms, God "provided skill to people, that he might be glorified in his marvelous works" (Sir. 38:6). Human abilities and creativity originate from God and, when used appropriately, glorify God by reflecting his knowledge and goodness. Because of this, when we ask ourselves what it implies to "be human," we can not leave out a factor to consider of our scientific and technological capabilities.


3. It is within this point of view that the present Note addresses the anthropological and ethical difficulties raised by AI-issues that are particularly significant, as one of the objectives of this innovation is to imitate the human intelligence that developed it. For example, unlike lots of other human productions, AI can be trained on the results of human creativity and then generate new "artifacts" with a level of speed and ability that frequently equals or surpasses what humans can do, such as producing text or images equivalent from human structures. This raises crucial concerns about AI's prospective function in the growing crisis of reality in the general public online forum. Moreover, this innovation is designed to find out and make certain choices autonomously, adjusting to brand-new scenarios and providing services not anticipated by its programmers, and hence, it raises fundamental concerns about ethical obligation and human security, with broader ramifications for society as a whole. This brand-new situation has triggered numerous people to show on what it suggests to be human and the role of mankind on the planet.


4. Taking all this into account, there is broad consensus that AI marks a brand-new and substantial phase in mankind's engagement with innovation, placing it at the heart of what Pope Francis has explained as an "epochal change." [2] Its effect is felt worldwide and in a vast array of locations, consisting of social relationships, education, work, art, health care, law, warfare, and global relations. As AI advances quickly towards even higher accomplishments, it is seriously essential to consider its anthropological and ethical implications. This involves not only mitigating risks and preventing harm however likewise making sure that its applications are used to promote human progress and the typical good.


5. To contribute positively to the discernment relating to AI, and in reaction to Pope Francis' call for a restored "wisdom of heart," [3] the Church provides its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active function in the global dialogue on these problems, the Church invites those entrusted with transferring the faith-including moms and dads, instructors, pastors, and bishops-to dedicate themselves to this crucial topic with care and attention. While this file is planned particularly for them, it is likewise suggested to be available to a wider audience, particularly those who share the conviction that clinical and technological advances should be directed toward serving the human person and the typical good. [4]

6. To this end, the file starts by differentiating in between concepts of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then explores the Christian understanding of human intelligence, offering a structure rooted in the Church's philosophical and theological tradition. Finally, the file uses guidelines to guarantee that the advancement and usage of AI maintain human dignity and promote the important development of the human individual and society.


7. The idea of "intelligence" in AI has actually evolved with time, making use of a series of ideas from various disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a considerable milestone took place in 1956 when the American computer researcher John McCarthy organized a summer workshop at Dartmouth University to check out the problem of "Artificial Intelligence," which he defined as "that of making a device act in manner ins which would be called smart if a human were so behaving." [5] This workshop released a research study program concentrated on designing machines capable of carrying out tasks generally related to the human intelligence and intelligent behavior.


8. Ever since, AI research has actually advanced quickly, resulting in the development of complex systems efficient in carrying out extremely sophisticated jobs. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are typically designed to deal with specific and restricted functions, such as equating languages, predicting the trajectory of a storm, classifying images, addressing concerns, or producing visual content at the user's request. While the meaning of "intelligence" in AI research differs, a lot of contemporary AI systems-particularly those using maker learning-rely on statistical inference rather than logical reduction. By examining large datasets to determine patterns, AI can "forecast" [7] outcomes and propose new techniques, simulating some cognitive procedures common of human analytical. Such accomplishments have actually been made possible through advances in calculating technology (including neural networks, unsupervised artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) as well as hardware developments (such as specialized processors). Together, oke.zone these innovations make it possible for AI systems to react to various forms of human input, adjust to new situations, and even suggest novel options not expected by their initial developers. [8]

9. Due to these rapid developments, lots of tasks once handled solely by humans are now delegated to AI. These systems can augment or even supersede what human beings are able to carry out in many fields, particularly in specialized locations such as data analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is developed for a specific task, lots of researchers aim to establish what is referred to as "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system efficient in running 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," surpassing human intellectual capabilities, or contribute to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, nevertheless, fear that these possibilities, even if hypothetical, could one day eclipse the human individual, while still others invite this potential transformation. [9]

10. Underlying this and numerous other point of views on the topic is the implicit assumption that the term "intelligence" can be utilized in the exact same way to describe both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not capture the complete scope of the concept. In the case of humans, intelligence is a professors that pertains to the individual in his or her whole, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is understood functionally, typically with the anticipation that the activities attribute of the human mind can be broken down into digitized steps that devices can duplicate. [10]

11. This functional point of view is exhibited by the "Turing Test," which considers a machine "intelligent" if a person can not distinguish its habits from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "behavior" refers only to the efficiency of specific intellectual jobs; it does not represent the complete breadth of human experience, that includes abstraction, emotions, creativity, and the visual, moral, and spiritual perceptiveness. Nor does it encompass the complete variety of expressions particular of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the "intelligence" of a system is examined methodologically, however also reductively, based upon its capability to produce proper responses-in this case, those related to the human intellect-regardless of how those responses are produced.


12. AI's sophisticated functions provide it advanced capabilities to carry out jobs, but not the capability to believe. [12] This difference is crucially important, as the method "intelligence" is specified inevitably forms how we understand the relationship between human idea and this technology. [13] To value this, one should recall the richness of the philosophical tradition and Christian faith, which provide a deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's teaching on the nature, self-respect, and occupation of the human individual. [14]

13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has played a main function in comprehending what it implies to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all people by nature desire to know." [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 thinkers, theologians, and psychologists have actually analyzed the precise nature of this intellectual faculty, they have also checked out how humans understand the world and their distinct location within it. Through this exploration, the Christian tradition has actually pertained to understand the human individual 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 typically comprehended through the complementary concepts of "reason" (ratio) and "intellect" (intellectus). These are not different professors but, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are 2 modes in which the very same intelligence operates: "The term intellect is presumed from the inward grasp of the fact, while the name factor is taken from the curious and discursive procedure." [18] This concise description highlights the two essential 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 grounds argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to thinking proper: the discursive, analytical procedure that causes 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 individual as a "logical" being does not reduce the individual to a specific mode of thought; rather, it acknowledges that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and permeates all elements of human activity. [20] Whether exercised well or inadequately, this capacity is an intrinsic aspect of humanity. In this sense, the "term 'logical' incorporates all the capacities of the human individual," including those associated to "understanding and comprehending, as well as those of willing, loving, picking, and desiring; it likewise consists of all corporeal functions closely related to these abilities." [21] This detailed perspective underscores how, in the human person, created in the "image of God," factor is integrated in such a way that raises, shapes, and changes both the individual's will and actions. [22]

16. Christian believed considers the intellectual professors of the human person within the structure of an important anthropology that views the human being as basically embodied. In the human individual, spirit and matter "are not two natures joined, however rather their union forms a single nature." [23] Simply put, the soul is not merely the immaterial "part" of the person contained within the body, nor is the body an outer shell real estate an intangible "core." Rather, the whole human person is at the same time both product and spiritual. This understanding shows the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which sees the human person as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and hence, an authentically spiritual dimension) within and through this embodied presence. [24] The extensive meaning of this condition is further brightened by the mystery of the Incarnation, through which God himself handled our flesh and "raised it as much as a sublime self-respect." [25]

17. Although deeply rooted in bodily existence, the human person goes beyond the material world through the soul, which is "almost on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intelligence's capability for transcendence and the self-possessed freedom of the will come from the soul, by which the human person "shares in the light of the divine mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its typical mode of knowledge without the body. [28] In this way, the intellectual faculties of the human person are an integral part of an anthropology that recognizes that the human person is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further elements of this understanding will be established in what follows.


18. Humans are "purchased by their very nature to social communion," [30] possessing the capacity to know one another, to give themselves in love, and to get in into communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not a separated professors however is exercised in relationships, finding its maximum expression in discussion, cooperation, and uniformity. We learn with others, and we learn through others.


19. The relational orientation of the human individual is eventually grounded in the eternal self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is exposed in development and redemption. [31] The human individual is "contacted us to share, by understanding and love, in God's own life." [32]

20. This occupation 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 likewise called to imitate Christ's outpouring gift (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "love one another, as I have actually loved you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the magnificent life of self-giving, go beyond self-interest to react more fully to the human vocation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Even more superb than understanding lots of things is the dedication to take care of one another, for if "I comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge [...] however do not have love, I am absolutely nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2).


21. Human intelligence is ultimately "God's gift made for the assimilation of reality." [34] In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it allows the person to explore realities that surpass simple sensory experience or utility, given that "the desire for truth becomes part of human nature itself. It is a natural property of human reason to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limits of empirical data, human intelligence can "with genuine certitude attain to truth itself as knowable." [36] While truth remains only partially known, the desire for fact "stimulates reason always to go even more; certainly, it is as if factor were overwhelmed to see that it can constantly surpass what it has already attained." [37] Although Truth in itself goes beyond the boundaries of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this attraction, the human individual is caused look for "truths of a higher order." [39]

22. This inherent drive towards the pursuit of reality is specifically obvious in the clearly human capacities for semantic understanding and creativity, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "way that is appropriate to the social nature and dignity of the human person." [41] Likewise, a steadfast orientation to the fact is important for charity to be both genuine and universal. [42]

23. The search for reality finds its greatest expression in openness to truths that go beyond the physical and created world. In God, all realities attain their ultimate and original meaning. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "essential choice that engages the entire individual." [44] In this way, the human person becomes completely what she or he is called to be: "the intellect and the will show their spiritual nature," enabling the person "to act in such a way that recognizes individual flexibility to the full." [45]

24. The Christian faith comprehends development as the complimentary act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, creates "not to increase his splendor, but to reveal it forth and to communicate it." [46] Since God develops according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), production 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 presume an unique function: to cultivate and take care of the world. [48]

25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, humans live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and abilities to take care of and develop development in accord with God's strategy. [49] In this, human intelligence shows the Divine Intelligence that produced 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 develop their capabilities in science and innovation, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in an appropriate relationship with creation, human beings, on the one hand, use their intelligence and ability to work together with God in assisting creation towards 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 becomes more plainly understood as a faculty that forms an essential part of how the whole individual engages with reality. Authentic engagement requires welcoming the full scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.


27. This engagement with truth unfolds in numerous ways, as each individual, in his/her diverse uniqueness [54], seeks to understand the world, relate to others, solve issues, reveal creativity, and pursue integral wellness through the unified interaction of the various dimensions of the individual's intelligence. [55] This includes rational and linguistic abilities however can also include other modes of communicating with reality. Consider the work of an artisan, who "need to know how to determine, in inert matter, a specific form that others can not recognize" [56] and bring it forth through insight and practical ability. Indigenous peoples who live near to the earth often possess an extensive sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a good friend who understands the ideal word to say or an individual adept at handling human relationships exhibits an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, dialogue and generous encounter between persons." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of synthetic intelligence, we can not forget that poetry and love are needed to conserve our humankind." [59]

28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the integration of reality into the moral and spiritual life of the person, directing his or her actions due to God's goodness and reality. According to God's strategy, intelligence, in its max sense, also consists of the capability to savor what is true, excellent, and lovely. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel revealed, "intelligence is absolutely nothing without pleasure." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the greatest heaven in Paradiso, testifies that the culmination of this intellectual pleasure is found in the "light intellectual loaded with love, love of true great filled with pleasure, joy which transcends every sweet taste." [61]

29. An appropriate understanding of human intelligence, for that reason, can not be reduced to the simple acquisition of realities or the ability to perform specific jobs. Instead, it includes the individual's openness to the ultimate concerns of life and shows an orientation toward the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the divine image within the person, human intelligence has the capability to access the totality of being, considering existence in its fullness, which goes beyond what is measurable, and grasping the meaning of what has been understood. For believers, this capability includes, in a specific method, the capability to grow in the knowledge of the mysteries of God by using factor to engage ever more exceptionally with exposed truths (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is shaped by divine love, which "is put forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence has an essential reflective measurement, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian function.


30. Due to the foregoing conversation, the differences in between human intelligence and current AI systems end up being obvious. While AI is an amazing technological accomplishment efficient in imitating certain outputs related to human intelligence, it runs by performing jobs, attaining objectives, or making decisions based upon quantitative information and computational logic. For instance, with its analytical power, AI stands out at integrating data from a variety of fields, modeling complex systems, and fostering interdisciplinary connections. In this way, it can assist experts team up in solving intricate problems that "can not be handled from a single perspective or from a single set of interests." [64]

31. However, even as AI procedures and mimics certain expressions of intelligence, it remains basically restricted to a logical-mathematical structure, which imposes inherent constraints. Human intelligence, in contrast, establishes organically throughout the person's physical and mental growth, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although sophisticated AI systems can "find out" through procedures such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is essentially various from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is formed by embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional actions, social interactions, and the distinct context of each minute. These components shape and form individuals within their individual history.In contrast, AI, lacking a physical body, depends on computational reasoning and learning based on huge datasets that include recorded human experiences and understanding.


32. Consequently, although AI can imitate aspects of human thinking and carry out particular jobs with unbelievable speed and performance, its computational capabilities represent only a fraction of the more comprehensive capabilities of the human mind. For circumstances, AI can not presently reproduce ethical discernment or the capability to establish authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is situated within a personally lived history of intellectual and ethical formation that essentially shapes the individual's perspective, including the physical, psychological, social, ethical, 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 interpreting the world can cause "a loss of appreciation for the whole, for the relationships between things, and for the more comprehensive horizon." [65]

33. Human intelligence is not mainly about completing functional tasks but about understanding and actively engaging with truth in all its measurements; it is likewise capable of surprising insights. Since AI lacks the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to truth and goodness, its capacities-though apparently limitless-are unparalleled with the human capability to understand truth. So much can be gained from a disease, an embrace of reconciliation, and even an easy sunset; certainly, numerous experiences we have as human beings open new horizons and provide the possibility of attaining new wisdom. No gadget, working exclusively with information, can determine up to these and numerous other experiences present in our lives.


34. Drawing an excessively close equivalence between human intelligence and AI threats catching a functionalist perspective, where individuals are valued based upon the work they can perform. However, an individual's worth does not depend upon possessing specific skills, cognitive and technological achievements, or individual success, however on the person's fundamental dignity, grounded in being created in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains undamaged in all situations, including for those unable to exercise their abilities, whether it be a coming child, an unconscious person, or an older person who is suffering. [67] It also underpins the custom of human rights (and, in specific, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "an important point of merging in the search for commonalities" [68] and can, thus, serve as a basic ethical guide in conversations on the responsible development and usage of AI.


35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the very usage of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can show misleading" [69] and threats neglecting what is most valuable in the human person. In light of this, AI must not be seen as a synthetic form of human intelligence but as an item of it. [70]

36. Given these considerations, one can ask how AI can be comprehended within God's plan. To answer this, it is important to remember that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character however is a human undertaking that engages the humanistic and cultural dimensions of human imagination. [71]

37. Seen as a fruit of the potential inscribed within human intelligence, [72] clinical inquiry and the development of technical skills become part of the "partnership of man and woman with God in perfecting the noticeable development." [73] At the same time, all scientific and technological achievements are, eventually, gifts from God. [74] Therefore, human beings must always use their capabilities in view of the greater purpose for which God has given them. [75]

38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has actually "fixed countless evils which used to harm and restrict human beings," [76] a reality for which we need to rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological improvements in themselves represent real human development. [77] The Church is particularly opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human individual. [78] Like any human venture, technological development needs to be directed to serve the human individual and add to the pursuit of "higher justice, more comprehensive fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations," which are "more important than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical implications of technological advancement are shared not only within the Church however likewise amongst lots of scientists, technologists, and professional associations, who significantly require ethical reflection to direct this advancement in an accountable method.


39. To deal with these difficulties, it is important to emphasize the significance of ethical duty grounded in the dignity and occupation of the human individual. This assisting principle also uses to concerns worrying AI. In this context, the ethical dimension takes on main value due to the fact that it is people who create systems and determine the purposes for which they are utilized. [80] Between a machine and a human, only the latter is really an ethical agent-a subject of ethical obligation who works out liberty in his or her decisions and accepts their repercussions. [81] It is not the device however the human who remains in relationship with reality and goodness, directed by an ethical conscience that calls the individual "to enjoy and to do what is excellent and to avoid wicked," [82] attesting to "the authority of fact in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn." [83] Likewise, between a maker and a human, just the human can be sufficiently self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, critical with prudence, and looking for the great that is possible in every circumstance. [84] In truth, all of this likewise comes from the person's exercise of intelligence.


40. Like any item of human imagination, AI can be directed towards positive or unfavorable ends. [85] When utilized in ways that appreciate human dignity and promote the wellness of individuals and communities, it can contribute positively 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 freedom enables the possibility of choosing what is incorrect, the moral evaluation of this technology will need to take into consideration how it is directed and used.


41. At the same time, it is not just the ends that are fairly significant but likewise the means employed to attain them. Additionally, the overall vision and understanding of the human person ingrained within these systems are very important to consider too. 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 social level, some technological advancements could also reinforce relationships and power characteristics that are irregular with a proper understanding of the human individual and society.


42. Therefore, completions and the means utilized in a provided application of AI, along with the general vision it integrates, must all be evaluated to ensure they respect human self-respect and promote the common good. [88] As Pope Francis has mentioned, "the intrinsic dignity of every guy and every female" should be "the key requirement in examining 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 a vital role not only in creating and producing innovation however also in directing its use in line with the genuine good of the human person. [90] The obligation 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 commitment to ensuring that AI constantly supports and promotes the supreme worth of the self-respect of every human and the fullness of the human vocation works as a criterion of discernment for designers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, in addition to to its users. It remains legitimate for every single application of the innovation at every level of its usage.


44. An assessment of the implications of this directing principle could start by considering the value of ethical duty. Since complete moral causality belongs just to individual representatives, not synthetic ones, it is vital to be able to recognize and define who bears responsibility for the procedures involved in AI, particularly those efficient in finding out, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up approaches and very deep neural networks make it possible for AI to solve complicated issues, they make it tough to understand the procedures that result in the options they adopted. This makes complex responsibility considering that if an AI application produces unwanted outcomes, determining who is responsible ends up being challenging. To resolve this issue, attention needs to be given to the nature of accountability processes in complex, highly automated settings, where results may just end up being apparent in the medium to long term. For this, it is essential that ultimate obligation for choices made utilizing AI rests with the human decision-makers and that there is accountability for using AI at each phase of the decision-making process. [91]

45. In addition to identifying who is accountable, it is important to recognize the goals provided to AI systems. Although these systems may use unsupervised autonomous knowing systems and sometimes follow courses that people can not reconstruct, they eventually pursue objectives that people have appointed to them and are governed by procedures established by their designers and developers. Yet, this provides a challenge because, as AI designs become increasingly efficient in independent learning, the ability to maintain control over them to guarantee that such applications serve human functions might effectively lessen. This raises the vital concern of how to ensure that AI systems are bought for the good of individuals and not against them.


46. While obligation for the ethical usage of AI systems starts with those who develop, produce, handle, and supervise such systems, it is likewise shared by those who utilize them. As Pope Francis noted, the machine "makes a technical option among several possibilities based either on distinct criteria or on analytical reasonings. Humans, nevertheless, not only select, however in their hearts can choosing." [92] Those who utilize AI to accomplish a job and follow its outcomes produce a context in which they are eventually accountable for the power they have actually delegated. Therefore, insofar as AI can help human beings in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it needs to be credible, safe, robust enough to handle inconsistencies, and transparent in their operation to mitigate predispositions and unintentional adverse effects. [93] Regulatory structures should ensure that all legal entities remain liable for using AI and all its effects, with appropriate safeguards for openness, personal privacy, and responsibility. [94] Moreover, those utilizing AI needs to take care not to become excessively based on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases modern society's already high dependence on technology.


47. The Church's moral and social teaching offers resources to help ensure that AI is utilized in a method that maintains human company. Considerations about justice, for instance, should also address issues such as cultivating simply social dynamics, maintaining worldwide security, and promoting peace. By working out prudence, people and communities can discern methods to use AI to benefit humanity while preventing applications that could degrade human self-respect or harm the environment. In this context, the principle of duty should be understood not only in its most restricted sense but as a "obligation for the look after others, which is more than simply accounting for results attained." [95]

48. Therefore, AI, like any innovation, can be part of a conscious and responsible answer to humanity's occupation to the good. However, as formerly talked about, AI must be directed by human intelligence to align with this vocation, ensuring it appreciates the dignity of the human person. Recognizing this "exalted self-respect," the Second Vatican Council affirmed that "the social order and its advancement should usually work to the benefit of the human person." [96] In light of this, the usage of AI, as Pope Francis said, must be "accompanied by an ethic inspired by a vision of the common excellent, a principles of freedom, responsibility, and fraternity, efficient in fostering the full development of individuals in relation to others and to the entire of production." [97]

49. Within this basic perspective, some observations follow listed below to highlight how the preceding arguments can assist offer an ethical orientation in useful scenarios, in line with the "wisdom of heart" that Pope Francis has actually proposed. [98] While not extensive, this discussion is used in service of the dialogue that considers how AI can be utilized to maintain the dignity of the human person and promote the typical good. [99]

50. As Pope Francis observed, "the fundamental self-respect of each person and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human household should support the advancement of new technologies and function as unassailable criteria for assessing them before they are used." [100]

51. Viewed through this lens, AI might "present essential developments in farming, education and culture, an enhanced level of life for entire nations and peoples, and the growth of human fraternity and social relationship," and hence be "used to promote integral human development." [101] AI might likewise assist companies identify those in requirement and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other comparable applications of this technology could add to human advancement and the typical good. [102]

52. However, while AI holds many possibilities for promoting the great, it can also impede or even counter human development and the typical good. Pope Francis has actually noted that "proof to date suggests that digital innovations have increased inequality in our world. Not just differences in product wealth, which are likewise significant, however likewise differences in access to political and social impact." [103] In this sense, AI could be utilized to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, create brand-new types of hardship, broaden the "digital divide," and worsen existing social inequalities. [104]

53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a couple of effective companies raises substantial ethical concerns. Exacerbating this problem is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single individual can exercise total oversight over the large and intricate datasets used for computation. This lack of well-defined responsibility produces the threat that AI might be controlled for personal or corporate gain or to direct popular opinion for the advantage of a specific market. Such entities, inspired by their own interests, possess the capacity to work out "types of control as subtle as they are invasive, producing mechanisms for the control of consciences and of the democratic procedure." [105]

54. Furthermore, there is the danger of AI being used to promote what Pope Francis has called the "technocratic paradigm," which views all the world's issues as solvable through technological methods alone. [106] In this paradigm, human dignity and fraternity are typically set aside in the name of performance, "as if truth, goodness, and truth automatically flow from technological and economic power as such." [107] Yet, human dignity and the common great needs to never be broken for the sake of efficiency, [108] for "technological developments that do not lead to an enhancement in the quality of life of all humankind, however on the contrary, intensify inequalities and disputes, can never ever count as true development. " [109] Instead, AI ought to be put "at the service of another kind of development, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more essential." [110]

55. Attaining this goal needs a much deeper reflection on the relationship in between autonomy and responsibility. Greater autonomy heightens each person's responsibility throughout numerous aspects of communal life. For Christians, the foundation of this responsibility depends on the recognition that all human capabilities, consisting of the individual's autonomy, originated from God and are implied to be utilized in the service of others. [111] Therefore, instead of merely pursuing financial or technological goals, AI ought to serve "the typical good of the entire human family," which is "the sum total of social conditions that enable individuals, either as groups or as people, to reach their fulfillment more completely and more easily." [112]

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

57. Such a quest, in addition to other elements of human interaction, presupposes encounters and mutual exchange in between people shaped by their distinct histories, thoughts, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a varied, diverse, and intricate truth: private and social, reasonable and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis underscores this dynamic, keeping in mind that "together, we can look for the reality in discussion, in unwinded conversation or in passionate dispute. To do so requires determination; it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently welcome the more comprehensive experience of people and individuals. [...] The procedure of structure fraternity, be it regional or universal, can just be undertaken 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 postures to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the potential to cultivate connections within the human family. However, it might likewise prevent a real encounter with truth and, ultimately, lead individuals to "a deep and melancholic frustration with social relations, or a harmful sense of isolation." [117] Authentic human relationships require the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their pleasure. [118] Since human intelligence is expressed and enhanced likewise in social and embodied ways, genuine and spontaneous encounters with others are essential for engaging with truth in its fullness.


59. Because "real knowledge demands an encounter with reality," [119] the increase of AI introduces another challenge. Since AI can efficiently mimic the items of human intelligence, the ability to understand when one is connecting with a human or a device can no longer be considered given. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other sophisticated outputs that are usually related to people. Yet, it should be comprehended for what it is: a tool, not an individual. [120] This difference is frequently obscured by the language used by practitioners, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and thus blurs the line in between human and device.


60. Anthropomorphizing AI also poses specific difficulties for the development of kids, possibly encouraging them to develop patterns of interaction that treat human relationships in a transactional way, as one would associate with a chatbot. Such habits might lead youths to see teachers as mere dispensers of details rather than as coaches who direct and nurture their intellectual and ethical development. Genuine relationships, rooted in empathy and a steadfast commitment to the good of the other, are important and irreplaceable in promoting the full development of the human individual.


61. In this context, it is crucial to clarify that, despite the usage of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can genuinely experience compassion. Emotions can not be minimized to facial expressions or phrases generated in response to triggers; they show the method a person, as an entire, relates to the world and to his/her own life, with the body playing a main role. True empathy requires the capability to listen, acknowledge another's irreducible uniqueness, welcome their otherness, and comprehend the significance behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the world of analytical judgment in which AI stands out, true compassion belongs to the relational sphere. It includes intuiting and apprehending the lived experiences of another while maintaining the distinction between self and other. [122] While AI can simulate empathetic actions, it can not reproduce the incomparably personal and relational nature of genuine empathy. [123]

62. Because of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as a person must constantly be prevented; doing so for deceitful purposes is a grave ethical infraction that could deteriorate social trust. Similarly, using AI to deceive in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, including the sphere of sexuality-is likewise to be thought about immoral and needs careful oversight to prevent harm, maintain transparency, and ensure the self-respect of all people. [124]

63. In an increasingly isolated world, some individuals have actually turned to AI searching for deep human relationships, easy companionship, or perhaps psychological bonds. However, while human beings are meant to experience authentic relationships, AI can just simulate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an important part of how an individual grows to become who she or he is meant to be. If AI is used to assist individuals foster real connections in between people, it can contribute positively to the complete realization of the person. Conversely, if we replace relationships with God and with others with interactions with technology, we risk changing genuine relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of pulling back into synthetic worlds, we are contacted us to participate in a committed and intentional way with reality, especially by recognizing with the poor and suffering, consoling those in sadness, and creating bonds of communion with all.


64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being increasingly incorporated into economic and financial systems. Significant investments are presently being made not just in the technology sector however likewise in energy, finance, and media, particularly in the areas of marketing and sales, logistics, technological innovation, compliance, and threat management. At the very same time, AI's applications in these locations have actually also highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of significant opportunities but also extensive dangers. A very first genuine vital point in this area concerns the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a few corporations-only those big companies would gain from the worth produced by AI instead of business that use it.


65. Other wider elements of AI's influence on the economic-financial sphere need to also be thoroughly analyzed, especially concerning the interaction in between concrete truth and the digital world. One essential factor to consider in this regard involves the coexistence of varied and alternative kinds of financial and monetary organizations within a provided context. This element should be motivated, as it can bring benefits in how it supports the real economy by promoting its development and stability, particularly during times of crisis. Nevertheless, it must be worried that digital realities, not restricted by any spatial bonds, tend to be more uniform and impersonal than communities rooted in a particular location and a particular history, with a common journey characterized by shared worths and hopes, but likewise by unavoidable arguments and divergences. This diversity is an indisputable property to a neighborhood's financial life. Turning over the economy and finance completely to digital technology would lower this variety and richness. As a result, lots of services to economic problems that can be reached through natural dialogue between the included celebrations may no longer be attainable in a world dominated by procedures and only the look of nearness.


66. Another location where AI is already having a profound impact is the world of work. As in numerous other fields, AI is driving essential changes across lots of occupations, with a series of results. On the one hand, it has the prospective to improve knowledge and performance, produce brand-new tasks, make it possible for workers to focus on more ingenious tasks, and open new horizons for imagination and development.


67. However, while AI guarantees to increase productivity by taking control of mundane tasks, it regularly requires employees to adjust to the speed and needs of machines rather than makers being developed to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the advertised advantages of AI, present techniques to the innovation can paradoxically deskill employees, subject them to automated monitoring, and relegate them to stiff and recurring jobs. The need to stay up to date with the pace of innovation can deteriorate employees' sense of company and stifle the ingenious abilities they are expected to give their work. [125]

68. AI is currently eliminating the requirement for some jobs that were as soon as performed by people. If AI is used to change human employees instead of match them, there is a "considerable risk of out of proportion benefit for the couple of at the price of the impoverishment of lots of." [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more powerful, there is an involved threat that human labor might lose its worth in the economic realm. This is the logical effect of the technocratic paradigm: a world of mankind oppressed to effectiveness, where, eventually, the cost of humankind need to be cut. Yet, human lives are intrinsically valuable, independent of their financial output. Nevertheless, the "existing design," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to prefer an investment in efforts to assist the slow, the weak, or the less skilled to find chances in life." [127] In light of this, "we can not allow a tool as effective and essential as Artificial Intelligence to strengthen such a paradigm, but rather, we need to 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 way around." [129] Human work should not only be at the service of earnings however at "the service of the entire human individual [...] taking into account the individual's material needs and the requirements of his/her intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and religious life." [130] In this context, the Church acknowledges that work is "not just a means of earning one's daily bread" but is likewise "an essential dimension of social life" and "a way [...] of individual development, the building of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of gifts. Work gives us a sense of shared duty for the advancement of the world, and eventually, for our life as an individuals." [131]

70. Since work is a "part of the significance of life on this earth, a course to growth, human advancement and individual fulfillment," "the objective needs to not be that technological development significantly changes human work, for this would be harmful to humanity" [132] -rather, it must promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI should assist, not replace, human judgment. Similarly, it needs to never break down creativity or minimize employees to mere "cogs in a machine." Therefore, "respect for the dignity of workers and the significance of work for the financial well-being of people, families, and societies, for job security and simply salaries, ought to be a high priority for the global neighborhood as these types of technology permeate more deeply into our workplaces." [133]

71. As individuals in God's healing work, healthcare experts have the vocation and responsibility to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the health care occupation carries an "intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension," acknowledged by the Hippocratic Oath, which requires doctors and healthcare experts to commit themselves to having "outright respect for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Good Samaritan, this commitment is to be carried out by guys and ladies "who decline the development of a society of exclusion, and act instead as neighbors, raising up and fixing up the fallen for the sake of the typical good." [136]

72. Seen in this light, AI seems to hold enormous potential in a variety of applications in the medical field, such as assisting the diagnostic work of doctor, assisting in relationships in between clients and medical staff, providing brand-new treatments, and broadening access to quality care likewise for those who are isolated or marginalized. In these ways, the technology could enhance the "compassionate and caring closeness" [137] that doctor are contacted us to extend to the sick and suffering.


73. However, if AI is used not to improve however to replace the relationship between clients and health care providers-leaving patients to engage with a maker instead of a human being-it would minimize a most importantly essential human relational structure to a centralized, impersonal, and unequal structure. Instead of motivating solidarity with the sick and suffering, such applications of AI would risk aggravating the isolation that often accompanies health problem, specifically in the context of a culture where "persons are no longer viewed as a vital worth to be looked after and appreciated." [138] This misuse of AI would not line up with respect for the dignity of the human individual and uniformity with the suffering.


74. Responsibility for the wellness of clients and the decisions that touch upon their lives are at the heart of the healthcare occupation. This accountability needs physician to work out all their skill and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options concerning those delegated to their care, always respecting the inviolable self-respect of the patients and the requirement for notified consent. As a result, decisions regarding patient treatment and the weight of obligation they entail should 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 financial steps or metrics of performance represents an especially troublesome instance of the "technocratic paradigm" that must be rejected. [140] For, "optimizing resources indicates utilizing them in an ethical and fraternal method, and not punishing the most fragile." [141] Additionally, AI tools in healthcare are "exposed to kinds of bias and discrimination," where "systemic errors can easily increase, producing not only oppressions in individual cases but likewise, due to the domino result, genuine kinds of social inequality." [142]

76. The integration of AI into healthcare likewise postures the risk of magnifying other existing variations in access to medical care. As healthcare becomes progressively oriented towards prevention and lifestyle-based techniques, AI-driven services may inadvertently favor more affluent populations who currently enjoy much better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This trend dangers enhancing a "medication for the abundant" design, where those with monetary ways gain from advanced preventative tools and individualized health details while others struggle to gain access to even standard services. To avoid such inequities, fair frameworks are needed to ensure that using AI in health care does not get worse existing health care inequalities but 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 towards their last end and the good of the society to which they belong." [143] As such, education is "never ever a mere process of passing on realities and intellectual abilities: rather, its aim is to add to the individual's holistic formation in its different elements (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, and so on), consisting of, for instance, neighborhood life and relations within the scholastic community," [144] in keeping with the nature and self-respect of the human individual.


78. This technique includes a dedication to cultivating the mind, however constantly as a part of the important advancement of the individual: "We need to break that concept of education which holds that educating means filling one's head with concepts. That is the way we educate automatons, cerebral minds, not people. Educating is taking a threat in the stress in between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]

79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human individual is the vital relationship in between instructor and trainee. Teachers do more than communicate understanding; they design essential human qualities and motivate the pleasure of discovery. [146] Their presence motivates trainees both through the material they teach and the care they show for their trainees. This bond promotes trust, mutual understanding, and the capacity to resolve everyone's unique self-respect and potential. On the part of the trainee, this can create a genuine desire to grow. The physical presence of an instructor produces a relational dynamic that AI can not duplicate, one that deepens engagement and supports the trainee's important development.


80. In this context, AI presents both opportunities and challenges. If used in a sensible way, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and bought to the genuine objectives of education, AI can end up being a valuable educational resource by boosting access to education, offering tailored support, and offering immediate feedback to trainees. These benefits might improve the learning experience, especially in cases where individualized attention is needed, or instructional resources are otherwise scarce.


81. Nevertheless, a vital part of education is forming "the intellect to reason well in all matters, to reach out towards truth, 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 all the more essential in an age marked by technology, in which "it is no longer merely a concern of 'utilizing' instruments of interaction, however of residing in a highly digitalized culture that has actually had a profound impact on [...] our ability to communicate, discover, be notified and participate in relationship with others." [149] However, rather of fostering "a cultivated intellect," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and occupation that it carries out," [150] the extensive use of AI in education could result in the trainees' increased reliance on technology, eroding their ability to carry out some skills separately and worsening their dependence on screens. [151]

82. Additionally, while some AI systems are designed to help people establish their critical believing abilities and problem-solving abilities, lots of others merely supply responses rather of triggering trainees to reach responses themselves or write text on their own. [152] Instead of training youths how to collect details and create quick reactions, education should encourage "the accountable use of liberty to face concerns with great sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in the use of forms of expert system ought to aim above all at promoting critical thinking. Users of all ages, but particularly the young, need to establish a discerning method to the use of data and content collected online or produced by synthetic intelligence systems. Schools, universities, and scientific societies are challenged to help trainees and professionals to understand the social and ethical aspects of the development and usages of innovation." [154]

83. As Saint John Paul II recalled, "worldwide today, identified by such fast developments in science and technology, the tasks of a Catholic University presume an ever greater significance and seriousness." [155] In a particular way, Catholic universities are prompted to be present as excellent laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary key, they are prompted to engage "with knowledge and creativity" [156] in mindful research on this phenomenon, helping to extract the salutary capacity within the various fields of science and reality, and assisting them always towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the common great, reaching new frontiers in the dialogue between faith and reason.


84. Moreover, it must be kept in mind that present AI programs have actually been understood to provide prejudiced or fabricated details, which can lead trainees to rely on unreliable material. This issue "not only risks of legitimizing fake news and enhancing a dominant culture's advantage, but, simply put, it likewise undermines the educational process itself." [157] With time, clearer distinctions might emerge in between correct and improper uses of AI in education and research study. Yet, a definitive guideline is that using AI must always be transparent and never misrepresented.


85. AI could be utilized as an aid to human dignity if it assists individuals comprehend complicated ideas or directs them to sound resources that support their search for the fact. [158]

86. However, AI also presents a major threat of producing controlled material and false details, which can easily mislead individuals due to its resemblance to the truth. Such misinformation might take place unintentionally, as when it comes to AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine but are not. Since creating material that imitates human artifacts is main to AI's performance, reducing these risks proves tough. Yet, the consequences of such aberrations and incorrect details can be rather serious. For this factor, all those associated with producing and using AI systems must be committed to the truthfulness and precision of the details processed by such systems and disseminated to the general public.


87. While AI has a latent potential to create false details, a much more troubling problem depends on the deliberate abuse of AI for control. This can happen when individuals or companies deliberately produce and spread false content with the aim to deceive or trigger damage, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to an incorrect depiction of an individual, modified or generated by an AI algorithm. The danger of deepfakes is particularly obvious when they are used to target or harm others. While the images or videos themselves might be synthetic, the damage they trigger is genuine, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "genuine injuries in their human dignity." [159]

88. On a broader scale, by misshaping "our relationship with others and with reality," [160] AI-generated fake media can slowly undermine the foundations of society. This issue requires careful policy, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or affected media-can spread accidentally, sustaining political polarization and social discontent. When society ends up being indifferent to the truth, different groups construct their own variations of "truths," compromising the "mutual ties and mutual dependences" [161] that underpin the fabric of social life. As deepfakes cause people to question whatever and AI-generated false content deteriorates trust in what they see and hear, polarization and conflict will only grow. Such extensive deception is no insignificant matter; it strikes at the core of humankind, taking apart the fundamental trust on which societies are built. [162]

89. Countering AI-driven frauds is not just the work of industry experts-it needs the efforts of all individuals of goodwill. "If innovation is to serve human dignity and not harm it, and if it is to promote peace instead of violence, then the human neighborhood should be proactive in addressing these trends with respect to human dignity and the promo of the excellent." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated material ought to always work out diligence in confirming the fact of what they disseminate and, in all cases, need to "prevent the sharing of words and images that are deteriorating of humans, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that exploit the weak and susceptible." [164] This requires the continuous vigilance and cautious discernment of all users regarding their activity online. [165]

90. Humans are inherently relational, and the information everyone generates in the digital world can be viewed as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data communicates not just details however also individual and relational knowledge, which, in an increasingly digitized context, can total up to power over the individual. Moreover, while some kinds of information might pertain to public elements of a person's life, others may touch upon the person's interiority, maybe even their conscience. Seen in this method, personal privacy plays an essential role in safeguarding the boundaries of an individual's inner life, maintaining their freedom to connect to others, reveal themselves, and make decisions without excessive control. This security is also tied to the defense of spiritual flexibility, as security can also be misused to put in control over the lives of followers and how they reveal their faith.


91. It is appropriate, for that reason, to resolve the issue of privacy from an issue for the genuine liberty and inalienable dignity of the human individual "in all scenarios." [166] The Second Vatican Council consisted of the right "to protect privacy" among the essential rights "required for living a truly human life," a right that needs to be extended to all individuals on account of their "sublime dignity." [167] Furthermore, the Church has also verified the right to the genuine regard for a personal life in the context of verifying the individual's right to a great reputation, defense of their physical and psychological stability, and flexibility from damage or undue intrusion [168] -important components of the due respect for the intrinsic dignity of the human individual. [169]

92. Advances in AI-powered information processing and analysis now make it possible to presume patterns in a person's behavior and believing from even a percentage of details, making the role of information privacy even more important as a protect for the self-respect and relational nature of the human person. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant mindsets towards others are on the increase, distances are otherwise shrinking or vanishing to the point that the right to personal privacy rarely exists. Everything has actually ended up being a sort of phenomenon to be taken a look at and checked, and people's lives are now under consistent security." [170]

93. While there can be genuine and correct methods to use AI in keeping with human self-respect and the common great, utilizing it for surveillance aimed at exploiting, limiting others' freedom, or benefitting a couple of at the expenditure of the lots of is unjustifiable. The danger of security overreach should be monitored by proper regulators to ensure openness and public accountability. Those responsible for surveillance should never ever surpass their authority, which should always favor the self-respect and freedom of everyone as the necessary basis of a simply and humane society.


94. Furthermore, "basic respect for human self-respect demands that we decline to allow the originality of the individual to be identified with a set of data." [171] This especially uses when AI is used to assess individuals or groups based upon their habits, characteristics, or history-a practice called "social scoring": "In social and financial decision-making, we ought to be careful about delegating judgments to algorithms that process information, often collected surreptitiously, on a person's makeup and previous habits. Such data can be contaminated by societal prejudices and prejudgments. An individual's previous behavior need to not be utilized to reject him or her the opportunity to alter, grow, and contribute to society. We can not permit algorithms to restrict or condition regard for human self-respect, or to exclude empathy, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that individuals have the ability to change." [172]

95. AI has lots of appealing applications for enhancing our relationship with our "common home," such as developing designs to anticipate severe climate events, proposing engineering services to decrease their effect, managing relief operations, and predicting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable farming, enhance energy use, and provide early warning systems for public health emergency situations. These improvements have the possible to reinforce strength against climate-related difficulties and promote more sustainable advancement.


96. At the exact same time, present AI designs and the hardware needed to support them take in vast quantities of energy and water, considerably adding to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This truth is frequently obscured by the way this technology exists in the popular creativity, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can give the impression that data is stored and processed in an intangible world, detached from the real world. However, "the cloud" is not a heavenly domain separate from the physical world; similar to all computing innovations, it depends on physical machines, cables, and energy. The same holds true of the innovation behind AI. As these systems grow in complexity, especially large 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 essential to develop sustainable solutions that decrease their effect on our common home.


97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is essential "that we look for options not only in technology however in a change of mankind." [175] A total and authentic understanding of development recognizes that the value of all developed things can not be reduced to their mere utility. Therefore, a totally human method to the stewardship of the earth rejects the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which looks for to "extract everything possible" from the world, [176] and declines the "myth of development," which presumes that "environmental issues will solve themselves simply with the application of new technology and without any need for ethical factors to consider or deep modification." [177] Such a state of mind needs to offer way to a more holistic method that appreciates the order of production and promotes the integral good of the human person while protecting our common home. [178]

98. The Second Vatican Council and the consistent teaching of the Popes considering that then have actually firmly insisted that peace is not merely the lack of war and is not restricted to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the harmony of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without protecting the products of individuals, complimentary communication, respect for the dignity of persons and individuals, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the impact of charity and can not be attained through force alone; instead, it should be mainly built through client diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, solidarity, essential human advancement, and respect for the self-respect of all individuals. [180] In this method, the tools utilized to maintain peace needs to never be permitted to justify injustice, violence, or oppression. Instead, they ought to constantly be governed by a "firm determination to regard other individuals and countries, along with their self-respect, in addition to the intentional practice of fraternity." [181]

99. While AI's analytical abilities could help countries seek peace and ensure security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can also be extremely problematic. Pope Francis has actually observed that "the ability to conduct military operations through push-button control systems has actually resulted in a reduced understanding of the devastation triggered by those weapon systems and the concern of duty for their usage, resulting in a a lot more cold and separated technique to the immense disaster of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which autonomous weapons make war more viable militates against the concept of war as a last hope in legitimate self-defense, [183] potentially increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and precipitating a destabilizing arms race, with disastrous consequences for human rights. [184]

100. In specific, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which are capable of determining and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for grave ethical issue" since they do not have the "special human capability for ethical judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this factor, Pope Francis has urgently called for a reconsideration of the advancement of these weapons and a prohibition on their usage, starting with "an effective and concrete dedication to present ever greater and proper human control. No maker must ever select to take the life of a human." [186]

101. Since it is a small action from devices that can kill autonomously with precision to those efficient in large-scale damage, some AI scientists have expressed concerns that such innovation positions an "existential threat" by having the possible to act in methods that could threaten the survival of entire regions or perhaps of mankind itself. This threat demands serious attention, reflecting the enduring concern about innovations that grant war "an unmanageable harmful power over fantastic numbers of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing children. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "carry out an assessment of war with a completely brand-new attitude" [188] is more immediate than ever.


102. At the exact same time, while the theoretical dangers of AI deserve attention, the more instant and pushing issue depends on how people with destructive intents may abuse this technology. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future capabilities are unforeseeable, mankind's previous actions supply clear cautions. The atrocities devoted throughout history are sufficient to raise deep issues about the possible abuses of AI.


103. Saint John Paul II observed that "humanity now has instruments of extraordinary power: we can turn this world into a garden, or decrease it to a pile of debris." [190] Given this reality, the Church advises us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are totally free to use our intelligence towards things developing favorably," or towards "decadence and mutual destruction." [191] To avoid humanity from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there should be a clear stand against all applications of innovation that inherently threaten human life and dignity. This dedication needs careful discernment about using AI, particularly in military defense applications, to guarantee that it always respects human dignity and serves the typical good. The advancement and deployment of AI in armaments must be subject to the greatest levels of ethical scrutiny, governed by a concern for human self-respect and the sanctity of life. [193]

104. Technology offers impressive tools to supervise and develop the world's resources. However, in some cases, mankind is increasingly ceding control of these resources to devices. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, there is optimism about the capacity of synthetic general intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical kind of AI that would match or go beyond human intelligence and bring about inconceivable developments. Some even hypothesize that AGI could attain superhuman abilities. At the same time, as society wanders away from a connection with the transcendent, some are tempted to turn to AI in search of meaning or fulfillment-longings that can only be truly pleased in communion with God. [194]

105. However, the anticipation of substituting 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 much more sexy than standard idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths however do not speak; eyes, however do not see; ears, but do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or a minimum of gives the illusion of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is important to remember that AI is however a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated product, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not have much of the capabilities specific to human life, and it is likewise fallible. By turning to AI as a viewed "Other" higher than itself, with which to share existence and obligations, humanity threats producing a replacement for God. However, it is not AI that is eventually deified and worshipped, however humanity itself-which, in this way, ends up being enslaved to its own work. [195]

106. While AI has the prospective to serve mankind and contribute to the common great, it remains a development of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and resourcefulness" (Acts 17:29). It must never 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 male can form a god which resembles himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is much better than the objects he worships since he has life, but they never ever have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).


107. In contrast, people, "by their interior life, go beyond the entire product universe; they experience this deep interiority when they get in into their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they choose their own fate in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis reminds us, that each specific finds the "mystical connection in between self-knowledge and openness to others, between the encounter with one's individual uniqueness and the determination to offer oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "capable of setting our other powers and passions, and our entire person, in a stance of respect and loving obedience before the Lord," [198] who "offers to deal with each one of us as a 'Thou,' constantly and permanently." [199]

108. Considering the various obstacles positioned by advances in innovation, Pope Francis highlighted the requirement for development in "human responsibility, worths, and conscience," proportionate to the growth in the potential that this innovation brings [200] -acknowledging that "with an increase in human power comes a broadening of obligation on the part of people and neighborhoods." [201]

109. At the very same time, the "necessary and fundamental concern" remains "whether in the context of this progress guy, as guy, is becoming genuinely better, that is to say, more mature spiritually, more familiar with the dignity of his mankind, more responsible, more available to others, specifically the neediest and the weakest, and readier to give and to aid all." [202]

110. As an outcome, it is vital to know how to examine private applications of AI in particular contexts to determine whether its usage promotes human self-respect, the vocation of the human individual, and the common good. Just like many innovations, the effects of the various usages of AI might not constantly be predictable from their beginning. As these applications and their social effects become clearer, suitable responses should be made at all levels of society, following the concept of subsidiarity. Individual users, families, civil society, corporations, organizations, governments, and international companies ought to work at their proper levels to make sure that AI is utilized for the good of all.


111. A substantial challenge and chance for the common great today depends on considering AI within a structure of relational intelligence, which stresses the interconnectedness of people and communities and highlights our shared responsibility for promoting the essential well-being of others. The twentieth-century philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev observed that people frequently blame makers for individual and social problems; however, "this just humiliates guy and does not represent his dignity," for "it is unworthy to transfer duty from man to a machine." [203] Only the human person can be ethically responsible, and the challenges of a technological society are eventually spiritual in nature. Therefore, dealing with those obstacles "demands an augmentation of spirituality." [204]

112. A more indicate consider is the call, prompted by the appearance of AI on the world stage, for a restored appreciation of all that is human. Years ago, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos warned that "the threat is not in the multiplication of machines, however in the ever-increasing number of guys accustomed from their childhood to desire only what machines can provide." [205] This difficulty is as real today as it was then, as the rapid pace of digitization risks a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable aspects of life are reserved and then forgotten or even considered unimportant due to the fact that they can not be calculated in official terms. AI must be used just as a tool to match human intelligence rather than change its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that transcend calculation is essential for maintaining "a genuine mankind" that "appears to dwell in the middle of our technological culture, practically unnoticed, like a mist seeping carefully underneath a closed door." [207]

113. The large expanse of the world's understanding is now available in ways that would have filled previous generations with wonder. However, to make sure that developments in knowledge do not become humanly or spiritually barren, one must exceed the mere accumulation of data and aim to attain real knowledge. [208]

114. This knowledge is the present that mankind needs most to attend to the profound questions and ethical difficulties postured by AI: "Only by adopting a spiritual method of viewing reality, just by recovering a wisdom of the heart, can we face and analyze the newness of our time." [209] Such "knowledge of the heart" is "the virtue that allows us to integrate the entire and its parts, our decisions and their repercussions." It "can not be sought from devices," but it "lets itself be found by those who seek it and be seen by those who love it; it prepares for those who want it, and it goes in search of those who are worthwhile of it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]

115. In a world marked by AI, we need the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "allows us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, circumstances, occasions and to discover their real significance." [211]

116. Since a "person's perfection is measured not by the details or understanding they possess, but by the depth of their charity," [212] how we include AI "to include the least of our bros and sis, the vulnerable, and those most in requirement, will be the real procedure of our mankind." [213] The "wisdom of the heart" can brighten and direct the human-centered use of this technology to help promote the common excellent, look after our "common home," advance the search for the reality, foster integral human development, prefer human uniformity and fraternity, and lead humanity to its supreme goal: joy and full communion with God. [214]

117. From this perspective of knowledge, followers will be able to act as ethical agents efficient in utilizing this innovation to promote an authentic vision of the human individual and society. [215] This must be done with the understanding that technological progress becomes part of God's strategy for creation-an activity that we are contacted us to order towards the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the continuous search for the True and the Good.


The Supreme Pontiff, Francis, at the Audience approved on 14 January 2025 to the undersigned Prefects and Secretaries of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery for Culture and Education, authorized this Note and bought 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 die 14 ianuarii 2025
Franciscus


Contents


I. Introduction


II. What is Artificial Intelligence?


III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition


Rationality


Embodiment


Relationality


Relationship with the Truth


Stewardship of the World


An Integral Understanding of Human Intelligence


The Limits of AI


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


Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making


V. Specific Questions


AI and Society


AI and Human Relationships


AI, the Economy, and Labor


AI and Healthcare


AI and Education


AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse


AI, Privacy, and Surveillance


AI and the Protection of Our Common Home


AI and Warfare


AI and Our Relationship with God


VI. Concluding Reflections


True Wisdom


[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See also Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053.
[2] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 307. Cf. Id., Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (21 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020 ), 43.
[3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[5] J. McCarthy, et al., "A Proposition for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence" (31 August 1955), http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024).
[6] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), pars. 2-3: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[7] Terms in this file explaining the outputs or processes of AI are utilized figuratively to explain its operations and are not planned to anthropomorphize the maker.
[8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[9] Here, one can see the main positions of the "transhumanists" and the "posthumanists." Transhumanists argue that technological advancements will enable humans to conquer their biological constraints and improve both their physical and cognitive abilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, compete that such advances will eventually change human identity to the extent that mankind itself may no longer be considered genuinely "human." Both views rest on a fundamentally unfavorable understanding of human corporality, which treats the body more as a barrier than as an important part of the person's identity and call to full realization. Yet, this negative view of the body is inconsistent with a proper understanding of human dignity. While the Church supports authentic scientific progress, it affirms that human dignity is rooted in "the person as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "self-respect 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 technique reflects a functionalist perspective, which minimizes the human mind to its functions and presumes that its functions can be totally quantified in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear genuinely intelligent, it would still remain practical in nature.
[11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460.
[12] If "thinking" is attributed to machines, it needs to be clarified that this refers to calculative thinking rather than important thinking. Similarly, if machines are said to run using abstract thought, it needs to be specified that this is limited to computational reasoning. On the other hand, by its very nature, human idea is an innovative process that eludes shows and goes beyond constraints.
[13] On the fundamental role of language in forming understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York City 2010, 141-182).
[14] For more conversation of these anthropological and doctrinal structures, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144.
[15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21.
[16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi advertisement litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [faculty] by which he is superior to the irrational animals. Now, this [professors] is factor itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it might more appropriately be given"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When considering all that they have, humans discover that they are most distinguished from animals specifically by the fact they possess intelligence." This is also restated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who states that "guy is the most perfect of all earthly beings endowed with movement, and his proper and natural operation is intellection," by which male 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, advertisement 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a modern perspective that echoes components of the classical and middle ages difference in between these 2 modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York City 2011.
[19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp.
[20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138.
[21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intellect can investigate the truth of things through reflection, experience and discussion, and pertain to acknowledge because reality, 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 "generally thinks about the human individual as a being who exists in the body and is unthinkable outside of it" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Che cosa è l'uomo?" (Sal 8,5): Un itinerario di antropologia biblica [30 September 2019], par. 19). Cf. ibid., pars. 20-21, 43-44, 48.
[25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100 (2008 ), 863: "Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, however rather totally disclosed its significance and worth."
[26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81.
[27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and for this reason it is joined to the body in order that it may have an existence 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 also possess reason 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, deserve 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 is capable of going beyond instant issues and grasping certain facts that are imperishable, as true now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, factor discovers universal values obtained from that exact same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034.
[38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last proceeding of factor is to acknowledge that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York 1958, 77).
[39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[40] Our semantic capability allows us to understand messages in any type of communication in a way that both takes into account and transcends their product or empirical structures (such as computer code). Here, intelligence ends up being a wisdom that "enables us to look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, circumstances, occasions and to uncover their genuine meaning" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our creativity allows us to generate brand-new content or ideas, mainly by providing an initial viewpoint on reality. Both capacities depend on the existence of a personal subjectivity for their complete 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 fact, is far more than individual feeling [...] Certainly, its close relation to fact cultivates its universality and maintains it from being 'restricted to a narrow field lacking relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to reality thus protects it from 'a fideism that denies it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643.
[43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7.
[44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15.
[46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294.
[47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure likens deep space to "a book reflecting, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who grants 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: "people inhabit a distinct place in deep space according to the magnificent plan: they take pleasure in the advantage of sharing in the divine governance of visible creation. [...] Since guy's place as ruler remains in truth an involvement in the divine governance of production, we mention it here as a type of stewardship."
[49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165.
[50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This concept is also shown in the production account, where God brings creatures to Adam "to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living creature, that was its name" (Gen. 2:19), an action that shows the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's creation. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117.
[51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301.
[52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302.
[53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2.
[54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7.
[55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316.
[56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8.
[57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906.
[58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987.
[59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5.
[60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: "L'intelligence n'est rien sans la délectation." Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: "The mind and the will are put at the service of the greater great by picking up and relishing truths."
[61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232).
[62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he greatest norm of human life is the divine law itself-eternal, objective and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the ways of the human neighborhood according to a strategy conceived in his knowledge and love. God has made it possible for man to take part in this law of his so that, under the mild personality of divine providence, lots of may be able to reach a much deeper and much deeper understanding of unchangeable truth." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037.
[63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016.
[64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892.
[65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042.
[66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has inscribed his own image and similarity on guy (cf. Gen 1:26), providing upon him a matchless self-respect [...] In result, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not represent any work he performs, but which circulation from his necessary self-respect as a person." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22.
[68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310.
[69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is comprehended as a technical term to show this innovation, remembering that the expression is also used 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 scientific 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 clinical research and technological expedition, highlight that "faith and science can be unified in charity, provided that science is put at the service of the guys and woman of our time and not misused to damage and even ruin them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87.
[73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378.
[74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888.
[77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658.
[78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim.
[79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293.
[80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4.
[81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes guy an ethical topic. When he acts deliberately, male is, so to speak, the daddy of his acts."
[82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776.
[83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777.
[84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father encouraged efforts "to guarantee that innovation remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed toward the great."
[85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the role of human company in picking a broader aim (Ziel) that then informs the specific purpose (Zweck) for which each technological application is created, 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 function and, in its effect on human society, constantly represents a type of order in social relations and a plan of power, therefore making it possible for certain people to carry out specific actions while avoiding others from performing various ones. In a more or less specific way, this constitutive power-dimension of technology always includes the worldview of those who created and developed it."
[87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309.
[88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045.
[90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Faced with the marvels of machines, which appear to understand how to select independently, we need to be extremely clear that decision-making [...] need to constantly be left to the human individual. We would condemn humanity to a future without hope if we took away people's ability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend on the options of machines."
[92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[93] The term "bias" in this document refers to algorithmic bias (organized and consistent mistakes in computer system systems that may disproportionately bias certain groups in unintentional methods) or learning predisposition (which will lead to training on a prejudiced information set) and not the "bias vector" in neural networks (which is a specification utilized to change the output of "neurons" to adjust more accurately to the information).
[94] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father verified the growth in consensus "on the need for advancement procedures to appreciate such values as inclusion, transparency, security, equity, privacy and reliability," and likewise welcomed "the efforts of global organizations to manage these technologies so that they promote real development, contributing, that is, to a 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 more conversation of the ethical questions raised by AI from a Catholic point of view, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253.
[99] On the significance of dialogue in a pluralist society oriented toward a "robust and strong social principles," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045.
[100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.
[102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464.
[104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10.
[105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; 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 individuals] want their interpersonal relationships offered by advanced equipment, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel informs us continuously to run the threat of an in person encounter with others, with their physical presence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their delight which infects us in our close and constant interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from subscription in the community, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045.
[124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1.
[125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899.
[126] Francis, Message for linked.aub.edu.lb 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' mentor about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893.
[129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as priced estimate in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453.
[130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: "work is 'for guy' and not male 'for work.' Through this conclusion one rightly pertains to acknowledge the pre-eminence of the subjective meaning of work over the unbiased one."
[132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320.
[133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502.
[135] Ibid.
[136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as estimated in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8.
[137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12.
[138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12.
[139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465.
[141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops' Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: "If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture is manifest, with its painful effects, it is that of health care. When a sick person is not placed in the center or their dignity is not thought about, this generates mindsets that can lead even to speculation on the misfortune of others. And this is very grave! [...] The application of a service approach to the healthcare sector, if indiscriminate [...] may run the risk of 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 teachers, it is because they are witnesses."
[147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126.
[148] Francis, Meeting with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316.
[149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, pricing estimate the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592.
[150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167.
[151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413.
[152] In a 2023 policy document about the use of generative AI in education and research study, UNESCO notes: "One of the essential questions [of making use of generative AI (GenAI) in education and research study] is whether human beings can possibly deliver fundamental levels of thinking and skill-acquisition processes to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking abilities based on the outputs supplied by AI. Writing, for instance, is often associated with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], humans can now start with a well-structured outline offered by GenAI. Some experts have characterized the use of GenAI to create text in this way as 'writing without thinking'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American theorist Hannah Arendt predicted such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and warned: "If it needs to end up being true that knowledge (in the sense of know-how) and thought have actually parted business for great, then we would certainly become the helpless servants, not so much 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 example, it might help people gain access to the "selection of resources for producing greater understanding of truth" contained in the works of viewpoint (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8.
[159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62.
[160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074.
[162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be really indifferent to the question of whether what they understand holds true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he composes: 'I have actually satisfied lots of who wished to deceive, but none who wished to be tricked'"; estimating Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794.
[163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62.
[164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8.
[165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Media (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149.
[166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24.
[167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no man might with impunity break that human dignity which God himself treats with terrific reverence"; as quoted in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804.
[168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203.
[169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human dignity in cyberspace obliges States to likewise appreciate the right to personal privacy, by shielding residents from invasive surveillance and permitting them to secure their personal details from unapproved gain access to."
[170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984.
[171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body determined a list of "early promises of AI helping to resolve environment modification" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The file observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can transform data into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools may help establish brand-new methods and investments to minimize emissions, influence new economic sector investments in net no, protect biodiversity, and construct broad-based social resilience" (ibid.).
[174] "The cloud" refers to a network of physical servers throughout the world that makes it possible for users to shop, process, and handle their information remotely.
[175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850.
[176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890.
[177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870.
[178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852.
[179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640.
[180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317.
[181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101.
[182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310.
[184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105.
[185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We need to guarantee and protect an area for proper human control over the options made by synthetic intelligence programs: human dignity itself depends on it."
[186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The development and usage of lethal self-governing weapons systems (LAWS) that do not have the appropriate human control would position essential ethical concerns, considered that LAWS can never be ethically accountable subjects capable of abiding by global humanitarian law."
[187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104.
[188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104.
[189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: "Nor can we ignore the possibility of sophisticated weapons ending up in the wrong hands, assisting in, for example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the institutions of legitimate systems of federal government. In a word, the world does not need new innovations that contribute to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and subsequently end up promoting the folly of war."
[190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565.
[191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878.
[192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687.
[193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39.
[194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661.
[195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a much better understanding today that the simple accumulation of products and services [...] is insufficient for the realization of human happiness. Nor, in consequence, does the availability of the lots of real advantages offered in recent times by science and innovation, consisting of the computer technology, bring liberty from every form of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the considerable body of resources and potential at guy's disposal is assisted by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the real good of the human race, it quickly turns against guy to oppress him." Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564.
[196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5.
[198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6.
[199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6.
[200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. The End of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83).
[201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288.
[203] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," in C. Mitcham - R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York City 19832, 212-213.
[204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210.
[205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829.
[206] Cf. Francis, Meeting with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023).
[207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: "The flood of details at our fingertips does not make for higher wisdom. Wisdom is not born of quick searches on the web nor is it a mass of unproven information. That is not the method to grow in the encounter with truth."
[209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[210] Ibid.
[211] Ibid.
[212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121.
[213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124.
[214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.