II. What Is Artificial Intelligence

1. With wisdom both ancient and new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are contacted us to assess the existing challenges and opportunities positioned by scientific and technological advancements, especially by the recent development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian custom relates to the gift of intelligence as a vital aspect of how humans are produced "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Starting from an essential vision of the human person and the biblical calling to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church emphasizes that this present of intelligence must be expressed through the responsible usage of reason and technical abilities in the stewardship of the produced world.


2. The Church motivates the advancement of science, technology, the arts, and other kinds of human undertaking, viewing them as part of the "partnership of males and female with God in refining the visible development." [1] As Sirach verifies, God "provided skill to humans, that he may be glorified in his splendid works" (Sir. 38:6). Human abilities and imagination come from God and, when used appropriately, glorify God by showing his wisdom and goodness. In light of this, when we ask ourselves what it indicates to "be human," we can not leave out a factor to consider of our scientific and technological capabilities.


3. It is within this viewpoint that the present Note addresses the anthropological and ethical obstacles raised by AI-issues that are especially significant, as one of the objectives of this innovation is to mimic the human intelligence that designed it. For instance, unlike numerous other human productions, AI can be trained on the results of human creativity and then produce brand-new "artifacts" with a level of speed and ability that frequently measures up to or exceeds what humans can do, such as producing text or images identical from human compositions. This raises important concerns about AI's potential function in the growing crisis of fact in the general public forum. Moreover, this technology is created to learn and make certain options autonomously, adapting to brand-new circumstances and providing options not visualized by its developers, and hence, it raises fundamental questions about ethical duty and human security, with broader implications for society as a whole. This new situation has actually triggered many individuals to review what it suggests to be human and the role of mankind on the planet.


4. Taking all this into account, there is broad agreement that AI marks a new and substantial phase in mankind's engagement with innovation, putting it at the heart of what Pope Francis has explained as an "epochal change." [2] Its impact is felt worldwide and in a large range of areas, including interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, health care, law, warfare, and global relations. As AI advances rapidly towards even higher accomplishments, it is critically crucial to consider its anthropological and ethical ramifications. This involves not only mitigating threats and preventing harm but also making sure that its applications are utilized to promote human development and the typical good.


5. To contribute positively to the discernment concerning AI, and in action to Pope Francis' call for a renewed "knowledge of heart," [3] the Church provides its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active role in the global dialogue on these concerns, the Church welcomes those entrusted with transmitting the faith-including parents, instructors, pastors, and bishops-to dedicate themselves to this critical subject with care and attention. While this file is planned particularly for them, it is likewise indicated to be available to a more comprehensive audience, particularly those who share the conviction that clinical and technological advances should be directed toward serving the human individual and the common good. [4]

6. To this end, the document starts by identifying between concepts of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then checks out the Christian understanding of human intelligence, providing a structure rooted in the Church's philosophical and doctrinal tradition. Finally, the document uses guidelines to guarantee that the advancement and usage of AI maintain human self-respect and promote the important advancement of the human individual and society.


7. The principle of "intelligence" in AI has progressed in time, drawing on a range of ideas from numerous disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a considerable milestone happened in 1956 when the American computer scientist John McCarthy arranged 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 intelligent if a human were so behaving." [5] This workshop released a research study program focused on creating devices efficient in carrying out jobs usually related to the human intellect and smart behavior.


8. Ever since, AI research has actually advanced quickly, causing the development of complex systems capable of carrying out extremely advanced tasks. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are generally created to handle specific and limited functions, such as equating languages, anticipating the trajectory of a storm, classifying images, responding to concerns, or generating visual content at the user's request. While the definition of "intelligence" in AI research study differs, a lot of modern AI systems-particularly those using device learning-rely on statistical inference rather than rational deduction. By examining big datasets to recognize patterns, AI can "forecast" [7] outcomes and propose brand-new methods, simulating some cognitive processes normal of human analytical. Such achievements have actually been enabled through advances in calculating innovation (including neural networks, unsupervised artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) in addition to hardware innovations (such as specialized processors). Together, these technologies allow AI systems to react to different kinds of human input, adjust to new circumstances, and even recommend novel options not anticipated by their original programmers. [8]

9. Due to these rapid developments, it-viking.ch numerous jobs when managed solely by people are now turned over to AI. These systems can enhance or perhaps supersede what humans are able to carry out in many fields, particularly in specialized areas such as data analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is developed for a particular task, many researchers aim to develop what is understood as "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system capable of running across all cognitive domains and carrying out any task within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI could one day attain the state of "superintelligence," exceeding human intellectual capabilities, or add to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, however, fear that these possibilities, even if hypothetical, might one day eclipse the human individual, while still others invite this potential improvement. [9]

10. Underlying this and many other perspectives on the topic is the implicit presumption that the term "intelligence" can be used in the very same method to describe both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not catch the full scope of the idea. In the case of human beings, intelligence is a professors that pertains to the individual in his or her totality, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is understood functionally, frequently with the anticipation that the activities attribute of the human mind can be broken down into digitized actions that machines can duplicate. [10]

11. This practical point of view is exemplified by the "Turing Test," which considers a device "intelligent" if an individual can not differentiate its behavior from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "behavior" refers just to the efficiency of specific intellectual jobs; it does not represent the complete breadth of human experience, which consists of abstraction, emotions, creativity, and the visual, ethical, and religious sensibilities. Nor does it encompass the complete variety of expressions characteristic of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the "intelligence" of a system is assessed methodologically, however likewise reductively, based on its ability to produce proper responses-in this case, those related to the human intellect-regardless of how those reactions are created.


12. AI's advanced functions offer it advanced capabilities to perform jobs, but not the capability to think. [12] This difference is most importantly essential, as the method "intelligence" is defined undoubtedly forms how we understand the relationship between human thought and this technology. [13] To value this, one need to remember the richness of the philosophical tradition and Christian faith, which use a deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's mentor on the nature, self-respect, and vocation of the human individual. [14]

13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has played a main role in comprehending what it suggests to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all people by nature desire to know." [15] This knowledge, with its capacity for abstraction that grasps the nature and meaning of things, sets humans apart from the animal world. [16] As theorists, theologians, and psychologists have actually taken a look at the exact nature of this intellectual professors, they have likewise checked out how human beings understand the world and their distinct location within it. Through this exploration, the Christian custom has pertained to comprehend the human person as a being including both body and soul-deeply connected to this world and yet transcending it. [17]

14. In the classical custom, the concept of intelligence is often comprehended through the complementary principles of "factor" (ratio) and "intellect" (intellectus). These are not different faculties however, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are 2 modes in which the same intelligence operates: "The term intelligence is inferred from the inward grasp of the truth, while the name reason is taken from the analytical and discursive process." [18] This concise description highlights the two fundamental and complementary measurements of human intelligence. Intellectus describes the user-friendly grasp of the truth-that is, capturing it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and premises argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to thinking correct: the discursive, analytical procedure that leads to judgment. Together, intelligence and factor form the 2 facets of the act of intelligere, "the appropriate operation of the human being as such." [19]

15. Explaining the human person as a "reasonable" being does not minimize the individual to a particular mode of thought; rather, it recognizes that the ability for intellectual understanding shapes and permeates all aspects of human activity. [20] Whether worked out well or inadequately, this capability is an intrinsic aspect of humanity. In this sense, the "term 'reasonable' includes all the capacities of the human person," consisting of those associated to "understanding and understanding, as well as those of prepared, loving, choosing, and desiring; it likewise includes all corporeal functions closely related to these capabilities." [21] This detailed perspective highlights how, in the human individual, produced in the "picture of God," factor is incorporated in a manner that raises, shapes, and changes both the individual's will and actions. [22]

16. Christian thought thinks about the intellectual professors of the human person within the structure of an essential sociology that sees the human being as basically embodied. In the human person, spirit and matter "are not two natures joined, but rather their union forms a single nature." [23] Simply put, the soul is not merely the immaterial "part" of the individual contained within the body, nor is the body an external shell housing an intangible "core." Rather, the entire human person is all at once both material and spiritual. This understanding reflects the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which views the human person as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and therefore, an authentically spiritual measurement) within and through this embodied existence. [24] The extensive significance of this condition is additional illuminated by the secret of the Incarnation, through which God himself handled our flesh and "raised it up to a superb dignity." [25]

17. Although deeply rooted in bodily existence, the human person transcends the material world through the soul, which is "almost on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intelligence's capacity for transcendence and the self-possessed flexibility of the will belong to 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 method, the intellectual professors of the human individual are an integral part of an anthropology that acknowledges that the human person is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further aspects of this understanding will be established in what follows.


18. Humans are "purchased by their very nature to social communion," [30] possessing the capability to know one another, to offer themselves in love, and to enter into communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not a separated faculty but is exercised in relationships, discovering its fullest expression in discussion, partnership, and uniformity. We find out with others, and we find out through others.


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

20. This vocation to communion with God is always connected to the call to communion with others. Love of God can not be separated from love for one's neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20; Mt. 22:37 -39). By the grace of sharing God's life, Christians are likewise contacted us to mimic Christ's outpouring present (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "enjoy one another, as I have actually liked you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the divine life of self-giving, transcend self-interest to respond more fully to the human occupation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). A lot more sublime than knowing lots of things is the commitment to look after 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 present made for the assimilation of reality." [34] In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it makes it possible for the individual to explore truths that surpass mere sensory experience or energy, because "the desire for truth becomes part of humanity itself. It is a natural home of human reason to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limitations of empirical information, human intelligence can "with genuine certitude attain to reality itself as knowable." [36] While reality remains only partially understood, the desire for reality "spurs factor constantly to go even more; certainly, it is as if factor were overwhelmed to see that it can constantly surpass what it has actually already attained." [37] Although Truth in itself goes beyond the borders of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this destination, the human individual is led to look for "facts of a greater order." [39]

22. This natural drive toward the pursuit of truth is specifically apparent in the clearly human capabilities for semantic understanding and creativity, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "manner that is suitable to the social nature and dignity of the human person." [41] Likewise, a steadfast orientation to the reality is important for charity to be both genuine and universal. [42]

23. The search for reality discovers its highest expression in openness to truths that go beyond the physical and developed world. In God, all truths attain their ultimate and initial significance. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "basic decision that engages the entire individual." [44] In this method, the human individual ends up being fully what she or he is called to be: "the intelligence and the will show their spiritual nature," enabling the individual "to act in a way that realizes personal freedom to the complete." [45]

24. The Christian faith comprehends creation as the free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, creates "not to increase his magnificence, but to show it forth and to interact it." [46] Since God creates according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), development is imbued with an intrinsic order that reflects 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 humans to presume a distinct function: to cultivate and look after the world. [48]

25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, people live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and abilities to take care of and develop production in accord with God's strategy. [49] In this, human intelligence shows the Divine Intelligence that developed all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] continuously sustains them, and guides them to their supreme function in him. [51] Moreover, humans are called to establish their capabilities in science and technology, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in an appropriate relationship with creation, people, on the one hand, use their intelligence and skill to comply with God in assisting development towards the function to which he has actually called it. [52] On the other hand, creation itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, helps the human mind to "ascend slowly to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]

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


27. This engagement with truth unfolds in numerous ways, as everyone, in his/her multifaceted individuality [54], looks for to understand the world, connect to others, solve issues, reveal imagination, and pursue important wellness through the unified interaction of the different measurements of the individual's intelligence. [55] This involves sensible and linguistic abilities but can also include other modes of communicating with truth. Consider the work of an artisan, who "need to know how to determine, in inert matter, a particular form that others can not acknowledge" [56] and bring it forth through insight and practical skill. Indigenous peoples who live near the earth often have a profound sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a pal who knows the best word to say or a person proficient at managing human relationships exhibits an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, discussion and generous encounter in between persons." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of synthetic intelligence, we can not forget that poetry and love are essential to save our humankind." [59]

28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the integration of reality into the ethical and spiritual life of the person, directing his or her actions in light of God's goodness and truth. According to God's plan, intelligence, in its maximum sense, likewise includes the ability to relish what holds true, excellent, and gorgeous. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel revealed, "intelligence is absolutely nothing without pleasure." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the highest heaven in Paradiso, affirms that the conclusion of this intellectual pleasure is discovered in the "light intellectual loaded with love, love of real great filled with joy, happiness which transcends every sweetness." [61]

29. A correct understanding of human intelligence, therefore, can not be minimized to the simple acquisition of realities or the ability to perform specific jobs. Instead, it includes the person's openness to the ultimate questions of life and reflects an orientation toward the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the magnificent image within the person, human intelligence has the capability to access the totality of being, pondering presence in its fullness, which goes beyond what is quantifiable, and understanding the significance of what has been understood. For followers, this capacity includes, in a specific way, the capability to grow in the understanding of the mysteries of God by utilizing reason to engage ever more profoundly with revealed facts (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is formed by magnificent love, which "is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence has a vital contemplative measurement, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian purpose.


30. In light of the foregoing conversation, the differences between human intelligence and current AI systems end up being obvious. While AI is an extraordinary technological accomplishment efficient in imitating certain outputs associated with human intelligence, it runs by carrying out tasks, attaining goals, or making choices based on quantitative data and computational reasoning. For example, with its analytical power, AI stands out at incorporating information from a range of fields, modeling complex systems, and fostering interdisciplinary connections. In this method, it can help specialists team up in resolving complicated problems that "can not be handled from a single point of view or from a single set of interests." [64]

31. However, even as AI processes and imitates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains essentially confined to a logical-mathematical structure, which enforces intrinsic constraints. Human intelligence, on the other hand, develops organically throughout the person's physical and mental development, formed by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although innovative AI systems can "learn" through processes such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is essentially different from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is formed by embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the distinct context of each minute. These aspects shape and form people within their individual history.In contrast, AI, doing not have a physical body, relies on computational thinking and learning based upon huge datasets that consist of recorded human experiences and knowledge.


32. Consequently, although AI can imitate aspects of human thinking and perform particular tasks with amazing speed and efficiency, its computational capabilities represent just a portion of the wider capabilities of the human mind. For instance, AI can not currently replicate moral discernment or the capability to establish authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is situated within a personally lived history of intellectual and ethical formation that basically forms the person's perspective, encompassing the physical, emotional, social, ethical, and spiritual dimensions of life. Since AI can not use this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely entirely on this technology or treat it as the main ways of interpreting the world can cause "a loss of appreciation for the whole, for the relationships between things, and for the broader horizon." [65]

33. Human intelligence is not mainly about finishing practical tasks however about understanding and actively engaging with truth in all its dimensions; it is also capable of unexpected insights. Since AI does not have the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to truth and goodness, its capacities-though apparently limitless-are incomparable with the human ability to grasp reality. So much can be gained from a health problem, an embrace of reconciliation, and even an easy sunset; certainly, lots of experiences we have as human beings open new horizons and offer the possibility of attaining brand-new knowledge. No device, working solely with data, can measure up to these and countless other experiences present in our lives.


34. Drawing an excessively close equivalence in between human intelligence and AI threats giving in to a functionalist perspective, where people are valued based upon the work they can carry out. However, an individual's worth does not depend on having particular abilities, cognitive and technological accomplishments, or specific success, however on the person's inherent dignity, grounded in being created in the image of God. [66] This self-respect remains intact in all situations, consisting of for those not able to exercise their abilities, whether it be an unborn child, an unconscious person, or an older individual who is suffering. [67] It also underpins the tradition of human rights (and, in particular, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "a crucial point of merging in the look for commonalities" [68] and can, thus, work as a basic ethical guide in conversations on the accountable advancement and use of AI.


35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the very use of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can show misleading" [69] and risks overlooking what is most valuable in the human individual. Because of this, AI must not be viewed as a synthetic form of human intelligence but as a product of it. [70]

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

37. Viewed as a fruit of the potential inscribed within human intelligence, [72] scientific query and the development of technical skills become part of the "cooperation of males and female with God in refining the noticeable production." [73] At the exact same time, all scientific and technological achievements are, ultimately, presents from God. [74] Therefore, human beings need to always use their capabilities in view of the higher purpose for which God has actually approved them. [75]

38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has actually "remedied many evils which used to damage and restrict humans," [76] a truth for which we should rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological improvements in themselves represent genuine human development. [77] The Church is particularly opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the self-respect of the human person. [78] Like any human undertaking, technological advancement must be directed to serve the human person and contribute to the pursuit of "greater justice, more extensive fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations," which are "more valuable than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical implications of technological development are shared not only within the Church however likewise among numerous scientists, technologists, and professional associations, who progressively call for ethical reflection to guide this advancement in an accountable method.


39. To address these challenges, it is vital to stress the value of ethical responsibility grounded in the dignity and occupation of the human individual. This guiding principle likewise uses to questions concerning AI. In this context, the ethical dimension takes on main importance since it is individuals who develop systems and determine the purposes for which they are utilized. [80] Between a device and a human, just the latter is really a moral agent-a subject of moral obligation who works out flexibility in his or her decisions and accepts their effects. [81] It is not the device but the human who remains in relationship with fact and goodness, assisted by an ethical conscience that calls the individual "to like and to do what is good and to prevent evil," [82] attesting to "the authority of reality in reference to the supreme Good to which the human individual is drawn." [83] Likewise, between a maker and a human, only the human can be adequately self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, critical with prudence, and looking for the great that is possible in every circumstance. [84] In reality, all of this also comes from the individual's workout of intelligence.


40. Like any product of human creativity, AI can be directed toward favorable or unfavorable ends. [85] When used in methods that appreciate human self-respect and promote the wellness of individuals and neighborhoods, it can contribute favorably to the human occupation. Yet, as in all areas where human beings are called to make choices, the shadow of evil likewise looms here. Where human freedom permits for the possibility of selecting what is wrong, the ethical evaluation of this technology will need to consider how it is directed and utilized.


41. At the very same time, it is not only completions that are fairly significant however also the means employed to attain them. Additionally, the total vision and understanding of the human person ingrained within these systems are essential to think about as well. Technological products show the worldview of their designers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to "form the world and engage consciences on the level of worths." [87] On a social level, some technological developments might also strengthen relationships and power dynamics that are irregular with an appropriate understanding of the human individual and society.


42. Therefore, completions and the methods used in a given application of AI, as well as the overall vision it includes, need to all be assessed to guarantee they appreciate human dignity and promote the common good. [88] As Pope Francis has actually stated, "the intrinsic self-respect of every man and every woman" must be "the crucial criterion in assessing emerging technologies; these will show fairly sound to the degree that they assist regard that dignity and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] consisting of in the social and financial spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays a vital role not just in developing and producing technology however also in directing its use in line with the authentic good of the human person. [90] The duty for handling this sensibly pertains to every level of society, directed by the principle of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.


43. The commitment to ensuring that AI always supports and promotes the supreme value of the self-respect of every human and the fullness of the human occupation functions as a criterion of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, as well as to its users. It remains legitimate for every application of the technology at every level of its usage.


44. An examination of the ramifications of this guiding principle might start by thinking about the significance of moral obligation. Since full ethical causality belongs just to individual representatives, not artificial ones, it is vital to be able to identify and specify who bears responsibility for the processes included in AI, especially those efficient in learning, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up techniques and extremely deep neural networks enable AI to fix intricate problems, they make it tough to comprehend the processes that cause the services they embraced. This makes complex responsibility given that if an AI application produces undesired outcomes, determining who is responsible becomes hard. To address this problem, attention requires to be offered to the nature of accountability processes in complex, highly automated settings, where outcomes might only end up being apparent in the medium to long term. For this, it is very important that ultimate responsibility for decisions used AI rests with the human decision-makers which there is responsibility for making use of AI at each phase of the decision-making procedure. [91]

45. In addition to determining who is accountable, it is vital to recognize the objectives provided to AI systems. Although these systems might utilize without supervision self-governing knowing systems and sometimes follow courses that people can not rebuild, they ultimately pursue objectives that humans have actually designated to them and are governed by procedures established by their designers and programmers. Yet, this presents an obstacle due to the fact that, as AI models become progressively capable of independent learning, the ability to maintain control over them to guarantee that such applications serve human functions might efficiently reduce. This raises the important question of how to ensure that AI systems are bought for the good of people and not against them.


46. While duty for the ethical use of AI systems starts with those who establish, produce, manage, and oversee such systems, it is also shared by those who utilize them. As Pope Francis kept in mind, the machine "makes a technical option among several possibilities based either on distinct criteria or on analytical inferences. People, nevertheless, not just select, but in their hearts can choosing." [92] Those who use AI to accomplish a job and follow its results produce a context in which they are eventually responsible for the power they have actually handed over. Therefore, insofar as AI can help human beings in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it must be credible, safe, robust enough to deal with inconsistencies, and transparent in their operation to mitigate biases and unintentional adverse effects. [93] Regulatory structures need to make sure that all legal entities remain liable for making use of AI and all its effects, with suitable safeguards for openness, personal privacy, and responsibility. [94] Moreover, those using AI needs to beware not to become extremely depending on it for their decision-making, a pattern that increases contemporary society's already high reliance on technology.


47. The Church's ethical and social mentor supplies resources to help guarantee that AI is utilized in a manner that maintains human company. Considerations about justice, for example, ought to also resolve problems such as fostering just social characteristics, maintaining worldwide security, and promoting peace. By working out prudence, individuals and neighborhoods can determine ways to utilize AI to benefit humankind while avoiding applications that could degrade human self-respect or harm the environment. In this context, the idea of responsibility must be comprehended not just in its most minimal sense but as a "obligation for the take care of others, which is more than just accounting for results attained." [95]

48. Therefore, AI, like any innovation, can be part of a mindful and accountable response to mankind's vocation to the excellent. However, as previously talked about, AI needs to be directed by human intelligence to align with this vocation, guaranteeing it appreciates the dignity of the human person. Recognizing this "exalted dignity," the Second Vatican Council affirmed that "the social order and its development need to inevitably work to the benefit of the human individual." [96] In light of this, using AI, as Pope Francis said, should be "accompanied by an ethic motivated by a vision of the common excellent, an ethic of freedom, responsibility, and fraternity, capable of cultivating the full advancement of people in relation to others and to the whole of production." [97]

49. Within this basic viewpoint, some observations follow below to highlight how the preceding arguments can help provide an ethical orientation in useful scenarios, in line with the "knowledge of heart" that Pope Francis has actually proposed. [98] While not exhaustive, this conversation is offered in service of the dialogue that thinks about how AI can be used to maintain the self-respect of the human person and promote the typical good. [99]

50. As Pope Francis observed, "the intrinsic self-respect of each human being and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human household must support the advancement of new innovations and work as unassailable criteria for examining them before they are used." [100]

51. Viewed through this lens, AI might "introduce important innovations in agriculture, education and culture, a better level of life for whole nations and individuals, and the growth of human fraternity and social friendship," and thus be "used to promote important human development." [101] AI might likewise help companies determine those in need and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other similar applications of this innovation might add to human development and the typical good. [102]

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

53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a few effective business raises substantial ethical concerns. Exacerbating this problem is the fundamental nature of AI systems, where no single person can work out total oversight over the huge and intricate datasets utilized for calculation. This lack of distinct responsibility develops the risk that AI could be manipulated for personal or business gain or to direct popular opinion for the benefit of a specific industry. Such entities, inspired by their own interests, have the capability to work out "types of control as subtle as they are intrusive, producing mechanisms for the adjustment of consciences and of the democratic process." [105]

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

55. Attaining this goal needs a deeper reflection on the relationship between autonomy and obligation. Greater autonomy heightens each individual's responsibility across various aspects of common life. For Christians, the structure of this duty lies in the acknowledgment that all human capabilities, including the person's autonomy, originated from God and are indicated to be used in the service of others. [111] Therefore, instead of merely pursuing economic or technological goals, AI must serve "the common good of the whole human household," which is "the amount total of social conditions that allow people, either as groups or as people, to reach their fulfillment more totally and more easily." [112]

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

57. Such a mission, in addition to other elements of human interaction, presupposes encounters and shared exchange between individuals formed by their special histories, ideas, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a diverse, diverse, and complex truth: specific and social, logical and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis underscores this vibrant, noting that "together, we can seek the reality in discussion, in unwinded discussion or in enthusiastic argument. To do so calls for perseverance; it entails minutes of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently welcome the wider experience of individuals and individuals. [...] The procedure of structure fraternity, be it regional or universal, can just be undertaken by spirits that are totally free and available to authentic encounters." [116]

58. It remains in this context that a person can think about the challenges AI presents to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the prospective to foster connections within the human household. However, it might also impede a true encounter with reality and, ultimately, lead individuals to "a deep and melancholic discontentment with interpersonal relations, or a hazardous sense of seclusion." [117] Authentic human relationships require the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their happiness. [118] Since human intelligence is revealed and enriched likewise in interpersonal and embodied ways, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are indispensable for engaging with truth in its fullness.


59. Because "true knowledge demands an encounter with truth," [119] the increase of AI introduces another difficulty. Since AI can successfully imitate the products of human intelligence, the capability to understand when one is interacting with a human or a maker can no longer be taken for granted. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other advanced outputs that are generally connected with humans. Yet, it needs to be understood for what it is: a tool, not an individual. [120] This distinction is typically obscured by the language used by specialists, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and hence blurs the line between human and maker.


60. Anthropomorphizing AI also positions particular obstacles for the development of children, potentially encouraging them to develop patterns of interaction that treat human relationships in a transactional manner, as one would relate to a chatbot. Such routines might lead young individuals to see instructors as simple dispensers of details rather than as coaches who assist and nurture their intellectual and moral growth. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and a steadfast commitment to the good of the other, are essential and irreplaceable in fostering the full development of the human individual.


61. In this context, it is very important to clarify that, despite using anthropomorphic language, no AI application can truly experience empathy. Emotions can not be minimized to facial expressions or phrases generated in action to triggers; they show the method an individual, as an entire, associates with the world and to his or her own life, with the body playing a main function. True empathy requires the capability to listen, acknowledge another's irreducible individuality, invite their otherness, and grasp the significance behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the world of analytical judgment in which AI stands out, true empathy comes from the relational sphere. It involves intuiting and apprehending the lived experiences of another while maintaining the difference in between self and other. [122] While AI can replicate compassionate actions, it can not duplicate the incomparably personal and relational nature of authentic compassion. [123]

62. Due to the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as a person ought to always be prevented; doing so for deceptive purposes is a severe ethical offense 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 requires careful oversight to avoid harm, maintain transparency, and guarantee the dignity of all people. [124]

63. In a significantly isolated world, some people have turned to AI looking for deep human relationships, easy companionship, or even psychological bonds. However, while human beings are meant to experience genuine relationships, AI can just simulate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an essential part of how a person grows to become who she or he is suggested to be. If AI is utilized to help individuals foster authentic connections in between individuals, it can contribute positively to the complete awareness of the person. Conversely, if we change relationships with God and with others with interactions with technology, we run the risk of changing authentic relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of retreating into artificial worlds, we are contacted us to participate in a dedicated and intentional method with truth, particularly by identifying with the bad and suffering, consoling those in grief, and forging bonds of communion with all.


64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being increasingly integrated into financial and monetary systems. Significant financial investments are presently being made not only in the innovation sector but also in energy, financing, and media, particularly in the areas of marketing and sales, logistics, technological development, compliance, and risk management. At the exact same time, AI's applications in these areas have also highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of incredible chances however likewise profound threats. A very first real crucial point in this location worries the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a few corporations-only those large business would gain from the worth produced by AI instead of business that use it.


65. Other more comprehensive elements of AI's impact on the economic-financial sphere must also be carefully examined, particularly worrying the interaction between concrete reality and the digital world. One important factor to consider in this regard involves the coexistence of varied and alternative kinds of economic and financial organizations within a given context. This element ought to be encouraged, as it can bring advantages in how it supports the real economy by fostering its advancement and stability, especially during times of crisis. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that digital truths, not restricted by any spatial bonds, tend to be more uniform and impersonal than communities rooted in a particular place and a particular history, with a common journey identified by shared values and hopes, but also by unavoidable disputes and divergences. This variety is an undeniable property to a community's economic life. Turning over the economy and financing entirely to digital innovation would decrease this variety and richness. As a result, numerous services to financial issues that can be reached through natural discussion between the involved parties may no longer be attainable in a world dominated by treatments and only the appearance of proximity.


66. Another location where AI is currently having a profound effect is the world of work. As in many other fields, AI is driving fundamental improvements throughout lots of occupations, with a series of effects. On the one hand, it has the potential to improve competence and performance, produce new tasks, enable employees to concentrate on more innovative tasks, and open brand-new horizons for creativity and development.


67. However, while AI promises to improve productivity by taking over ordinary jobs, it regularly forces workers to adjust to the speed and demands of machines instead of devices being developed to support those who work. As an outcome, contrary to the marketed benefits of AI, current techniques to the innovation can paradoxically deskill workers, subject them to automated surveillance, and relegate them to rigid and repeated tasks. The requirement to stay up to date with the speed of technology can erode employees' sense of agency and suppress the innovative capabilities they are expected to give their work. [125]

68. AI is presently eliminating the need for some jobs that were once performed by humans. If AI is used to replace human workers instead of match them, there is a "considerable risk of out of proportion benefit for the couple of at the cost of the impoverishment of lots of." [126] Additionally, as AI becomes more effective, there is an associated threat that human labor might lose its value in the financial world. This is the sensible effect of the technocratic paradigm: a world of mankind oppressed to effectiveness, where, ultimately, the expense of humankind need to be cut. Yet, human lives are fundamentally important, independent of their financial output. Nevertheless, the "present design," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to favor a financial investment in efforts to assist the sluggish, the weak, or the less skilled to find chances in life." [127] Because of this, "we can not allow a tool as powerful and important as Artificial Intelligence to strengthen such a paradigm, but rather, we need to make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its expansion." [128]

69. It is very important to bear in mind that "the order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other method around." [129] Human work should not just be at the service of profit but at "the service of the whole human individual [...] taking into account the individual's product requirements and the requirements of his/her intellectual, moral, spiritual, and religious life." [130] In this context, the Church recognizes that work is "not just a method of making one's daily bread" however is also "a necessary dimension of social life" and "a method [...] of individual development, the building of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of gifts. Work offers us a sense of shared duty for the development of the world, and eventually, for our life as an individuals." [131]

70. Since work is a "part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal satisfaction," "the objective needs to not be that technological progress progressively changes human work, for this would be destructive to mankind" [132] -rather, it should promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI must assist, not replace, human judgment. Similarly, it needs to never ever break down imagination or reduce employees to mere "cogs in a device." Therefore, "respect for the self-respect of laborers and the significance of employment for the financial well-being of people, families, and societies, for job security and simply salaries, should be a high top priority for the global neighborhood as these kinds of innovation penetrate more deeply into our work environments." [133]

71. As participants in God's recovery work, health care professionals have the occupation and obligation to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the healthcare occupation carries an "intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension," recognized by the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges physicians and health care specialists to devote themselves to having "absolute regard for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Do-gooder, this dedication is to be performed by men and women "who decline the development of a society of exclusion, and act rather as next-door neighbors, raising up and rehabilitating the succumbed to the sake of the typical good." [136]

72. Seen in this light, AI appears to hold tremendous capacity in a range of applications in the medical field, such as helping the diagnostic work of health care suppliers, helping with relationships in between clients and medical personnel, using brand-new treatments, and broadening access to quality care likewise for those who are separated or marginalized. In these ways, the innovation might enhance the "thoughtful and loving nearness" [137] that health care suppliers are contacted us to extend to the ill and suffering.


73. However, if AI is used not to enhance but 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 crucially crucial human relational structure to a central, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of encouraging uniformity with the ill and suffering, such applications of AI would risk worsening the isolation that often accompanies health problem, especially 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 align with regard for the self-respect of the human person and uniformity with the suffering.


74. Responsibility for the wellness of patients and the decisions that touch upon their lives are at the heart of the health care occupation. This responsibility requires doctor to work out all their skill and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options concerning those entrusted to their care, always appreciating the inviolable self-respect of the patients and the requirement for notified consent. As an outcome, decisions concerning client treatment and the weight of responsibility they entail need to constantly remain with the human person and needs to never be handed over to AI. [139]

75. In addition, utilizing AI to identify who must receive treatment based mainly on financial procedures or metrics of performance represents an especially bothersome circumstances of the "technocratic paradigm" that must be declined. [140] For, "enhancing resources indicates using them in an ethical and fraternal way, and not punishing the most delicate." [141] Additionally, AI tools in health care are "exposed to kinds of bias and discrimination," where "systemic mistakes can easily multiply, producing not just oppressions in specific cases however also, due to the domino result, genuine kinds of social inequality." [142]

76. The combination of AI into health care likewise positions the danger of magnifying other existing variations in access to medical care. As health care becomes significantly oriented toward prevention and lifestyle-based techniques, AI-driven services may inadvertently prefer more affluent populations who already enjoy better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This pattern dangers enhancing a "medicine for the abundant" design, where those with financial means gain from advanced preventative tools and individualized health details while others struggle to gain access to even fundamental services. To prevent such inequities, fair structures are required to guarantee that making use of AI in health care does not get worse existing healthcare inequalities however rather serves the typical good.


77. The words of the Second Vatican Council remain fully appropriate today: "True education aims to form people with a view toward their last end and the good of the society to which they belong." [143] As such, education is "never ever a mere procedure of passing on realities and intellectual abilities: rather, its aim is to contribute to the person's holistic development in its different aspects (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, and so on), consisting of, for instance, community life and relations within the scholastic neighborhood," [144] in keeping with the nature and self-respect of the human individual.


78. This technique includes a commitment to cultivating the mind, however constantly as a part of the essential development of the individual: "We must break that concept of education which holds that educating ways filling one's head with ideas. That is the way we educate automatons, cerebral minds, not people. Educating is taking a threat in the tension between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]

79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human individual is the important relationship in between instructor and trainee. Teachers do more than convey knowledge; they model important human qualities and influence the pleasure of discovery. [146] Their presence inspires trainees both through the content they teach and the care they show for their trainees. This bond cultivates trust, good understanding, and the capacity to deal with everyone's distinct dignity and capacity. On the part of the trainee, this can generate a real desire to grow. The physical presence of an instructor creates a relational dynamic that AI can not reproduce, one that deepens engagement and nurtures the trainee's integral advancement.


80. In this context, AI provides both opportunities and obstacles. If used in a sensible manner, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and purchased to the genuine goals of education, AI can end up being an important instructional resource by boosting access to education, using tailored support, and supplying instant feedback to trainees. These advantages could boost the knowing experience, specifically in cases where customized attention is needed, or academic resources are otherwise limited.


81. Nevertheless, a crucial part of education is forming "the intelligence to factor well in all matters, to reach out towards truth, and to grasp it," [147] while helping the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is even more vital in an age marked by technology, in which "it is no longer merely a question of 'utilizing' instruments of interaction, but of residing in an extremely digitalized culture that has actually had a profound effect on [...] our ability to communicate, discover, be informed and get in into relationship with others." [149] However, rather of cultivating "a cultivated intellect," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and profession that it undertakes," [150] the substantial usage of AI in education could result in the trainees' increased reliance on innovation, eroding their ability to perform some abilities independently and intensifying their dependence on screens. [151]

82. Additionally, while some AI systems are created to assist individuals develop their crucial believing abilities and problem-solving skills, numerous others merely supply responses instead of triggering trainees to reach responses themselves or write text for themselves. [152] Instead of training youths how to collect details and generate fast reactions, education must encourage "the responsible usage of flexibility to deal with problems with common sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in the usage of kinds of synthetic intelligence need to aim above all at promoting vital thinking. Users of any ages, but particularly the young, require to establish a discerning method to using data and content gathered on the internet or produced by artificial intelligence systems. Schools, universities, and clinical societies are challenged to help trainees and professionals to comprehend the social and ethical aspects of the advancement and uses of innovation." [154]

83. As Saint John Paul II remembered, "in the world today, characterized by such quick advancements in science and innovation, the jobs of a Catholic University assume an ever greater importance and seriousness." [155] In a specific method, Catholic universities are advised to be present as excellent labs of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary key, they are advised to engage "with knowledge and imagination" [156] in careful research on this phenomenon, helping to draw out the salutary capacity within the different fields of science and reality, and guiding them constantly towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the common good, reaching new frontiers in the dialogue in between faith and factor.


84. Moreover, it needs to be noted that current AI programs have actually been known to offer biased or fabricated details, which can lead trainees to trust inaccurate material. This issue "not just runs the threat of legitimizing fake news and reinforcing a dominant culture's advantage, but, in brief, it also weakens the academic process itself." [157] With time, clearer differences might emerge between correct and incorrect uses of AI in education and research study. Yet, a decisive guideline is that using AI should constantly be transparent and never ever misrepresented.


85. AI might be used as an aid to human dignity if it assists people understand intricate concepts or directs them to sound resources that support their look for the reality. [158]

86. However, AI also presents a severe danger of producing manipulated content and false details, which can quickly misinform individuals due to its similarity to the reality. Such false information may occur unintentionally, as when it comes to AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine but are not. Since producing content that mimics human artifacts is main to AI's performance, mitigating these risks proves challenging. Yet, the repercussions of such aberrations and incorrect details can be quite grave. For this factor, all those involved in producing and utilizing AI systems need to be devoted to the truthfulness and accuracy of the details processed by such systems and disseminated to the public.


87. While AI has a latent capacity to produce incorrect details, an even more uncomfortable issue depends on the purposeful abuse of AI for manipulation. This can occur when individuals or companies deliberately generate and spread out false content with the aim to deceive or cause damage, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to a false representation of an individual, edited or created by an AI algorithm. The danger of deepfakes is particularly evident when they are utilized to target or hurt others. While the images or videos themselves might be artificial, the damage they trigger is genuine, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "real injuries in their human self-respect." [159]

88. On a wider scale, by misshaping "our relationship with others and with truth," [160] AI-generated fake media can gradually weaken the foundations of society. This issue needs careful regulation, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or influenced media-can spread unintentionally, sustaining political polarization and social unrest. When society ends up being indifferent to the fact, various groups build their own variations of "truths," deteriorating the "mutual ties and mutual reliances" [161] that underpin the material of social life. As deepfakes trigger individuals to question whatever and AI-generated false content wears down trust in what they see and hear, polarization and conflict will only grow. Such extensive deceptiveness is no minor matter; it strikes at the core of humankind, dismantling the fundamental trust on which societies are developed. [162]

89. Countering AI-driven falsehoods is not just the work of market experts-it requires the efforts of all individuals of goodwill. "If innovation is to serve human dignity and not damage it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human neighborhood needs to be proactive in dealing with these trends with respect to human self-respect and the promo of the great." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated material ought to always work out diligence in confirming the fact of what they disseminate and, in all cases, need to "prevent the sharing of words and images that are breaking down of people, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that make use of the weak and vulnerable." [164] This calls for the ongoing vigilance and careful discernment of all users regarding their activity online. [165]

90. Humans are naturally relational, and the information each individual creates in the digital world can be seen as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data conveys not only details but likewise personal and relational knowledge, which, in a progressively digitized context, can total up to power over the individual. Moreover, while some kinds of information may pertain to public elements of an individual's life, others might discuss the individual's interiority, possibly even their conscience. Seen in this way, personal privacy plays an essential role in securing the boundaries of a person's inner life, maintaining their liberty to associate with others, reveal themselves, and make decisions without undue control. This security is likewise tied to the defense of religious flexibility, as surveillance can likewise be misused to apply control over the lives of believers and how they express their faith.


91. It is suitable, therefore, to attend to the problem of privacy from an issue for the legitimate freedom and inalienable dignity of the human person "in all scenarios." [166] The Second Vatican Council included the right "to safeguard personal privacy" amongst the essential rights "needed for living a truly human life," a right that needs to be reached all individuals on account of their "sublime dignity." [167] Furthermore, the Church has likewise verified the right to the genuine regard for a personal life in the context of verifying the person's right to a great track record, defense of their physical and psychological stability, and freedom from damage or undue intrusion [168] -vital parts 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 infer patterns in an individual's behavior and believing from even a percentage of details, making the function of data privacy even more important as a safeguard for the self-respect and relational nature of the human individual. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant mindsets towards others are on the rise, ranges are otherwise diminishing or vanishing to the point that the right to personal privacy rarely exists. Everything has ended up being a kind of phenomenon to be examined and inspected, and individuals's lives are now under consistent monitoring." [170]

93. While there can be legitimate and correct ways to use AI in keeping with human dignity and the typical great, using it for security aimed at exploiting, limiting others' liberty, or benefitting a few at the expense of the numerous is unjustifiable. The risk of security overreach need to be monitored by suitable regulators to ensure transparency and public accountability. Those responsible for monitoring must never exceed their authority, which should constantly favor the dignity and flexibility of every person as the necessary basis of a just and gentle society.


94. Furthermore, "basic respect for human self-respect needs that we decline to permit the individuality of the person to be recognized with a set of data." [171] This specifically uses when AI is utilized to evaluate people or groups based upon their behavior, attributes, or history-a practice known as "social scoring": "In social and financial decision-making, we should beware about entrusting judgments to algorithms that process data, frequently collected surreptitiously, on a person's makeup and prior habits. Such information can be infected by social prejudices and prejudgments. A person's past behavior need to not be used to deny him or her the opportunity to alter, grow, and add to society. We can not allow algorithms to restrict or condition respect for human self-respect, or to leave out compassion, grace, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that individuals are able to alter." [172]

95. AI has lots of appealing applications for enhancing our relationship with our "typical home," such as creating models to forecast severe climate occasions, proposing engineering options to minimize their effect, managing relief operations, and anticipating population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable agriculture, enhance energy use, and supply early caution systems for public health emergencies. These advancements have the possible to enhance resilience against climate-related challenges and promote more sustainable development.


96. At the exact same time, existing AI designs and the hardware needed to support them take in huge quantities of energy and water, substantially adding to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This truth is typically obscured by the way this technology exists in the popular imagination, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can provide the impression that data is kept and processed in an intangible realm, detached from the physical world. However, "the cloud" is not an ethereal domain separate from the real world; just like all calculating innovations, it relies on physical devices, cables, and energy. The same holds true of the technology behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, particularly big language designs (LLMs), they need ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and greater storage infrastructure. Considering the heavy toll these innovations handle the environment, it is essential to develop sustainable solutions that reduce their influence on our typical home.


97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is necessary "that we search for services not just in technology however in a change of mankind." [175] A complete and genuine understanding of production acknowledges that the value of all created things can not be lowered to their simple energy. Therefore, a completely human approach to the stewardship of the earth declines the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which looks for to "draw out whatever possible" from the world, [176] and declines the "myth of development," which presumes that "ecological problems will resolve themselves simply with the application of brand-new innovation and without any requirement for ethical considerations or deep modification." [177] Such a mindset should pave the way to a more holistic technique that appreciates the order of creation and promotes the integral good of the human person while securing our common home. [178]

98. The Second Vatican Council and the consistent mentor of the Popes ever since have insisted that peace is not simply the lack of war and is not restricted to maintaining a balance of powers in between enemies. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the tranquility of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without protecting the items of individuals, totally free communication, regard for the self-respect 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 must be mainly developed through patient diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, uniformity, essential human development, and regard for the self-respect of all individuals. [180] In this method, the tools utilized to maintain peace should never ever be permitted to validate injustice, violence, or injustice. Instead, they must always be governed by a "firm decision to respect other people and countries, together with their self-respect, along with the purposeful practice of fraternity." [181]

99. While AI's analytical capabilities could help nations seek peace and guarantee security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can likewise be extremely bothersome. Pope Francis has actually observed that "the capability to conduct military operations through remote control systems has led to a reduced perception of the devastation caused by those weapon systems and the concern of obligation for their usage, resulting in a much more cold and separated approach to the immense catastrophe of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which self-governing weapons make war more viable militates against the concept of war as a last resort in legitimate self-defense, [183] possibly increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and precipitating a destabilizing arms race, with devastating effects for human rights. [184]

100. In particular, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which are capable of recognizing and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for severe ethical concern" since they do not have the "special human capability for moral judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this reason, Pope Francis has urgently required a reconsideration of the development of these weapons and a prohibition on their use, starting with "an effective and concrete commitment to introduce ever higher and appropriate human control. No device needs to ever choose to take the life of a person." [186]

101. Since it is a little action from makers that can kill autonomously with precision to those efficient in massive destruction, some AI researchers have actually revealed concerns that such technology postures an "existential threat" by having the prospective to act in ways that could threaten the survival of entire regions or even of mankind itself. This danger demands major attention, showing the enduring concern about innovations that approve war "an unmanageable damaging power over varieties of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing kids. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "carry out an evaluation of war with an entirely brand-new mindset" [188] is more urgent than ever.


102. At the exact same time, while the theoretical threats of AI should have attention, the more immediate and pressing issue lies in how individuals with harmful intents might misuse this technology. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future capabilities are unpredictable, humanity's previous actions supply clear cautions. The atrocities devoted throughout history suffice to raise deep issues about the prospective 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 minimize it to a stack of debris." [190] Given this fact, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are totally free to use our intelligence towards things evolving favorably," or toward "decadence and shared destruction." [191] To avoid mankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there should be a clear stand against all applications of innovation that inherently threaten human life and self-respect. This commitment needs mindful discernment about making use of AI, particularly in military defense applications, to make sure that it constantly respects human dignity and serves the common good. The advancement and deployment of AI in armaments ought to undergo the greatest levels of ethical examination, governed by a concern for human dignity and the sanctity of life. [193]

104. Technology provides amazing tools to supervise and develop the world's resources. However, sometimes, humankind is increasingly ceding control of these resources to makers. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, there is optimism about the potential of synthetic general intelligence (AGI), a theoretical form of AI that would match or exceed human intelligence and cause unimaginable advancements. Some even speculate that AGI could attain superhuman abilities. At the exact same time, as society drifts away from a connection with the transcendent, some are lured to turn to AI searching for significance or fulfillment-longings that can just be really pleased in communion with God. [194]

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

106. While AI has the potential to serve mankind and contribute to the common good, it remains a creation of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and ingenuity" (Acts 17:29). It needs to never be ascribed unnecessary worth. As the Book of Wisdom verifies: "For a man made them, and one whose spirit is obtained formed them; for no guy can form a god which resembles himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is better than the things he worships considering that he has life, but they never ever have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).


107. In contrast, human beings, "by their interior life, go beyond the whole material universe; they experience this deep interiority when they participate in their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they decide their own fate in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis advises us, that each private finds the "strange connection between self-knowledge and openness to others, between the encounter with one's individual originality and the determination to give oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "efficient in setting our other powers and passions, and our whole individual, in a position of respect and caring obedience before the Lord," [198] who "uses to deal with each one of us as a 'Thou,' constantly and permanently." [199]

108. Considering the numerous challenges positioned by advances in innovation, Pope Francis emphasized the requirement for growth 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 widening of duty on the part of people and communities." [201]

109. At the exact same time, the "essential and basic concern" remains "whether in the context of this progress man, as guy, is ending up being truly better, that is to state, more fully grown spiritually, more aware of the self-respect of his humanity, more responsible, more available to others, particularly the neediest and the weakest, and readier to offer and to aid all." [202]

110. As an outcome, it is essential to know how to assess individual applications of AI in specific contexts to identify whether its use promotes human self-respect, the vocation of the human individual, and the typical good. Similar to many innovations, the results of the numerous usages of AI may not always be foreseeable from their beginning. As these applications and their social effects become clearer, appropriate reactions ought to be made at all levels of society, following the principle of subsidiarity. Individual users, families, civil society, corporations, organizations, federal governments, and global organizations must operate at their proper levels to make sure that AI is utilized for the good of all.


111. A significant challenge and chance for the common excellent today lies in considering AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of individuals and communities and highlights our shared obligation for cultivating the important wellness of others. The twentieth-century philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev observed that individuals often blame machines for individual and social problems; nevertheless, "this only humiliates man and does not represent his self-respect," for "it is not worthy to move obligation from man to a machine." [203] Only the human individual can be morally accountable, and the obstacles of a technological society are ultimately spiritual in nature. Therefore, dealing with those difficulties "needs a surge of spirituality." [204]

112. A further indicate consider is the call, prompted by the look of AI on the world stage, for a renewed appreciation of all that is human. Years ago, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos warned that "the risk is not in the reproduction of devices, however in the ever-increasing variety of males accustomed from their childhood to desire just what devices can give." [205] This difficulty is as true today as it was then, as the fast rate of digitization runs the risk of a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable aspects of life are reserved and after that forgotten or even considered irrelevant due to the fact that they can not be calculated in official terms. AI should be used only as a tool to complement human intelligence instead of change its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that transcend computation is crucial for maintaining "a genuine humankind" that "seems to stay in the middle of our technological culture, nearly unnoticed, like a mist permeating carefully below a closed door." [207]

113. The huge area of the world's understanding is now available in manner ins which would have filled previous generations with awe. However, to guarantee that advancements in understanding do not end up being humanly or spiritually barren, one must surpass the mere accumulation of data and aim to attain true wisdom. [208]

114. This wisdom is the gift that humankind needs most to deal with the extensive concerns and ethical obstacles posed by AI: "Only by embracing a spiritual way of seeing truth, only by recovering a wisdom of the heart, can we face and analyze the newness of our time." [209] Such "wisdom of the heart" is "the virtue that enables us to incorporate the whole and its parts, our choices and their consequences." It "can not be sought from machines," however it "lets itself be discovered by those who seek it and be seen by those who enjoy 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, situations, occasions and to reveal their real significance." [211]

116. Since a "person's perfection is measured not by the details or understanding they possess, however by the depth of their charity," [212] how we incorporate AI "to include the least of our brothers and sisters, the susceptible, and those most in need, will be the true measure of our humanity." [213] The "wisdom of the heart" can light up and direct the human-centered usage of this technology to assist promote the common great, take care of our "common home," advance the look for the fact, foster essential human development, favor human solidarity and fraternity, and lead humankind to its supreme goal: happiness and full communion with God. [214]

117. From this viewpoint of knowledge, followers will have the ability to serve as moral representatives efficient in using this innovation to promote a genuine vision of the human person and society. [215] This ought to be done with the understanding that technological development is part of God's plan for creation-an activity that we are contacted us to purchase toward the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the continual search for the True and the Good.


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


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


Ex audientia pass away 14 ianuarii 2025
Franciscus


Contents


I. Introduction


II. What is Artificial Intelligence?


III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition


Rationality


Embodiment


Relationality


Relationship with the Truth


Stewardship of the World


An Important Understanding of Human Intelligence


The Limits of AI


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


Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making


V. Specific Questions


AI and Society


AI and Human Relationships


AI, the Economy, and Labor


AI and Healthcare


AI and Education


AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse


AI, Privacy, and Surveillance


AI and the Protection of Our Common Home


AI and Warfare


AI and Our Relationship with God


VI. Concluding Reflections


True Wisdom


[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See likewise Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053.
[2] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 307. Cf. Id., Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (21 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020 ), 43.
[3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[5] J. McCarthy, et al., "A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence" (31 August 1955), http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024).
[6] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), pars. 2-3: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[7] Terms in this file explaining the outputs or procedures of AI are used figuratively to explain its operations and are not planned to anthropomorphize the machine.
[8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[9] Here, one can see the main positions of the "transhumanists" and the "posthumanists." Transhumanists argue that technological improvements will make it possible for human beings to conquer their biological constraints and improve both their physical and cognitive abilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, bytes-the-dust.com compete that such advances will ultimately change human identity to the degree that humankind itself might no longer be thought about truly "human." Both views rest on a fundamentally negative perception of human corporality, which treats the body more as an obstacle than as an integral part of the individual's identity and call to full realization. Yet, this unfavorable view of the body is irregular with an appropriate understanding of human dignity. While the Church supports genuine scientific development, it verifies that human dignity is rooted in "the person as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "dignity is also inherent in each person's body, which participates in its own method in remaining in imago Dei" (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18).
[10] This method reflects a functionalist perspective, which decreases the human mind to its functions and assumes that its functions can be completely quantified in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear truly smart, it would still remain functional in nature.
[11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460.
[12] If "thinking" is associated to devices, it must be clarified that this refers to calculative thinking instead of important thinking. Similarly, if makers are said to run using rational thinking, it needs to be specified that this is restricted to computational reasoning. On the other hand, by its very nature, human thought is an imaginative process that avoids programming and goes beyond constraints.
[13] On the fundamental role of language in shaping understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York 2010, 141-182).
[14] For further conversation of these anthropological and theological foundations, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144.
[15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21.
[16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad 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 [faculty] is factor itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it might more appropriately be offered"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When thinking about all that they have, people discover that they are most distinguished from animals exactly by the fact they possess intelligence." This is also repeated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who mentions that "guy is the most perfect of all earthly beings endowed with movement, and his proper and natural operation is intellection," by which guy abstracts from things and "gets in his mind things actually intelligible" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 76).
[17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, ad 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a modern viewpoint that echoes components of the classical and medieval difference in between these 2 modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York 2011.
[19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp.
[20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138.
[21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intelligence can investigate the truth of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and pertain to recognize in that reality, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal moral demands."
[22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp.
[24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "typically thinks about the human person as a being who exists in the body and is unimaginable 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, but rather fully disclosed its significance and value."
[26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81.
[27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and thus it is united 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 truth of things. [...] [O] n account of the manner in which they can concentrating the lots of into the one, they too, in their own fashion and as far as they can, are worthy of conceptions like those of the angels" (en. tr. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York City - Mahwah 1987, 106-107).
[35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 3: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7.
[36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 42: AAS 91 (1999 ), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1043: "the human mind is capable of transcending immediate issues and grasping certain truths that are constant, as real now as in the past. As it peers into humanity, factor discovers universal worths 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 reason is to recognize that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York City 1958, 77).
[39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[40] Our semantic capability allows us to understand messages in any type of communication in a manner that both considers and transcends their product or empirical structures (such as computer code). Here, intelligence becomes a wisdom that "enables us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, situations, events and to discover their real meaning" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our imagination enables us to generate brand-new material or concepts, mainly by using an original viewpoint on reality. Both capacities depend on the presence of an individual subjectivity for their complete awareness.
[41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931.
[42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a commitment to the fact, is far more than individual feeling [...] Certainly, its close relation to reality fosters its universality and maintains it from being 'restricted to a narrow field lacking relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to fact thus safeguards it from 'a fideism that deprives it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643.
[43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7.
[44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15.
[46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as priced estimate in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294.
[47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure compares deep space to "a book showing, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who grants existence to all things (Breviloquium 2.12.1). Cf. Alain de Lille, De Incarnatione Christi, PL 210, 579a: "Omnis mundi creatura quasi liber et pictura nobis est et speculum."
[48] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 67: AAS 107 (2015 ), 874; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589-592; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 57: "human beings occupy a special location in the universe according to the magnificent strategy: they delight in the privilege of sharing in the divine governance of visible production. [...] Since male's location as ruler remains in reality an involvement in the magnificent governance of production, we speak of it here as a kind of stewardship."
[49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165.
[50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This concept is likewise shown in the development account, where God brings creatures to Adam "to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living animal, that was its name" (Gen. 2:19), an action that shows the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's creation. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117.
[51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301.
[52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302.
[53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2.
[54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7.
[55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316.
[56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8.
[57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906.
[58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987.
[59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5.
[60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: "L'intelligence n'est rien sans la délectation." Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: "The mind and the will are put at the service of the higher excellent by picking up and relishing facts."
[61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232).
[62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he greatest standard of human life is the divine law itself-eternal, objective and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the methods of the human community according to a strategy conceived in his wisdom and love. God has made it possible for guy to participate in this law of his so that, under the gentle disposition of magnificent providence, many may be able to show up at a deeper and much deeper knowledge of unchangeable reality." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037.
[63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016.
[64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892.
[65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042.
[66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has actually inscribed his own image and likeness on guy (cf. Gen 1:26), providing upon him a matchless dignity [...] In effect, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not represent any work he carries out, but which flow from his necessary dignity as an individual." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22.
[68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310.
[69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is understood as a technical term to show this technology, recalling that the expression is likewise used to designate the field of research study and not just its applications.
[71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857.
[72] For instance, see the support of scientific exploration in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the gratitude for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These writers, among a long list of other Catholics took part in clinical research study and technological expedition, show that "faith and science can be united in charity, supplied that science is put at the service of the males and woman of our time and not misused to harm or even damage them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87.
[73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378.
[74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888.
[77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658.
[78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim.
[79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293.
[80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4.
[81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes man a moral topic. When he acts intentionally, guy is, so to speak, the father of his acts."
[82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776.
[83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777.
[84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father encouraged efforts "to make sure that technology remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed toward the good."
[85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the function of human agency in choosing a wider aim (Ziel) that then informs the specific function (Zweck) for which each technological application is developed, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um die Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71.
[86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a function and, in its influence on human society, always represents a type of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, hence allowing certain people to carry out specific actions while avoiding others from carrying out various ones. In a basically specific way, this constitutive power-dimension of technology constantly includes the worldview of those who invented and developed it."
[87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309.
[88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045.
[90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Confronted with the marvels of machines, which seem to understand how to pick independently, we ought to be extremely clear that decision-making [...] need to always be delegated the human person. We would condemn humankind to a future without hope if we took away people's capability to make choices about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend upon 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 file refers to algorithmic predisposition (systematic and consistent errors in computer systems that might disproportionately prejudice certain groups in unintended ways) or learning predisposition (which will result in training on a prejudiced data set) and not the "bias vector" in neural networks (which is a criterion used to change the output of "nerve cells" to change more accurately to the data).
[94] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father affirmed the development in consensus "on the requirement for development processes to respect such worths as inclusion, transparency, security, equity, personal privacy and dependability," and also invited "the efforts of worldwide organizations to regulate these innovations so that they promote genuine progress, contributing, that is, to a better world and an integrally greater quality of life."
[95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8.
[96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.
[97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571.
[98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For additional conversation of the ethical concerns raised by AI from a Catholic point of view, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253.
[99] On the importance of discussion in a pluralist society oriented towards 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; estimating the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245.
[106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050.
[107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047.
[108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309.
[109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892.
[111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027.
[112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123.
[113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034.
[114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149.
[115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414.
[118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057.
[119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985.
[120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989).
[123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Many individuals] desire their interpersonal relationships supplied by advanced equipment, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel informs us continuously to risk of a face-to-face encounter with others, with their physical presence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their delight which infects us in our close and continuous interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from subscription in the neighborhood, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045.
[124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1.
[125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899.
[126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107.
[128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' 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 quote in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453.
[130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: "work is 'for male' and not male 'for work.' Through this conclusion one rightly pertains to acknowledge the pre-eminence of the subjective significance of work over the unbiased one."
[132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320.
[133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502.
[135] Ibid.
[136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as priced estimate in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8.
[137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12.
[138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12.
[139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465.
[141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops' Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: "If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture is manifest, with its painful consequences, it is that of health care. When an ill individual is not put in the center or their dignity is not considered, this generates attitudes that can lead even to speculation on the bad luck of others. And this is really severe! [...] The application of a business technique to the healthcare sector, if indiscriminate [...] may risk discarding humans."
[142] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[143] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729.
[144] Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on making use of Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729; Francis, Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016), 6: AAS 108 (2016 ), 57-58.
[145] Francis, Address to Members of the Global Researchers Advancing Catholic Education Project (20 April 2022): AAS 114 (2022 ), 580.
[146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), par. 41: AAS 68 (1976 ), 31, estimating Id., Address to the Members of the "Consilium de Laicis" (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: "if [the contemporary individual] does listen to teachers, it is due to the fact that they are witnesses."
[147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126.
[148] Francis, Meeting with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316.
[149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, quoting the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592.
[150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167.
[151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413.
[152] In a 2023 policy document about using generative AI in education and research, UNESCO notes: "One of the crucial questions [of using generative AI (GenAI) in education and research] is whether human beings can perhaps cede basic levels of thinking and skill-acquisition processes to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking skills based on the outputs offered by AI. Writing, for instance, is typically associated with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], people can now begin with a well-structured overview provided by GenAI. Some specialists have actually characterized the usage of GenAI to produce text in this method as 'writing without thinking'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American theorist Hannah Arendt anticipated such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and cautioned: "If it ought to turn out to be true that knowledge (in the sense of know-how) and believed have parted business for great, then we would certainly become the defenseless servants, not a lot of our devices as of our know-how" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3).
[153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417.
[154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914.
[155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479.
[156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10.
[157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3.
[158] For instance, it might help individuals gain access to the "array of resources for creating higher knowledge of fact" contained in the works of viewpoint (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8.
[159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62.
[160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074.
[162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be truly indifferent to the question of whether what they know is real or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he composes: 'I have actually satisfied lots of who desired to deceive, however none who wanted 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 male may with impunity break that human self-respect which God himself treats with great 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 requires States to likewise appreciate the right to personal privacy, by shielding citizens from intrusive surveillance and enabling them to protect their individual details from unauthorized gain access to."
[170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984.
[171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body determined a list of "early pledges of AI helping to deal with environment modification" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The document observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can change data into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools might assist develop brand-new methods and investments to minimize emissions, affect brand-new economic sector investments in net absolutely no, secure biodiversity, and build broad-based social strength" (ibid.).
[174] "The cloud" describes a network of physical servers throughout the world that makes it possible for users to shop, process, and handle their data from another location.
[175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850.
[176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890.
[177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870.
[178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852.
[179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640.
[180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317.
[181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101.
[182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310.
[184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105.
[185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We need to ensure and safeguard an area for appropriate human control over the choices made by artificial intelligence programs: human self-respect itself depends on it."
[186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The advancement and use of lethal self-governing weapons systems (LAWS) that do not have the proper human control would present basic ethical issues, considered that LAWS can never ever be ethically responsible subjects efficient in complying with 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 advanced weapons ending up in the wrong hands, facilitating, for example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the organizations of legitimate systems of government. In a word, the world does not require new innovations that add to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and as a result end up promoting the recklessness of war."
[190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565.
[191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878.
[192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687.
[193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39.
[194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661.
[195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a much better understanding today that the mere accumulation of items and services [...] is insufficient for the realization of human joy. Nor, in effect, does the availability of the numerous genuine benefits provided in current times by science and technology, including the computer technology, bring freedom from every kind of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the significant body of resources and potential at man's disposal is guided by an ethical understanding and by an orientation towards the true good of the mankind, it easily turns against guy to oppress him." Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564.
[196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5.
[198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6.
[199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6.
[200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. The End of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83).
[201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288.
[203] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," in C. Mitcham - R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York City 19832, 212-213.
[204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210.
[205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829.
[206] Cf. Francis, Consulting With the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023).
[207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: "The flood of details at our fingertips does not produce higher wisdom. Wisdom is not born of quick searches on the web nor is it a mass of unproven data. That is not the way to mature in the encounter with reality."
[209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[210] Ibid.
[211] Ibid.
[212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121.
[213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124.
[214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.