II. What Is Artificial Intelligence

1. With knowledge both ancient and brand-new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are contacted us to assess the existing obstacles and opportunities posed by scientific and technological developments, especially by the recent advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian custom concerns the gift of intelligence as a necessary element of how humans are developed "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Beginning with an essential vision of the human individual and the biblical calling to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church stresses that this present of intelligence should be expressed through the accountable use of factor and technical capabilities in the stewardship of the created world.


2. The Church motivates the development of science, innovation, the arts, and other forms of human endeavor, viewing them as part of the "collaboration of man and lady with God in refining the noticeable production." [1] As Sirach verifies, God "gave ability to people, that he may be glorified in his wonderful works" (Sir. 38:6). Human capabilities and imagination come from God and, when utilized rightly, glorify God by reflecting his wisdom and goodness. Due to this, when we ask ourselves what it implies to "be human," we can not leave out a consideration of our clinical and technological capabilities.


3. It is within this point of view that the present Note addresses the anthropological and ethical difficulties raised by AI-issues that are particularly significant, as one of the objectives of this technology is to imitate the human intelligence that created it. For example, unlike lots of other human developments, AI can be trained on the results of human creativity and after that create brand-new "artifacts" with a level of speed and ability that often measures up to or exceeds what human beings can do, such as producing text or images identical from human compositions. This raises vital issues about AI's possible function in the growing crisis of reality in the general public online forum. Moreover, this technology is developed to learn and make certain options autonomously, adapting to brand-new scenarios and supplying options not anticipated by its developers, and therefore, it raises basic questions about ethical obligation and human security, with broader ramifications for society as a whole. This brand-new situation has actually triggered lots of people to assess what it implies 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 brand-new and significant phase in mankind's engagement with innovation, positioning it at the heart of what Pope Francis has actually explained as an "epochal modification." [2] Its effect is felt internationally and in a wide variety of locations, including social relationships, education, work, art, healthcare, law, warfare, and international relations. As AI advances quickly toward even higher achievements, it is seriously important to consider its anthropological and ethical ramifications. This involves not just mitigating risks and preventing harm but also making sure that its applications are utilized to promote human development and the common good.


5. To contribute positively to the discernment regarding AI, and in reaction to Pope Francis' require a restored "knowledge of heart," [3] the Church uses its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active function in the worldwide discussion on these concerns, the Church invites those turned over with transmitting the faith-including parents, teachers, pastors, and bishops-to dedicate themselves to this critical subject with care and attention. While this document is meant specifically for them, it is also meant to be available to a more comprehensive audience, especially those who share the conviction that clinical and technological advances need to be directed toward serving the human individual and the common good. [4]

6. To this end, the document starts by differentiating between concepts of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then explores the Christian understanding of human intelligence, supplying a framework rooted in the Church's philosophical and theological tradition. Finally, the document offers guidelines to ensure that the advancement and forum.pinoo.com.tr use of AI maintain human dignity and promote the essential advancement of the human individual and society.


7. The principle of "intelligence" in AI has actually progressed gradually, drawing on a variety of concepts from different disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a substantial turning point took place in 1956 when the American computer researcher John McCarthy arranged a summertime workshop at Dartmouth University to explore the problem of "Artificial Intelligence," which he specified as "that of making a maker act in manner ins which would be called smart if a human were so acting." [5] This workshop released a research program focused on designing devices efficient in performing jobs usually related to the human intellect and smart habits.


8. Ever since, AI research study has actually advanced rapidly, resulting in the development of complex systems capable of carrying out highly advanced tasks. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are usually developed to manage particular and limited functions, such as translating languages, anticipating the trajectory of a storm, categorizing images, addressing concerns, or generating visual material at the user's demand. While the meaning of "intelligence" in AI research study varies, a lot of contemporary AI systems-particularly those using machine learning-rely on analytical reasoning rather than logical deduction. By evaluating large datasets to recognize patterns, AI can "predict" [7] outcomes and propose new approaches, mimicking some cognitive procedures common of human problem-solving. Such achievements have actually been made possible through advances in computing innovation (consisting of neural networks, without supervision artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) along with hardware developments (such as specialized processors). Together, these technologies allow AI systems to respond to various forms of human input, adjust to new situations, and even recommend unique solutions not expected by their initial programmers. [8]

9. Due to these rapid advancements, lots of tasks when managed specifically by people are now entrusted to AI. These systems can enhance or perhaps supersede what human beings have the ability to do in numerous fields, particularly in specialized locations such as data analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is developed for a particular task, lots of scientists aim to establish what is known as "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system capable of running throughout all cognitive domains and carrying out any task within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI might one day attain the state of "superintelligence," going beyond human intellectual 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 person, while still others welcome this potential transformation. [9]

10. Underlying this and numerous other perspectives on the subject is the implicit assumption that the term "intelligence" can be utilized in the same method to refer to both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not capture the full scope of the principle. In the case of people, intelligence is a professors that pertains to the individual in his/her whole, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is understood functionally, frequently with the presumption that the activities attribute of the human mind can be broken down into digitized steps that machines can duplicate. [10]

11. This practical viewpoint is exhibited by the "Turing Test," which thinks about a maker "intelligent" if a person can not identify its behavior from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "behavior" refers only to the performance of particular intellectual jobs; it does not account for the full breadth of human experience, that includes abstraction, emotions, creativity, and the visual, ethical, and spiritual sensibilities. Nor does it include the full series of expressions particular of the human mind. Instead, when it comes to AI, the "intelligence" of a system is assessed methodologically, however also reductively, based upon its capability to produce suitable responses-in this case, those associated with the human intellect-regardless of how those reactions are generated.


12. AI's innovative functions give it advanced abilities to perform jobs, however not the capability to believe. [12] This distinction is most importantly essential, as the method "intelligence" is defined inevitably forms how we comprehend the relationship in between human idea and this innovation. [13] To appreciate this, one need to recall the richness of the philosophical custom and Christian faith, which offer a much deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's teaching on the nature, dignity, and occupation of the human person. [14]

13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has played a main role in understanding what it implies to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all people by nature desire to know." [15] This knowledge, with its capacity for abstraction that understands the nature and significance of things, sets people apart from the animal world. [16] As theorists, theologians, and psychologists have analyzed the specific nature of this intellectual faculty, they have actually likewise checked out how humans understand the world and their special place within it. Through this exploration, the Christian custom has pertained to understand the human person as a being consisting of both body and soul-deeply connected to this world and yet transcending it. [17]

14. In the classical custom, the concept of intelligence is typically comprehended through the complementary concepts of "factor" (ratio) and "intelligence" (intellectus). These are not separate faculties but, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are two modes in which the same intelligence runs: "The term intellect is inferred from the inward grasp of the reality, while the name reason is drawn from the analytical and discursive process." [18] This succinct description highlights the 2 essential and complementary measurements of human intelligence. Intellectus refers to the instinctive grasp of the truth-that is, nabbing it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and grounds argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to thinking correct: the discursive, analytical procedure that causes judgment. Together, intelligence and reason form the two aspects 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 reduce the individual to a specific mode of idea; rather, it recognizes that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and permeates all aspects of human activity. [20] Whether exercised well or inadequately, this capacity is an intrinsic aspect of human nature. In this sense, the "term 'rational' incorporates all the capabilities of the human individual," consisting of those related to "understanding and understanding, along with those of prepared, loving, choosing, and desiring; it also includes all corporeal functions closely related to these abilities." [21] This detailed viewpoint underscores how, in the human individual, created in the "picture of God," factor is integrated in a manner that raises, shapes, and transforms both the individual's will and actions. [22]

16. Christian thought thinks about the intellectual faculties of the human person within the structure of an essential sociology that views the human being as basically embodied. In the human person, spirit and matter "are not 2 natures joined, however rather their union forms a single nature." [23] In other words, the soul is not merely the immaterial "part" of the person contained within the body, nor is the body an external shell housing an intangible "core." Rather, the whole human individual is all at once both product and spiritual. This understanding reflects the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which views the human individual as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and hence, an authentically spiritual dimension) within and through this embodied presence. [24] The extensive significance of this condition is more lit up by the secret of the Incarnation, through which God himself took on our flesh and "raised it approximately a superb self-respect." [25]

17. Although deeply rooted in bodily existence, the human individual transcends the material world through the soul, which is "nearly on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intelligence's capacity for transcendence and the self-possessed flexibility of the will come from the soul, by which the human person "shares in the light of the divine mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of knowledge without the body. [28] In this way, the intellectual professors of the human person are an important part of a sociology that recognizes that the human individual is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further aspects of this understanding will be established in what follows.


18. People are "bought by their very nature to interpersonal communion," [30] having the capacity to know one another, to give themselves in love, and to get in into communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not an isolated faculty however is worked out in relationships, finding its maximum expression in dialogue, partnership, and solidarity. We find out with others, and we learn through others.


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

20. This vocation to communion with God is always tied to the call to communion with others. Love of God can not be separated from love for one's next-door neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20; Mt. 22:37 -39). By the grace of sharing God's life, Christians are also called to imitate Christ's outpouring gift (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "enjoy one another, as I have 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 vocation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Much more sublime than knowing lots of things is the dedication to take care of one another, for if "I understand all mysteries and all knowledge [...] but do not have love, I am nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2).


21. Human intelligence is ultimately "God's gift made for the assimilation of truth." [34] In the double sense of intellectus-ratio, it enables the person to check out realities that surpass simple sensory experience or utility, considering that "the desire for truth belongs to human nature itself. It is a natural property of human factor to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limits of empirical data, human intelligence can "with authentic certitude attain to reality itself as knowable." [36] While truth remains only partially understood, the desire for reality "spurs reason constantly to go even more; certainly, it is as if factor were overwhelmed to see that it can always exceed what it has actually currently attained." [37] Although Truth in itself goes beyond the boundaries of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this attraction, the human person is resulted in look for "truths of a higher order." [39]

22. This inherent drive towards the pursuit of fact is specifically obvious in the clearly human capabilities for semantic understanding and creativity, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "manner that is proper to the social nature and self-respect of the human individual." [41] Likewise, a steadfast orientation to the truth is vital for charity to be both genuine and universal. [42]

23. The look for truth discovers its greatest expression in openness to truths that go beyond the physical and developed world. In God, all realities attain their ultimate and initial significance. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "fundamental choice that engages the entire individual." [44] In this method, the human individual becomes completely what she or he is contacted us to be: "the intelligence and the will show their spiritual nature," enabling the individual "to act in such a way that recognizes individual liberty to the full." [45]

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

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

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


27. This engagement with truth unfolds in various methods, as each individual, in his/her complex uniqueness [54], seeks to comprehend the world, connect to others, resolve problems, express creativity, and pursue essential wellness through the unified interplay of the numerous dimensions of the individual's intelligence. [55] This includes logical and linguistic capabilities but can likewise incorporate other modes of engaging with truth. Consider the work of an artisan, who "should know how to discern, in inert matter, a particular form that others can not acknowledge" [56] and bring it forth through insight and useful skill. Indigenous individuals who live near to the earth frequently have an extensive sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a pal who understands the ideal word to say or an individual adept at managing human relationships exhibits an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, discussion and generous encounter between persons." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of synthetic intelligence, we can not forget that poetry and love are necessary to conserve our humanity." [59]

28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the integration of reality into the ethical and spiritual life of the individual, guiding his/her actions because of God's goodness and fact. According to God's plan, intelligence, in its max sense, likewise consists of the capability to appreciate what is real, great, and lovely. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel expressed, "intelligence is nothing without pleasure." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the greatest heaven in Paradiso, affirms that the culmination of this intellectual delight is found in the "light intellectual filled with love, love of true great filled with joy, joy which transcends every sweet taste." [61]

29. A correct understanding of human intelligence, therefore, can not be lowered to the mere acquisition of facts or the ability to perform particular tasks. Instead, it involves the person's openness to the ultimate questions of life and shows an orientation toward the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the magnificent image within the person, human intelligence has the ability to access the totality of being, considering existence in its fullness, which exceeds what is quantifiable, and understanding the meaning of what has been understood. For believers, this capability consists of, in a specific way, the ability to grow in the knowledge of the secrets of God by utilizing reason to engage ever more exceptionally with exposed truths (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is shaped by divine love, which "is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence has an important contemplative measurement, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian purpose.


30. Because of the foregoing discussion, the differences in between human intelligence and existing AI systems end up being evident. While AI is an extraordinary technological accomplishment capable of mimicing certain outputs associated with human intelligence, it operates by performing tasks, attaining objectives, or making choices based upon quantitative information and computational reasoning. For instance, with its analytical power, AI stands out at incorporating data from a variety of fields, modeling complex systems, and promoting interdisciplinary connections. In this method, it can assist experts collaborate in resolving complicated issues that "can not be dealt with from a single viewpoint or from a single set of interests." [64]

31. However, even as AI processes and imitates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains essentially restricted to a logical-mathematical structure, which enforces intrinsic constraints. Human intelligence, on the other hand, develops naturally throughout the person's physical and mental growth, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although advanced AI systems can "discover" through processes such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is essentially different from the developmental development of human intelligence, which is formed by embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional actions, social interactions, and the distinct context of each moment. These components shape and type people within their individual history.In contrast, AI, doing not have a physique, relies on computational reasoning and learning based on huge datasets that include taped human experiences and knowledge.


32. Consequently, although AI can replicate elements of human reasoning and carry out particular tasks with unbelievable speed and efficiency, its computational capabilities represent only a fraction of the more comprehensive capacities of the human mind. For example, AI can not presently duplicate ethical discernment or the capability to develop authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is positioned within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral formation that basically forms the individual's perspective, incorporating the physical, emotional, social, ethical, and spiritual measurements of life. Since AI can not use this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely solely on this innovation or treat it as the main methods of analyzing the world can cause "a loss of gratitude for the entire, for the relationships in between things, and for the wider horizon." [65]

33. Human intelligence is not mainly about completing practical tasks however about understanding and actively engaging with reality in all its measurements; it is also capable of surprising insights. Since AI lacks the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to truth and goodness, its capacities-though seemingly limitless-are matchless with the human ability to understand reality. A lot can be gained from an illness, an accept of reconciliation, and even a simple sundown; certainly, lots of experiences we have as human beings open brand-new horizons and provide the possibility of attaining new knowledge. No device, working solely with data, can determine up to these and numerous other experiences present in our lives.


34. Drawing an extremely close equivalence between human intelligence and AI risks catching a functionalist viewpoint, where people are valued based upon the work they can carry out. However, a person's worth does not depend on having specific skills, cognitive and technological achievements, or specific success, but on the person's inherent self-respect, grounded in being created in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains intact in all situations, including for those unable to exercise their abilities, whether it be a coming kid, an unconscious individual, or an older person who is suffering. [67] It also underpins the custom of human rights (and, in specific, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "an essential point of convergence in the look for common ground" [68] and can, therefore, work as a fundamental ethical guide in conversations on the accountable development 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 deceptive" [69] and risks ignoring what is most precious in the human person. In light of this, AI ought to not be viewed as an artificial form of human intelligence but as a product of it. [70]

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

37. Seen as a fruit of the potential inscribed within human intelligence, [72] clinical questions and the development of technical abilities are part of the "cooperation of man and female with God in refining the noticeable creation." [73] At the very same time, all scientific and technological accomplishments are, eventually, presents from God. [74] Therefore, humans need to always utilize their abilities in view of the greater function for which God has actually approved them. [75]

38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has actually "treated countless evils which used to hurt and restrict humans," [76] a fact for which we must rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological developments 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 endeavor, technological advancement must be directed to serve the human person and contribute to the pursuit of "higher justice, more substantial fraternity, and a more gentle order of social relations," which are "more valuable than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical ramifications of technological development are shared not only within the Church but likewise among numerous researchers, technologists, and professional associations, who increasingly call for ethical reflection to assist this development in a responsible way.


39. To deal with these obstacles, it is necessary to stress the importance of ethical duty grounded in the self-respect and occupation of the human person. This guiding principle likewise applies to questions concerning AI. In this context, the ethical measurement takes on main significance due to the fact that it is individuals who create systems and figure out the purposes for which they are utilized. [80] Between a device and a person, just the latter is truly a moral agent-a subject of moral obligation who works out liberty in his or her decisions and accepts their effects. [81] It is not the machine but the human who remains in relationship with reality and goodness, directed by a moral conscience that calls the individual "to enjoy and to do what is good and to avoid wicked," [82] bearing witness to "the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human individual is drawn." [83] Likewise, between a device and a human, only the human can be adequately self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, discerning with prudence, and looking for the great that is possible in every circumstance. [84] In truth, all of this likewise comes from the person's workout of intelligence.


40. Like any item of human imagination, AI can be directed toward favorable or negative ends. [85] When utilized in methods that respect human dignity and promote the well-being of people and neighborhoods, it can contribute favorably to the human occupation. Yet, as in all areas where people are called to make choices, the shadow of evil likewise looms here. Where human freedom enables for the possibility of choosing what is wrong, the moral examination of this innovation will need to take into account how it is directed and used.


41. At the very same time, it is not just completions that are fairly significant but also the ways used to attain them. Additionally, the general vision and understanding of the human person ingrained within these systems are essential to think about too. Technological products reflect the worldview of their designers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to "shape the world and engage consciences on the level of worths." [87] On a societal level, some technological advancements could also reinforce relationships and power characteristics that are irregular with a correct understanding of the human person and society.


42. Therefore, completions and the methods used in a provided application of AI, in addition to the total vision it includes, should all be examined to ensure they respect human self-respect and promote the common good. [88] As Pope Francis has specified, "the intrinsic self-respect of every guy and every woman" should be "the key requirement in assessing emerging technologies; these will show fairly sound to the level that they help regard that self-respect and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] including in the social and financial spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays an essential role not just in creating and producing technology however also in directing its usage in line with the authentic good of the human individual. [90] The obligation for managing this carefully pertains to every level of society, assisted by the principle of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.


43. The dedication to making sure that AI always supports and promotes the supreme value of the dignity of every person and the fullness of the human vocation acts as a requirement of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, along with to its users. It remains legitimate for every application of the innovation at every level of its usage.


44. An examination of the ramifications of this directing concept might begin by thinking about the significance of ethical responsibility. Since complete moral causality belongs only to personal agents, not synthetic ones, it is essential to be able to determine and define who bears obligation for the processes involved in AI, especially those efficient in learning, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up methods and very deep neural networks make it possible for AI to resolve complex issues, they make it hard to understand the procedures that result in the solutions they embraced. This makes complex accountability since if an AI application produces unwanted outcomes, determining who is responsible becomes hard. To address this problem, attention requires to be given to the nature of accountability procedures in complex, highly automated settings, where outcomes may just become obvious in the medium to long term. For this, it is very important that ultimate obligation for choices made using AI rests with the human decision-makers and that there is accountability for the usage of AI at each phase of the decision-making process. [91]

45. In addition to determining who is responsible, it is essential to recognize the objectives provided to AI systems. Although these systems may use without supervision autonomous learning mechanisms and often follow courses that human beings can not reconstruct, they eventually pursue objectives that people have designated to them and are governed by procedures established by their designers and programmers. Yet, this provides a challenge because, as AI models end up being significantly of independent knowing, the ability to maintain control over them to guarantee that such applications serve human functions might successfully lessen. This raises the important concern of how to make sure that AI systems are ordered for the good of people and not against them.


46. While obligation for the ethical use of AI systems starts with those who develop, produce, manage, and manage such systems, it is likewise shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis noted, the device "makes a technical choice amongst several possibilities based either on distinct criteria or on statistical inferences. People, however, not only select, but in their hearts are capable of choosing." [92] Those who use AI to achieve a job and follow its results develop a context in which they are eventually accountable for the power they have delegated. Therefore, insofar as AI can help human beings in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it must be credible, safe and secure, robust enough to manage disparities, and transparent in their operation to alleviate biases and unintentional side impacts. [93] Regulatory structures ought to ensure that all legal entities remain liable for the use of AI and all its repercussions, with suitable safeguards for transparency, personal privacy, and accountability. [94] Moreover, those using AI should beware not to end up being excessively dependent on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases contemporary society's already high dependence on innovation.


47. The Church's moral and social teaching offers resources to assist make sure that AI is utilized in such a way that maintains human firm. Considerations about justice, for instance, need to also attend to concerns such as cultivating simply social characteristics, maintaining global security, and promoting peace. By working out prudence, people and communities can determine ways to use AI to benefit mankind while avoiding applications that might degrade human dignity or harm the environment. In this context, the principle of duty must be understood not just in its most minimal sense however as a "duty for the look after others, which is more than merely accounting for results attained." [95]

48. Therefore, AI, like any technology, can be part of a mindful and accountable response to humanity's vocation to the excellent. However, as previously discussed, AI needs to be directed by human intelligence to line up with this vocation, ensuring it appreciates the self-respect of the human person. Recognizing this "exalted dignity," the Second Vatican Council verified that "the social order and its advancement need to usually work to the benefit of the human person." [96] In light of this, using AI, as Pope Francis said, need to be "accompanied by an ethic inspired by a vision of the common excellent, a principles of freedom, responsibility, and fraternity, capable of fostering the full development of people in relation to others and to the entire of production." [97]

49. Within this basic viewpoint, some observations follow below to illustrate how the preceding arguments can assist supply an ethical orientation in practical scenarios, in line with the "wisdom of heart" that Pope Francis has actually proposed. [98] While not extensive, this conversation is provided in service of the dialogue that considers how AI can be utilized to maintain the dignity of the human individual and promote the typical good. [99]

50. As Pope Francis observed, "the intrinsic dignity of each human and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human household should undergird the advancement of new innovations and function as unassailable criteria for evaluating them before they are used." [100]

51. Viewed through this lens, AI might "present crucial innovations in agriculture, education and culture, a better level of life for entire countries and peoples, and the development of human fraternity and social friendship," and therefore be "used to promote important human development." [101] AI could also help organizations determine those in requirement and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other comparable applications of this innovation could add to human development and the typical good. [102]

52. However, while AI holds lots of possibilities for promoting the great, it can likewise impede or even counter human advancement and the typical good. Pope Francis has noted that "evidence to date suggests that digital technologies have actually increased inequality in our world. Not simply distinctions in material wealth, which are also substantial, but likewise distinctions in access to political and social influence." [103] In this sense, AI might be utilized to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, produce new forms of poverty, widen the "digital divide," and aggravate existing social inequalities. [104]

53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a couple of effective companies raises considerable ethical issues. Exacerbating this problem is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single person can exercise complete oversight over the huge and intricate datasets used for computation. This absence of distinct responsibility creates the threat that AI could be manipulated for individual or corporate gain or to direct public viewpoint for the benefit of a particular industry. Such entities, encouraged by their own interests, have the capacity to exercise "kinds of control as subtle as they are intrusive, producing mechanisms for the manipulation of consciences and of the democratic procedure." [105]

54. Furthermore, there is the risk of AI being utilized to promote what Pope Francis has actually called the "technocratic paradigm," which views all the world's issues as understandable through technological ways alone. [106] In this paradigm, human dignity and fraternity are often set aside in the name of effectiveness, "as if truth, goodness, and fact immediately flow from technological and financial power as such." [107] Yet, human self-respect and the typical good should never be violated for the sake of performance, [108] for "technological developments that do not lead to an improvement in the lifestyle of all humanity, but on the contrary, worsen inequalities and conflicts, can never ever count as true progress. " [109] Instead, AI should be put "at the service of another type of development, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral." [110]

55. Attaining this objective needs a much deeper reflection on the relationship in between autonomy and responsibility. Greater autonomy heightens everyone's duty across numerous aspects of communal life. For Christians, the foundation of this duty depends on the acknowledgment that all human capacities, consisting of the person's autonomy, originated from God and are implied to be utilized in the service of others. [111] Therefore, instead of merely pursuing economic or technological objectives, AI should serve "the common good of the whole human family," which is "the sum overall of social conditions that allow individuals, either as groups or as people, to reach their satisfaction more completely and more quickly." [112]

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

57. Such a mission, in addition to other aspects of human communication, presupposes encounters and mutual exchange between individuals formed by their distinct histories, ideas, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a diverse, complex, and intricate reality: specific and social, logical and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis underscores this dynamic, noting that "together, we can seek the fact in discussion, in unwinded conversation or in enthusiastic argument. To do so calls for perseverance; it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently embrace the more comprehensive experience of individuals and peoples. [...] The process of structure fraternity, be it local or universal, can only be carried out by spirits that are totally free and available to authentic encounters." [116]

58. It remains in this context that one can consider the difficulties AI postures to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the prospective to cultivate connections within the human household. However, it could also prevent a true encounter with reality and, eventually, lead people to "a deep and melancholic discontentment with interpersonal relations, or a harmful sense of isolation." [117] Authentic human relationships need the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their delight. [118] Since human intelligence is expressed and enriched also in interpersonal and embodied methods, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are important for engaging with truth in its fullness.


59. Because "true knowledge demands an encounter with truth," [119] the increase of AI introduces another challenge. Since AI can effectively mimic the items of human intelligence, the ability to know when one is interacting with a human or a device can no longer be taken for granted. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other advanced outputs that are usually related to humans. Yet, it needs to be understood for what it is: a tool, not a person. [120] This distinction is typically obscured by the language utilized by professionals, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and thus blurs the line in between human and maker.


60. Anthropomorphizing AI likewise poses specific difficulties for the development of kids, possibly motivating them to develop patterns of interaction that treat human relationships in a transactional manner, as one would relate to a chatbot. Such practices might lead youths to see teachers as mere dispensers of details instead of as coaches who assist and support their intellectual and ethical development. Genuine relationships, rooted in empathy and a steadfast dedication to the good of the other, are necessary and irreplaceable in promoting the full development of the human person.


61. In this context, it is very important to clarify that, despite making use of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can truly experience compassion. Emotions can not be decreased to facial expressions or phrases created in action to triggers; they reflect the way an individual, as a whole, connects to the world and to his or her own life, with the body playing a main role. True compassion needs the ability to listen, acknowledge another's irreducible originality, welcome their otherness, and comprehend the significance behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the realm of analytical judgment in which AI stands out, real compassion belongs to 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 mimic empathetic actions, it can not reproduce the incomparably personal and relational nature of genuine compassion. [123]

62. Because of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as an individual need to always be avoided; doing so for deceitful functions is a serious ethical violation that could deteriorate social trust. Similarly, using AI to trick in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, including the sphere of sexuality-is likewise to be considered immoral and requires careful oversight to prevent harm, maintain openness, and make sure the self-respect of all people. [124]

63. In a progressively separated world, some people have turned to AI in search of deep human relationships, simple companionship, and even psychological bonds. However, while people are indicated to experience genuine relationships, AI can just mimic them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an essential part of how an individual grows to become who she or he is suggested to be. If AI is used to assist individuals foster authentic connections in between individuals, it can contribute positively to the complete awareness of the individual. Conversely, if we replace relationships with God and with others with interactions with technology, we risk replacing genuine relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of pulling away into synthetic worlds, we are called to take part in a committed and deliberate method with reality, specifically by recognizing with the poor and suffering, consoling those in sadness, and creating bonds of communion with all.


64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being significantly incorporated into financial and financial systems. Significant investments are presently being made not only in the innovation sector however also in energy, financing, and media, especially in the areas of marketing and sales, logistics, technological innovation, compliance, and threat management. At the exact same time, AI's applications in these areas have likewise highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of incredible opportunities but also profound threats. A very first genuine critical point in this location concerns the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a couple of corporations-only those large companies would gain from the value created by AI rather than business that use it.


65. Other wider aspects of AI's influence on the economic-financial sphere must likewise be carefully analyzed, especially worrying the interaction in between concrete reality and the digital world. One essential consideration in this regard includes the coexistence of varied and alternative types of economic and banks within a provided context. This aspect ought to be encouraged, as it can bring benefits in how it supports the real economy by cultivating its advancement and stability, especially during times of crisis. Nevertheless, it ought to be stressed that digital realities, not limited by any spatial bonds, tend to be more uniform and impersonal than communities rooted in a particular location and a particular history, with a common journey identified by shared values and hopes, but likewise by unavoidable arguments and divergences. This diversity is an undeniable possession to a community's economic life. Turning over the economy and financing entirely to digital innovation would reduce this variety and richness. As an outcome, numerous solutions to financial problems that can be reached through natural discussion in between the involved parties might no longer be attainable in a world dominated by treatments and only the appearance of nearness.


66. Another location where AI is already having an extensive impact is the world of work. As in numerous other fields, AI is driving fundamental improvements throughout lots of professions, with a range of results. On the one hand, it has the potential to enhance competence and efficiency, develop brand-new jobs, enable workers to concentrate on more innovative tasks, and open brand-new horizons for imagination and innovation.


67. However, while AI promises to boost efficiency by taking control of mundane tasks, it often forces employees to adjust to the speed and needs of devices rather than makers being designed to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the marketed benefits of AI, existing techniques to the technology can paradoxically deskill workers, subject them to automated security, and relegate them to stiff and repetitive tasks. The requirement to stay up to date with the speed of innovation can erode employees' sense of firm and stifle the ingenious capabilities they are anticipated to give their work. [125]

68. AI is currently getting rid of the requirement for some jobs that were once carried out by people. If AI is used to change human employees rather than match them, there is a "significant threat of disproportionate benefit for the couple of at the rate of the impoverishment of many." [126] Additionally, as AI becomes more powerful, there is an associated risk that human labor might lose its worth in the economic world. This is the logical consequence of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humankind oppressed to performance, where, eventually, the expense of mankind must be cut. Yet, human lives are inherently valuable, independent of their economic output. Nevertheless, the "existing model," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to favor an investment in efforts to help the sluggish, the weak, or the less skilled to find chances in life." [127] Because of this, "we can not enable a tool as powerful and vital as Artificial Intelligence to strengthen such a paradigm, however rather, we need to make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its expansion." [128]

69. It is very important to keep in mind that "the order of things need to be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around." [129] Human work needs to not only be at the service of earnings however at "the service of the entire human person [...] considering the individual's product needs and the requirements of his or her intellectual, moral, spiritual, and spiritual life." [130] In this context, the Church recognizes that work is "not only a means of making one's daily bread" however is likewise "a necessary dimension of social life" and "a means [...] of personal development, the building of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of gifts. Work offers us a sense of shared responsibility for the development of the world, and eventually, for our life as a people." [131]

70. Since work is a "part of the significance of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal satisfaction," "the objective must not be that technological development significantly changes human work, for this would be harmful to humankind" [132] -rather, it ought to promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI ought to assist, not change, human judgment. Similarly, it should never ever break down imagination or reduce workers to simple "cogs in a device." Therefore, "respect for the dignity of workers and the value of employment for the economic well-being of people, families, and societies, for task security and simply earnings, should be a high top priority for the global community as these types of innovation permeate more deeply into our offices." [133]

71. As individuals in God's recovery work, health care experts have the vocation and responsibility to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the healthcare profession brings an "intrinsic and indisputable ethical dimension," recognized by the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges doctors and health care professionals to dedicate themselves to having "outright regard for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Good Samaritan, this dedication is to be performed by males and females "who reject the development of a society of exclusion, and act rather as next-door neighbors, raising up and restoring the succumbed to the sake of the typical good." [136]

72. Seen in this light, AI seems to hold immense potential in a variety of applications in the medical field, such as assisting the diagnostic work of doctor, assisting in relationships in between clients and medical personnel, using new treatments, and expanding access to quality care likewise for those who are isolated or marginalized. In these ways, the innovation could improve the "compassionate and caring nearness" [137] that doctor are contacted us to reach the sick 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 machine instead of a human being-it would decrease a most importantly important human relational structure to a central, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of motivating solidarity with the sick and suffering, such applications of AI would risk intensifying the loneliness that frequently accompanies health problem, particularly in the context of a culture where "persons are no longer seen as a critical value to be cared for and respected." [138] This misuse of AI would not line up with regard for the self-respect of the human person and solidarity with the suffering.


74. Responsibility for the well-being of clients and the decisions that touch upon their lives are at the heart of the health care profession. This accountability needs physician to exercise all their skill and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options relating to those turned over to their care, constantly appreciating the inviolable self-respect of the patients and the requirement for notified consent. As a result, choices regarding patient treatment and the weight of obligation they entail should constantly remain with the human person and needs to never ever be handed over to AI. [139]

75. In addition, utilizing AI to determine who should get treatment based mainly on economic steps or metrics of efficiency represents a particularly problematic circumstances of the "technocratic paradigm" that should be rejected. [140] For, "enhancing resources implies using them in an ethical and fraternal method, 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 quickly increase, producing not only oppressions in private cases however likewise, due to the domino effect, genuine types of social inequality." [142]

76. The combination of AI into healthcare also postures the threat of amplifying other existing variations in access to treatment. As health care becomes increasingly oriented toward avoidance and lifestyle-based techniques, AI-driven options might inadvertently favor more wealthy populations who already take pleasure in better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This trend risks reinforcing a "medication for the rich" design, where those with financial methods gain from advanced preventative tools and personalized health details while others struggle to gain access to even standard services. To prevent such inequities, fair frameworks are needed to ensure that making use of AI in health care does not worsen existing healthcare inequalities but rather serves the common good.


77. The words of the Second Vatican Council remain fully pertinent today: "True education aims to form people with a view towards their last end and the good of the society to which they belong." [143] As such, education is "never a mere procedure of passing on truths and intellectual skills: rather, its aim is to contribute to the individual's holistic development in its numerous aspects (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, and so on), including, for example, neighborhood life and relations within the scholastic community," [144] in keeping with the nature and dignity of the human individual.


78. This technique includes a dedication to cultivating the mind, but constantly as a part of the essential advancement of the individual: "We should break that concept of education which holds that educating methods filling one's head with ideas. That is the way we educate robots, cerebral minds, not individuals. Educating is taking a danger 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 vital relationship in between teacher and trainee. Teachers do more than convey knowledge; they model necessary human qualities and inspire the delight of discovery. [146] Their presence inspires trainees both through the material they teach and the care they demonstrate for their trainees. This bond cultivates trust, mutual understanding, and the capacity to resolve everyone's unique self-respect and potential. On the part of the trainee, this can produce a real desire to grow. The physical presence of a teacher produces a relational dynamic that AI can not replicate, one that deepens engagement and supports the trainee's integral development.


80. In this context, AI presents both chances and difficulties. If used in a prudent way, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and bought to the authentic goals of education, AI can become a valuable instructional resource by boosting access to education, using tailored support, and supplying immediate feedback to trainees. These advantages might improve the learning experience, particularly in cases where customized attention is needed, or educational resources are otherwise scarce.


81. Nevertheless, a crucial part of education is forming "the intelligence to reason well in all matters, to reach out towards reality, and to understand 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 concern of 'using' instruments of interaction, but of living in an extremely digitalized culture that has actually had an extensive influence on [...] our capability to interact, find out, be notified and participate in relationship with others." [149] However, rather of fostering "a cultivated intellect," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and occupation that it carries out," [150] the comprehensive usage of AI in education might cause the trainees' increased dependence on innovation, deteriorating their capability to perform some skills individually and worsening their dependence on screens. [151]

82. Additionally, while some AI systems are designed to assist individuals develop their crucial thinking abilities and analytical skills, lots of others simply supply answers rather of prompting trainees to reach answers themselves or write text for themselves. [152] Instead of training youths how to generate details and generate fast actions, education should motivate "the accountable usage of liberty to face problems with excellent sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in making use of forms of artificial intelligence should aim above all at promoting critical thinking. Users of any ages, but specifically the young, require to develop a critical method to the use of information and content collected on the internet or produced by expert system systems. Schools, universities, and clinical societies are challenged to help trainees and professionals to comprehend the social and ethical aspects of the advancement and usages of innovation." [154]

83. As Saint John Paul II recalled, "in the world today, defined by such quick advancements in science and technology, the tasks of a Catholic University presume an ever greater importance and urgency." [155] In a particular method, Catholic universities are urged to be present as terrific laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary secret, they are advised to engage "with wisdom and imagination" [156] in careful research study on this phenomenon, assisting to extract the salutary capacity within the different fields of science and truth, and guiding them constantly towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the typical excellent, reaching brand-new frontiers in the discussion in between faith and reason.


84. Moreover, it must be noted that existing AI programs have been understood to offer prejudiced or made details, which can lead trainees to trust unreliable material. This problem "not just risks of legitimizing phony news and enhancing a dominant culture's advantage, however, in brief, it likewise undermines the academic process itself." [157] With time, clearer distinctions might emerge between correct and incorrect uses of AI in education and research. Yet, a definitive guideline is that making use of AI should constantly be transparent and never misrepresented.


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

86. However, AI also presents a severe danger of creating controlled material and incorrect details, which can easily misguide individuals due to its similarity to the reality. Such false information may occur accidentally, as in the case of AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine however are not. Since creating content that simulates human artifacts is main to AI's performance, reducing these threats shows challenging. Yet, the repercussions of such aberrations and false details can be rather serious. For this factor, all those associated with producing and using AI systems should be committed to the truthfulness and accuracy of the details processed by such systems and disseminated to the public.


87. While AI has a hidden capacity to create false details, an even more uncomfortable problem depends on the intentional misuse of AI for adjustment. This can take place when individuals or companies purposefully generate and spread out false material with the aim to trick or trigger damage, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to a false depiction of a person, edited or generated by an AI algorithm. The danger of deepfakes is particularly apparent when they are utilized to target or damage others. While the images or videos themselves may be artificial, the damage they cause is genuine, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "genuine injuries in their human self-respect." [159]

88. On a more comprehensive scale, by distorting "our relationship with others and with reality," [160] AI-generated fake media can slowly undermine the foundations of society. This concern needs careful regulation, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or affected media-can spread unintentionally, sustaining political polarization and social unrest. When society ends up being indifferent to the reality, different groups construct their own versions of "truths," deteriorating the "mutual ties and mutual dependencies" [161] that underpin the fabric of social life. As deepfakes cause individuals to question whatever and AI-generated incorrect content deteriorates trust in what they see and hear, polarization and conflict will only grow. Such widespread deceptiveness is no minor matter; it strikes at the core of humankind, taking apart the foundational trust on which societies are constructed. [162]

89. Countering AI-driven fallacies is not just the work of market experts-it needs the efforts of all individuals of goodwill. "If innovation is to serve human self-respect and not harm it, and if it is to promote peace instead of violence, then the human neighborhood should be proactive in addressing these trends with respect to human dignity and the promotion of the good." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated content should always exercise diligence in validating the reality of what they share and, in all cases, must "prevent the sharing of words and images that are breaking down of human beings, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that exploit the weak and susceptible." [164] This requires the ongoing prudence and cautious discernment of all users concerning their activity online. [165]

90. Humans are naturally relational, and the data each person creates in the digital world can be seen as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data conveys not just details however also individual and relational understanding, which, in an increasingly digitized context, can total up to power over the person. Moreover, while some types of information may pertain to public elements of an individual's life, others might touch upon the person's interiority, possibly even their conscience. Seen in this way, personal privacy plays an essential function in securing the borders of a person's inner life, maintaining their freedom to relate to others, express themselves, and make decisions without undue control. This protection is also connected to the defense of spiritual freedom, as security can also be misused to apply control over the lives of followers and how they express their faith.


91. It is appropriate, for that reason, to resolve the issue of personal privacy from an issue for the genuine freedom and inalienable dignity of the human individual "in all situations." [166] The Second Vatican Council included the right "to protect personal privacy" amongst the fundamental rights "necessary for living a really human life," a right that ought to be reached all individuals on account of their "sublime dignity." [167] Furthermore, the Church has actually likewise verified the right to the legitimate respect for a personal life in the context of verifying the individual's right to a good credibility, defense of their physical and psychological stability, and liberty from damage or unnecessary invasion [168] -essential parts of the due regard for the intrinsic self-respect of the human individual. [169]

92. Advances in AI-powered data processing and analysis now make it possible to infer patterns in an individual's habits and believing from even a little amount of details, making the function of information personal privacy a lot 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 shrinking or vanishing to the point that the right to privacy rarely exists. Everything has actually become a type of phenomenon to be taken a look at and examined, and people's lives are now under consistent security." [170]

93. While there can be genuine and correct ways to utilize AI in keeping with human dignity and the typical excellent, utilizing it for surveillance aimed at making use of, limiting others' freedom, or benefitting a couple of at the expenditure of the lots of is unjustifiable. The threat of surveillance overreach should be kept track of by appropriate regulators to ensure openness and public responsibility. Those accountable for surveillance should never ever surpass their authority, which need to constantly prefer the self-respect and freedom of everyone as the necessary basis of a simply and gentle society.


94. Furthermore, "fundamental respect for human dignity demands that we decline to enable the originality of the person to be identified with a set of data." [171] This especially uses when AI is used to evaluate people or groups based on their behavior, qualities, or history-a practice called "social scoring": "In social and economic decision-making, we need to beware about delegating judgments to algorithms that process data, typically gathered surreptitiously, on a person's makeup and prior behavior. Such information can be polluted by societal bias and preconceptions. A person's past habits need to not be utilized to deny him or her the opportunity to alter, grow, and add to society. We can not allow algorithms to limit or condition regard for human self-respect, or to omit compassion, grace, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able to change." [172]

95. AI has numerous promising applications for improving our relationship with our "common home," such as producing designs to anticipate extreme environment occasions, proposing engineering options to decrease their impact, handling relief operations, and forecasting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable agriculture, enhance energy usage, and supply early warning systems for public health emergencies. These improvements have the possible to strengthen strength against climate-related difficulties and promote more sustainable advancement.


96. At the same time, current AI designs and the hardware required to support them take in vast amounts of energy and water, significantly contributing to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This truth is frequently obscured by the way this technology exists in the popular imagination, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can provide the impression that information is saved and processed in an intangible realm, detached from the physical world. However, "the cloud" is not an ethereal domain separate from the physical world; as with all computing technologies, it relies on physical makers, cable televisions, and energy. The very same holds true of the technology behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, especially large language designs (LLMs), they need ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and higher storage facilities. Considering the heavy toll these technologies handle the environment, it is essential to develop sustainable options that lower their impact on our common home.


97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is vital "that we search for options not just in technology but in a modification of humanity." [175] A complete and genuine understanding of creation acknowledges that the worth of all produced things can not be reduced to their simple utility. Therefore, a fully human approach to the stewardship of the earth turns down the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which looks for to "draw out everything possible" from the world, [176] and turns down the "misconception of progress," which assumes that "environmental problems will solve themselves simply with the application of new innovation and with no requirement for ethical factors to consider or deep change." [177] Such a mindset should offer method to a more holistic technique that respects the order of development and promotes the integral good of the human individual while securing our typical home. [178]

98. The Second Vatican Council and the constant teaching of the Popes because then have firmly insisted that peace is not merely the absence of war and is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers in between enemies. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the harmony of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without securing the products of persons, complimentary communication, regard for the self-respect of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity and can not be attained through force alone; instead, it needs to be mainly built through patient diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, solidarity, important human advancement, and respect for the dignity of all individuals. [180] In this method, the tools used to maintain peace needs to never ever be allowed to justify injustice, violence, or injustice. Instead, they need to always be governed by a "firm determination to regard other individuals and countries, together with their self-respect, as well as the purposeful practice of fraternity." [181]

99. While AI's analytical capabilities could assist countries seek peace and make sure security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can likewise be highly troublesome. Pope Francis has observed that "the ability to conduct military operations through push-button control systems has actually led to a reduced perception of the devastation caused by those weapon systems and the concern of duty for their use, resulting in an even more cold and removed technique to the tremendous tragedy of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which autonomous weapons make war more viable militates against the concept of war as a last hope in genuine self-defense, [183] potentially increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and precipitating a destabilizing arms race, with catastrophic effects for human rights. [184]

100. In particular, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which can identifying and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for serious ethical issue" because they lack the "special human capacity for moral judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this reason, Pope Francis has actually urgently called for a reconsideration of the development of these weapons and a prohibition on their use, beginning with "a reliable and concrete dedication to present ever higher and proper human control. No maker needs to ever choose to take the life of a human." [186]

101. Since it is a small action from machines that can kill autonomously with precision to those capable of massive damage, some AI researchers have actually revealed concerns that such innovation postures an "existential threat" by having the potential to act in ways that could threaten the survival of whole regions and even of humankind itself. This risk demands major attention, showing the enduring concern about innovations that approve war "an uncontrollable harmful power over multitudes 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 new attitude" [188] is more immediate than ever.


102. At the very same time, while the theoretical risks of AI deserve attention, the more immediate and pressing concern lies in how individuals with malicious objectives may misuse this innovation. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future abilities are unpredictable, humankind's previous actions offer clear warnings. The atrocities dedicated throughout history suffice to raise deep issues about the possible abuses of AI.


103. Saint John Paul II observed that "mankind now has instruments of unmatched power: we can turn this world into a garden, or reduce it to a stack of debris." [190] Given this fact, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are complimentary to apply our intelligence towards things progressing positively," or toward "decadence and mutual destruction." [191] To prevent mankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there need to be a clear stand against all applications of innovation that inherently threaten human life and self-respect. This commitment requires mindful discernment about making use of AI, particularly in military defense applications, to guarantee that it always respects human dignity and serves the typical good. The development and release of AI in armaments must go through the greatest levels of ethical examination, governed by a concern for human dignity and the sanctity of life. [193]

104. Technology uses amazing tools to supervise and establish the world's resources. However, in many cases, mankind is progressively 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 hypothetical kind of AI that would match or surpass human intelligence and bring about unimaginable improvements. Some even hypothesize that AGI could attain superhuman abilities. At the same time, as society drifts away from a connection with the transcendent, some are tempted to turn to AI searching for meaning or fulfillment-longings that can only be genuinely pleased in communion with God. [194]

105. However, the anticipation of replacing God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture clearly alerts against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI may prove much more sexy than standard idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths but do not speak; eyes, however do not see; ears, however do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or a minimum of gives the illusion of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is vital to keep in mind that AI is but 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 capabilities particular to human life, and it is also imperfect. By turning to AI as a perceived "Other" greater than itself, with which to share presence and duties, humanity threats developing an alternative to God. However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, but humanity itself-which, in this method, ends up being enslaved to its own work. [195]

106. While AI has the possible to serve mankind and contribute to the typical excellent, it remains a development of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and ingenuity" (Acts 17:29). It should never be ascribed excessive worth. As the Book of Wisdom affirms: "For a man made them, and one whose spirit is obtained formed them; for no man 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 given that he has life, however they never ever have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).


107. In contrast, humans, "by their interior life, transcend the whole material universe; they experience this deep interiority when they enter into their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they choose their own fate in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis reminds us, that each individual discovers the "strange connection in between self-knowledge and openness to others, between the encounter with one's personal individuality and the determination to provide oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "efficient in setting our other powers and passions, and our whole individual, in a position of reverence and caring obedience before the Lord," [198] who "offers to treat each one people as a 'Thou,' always and permanently." [199]

108. Considering the different difficulties positioned by advances in innovation, Pope Francis emphasized the need for growth in "human duty, worths, and conscience," proportionate to the growth in the capacity that this innovation brings [200] -acknowledging that "with an increase in human power comes a broadening of duty on the part of people and neighborhoods." [201]

109. At the exact same time, the "vital and fundamental question" remains "whether in the context of this progress guy, as male, is becoming really better, that is to state, more fully grown spiritually, more familiar with the dignity of his humanity, more responsible, more available to others, particularly the neediest and the weakest, and readier to provide and to aid all." [202]

110. As a result, it is essential to understand how to evaluate private applications of AI in particular contexts to figure out whether its use promotes human dignity, the occupation of the human individual, and the typical good. As with numerous technologies, the results of the numerous uses of AI might not always be predictable from their creation. As these applications and their social effects end up being clearer, appropriate actions must be made at all levels of society, following the principle of subsidiarity. Individual users, households, civil society, corporations, organizations, governments, and worldwide companies must operate at their proper levels to ensure that AI is utilized for the good of all.


111. A considerable challenge and opportunity for the common great today lies in considering AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which highlights the interconnectedness of individuals and communities and highlights our shared obligation for cultivating the important wellness of others. The twentieth-century theorist Nicholas Berdyaev observed that individuals frequently blame devices for personal and social issues; however, "this only humiliates male and does not represent his self-respect," for "it is unworthy to move responsibility from man to a device." [203] Only the human person can be morally responsible, and the obstacles of a technological society are eventually spiritual in nature. Therefore, dealing with those challenges "demands a surge of spirituality." [204]

112. An additional point to consider is the call, triggered by the look of AI on the world phase, for a restored gratitude of all that is human. Years back, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos alerted that "the risk is not in the multiplication of machines, however in the ever-increasing variety of men accustomed from their childhood to desire just what machines can give." [205] This obstacle is as real today as it was then, as the quick speed of digitization runs the risk of a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable aspects of life are set aside and then forgotten or perhaps deemed irrelevant due to the fact that they can not be computed in formal terms. AI must be utilized just as a tool to match human intelligence rather than replace its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that go beyond computation is essential for maintaining "an authentic humanity" that "appears to dwell in the middle of our technological culture, nearly unnoticed, like a mist seeping carefully underneath a closed door." [207]

113. The vast area of the world's understanding is now available in manner ins which would have filled previous generations with wonder. However, to guarantee that improvements in knowledge do not end up being humanly or spiritually barren, one need to surpass the mere build-up of information and aim to attain real wisdom. [208]

114. This knowledge is the gift that mankind requires most to resolve the extensive concerns and ethical obstacles postured by AI: "Only by adopting a spiritual method of viewing truth, only by recuperating a knowledge of the heart, can we confront and translate the newness of our time." [209] Such "knowledge of the heart" is "the virtue that enables us to incorporate the whole and its parts, our choices and their repercussions." It "can not be sought from makers," however it "lets itself be discovered by those who seek it and be seen by those who like it; it prepares for those who want it, and it goes in search of those who are deserving 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 look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, circumstances, events and to reveal their genuine meaning." [211]

116. Since a "individual's excellence is measured not by the details or knowledge they possess, however by the depth of their charity," [212] how we incorporate AI "to consist of the least of our siblings and sis, the vulnerable, and those most in requirement, will be the true procedure of our humankind." [213] The "knowledge of the heart" can light up and assist the human-centered usage of this innovation to assist promote the typical good, take care of our "typical home," advance the search for the truth, foster integral human advancement, prefer human solidarity and fraternity, and lead humanity to its supreme goal: joy and complete communion with God. [214]

117. From this perspective of wisdom, followers will be able to act as moral agents capable of utilizing this technology to promote an authentic vision of the human individual and society. [215] This need to be done with the understanding that technological development belongs to God's plan for creation-an activity that we are contacted us to purchase toward the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the continual look for the True and the Good.


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


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


Ex audientia 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 Integral Understanding of Human Intelligence


The Limits of AI


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


Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making


V. Specific Questions


AI and Society


AI and Human Relationships


AI, the Economy, and Labor


AI and Healthcare


AI and Education


AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse


AI, Privacy, and Surveillance


AI and the Protection of Our Common Home


AI and Warfare


AI and Our Relationship with God


VI. Concluding Reflections


True Wisdom


[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See 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 Proposition for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence" (31 August 1955), http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024).
[6] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), pars. 2-3: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[7] Terms in this file explaining the outputs or processes of AI are utilized figuratively to explain its operations and are not planned to anthropomorphize the maker.
[8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[9] Here, one can see the main positions of the "transhumanists" and the "posthumanists." Transhumanists argue that technological improvements will enable humans to conquer their biological constraints and boost both their physical and cognitive capabilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, compete that such advances will eventually alter human identity to the extent that humanity itself may no longer be considered genuinely "human." Both views rest on a fundamentally unfavorable understanding of human corporality, which deals with the body more as a barrier than as an important part of the individual's identity and contact us to full awareness. Yet, this unfavorable view of the body is irregular with an appropriate understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports genuine clinical progress, it verifies that human self-respect is rooted in "the individual as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "dignity is also inherent in everyone's body, which takes part in its own method remaining in imago Dei" (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18).
[10] This technique reflects a functionalist perspective, which decreases the human mind to its functions and presumes that its functions can be totally quantified in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear genuinely intelligent, it would still remain functional in nature.
[11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460.
[12] If "believing" is credited to machines, it must be clarified that this refers to calculative thinking rather than vital thinking. Similarly, if devices are said to run utilizing abstract thought, it needs to be defined that this is limited to computational logic. On the other hand, by its very nature, human thought is a creative procedure that avoids programming and goes beyond constraints.
[13] On the foundational function of language in forming understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York 2010, 141-182).
[14] For further conversation of these anthropological and doctrinal foundations, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144.
[15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21.
[16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi advertisement litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [faculty] by which he is remarkable to the illogical animals. Now, this [professors] is reason itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it may more appropriately be offered"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When considering all that they have, human beings find that they are most identified from animals specifically by the fact they have intelligence." This is likewise restated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who mentions that "guy is the most perfect of all earthly beings enhanced with movement, and his correct and natural operation is intellection," by which male abstracts from things and "gets in his mind things actually intelligible" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 76).
[17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, advertisement 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a contemporary perspective that echoes elements of the classical and medieval distinction between these two modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York City 2011.
[19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp.
[20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138.
[21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intelligence can investigate the truth of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and pertain to acknowledge because truth, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal moral needs."
[22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp.
[24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "usually considers the human person as a being who exists in the body and is unimaginable beyond it" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Che cosa è l'uomo?" (Sal 8,5): Un itinerario di antropologia biblica [30 September 2019], par. 19). Cf. ibid., pars. 20-21, 43-44, 48.
[25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100 (2008 ), 863: "Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, but instead totally revealed its meaning and worth."
[26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81.
[27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and hence it is joined to the body in order that it may have a presence and an operation appropriate to its nature."
[29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18.
[30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357.
[31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54.
[32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221.
[33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27.
[34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls likewise have factor and with it they circle in discourse around the reality of things. [...] [O] n account of the way in which they can concentrating the numerous into the one, they too, in their own style and as far as they can, deserve conceptions like those of the angels" (en. tr. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York City - Mahwah 1987, 106-107).
[35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 3: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7.
[36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 42: AAS 91 (1999 ), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1043: "the human mind is capable of going beyond instant concerns and comprehending certain truths that are imperishable, as true 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 case of factor is to recognize that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York 1958, 77).
[39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[40] Our semantic capability enables us to comprehend messages in any form 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, occasions and to reveal their real significance" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our imagination enables us to create new material or ideas, mainly by offering an original perspective on truth. Both capabilities depend on the existence of a personal 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 much more than personal feeling [...] Certainly, its close relation to reality promotes its universality and maintains it from being 'restricted to a narrow field devoid of relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to truth therefore safeguards it from 'a fideism that denies it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643.
[43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7.
[44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15.
[46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as priced quote in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294.
[47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure likens deep space to "a book reflecting, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who grants presence to all things (Breviloquium 2.12.1). Cf. Alain de Lille, De Incarnatione Christi, PL 210, 579a: "Omnis mundi creatura quasi liber et pictura nobis est et speculum."
[48] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 67: AAS 107 (2015 ), 874; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589-592; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 57: "human beings occupy a distinct place in deep space according to the divine strategy: they take pleasure in the opportunity of sharing in the divine governance of visible production. [...] Since man's place as ruler remains in reality a participation in the divine governance of production, we mention it here as a kind of stewardship."
[49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165.
[50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This idea is likewise reflected in the production account, where God brings creatures to Adam "to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living creature, that was its name" (Gen. 2:19), an action that shows the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's production. 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 sensing and appreciating truths."
[61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232).
[62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he highest standard of human life is the magnificent law itself-eternal, unbiased and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the methods of the human neighborhood according to a strategy developed in his knowledge and love. God has allowed male to take part in this law of his so that, under the gentle disposition of magnificent providence, numerous might have the ability to come to a much deeper and much deeper understanding of unchangeable truth." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037.
[63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016.
[64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892.
[65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042.
[66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has actually imprinted his own image and likeness on guy (cf. Gen 1:26), providing upon him an incomparable self-respect [...] In result, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not correspond to any work he carries out, however which flow from his necessary self-respect as a person." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22.
[68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310.
[69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is understood as a technical term to indicate this technology, remembering that the expression is likewise utilized to designate the discipline 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 clinical expedition in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the appreciation for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These authors, among a long list of other Catholics took part in scientific research and technological exploration, highlight that "faith and science can be joined in charity, supplied that science is put at the service of the men and lady of our time and not misused to harm and even destroy them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87.
[73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378.
[74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888.
[77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658.
[78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim.
[79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293.
[80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4.
[81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes man a moral topic. When he acts deliberately, guy is, so to speak, the daddy of his acts."
[82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776.
[83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777.
[84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father 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 company in picking a wider aim (Ziel) that then notifies the particular function (Zweck) for which each technological application is developed, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um pass away Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71.
[86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a purpose and, in its impact on human society, constantly represents a type of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, thus making it possible for certain individuals to carry out particular actions while avoiding others from carrying out different ones. In a more or less explicit way, this constitutive power-dimension of technology always consists of the worldview of those who developed and established it."
[87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309.
[88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045.
[90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Faced with the marvels of devices, which seem to understand how to choose individually, we should be extremely clear that decision-making [...] must always be left to the human individual. 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 devices."
[92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[93] The term "bias" in this document describes algorithmic predisposition (systematic and consistent errors in computer systems that may disproportionately prejudice certain groups in unintended methods) or finding out bias (which will lead to training on a biased information set) and not the "bias vector" in neural networks (which is a parameter used to adjust the output of "nerve cells" to adjust more properly 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 verified the development in consensus "on the requirement for development procedures to respect such worths as inclusion, openness, security, equity, personal privacy and reliability," and also invited "the efforts of global organizations to control these innovations so that they promote genuine development, contributing, that is, to a much better world and an integrally greater quality of life."
[95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8.
[96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.
[97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571.
[98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For additional discussion of the ethical concerns raised by AI from a Catholic point of view, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253.
[99] On the value of dialogue in a pluralist society oriented toward a "robust and solid social ethics," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045.
[100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.
[102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464.
[104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, asteroidsathome.net 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; quoting the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245.
[106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050.
[107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047.
[108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309.
[109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892.
[111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027.
[112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123.
[113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034.
[114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149.
[115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414.
[118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057.
[119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985.
[120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989).
[123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Many people] want their social relationships supplied by sophisticated equipment, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel informs us continuously to risk of an in person encounter with others, with their physical presence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their delight which contaminates us in our close and constant interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from membership in the neighborhood, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045.
[124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1.
[125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899.
[126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107.
[128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' 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 man' and not guy 'for work.' Through this conclusion one appropriately pertains to recognize the pre-eminence of the subjective meaning of work over the unbiased one."
[132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320.
[133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502.
[135] Ibid.
[136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as quoted in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8.
[137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12.
[138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12.
[139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465.
[141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops' Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: "If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture is manifest, with its painful effects, it is that of health care. When an ill person is not put in the center or their self-respect is ruled out, this generates mindsets that can lead even to speculation on the bad luck of others. And this is really severe! [...] The application of a service method to the health care sector, if indiscriminate [...] may run the risk of discarding human beings."
[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, quoting 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 since they are witnesses."
[147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126.
[148] Francis, Consulting With the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316.
[149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, pricing estimate the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592.
[150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167.
[151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413.
[152] In a 2023 policy document about using generative AI in education and research, UNESCO notes: "One of the essential questions [of making use of generative AI (GenAI) in education and research study] is whether humans can perhaps cede fundamental levels of thinking and skill-acquisition processes to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking abilities based on the outputs provided by AI. Writing, for instance, is typically connected with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], human beings can now start with a well-structured overview provided by GenAI. Some specialists have actually characterized using GenAI to create text in this way as 'composing without believing'" (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 should end up being true that understanding (in the sense of knowledge) and believed have parted company for good, then we would certainly become the helpless slaves, 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 example, it might help individuals gain access to the "range of resources for creating greater knowledge of reality" contained in the works of viewpoint (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8.
[159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62.
[160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074.
[162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be really indifferent to the concern of whether what they know holds true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he composes: 'I have actually met numerous who wanted to trick, but none who wished to be tricked'"; quoting Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794.
[163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62.
[164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8.
[165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Media (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149.
[166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24.
[167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no guy may with impunity break that human dignity which God himself treats with excellent respect"; 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 the online world requires States to also respect the right to personal privacy, by shielding people from intrusive security and allowing them to protect their personal details from unapproved gain access to."
[170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984.
[171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body determined a list of "early pledges of AI helping to attend to climate 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 information into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools might assist develop brand-new techniques and financial investments to decrease emissions, affect brand-new private sector financial investments in net absolutely no, protect biodiversity, and construct broad-based social strength" (ibid.).
[174] "The cloud" refers to a network of physical servers throughout the world that enables users to store, process, and handle their information from another location.
[175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850.
[176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890.
[177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870.
[178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852.
[179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640.
[180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317.
[181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101.
[182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310.
[184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105.
[185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We require to guarantee and safeguard an area for appropriate human control over the choices made by synthetic intelligence programs: human dignity itself depends on it."
[186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The advancement and use of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) that do not have the proper human control would position fundamental ethical issues, considered that LAWS can never be ethically accountable subjects efficient in complying with international humanitarian law."
[187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104.
[188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104.
[189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: "Nor can we disregard the possibility of advanced weapons winding up in the incorrect hands, helping with, for example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the institutions of legitimate systems of government. In a word, the world does not require brand-new innovations that contribute to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and as a result wind up promoting the recklessness of war."
[190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565.
[191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878.
[192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), utahsyardsale.com 687.
[193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39.
[194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661.
[195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a better understanding today that the mere accumulation of products and services [...] is insufficient for the realization of human happiness. Nor, in effect, does the availability of the many genuine benefits provided in current times by science and innovation, including the computer sciences, bring flexibility from every form of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the significant body of resources and prospective at man's disposal is assisted by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the real good of the human race, it quickly turns against man to oppress him." Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564.
[196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5.
[198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6.
[199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6.
[200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. The End of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83).
[201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288.
[203] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," in C. Mitcham - R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York City 19832, 212-213.
[204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210.
[205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829.
[206] Cf. Francis, Meeting the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023).
[207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: "The flood of details at our fingertips does not make for greater knowledge. Wisdom is not born of fast searches on the web nor is it a mass of unverified data. That is not the way to grow in the encounter with fact."
[209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[210] Ibid.
[211] Ibid.
[212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121.
[213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124.
[214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.