II. What Is Artificial Intelligence

1. With knowledge both ancient and new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are contacted us to review the current obstacles and chances posed by scientific and technological advancements, particularly by the recent advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian custom relates to the gift of intelligence as an essential element of how humans are created "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Beginning with an integral vision of the human individual and the biblical contacting us to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church highlights that this gift of intelligence need to be revealed through the accountable usage of factor and technical capabilities in the stewardship of the created world.


2. The Church encourages the advancement of science, technology, the arts, and other forms of human endeavor, seeing them as part of the "cooperation of guy and female with God in improving the noticeable production." [1] As Sirach affirms, God "offered ability to humans, that he may be glorified in his wonderful works" (Sir. 38:6). Human abilities and imagination originate from God and, when used rightly, glorify God by showing his wisdom and goodness. Due to this, when we ask ourselves what it indicates to "be human," we can not leave out a factor to consider of our scientific and technological capabilities.


3. It is within this point of view that the present Note addresses the anthropological and ethical difficulties raised by AI-issues that are particularly substantial, as one of the goals of this technology is to imitate the human intelligence that developed it. For example, unlike many other human productions, AI can be trained on the outcomes of human imagination and after that create brand-new "artifacts" with a level of speed and skill that typically rivals or exceeds what human beings can do, such as producing text or images identical from human compositions. This raises vital concerns about AI's prospective role in the growing crisis of reality in the public forum. Moreover, this technology is designed to discover and make certain options autonomously, adapting to brand-new circumstances and offering solutions not foreseen by its programmers, and therefore, it raises essential concerns about ethical duty and human security, with more comprehensive implications for society as a whole. This brand-new scenario has triggered numerous individuals to reflect on what it indicates to be human and the role of humanity on the planet.


4. Taking all this into account, there is broad agreement that AI marks a new and considerable phase in humankind's engagement with technology, placing it at the heart of what Pope Francis has actually explained as an "epochal change." [2] Its effect is felt worldwide and in a broad variety of locations, including interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, healthcare, law, warfare, and worldwide relations. As AI advances quickly toward even higher accomplishments, it is seriously essential to consider its anthropological and ethical implications. This includes not only mitigating threats and preventing harm but also guaranteeing that its applications are used to promote human development and the typical good.


5. To contribute favorably to the discernment regarding AI, and in response to Pope Francis' call for a renewed "wisdom of heart," [3] the Church uses its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active function in the worldwide discussion on these problems, the Church welcomes those turned over with transferring the faith-including moms and dads, instructors, pastors, and bishops-to devote themselves to this critical topic with care and attention. While this file is meant particularly for them, it is also suggested to be available to a wider audience, especially those who share the conviction that clinical and technological advances should be directed towards serving the human person and the typical good. [4]

6. To this end, the document starts by comparing ideas of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then explores the Christian understanding of human intelligence, offering a framework rooted in the Church's philosophical and doctrinal custom. Finally, the file provides guidelines to ensure that the advancement and usage of AI maintain human dignity and promote the essential advancement of the human person and society.


7. The idea of "intelligence" in AI has developed gradually, making use of a range of concepts from numerous disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a considerable turning point took place in 1956 when the American computer system scientist John McCarthy organized a summer season workshop at Dartmouth University to check out the issue of "Artificial Intelligence," which he specified as "that of making a device act in manner ins which would be called smart if a human were so behaving." [5] This workshop introduced a research study program concentrated on designing machines efficient in carrying out tasks typically connected with the human intellect and smart behavior.


8. Ever since, AI research has advanced quickly, causing the advancement of complex systems efficient in carrying out highly advanced jobs. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are typically created to deal with specific and limited functions, such as equating languages, predicting the trajectory of a storm, classifying images, addressing concerns, or creating visual content at the user's request. While the definition of "intelligence" in AI research varies, many modern AI systems-particularly those utilizing machine learning-rely on statistical reasoning instead of rational reduction. By analyzing big datasets to identify patterns, AI can "forecast" [7] results and propose new approaches, simulating some cognitive processes typical of human problem-solving. Such achievements have been made possible through advances in computing technology (including neural networks, not being watched artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) in addition to hardware innovations (such as specialized processors). Together, these innovations enable AI systems to react to various kinds of human input, adapt to new scenarios, and even recommend unique solutions not anticipated by their initial developers. [8]

9. Due to these fast advancements, lots of tasks when handled specifically by people are now turned over to AI. These systems can augment or even supersede what humans have the ability to do in many fields, particularly in specialized areas such as data analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is designed for a particular task, lots of researchers aim to develop what is referred to as "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system efficient in running across all cognitive domains and carrying out any job within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI could one day attain the state of "superintelligence," going beyond human intellectual capabilities, or add to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, however, fear that these possibilities, even if theoretical, could one day eclipse the human individual, while still others welcome this potential transformation. [9]

10. Underlying this and lots of other point of views on the topic is the implicit assumption that the term "intelligence" can be used in the same method to describe both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not capture the complete scope of the idea. In the case of humans, intelligence is a professors that pertains to the individual in his or her whole, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is comprehended functionally, often with the anticipation that the activities characteristic of the human mind can be broken down into digitized actions that makers can replicate. [10]

11. This functional point of view is exemplified by the "Turing Test," which thinks about a machine "intelligent" if an individual can not differentiate its habits from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "habits" refers only to the performance of particular intellectual tasks; it does not account for the full breadth of human experience, which includes abstraction, feelings, imagination, and the aesthetic, moral, and spiritual sensibilities. Nor does it encompass the complete range of expressions particular of the human mind. Instead, when it comes to AI, the "intelligence" of a system is evaluated methodologically, but likewise reductively, based on its capability to produce appropriate responses-in this case, those connected with the human intellect-regardless of how those actions are created.


12. AI's innovative functions provide it sophisticated capabilities to carry out jobs, however not the capability to think. [12] This difference is most importantly crucial, as the method "intelligence" is defined inevitably forms how we understand the relationship in between human thought and this technology. [13] To appreciate this, one need to recall the richness of the philosophical tradition and Christian faith, which provide a much deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's mentor on the nature, self-respect, and vocation of the human person. [14]

13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has actually played a main role in understanding what it means to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all people by nature desire to know." [15] This knowledge, with its capability for abstraction that grasps the nature and meaning of things, sets people apart from the animal world. [16] As philosophers, theologians, and psychologists have examined the precise nature of this intellectual faculty, they have actually likewise checked out how human beings comprehend the world and their unique location within it. Through this exploration, the Christian custom has actually pertained to understand the human individual as a being consisting of both body and soul-deeply linked to this world and yet transcending it. [17]

14. In the classical custom, the idea of intelligence is typically understood through the complementary ideas of "factor" (ratio) and "intellect" (intellectus). These are not separate professors however, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are 2 modes in which the exact same intelligence runs: "The term intellect is presumed from the inward grasp of the reality, while the name reason is taken from the curious and discursive procedure." [18] This succinct description highlights the two basic and complementary dimensions of human intelligence. Intellectus describes the instinctive grasp of the truth-that is, capturing it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and premises argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to thinking correct: the discursive, analytical procedure that results in judgment. Together, intellect and reason form the two facets of the act of intelligere, "the appropriate operation of the human being as such." [19]

15. Explaining the human individual as a "rational" being does not reduce the person to a particular mode of thought; rather, it acknowledges that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and penetrates all elements of human activity. [20] Whether worked out well or badly, this capability is an intrinsic aspect of humanity. In this sense, the "term 'logical' includes all the capacities of the human person," consisting of those associated to "knowing and comprehending, in addition to those of ready, loving, picking, and desiring; it also consists of all corporeal functions carefully associated to these capabilities." [21] This detailed viewpoint underscores how, in the human individual, produced in the "image of God," factor is integrated in such a way that raises, shapes, and transforms both the individual's will and actions. [22]

16. Christian thought considers the intellectual faculties of the human individual within the structure of an integral anthropology that sees the human being as essentially embodied. In the human individual, spirit and matter "are not two natures unified, but rather their union forms a single nature." [23] To put it simply, the soul is not merely the immaterial "part" of the individual contained within the body, nor is the body an external shell real estate an intangible "core." Rather, the entire human person is all at once both material and spiritual. This understanding shows the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which views the human individual as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and therefore, an authentically spiritual measurement) within and through this embodied presence. [24] The profound meaning of this condition is additional illuminated by the mystery of the Incarnation, through which God himself handled our flesh and "raised it as much as a sublime dignity." [25]

17. Although deeply rooted in bodily presence, the human individual goes beyond the material world through the soul, which is "nearly on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intellect's capability for transcendence and the self-possessed liberty of the will belong to the soul, by which the human person "shares in the light of the divine mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of understanding without the body. [28] In this way, the intellectual faculties of the human individual are an essential part of an anthropology that acknowledges that the human person is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further aspects of this understanding will be established in what follows.


18. Humans are "bought by their very nature to social communion," [30] having the capability to understand one another, to give themselves in love, and to participate in communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not an isolated faculty however is exercised in relationships, discovering its maximum expression in discussion, partnership, and uniformity. We find out with others, and we discover through others.


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

20. This vocation to communion with God is necessarily connected to the call to communion with others. Love of God can not be separated from love for one's neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20; Mt. 22:37 -39). By the grace of sharing God's life, Christians are likewise contacted us to imitate Christ's outpouring present (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "like one another, as I have actually liked you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the magnificent life of self-giving, go beyond self-interest to react more fully to the human vocation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Even more sublime than understanding many things is the dedication to look after one another, for if "I understand all mysteries and all knowledge [...] however 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 makes it possible for the individual to check out truths that go beyond mere sensory experience or energy, given that "the desire for reality becomes part of human nature itself. It is a natural property of human factor to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limitations of empirical data, human intelligence can "with real certitude attain to reality itself as knowable." [36] While reality remains just partly understood, the desire for truth "spurs factor constantly to go even more; certainly, it is as if factor were overwhelmed to see that it can always go beyond what it has currently attained." [37] Although Truth in itself transcends the limits of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this tourist attraction, the human individual is caused look for "realities of a higher order." [39]

22. This natural drive toward the pursuit of reality is specifically obvious in the distinctly human capacities for semantic understanding and imagination, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "way that is appropriate to the social nature and dignity of the human person." [41] Likewise, an unfaltering orientation to the fact is necessary for charity to be both genuine and universal. [42]

23. The look for fact discovers its greatest expression in openness to realities that go beyond the physical and developed world. In God, all facts attain their supreme and initial significance. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "essential choice that engages the whole person." [44] In this method, the human individual becomes totally what she or he is contacted us to be: "the intelligence and the will show their spiritual nature," making it possible for the person "to act in a manner that understands personal flexibility to the full." [45]

24. The Christian faith understands production as the totally free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, creates "not to increase his magnificence, but to reveal it forth and to communicate it." [46] Since God creates according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), production 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 called human beings to presume a special role: to cultivate and take care of the world. [48]

25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, people live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and abilities to look after and develop creation in accord with God's plan. [49] In this, human intelligence shows the Divine Intelligence that developed all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] continuously sustains them, and guides them to their supreme purpose in him. [51] Moreover, human beings are called 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 assisting production toward the function to which he has actually called it. [52] On the other hand, development itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, helps the human mind to "ascend slowly to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]

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


27. This engagement with truth unfolds in various ways, as everyone, in his/her complex uniqueness [54], seeks to understand the world, associate with others, fix problems, express creativity, and pursue important well-being through the unified interplay of the various dimensions of the person's intelligence. [55] This includes rational and linguistic abilities however can likewise incorporate other modes of communicating with truth. Consider the work of a craftsmen, who "need to understand how to determine, in inert matter, a specific type that others can not acknowledge" [56] and bring it forth through insight and practical skill. Indigenous peoples who live near the earth frequently possess an extensive sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a pal who knows the right word to say or an individual proficient at managing human relationships exhibits an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, discussion and generous encounter between individuals." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of synthetic intelligence, we can not forget that poetry and love are required to conserve our humanity." [59]

28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the integration of truth into the moral and spiritual life of the person, guiding his/her actions due to God's goodness and reality. According to God's plan, intelligence, in its fullest sense, likewise consists of the ability to enjoy what holds true, great, and gorgeous. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel revealed, "intelligence is nothing without pleasure." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the highest paradise in Paradiso, affirms that the conclusion of this intellectual pleasure is discovered in the "light intellectual filled with love, love of true good filled with happiness, happiness which transcends every sweetness." [61]

29. An appropriate understanding of human intelligence, for that reason, can not be minimized to the mere acquisition of realities or the ability to carry out specific jobs. Instead, it includes the person's openness to the ultimate concerns of life and reflects an orientation toward the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the divine image within the individual, human intelligence has the ability to access the totality of being, considering existence in its fullness, which surpasses what is quantifiable, and grasping the meaning of what has been understood. For believers, this capacity includes, in a specific method, the capability to grow in the knowledge of the secrets of God by using reason to engage ever more exceptionally with exposed truths (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is formed by magnificent love, which "is put forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence possesses an important contemplative dimension, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any practical purpose.


30. Due to the foregoing conversation, the distinctions between human intelligence and existing AI systems end up being apparent. While AI is an extraordinary technological accomplishment efficient in imitating certain outputs associated with human intelligence, it runs by performing tasks, attaining goals, or making decisions based upon quantitative data and computational logic. For instance, with its analytical power, AI stands out at incorporating data from a range of fields, modeling complex systems, and cultivating interdisciplinary connections. In this way, it can help specialists work together in fixing complex problems that "can not be handled from a single viewpoint or from a single set of interests." [64]

31. However, even as AI procedures and replicates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains basically confined to a logical-mathematical framework, which enforces inherent constraints. Human intelligence, in contrast, develops naturally throughout the person's physical and psychological development, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although innovative AI systems can "find out" through procedures such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is basically various from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, including sensory input, psychological responses, social interactions, and the special context of each moment. These elements shape and kind people within their individual history.In contrast, AI, doing not have a physique, counts on computational thinking and knowing based on large datasets that consist of tape-recorded human experiences and knowledge.


32. Consequently, although AI can replicate aspects of human reasoning and carry out particular jobs with extraordinary speed and effectiveness, its computational capabilities represent just a fraction of the broader capacities of the human mind. For example, AI can not presently duplicate moral discernment or the ability to establish authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is positioned within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral formation that essentially forms the person's perspective, kenpoguy.com including the physical, psychological, social, ethical, and spiritual measurements of life. Since AI can not offer this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely exclusively on this technology or treat it as the main means of analyzing the world can lead to "a loss of appreciation for the entire, for the relationships in between things, and for the more comprehensive 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 efficient in surprising insights. Since AI does not have the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to truth and goodness, its capacities-though seemingly limitless-are incomparable with the human capability to understand reality. A lot can be gained from a health problem, an accept of reconciliation, and even an easy sunset; certainly, many experiences we have as people open brand-new horizons and offer the possibility of attaining brand-new wisdom. No device, working solely with data, can determine up to these and many other experiences present in our lives.


34. Drawing an overly close equivalence in between human intelligence and AI risks yielding to a functionalist perspective, where individuals are valued based upon the work they can perform. However, an individual's worth does not depend on possessing particular abilities, cognitive and technological accomplishments, or specific success, but on the person's intrinsic self-respect, grounded in being created in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains intact in all situations, consisting of for those not able to exercise their capabilities, whether it be a coming kid, an unconscious person, or an older individual who is suffering. [67] It likewise underpins the custom of human rights (and, in particular, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "an important point of merging in the search for commonalities" [68] and can, therefore, act as a fundamental ethical guide in conversations on the accountable advancement and usage of AI.


35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the very usage of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can prove deceptive" [69] and dangers overlooking what is most valuable in the human individual. In light of this, AI needs to not be seen as a synthetic form of human intelligence but as an item of it. [70]

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

37. Seen as a fruit of the potential engraved within human intelligence, [72] scientific inquiry and the development of technical skills belong to the "cooperation of guy and woman with God in refining the noticeable production." [73] At the exact same time, all clinical and technological achievements are, ultimately, presents from God. [74] Therefore, human beings need to constantly utilize their capabilities in view of the higher purpose for which God has actually approved them. [75]

38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has "treated many evils which used to harm and limit people," [76] a fact for which we must rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological advancements 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 individual. [78] Like any human venture, technological advancement should be directed to serve the human individual and contribute to the pursuit of "higher justice, more comprehensive fraternity, and a more humane 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 just within the Church however likewise amongst many scientists, technologists, and professional associations, who increasingly call for ethical reflection to direct this development in an accountable method.


39. To resolve these difficulties, it is necessary to highlight the importance of moral duty grounded in the dignity and vocation of the human person. This guiding concept likewise applies to concerns worrying AI. In this context, the ethical measurement handles main value due to the fact that it is individuals who create systems and determine the functions for which they are utilized. [80] Between a machine and a human, only the latter is truly a moral agent-a topic of moral duty who works out liberty in his/her decisions and accepts their repercussions. [81] It is not the machine however the human who remains in relationship with truth and goodness, guided by a moral conscience that calls the person "to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil," [82] attesting to "the authority of fact in reference to the supreme Good to which the human individual is drawn." [83] Likewise, in between a machine and a human, just the human can be sufficiently self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, critical with vigilance, and seeking the excellent that is possible in every circumstance. [84] In reality, all of this also comes from the person's workout of intelligence.


40. Like any item of human creativity, AI can be directed towards positive or negative ends. [85] When used in ways that appreciate human dignity and promote the wellness of people and neighborhoods, it can contribute favorably to the human vocation. Yet, as in all locations where people are contacted us to make choices, the shadow of evil likewise looms here. Where human freedom allows for the possibility of choosing what is incorrect, the ethical examination of this innovation will require to take into consideration how it is directed and used.


41. At the exact same time, it is not only the ends that are fairly significant but also the means employed to attain them. Additionally, the overall vision and understanding of the human person ingrained within these systems are essential to think about too. Technological items 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 values." [87] On a societal level, some technological advancements could likewise enhance relationships and power dynamics that are inconsistent with a proper understanding of the human individual and society.


42. Therefore, the ends and the means utilized in an offered application of AI, along with the overall vision it includes, should all be assessed to ensure they respect human self-respect and promote the common good. [88] As Pope Francis has mentioned, "the intrinsic self-respect of every guy and every lady" need to be "the crucial criterion in examining emerging technologies; these will prove fairly sound to the extent that they assist respect that dignity and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] consisting of in the social and financial spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays an important role not only in developing and producing innovation however likewise in directing its use in line with the genuine good of the human individual. [90] The duty for managing this sensibly pertains to every level of society, guided by the principle of subsidiarity and other concepts of Catholic Social Teaching.


43. The dedication to making sure that AI constantly supports and promotes the supreme worth of the dignity of every human and the fullness of the human occupation works as a requirement of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, along with to its users. It remains valid for every application of the technology at every level of its usage.


44. An assessment of the implications of this directing concept might begin by considering the value of moral responsibility. Since complete moral causality belongs just to personal representatives, not artificial ones, it is vital to be able to identify and specify who bears duty for the procedures associated with AI, especially those capable of finding out, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up approaches and very deep neural networks allow AI to resolve complicated issues, they make it hard to understand the processes that lead to the solutions they embraced. This makes complex accountability given that if an AI application produces unwanted results, determining who is responsible ends up being challenging. To resolve this issue, attention requires to be provided to the nature of responsibility processes in complex, extremely automated settings, where outcomes may just end up being evident in the medium to long term. For this, it is essential that ultimate obligation for decisions used AI rests with the human decision-makers and that there is accountability for using AI at each phase of the decision-making procedure. [91]

45. In addition to identifying who is accountable, it is important to determine the goals provided to AI systems. Although these systems may utilize not being watched self-governing knowing mechanisms and in some cases follow paths that people can not rebuild, they ultimately pursue goals that human beings have appointed to them and are governed by processes established by their designers and developers. Yet, this provides a challenge since, as AI models become significantly capable of independent learning, the ability to maintain control over them to guarantee that such applications serve human purposes might successfully reduce. This raises the critical concern of how to make sure that AI systems are purchased for the good of individuals and not against them.


46. While responsibility for the ethical use of AI systems begins with those who develop, produce, manage, and manage such systems, it is likewise shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis noted, the machine "makes a technical option amongst a number of possibilities based either on distinct criteria or on analytical inferences. Humans, nevertheless, not just pick, however in their hearts can deciding." [92] Those who utilize AI to achieve a job and follow its outcomes develop a context in which they are eventually responsible for the power they have actually entrusted. Therefore, insofar as AI can help humans in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it needs to be credible, secure, robust enough to handle disparities, and transparent in their operation to reduce biases and unintended negative effects. [93] Regulatory structures must guarantee that all legal entities remain accountable for making use of AI and all its repercussions, with proper safeguards for transparency, personal privacy, and accountability. [94] Moreover, those using AI must be careful not to become excessively based on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases modern society's already high dependence on innovation.


47. The Church's ethical and social mentor provides resources to assist ensure that AI is utilized in a way that maintains human agency. Considerations about justice, for example, must likewise deal with problems such as promoting just social dynamics, maintaining worldwide security, and promoting peace. By exercising vigilance, individuals and communities can recognize ways to use AI to benefit humankind while avoiding applications that could degrade human self-respect or damage the environment. In this context, the idea of duty ought to be comprehended not just in its most limited sense however as a "obligation for the look after others, which is more than merely representing outcomes attained." [95]

48. Therefore, AI, like any innovation, can be part of a mindful and accountable answer to humankind's occupation to the great. However, as formerly discussed, AI should be directed by human intelligence to line up with this occupation, ensuring it appreciates the self-respect of the human individual. Recognizing this "exalted dignity," the Second Vatican Council verified that "the social order and its advancement must invariably work to the advantage of the human individual." [96] In light of this, the usage of AI, as Pope Francis said, must be "accompanied by an ethic inspired by a vision of the common excellent, a principles of freedom, obligation, and fraternity, capable of promoting the complete advancement of individuals in relation to others and to the entire of creation." [97]

49. Within this general perspective, some observations follow below to show how the preceding arguments can help supply an ethical orientation in practical scenarios, in line with the "knowledge of heart" that Pope Francis has actually proposed. [98] While not exhaustive, this conversation is used in service of the dialogue that considers how AI can be utilized to maintain the self-respect of the human individual and promote the typical good. [99]

50. As Pope Francis observed, "the intrinsic self-respect of each person and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human household need to support the development of new technologies and act as unassailable criteria for examining them before they are used." [100]

51. Viewed through this lens, AI might "present essential innovations in agriculture, education and culture, an enhanced level of life for entire countries and peoples, and the development of human fraternity and social relationship," and thus be "utilized to promote integral human development." [101] AI could likewise help companies identify those in requirement and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other similar applications of this technology could contribute to human advancement and the typical good. [102]

52. However, while AI holds lots of possibilities for promoting the excellent, it can likewise prevent or even counter human development and the common good. Pope Francis has actually kept in mind that "evidence to date recommends that digital technologies have actually increased inequality in our world. Not simply differences in material wealth, which are likewise substantial, however also distinctions in access to political and social impact." [103] In this sense, AI might be utilized to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, create new kinds of poverty, broaden the "digital divide," and get worse existing social inequalities. [104]

53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a few effective companies raises substantial ethical concerns. Exacerbating this problem is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single person can exercise complete oversight over the huge and complicated datasets used for calculation. This lack of distinct responsibility develops the threat that AI could be manipulated for individual or business gain or to direct public viewpoint for the advantage of a specific market. Such entities, encouraged by their own interests, possess the capability to work out "kinds of control as subtle as they are invasive, creating mechanisms for the manipulation of consciences and of the democratic process." [105]

54. Furthermore, there is the threat of AI being used to promote what Pope Francis has called the "technocratic paradigm," which views all the world's problems as understandable through technological ways alone. [106] In this paradigm, human dignity and fraternity are often set aside in the name of efficiency, "as if reality, goodness, and fact instantly stream from technological and economic power as such." [107] Yet, human dignity and the common excellent needs to never be breached for the sake of effectiveness, [108] for "technological developments that do not lead to an enhancement in the lifestyle of all mankind, but on the contrary, aggravate inequalities and conflicts, can never count as real development. " [109] Instead, AI must be put "at the service of another kind of development, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more important." [110]

55. Attaining this goal requires a deeper reflection on the relationship between autonomy and duty. Greater autonomy increases each person's obligation throughout different elements of common life. For Christians, the structure of this duty depends on the recognition that all human capabilities, consisting of the person's autonomy, originated from God and are implied to be used in the service of others. [111] Therefore, rather than simply pursuing financial or technological objectives, AI ought to serve "the typical good of the whole human household," which is "the amount overall of social conditions that permit individuals, either as groups or as people, to reach their fulfillment more totally and more quickly." [112]

56. The Second Vatican Council observed that "by his inner nature man is a social being; and if he does not get in into relations with others, he can neither live nor develop his gifts." [113] This conviction highlights that residing in society is intrinsic to the nature and vocation of the human person. [114] As social beings, we seek relationships that include shared exchange and the pursuit of fact, in the course of which, individuals "share with each other the truth they have discovered, or believe they have actually found, in such a way that they help one another in the search for fact." [115]

57. Such a mission, together with other elements of human interaction, presupposes encounters and shared exchange in between individuals formed by their distinct histories, thoughts, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a diverse, multifaceted, and intricate truth: individual and social, reasonable and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis underscores this vibrant, keeping in mind that "together, we can look for the fact in discussion, in unwinded conversation or in passionate dispute. To do so calls for perseverance; it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently accept the more comprehensive experience of individuals and individuals. [...] The process of building fraternity, be it regional or universal, can just be undertaken by spirits that are totally free and available to genuine encounters." [116]

58. It remains in this context that one can consider the obstacles AI postures to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the prospective to cultivate connections within the human family. However, it could also impede a real encounter with reality and, ultimately, lead people to "a deep and melancholic discontentment with interpersonal relations, or a damaging sense of isolation." [117] Authentic human relationships require the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their delight. [118] Since human intelligence is expressed and improved also in interpersonal and embodied methods, genuine and spontaneous encounters with others are essential for engaging with reality in its fullness.


59. Because "true knowledge demands an encounter with reality," [119] the rise of AI presents another difficulty. Since AI can efficiently imitate the products of human intelligence, the capability to know when one is connecting with a human or a device can no longer be taken for approved. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other advanced outputs that are usually related to humans. Yet, it should be comprehended for what it is: a tool, not a person. [120] This distinction is frequently obscured by the language used by specialists, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and thus blurs the line in between human and maker.


60. Anthropomorphizing AI also positions particular challenges for the advancement of kids, possibly motivating them to develop patterns of interaction that treat human relationships in a transactional manner, as one would connect to a chatbot. Such practices might lead young people to see teachers as simple dispensers of details instead of as coaches who direct and support their intellectual and moral growth. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and a steadfast dedication to the good of the other, are important and irreplaceable in promoting the complete development of the human person.


61. In this context, it is necessary to clarify that, in spite of using anthropomorphic language, no AI application can truly experience empathy. Emotions can not be reduced to facial expressions or expressions created in reaction to prompts; they reflect the way an individual, as an entire, associates with the world and to his or her own life, with the body playing a main role. True empathy needs the capability to listen, acknowledge another's irreducible originality, welcome their otherness, and grasp the meaning behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the world of analytical judgment in which AI excels, real empathy belongs to the relational sphere. It includes intuiting and nabbing the lived experiences of another while maintaining the difference between self and other. [122] While AI can replicate compassionate reactions, it can not duplicate the eminently individual and relational nature of authentic compassion. [123]

62. In light of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as an individual ought to always be prevented; doing so for deceptive purposes is a grave ethical violation that could erode social trust. Similarly, utilizing AI to deceive in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, consisting of the sphere of sexuality-is also to be thought about unethical and requires mindful oversight to prevent damage, maintain transparency, and ensure the self-respect of all individuals. [124]

63. In an increasingly separated world, some people have actually turned to AI in search of deep human relationships, basic companionship, or even emotional bonds. However, while people are implied to experience genuine relationships, AI can just imitate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an important part of how an individual grows to become who she or he is meant to be. If AI is used to help people foster genuine connections in between individuals, it can contribute favorably to the full realization of the person. Conversely, if we replace relationships with God and with others with interactions with technology, we run the risk of changing authentic relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of retreating into artificial worlds, we are called to take part in a committed and deliberate way with reality, particularly by determining with the poor and suffering, consoling those in sorrow, and forging bonds of communion with all.


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


65. Other more comprehensive aspects of AI's effect on the economic-financial sphere need to likewise be thoroughly analyzed, particularly concerning the interaction in between concrete truth and the digital world. One essential factor to consider in this regard involves the coexistence of varied and alternative forms of economic and banks within a given context. This aspect must be encouraged, as it can bring advantages in how it supports the genuine economy by cultivating its development and stability, especially during times of crisis. Nevertheless, it ought to be stressed that digital truths, not limited by any spatial bonds, tend to be more uniform and impersonal than communities rooted in a specific location and a specific history, with a typical journey identified by shared worths and hopes, however likewise by inescapable arguments and divergences. This diversity is an indisputable possession to a neighborhood's financial life. Turning over the economy and financing entirely to digital innovation would minimize this range and richness. As a result, lots of solutions to financial issues that can be reached through natural discussion between the involved parties may no longer be attainable in a world dominated by treatments and only the appearance of proximity.


66. Another location where AI is currently having an extensive impact is the world of work. As in numerous other fields, AI is driving fundamental transformations throughout lots of occupations, with a variety of effects. On the one hand, it has the potential to improve know-how and productivity, create brand-new jobs, enable workers to focus on more ingenious tasks, and open new horizons for imagination and development.


67. However, while AI promises to boost performance by taking over mundane jobs, it regularly forces workers to adapt to the speed and needs of makers instead of devices being created to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the advertised advantages of AI, existing methods to the technology can paradoxically deskill employees, subject them to automated security, and relegate them to rigid and repeated jobs. The requirement to stay up to date with the rate of innovation can erode workers' sense of firm and suppress the innovative abilities they are expected to bring to their work. [125]

68. AI is presently eliminating the requirement for some jobs that were as soon as carried out by people. If AI is used to replace human employees rather than complement them, there is a "significant danger of out of proportion advantage for the couple of at the price of the impoverishment of numerous." [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more effective, there is an associated threat that human labor may lose its value in the economic world. This is the sensible effect of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humankind enslaved to performance, where, ultimately, the expense of humankind must be cut. Yet, human lives are intrinsically important, independent of their economic output. Nevertheless, the "existing design," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to prefer an investment in efforts to help the sluggish, the weak, or the less talented to find opportunities in life." [127] Because of this, "we can not permit a tool as effective and important as Artificial Intelligence to enhance such a paradigm, however rather, we must make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its growth." [128]

69. It is necessary to keep in mind that "the order of things must be subordinate to the order of individuals, and not the other way around." [129] Human work needs to not just be at the service of revenue however at "the service of the entire human person [...] taking into account the person's material needs and the requirements of his or her intellectual, moral, spiritual, and religious life." [130] In this context, the Church acknowledges that work is "not only a means of making one's daily bread" but is also "a necessary dimension of social life" and "a method [...] of personal development, the structure of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of presents. Work provides us a sense of shared duty for the advancement of the world, and ultimately, 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 advancement and personal satisfaction," "the goal needs to not be that technological progress significantly changes human work, for this would be destructive to mankind" [132] -rather, it must promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI should help, not change, human judgment. Similarly, it must never ever deteriorate creativity or reduce workers to simple "cogs in a device." Therefore, "regard for the dignity of laborers and the value of employment for the financial well-being of individuals, households, and societies, for task security and just wages, ought to be a high priority for the global neighborhood as these types of technology permeate more deeply into our offices." [133]

71. As participants in God's recovery work, health care professionals have the occupation and obligation to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the healthcare profession brings an "intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension," acknowledged by the Hippocratic Oath, which requires doctors and health care professionals to devote themselves to having "outright respect for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Do-gooder, this commitment is to be brought out by guys and women "who reject the production of a society of exclusion, and act rather as neighbors, raising up and rehabilitating the fallen for the sake of the common good." [136]

72. Seen in this light, AI appears to hold tremendous capacity in a range of applications in the medical field, such as assisting the diagnostic work of doctor, helping with relationships between clients and medical personnel, offering new treatments, and broadening access to quality care also for those who are isolated or marginalized. In these ways, the technology could improve the "caring and caring nearness" [137] that healthcare service providers are contacted us to reach the ill and suffering.


73. However, if AI is utilized not to enhance but to replace the relationship in between patients and healthcare providers-leaving patients to engage with a device rather than a human being-it would reduce a crucially important human relational structure to a central, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of encouraging uniformity with the ill and suffering, such applications of AI would risk intensifying the solitude that frequently accompanies health problem, specifically in the context of a culture where "individuals are no longer viewed as a paramount worth to be taken care of and appreciated." [138] This misuse of AI would not line up with regard for the self-respect of the human individual and uniformity with the suffering.


74. Responsibility for the wellness of patients and the choices that touch upon their lives are at the heart of the healthcare occupation. This responsibility needs medical experts to work out all their ability and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options regarding those entrusted to their care, always respecting the inviolable self-respect of the clients and the requirement for informed approval. As a result, choices concerning client treatment and the weight of duty they entail need to constantly remain with the human person and needs to never ever be entrusted to AI. [139]

75. In addition, using AI to determine who must receive treatment based mainly on financial procedures or metrics of efficiency represents an especially bothersome instance of the "technocratic paradigm" that must be declined. [140] For, "enhancing resources indicates utilizing them in an ethical and fraternal way, and not penalizing the most fragile." [141] Additionally, AI tools in healthcare are "exposed to types of predisposition and discrimination," where "systemic mistakes can easily increase, producing not just injustices in private cases but also, due to the domino impact, genuine types of social inequality." [142]

76. The combination of AI into health care also presents the danger of enhancing other existing disparities in access to medical care. As health care becomes progressively oriented toward prevention and lifestyle-based methods, AI-driven services may unintentionally prefer more affluent populations who currently take pleasure in much better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This trend risks enhancing a "medicine for the rich" model, where those with monetary ways gain from innovative preventative tools and personalized health details while others struggle to gain access to even fundamental services. To prevent such injustices, fair frameworks are required to ensure that using AI in health care does not aggravate existing health care inequalities however rather serves the typical good.


77. The words of the Second Vatican Council remain completely relevant today: "True education aims to form individuals with a view toward their last end and the good of the society to which they belong." [143] As such, education is "never a simple procedure of handing down realities and intellectual abilities: rather, its aim is to contribute to the individual's holistic formation in its various elements (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, and so on), including, for example, community life and relations within the scholastic neighborhood," [144] in keeping with the nature and self-respect of the human person.


78. This method includes a dedication to cultivating the mind, however constantly as a part of the integral advancement of the individual: "We should break that idea of education which holds that informing ways filling one's head with concepts. That is the way we educate robots, cerebral minds, not individuals. Educating is taking a threat in the tension in between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]

79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human person is the indispensable relationship in between instructor and trainee. Teachers do more than convey understanding; they design necessary human qualities and influence the delight of discovery. [146] Their presence encourages trainees both through the material they teach and the care they show for their trainees. This bond fosters trust, mutual understanding, and the capability to attend to each individual's distinct self-respect and potential. On the part of the trainee, this can produce a real desire to grow. The physical existence of a teacher creates a relational dynamic that AI can not duplicate, one that deepens engagement and supports the trainee's essential development.


80. In this context, AI provides both opportunities and obstacles. If used in a prudent manner, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and bought to the authentic objectives of education, AI can become an important instructional resource by improving access to education, using tailored support, and providing instant feedback to trainees. These benefits could boost the learning experience, particularly in cases where individualized attention is needed, or educational resources are otherwise limited.


81. Nevertheless, a vital part of education is forming "the intelligence to factor well in all matters, to reach out towards reality, and to comprehend it," [147] while helping the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is even more vital in an age marked by technology, in which "it is no longer simply a concern of 'utilizing' instruments of communication, but of living in a highly digitalized culture that has had an extensive influence on [...] our ability to interact, find out, be notified and get in into relationship with others." [149] However, rather of cultivating "a cultivated intellect," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and profession that it undertakes," [150] the substantial use of AI in education might lead to the trainees' increased reliance on technology, eroding their capability to carry out some abilities individually and aggravating their reliance on screens. [151]

82. Additionally, while some AI systems are developed to help people establish their vital thinking capabilities and problem-solving abilities, lots of others merely offer responses instead of prompting trainees to show up at responses themselves or compose text on their own. [152] Instead of training young individuals how to collect details and produce fast responses, education should motivate "the accountable use of freedom to deal with issues with excellent sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in using forms of expert system need to aim above all at promoting critical thinking. Users of all ages, however particularly the young, need to establish a discerning approach to the use of information and content collected on the internet or produced by synthetic intelligence systems. Schools, universities, and clinical societies are challenged to help trainees and experts to comprehend the social and ethical aspects of the advancement and usages of technology." [154]

83. As Saint John Paul II remembered, "worldwide today, defined by such quick developments in science and technology, the jobs of a Catholic University presume an ever higher significance and seriousness." [155] In a particular way, Catholic universities are advised to be present as fantastic laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary secret, they are advised to engage "with wisdom and imagination" [156] in cautious research on this phenomenon, helping to draw out the salutary potential within the numerous fields of science and reality, and guiding them always towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the typical good, reaching brand-new frontiers in the discussion between faith and factor.


84. Moreover, it must be kept in mind that current AI programs have been understood to provide biased or made details, which can lead trainees to trust inaccurate content. This issue "not only risks of legitimizing fake news and enhancing a dominant culture's advantage, but, in short, it also undermines the academic procedure itself." [157] With time, clearer distinctions might emerge between proper and incorrect uses of AI in education and research. Yet, a definitive standard is that the use of AI ought to always be transparent and never ever misrepresented.


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

86. However, AI likewise provides a major danger of generating controlled material and false details, which can easily deceive individuals due to its similarity to the truth. Such misinformation might take place unintentionally, as in the case of AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear real however are not. Since creating material that mimics human artifacts is main to AI's functionality, alleviating these risks proves tough. Yet, the repercussions of such aberrations and incorrect details can be rather serious. For this factor, all those associated with producing and using AI systems should be dedicated to the truthfulness and precision of the details processed by such systems and distributed to the public.


87. While AI has a latent capacity to create incorrect details, a a lot more troubling issue depends on the purposeful misuse of AI for control. This can take place when people 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 an incorrect depiction of an individual, edited or generated by an AI algorithm. The threat of deepfakes is particularly apparent when they are utilized to target or harm others. While the images or videos themselves may be artificial, the damage they trigger is real, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "genuine injuries in their human self-respect." [159]

88. On a broader scale, by misshaping "our relationship with others and with reality," [160] AI-generated fake media can slowly weaken the foundations of society. This issue requires careful regulation, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or affected media-can spread accidentally, sustaining political polarization and social discontent. When society becomes indifferent to the reality, numerous groups construct their own versions of "facts," damaging the "reciprocal ties and mutual dependences" [161] that underpin the fabric of social life. As deepfakes trigger individuals to question whatever and AI-generated false content deteriorates rely on what they see and hear, polarization and conflict will just grow. Such widespread deception is no unimportant matter; it strikes at the core of humanity, dismantling the foundational trust on which societies are built. [162]

89. Countering AI-driven fallacies is not just the work of market experts-it requires the efforts of all people 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 community needs to be proactive in resolving these trends with respect to human self-respect and the promotion of the great." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated content should constantly exercise diligence in verifying the fact of what they distribute and, in all cases, should "avoid the sharing of words and images that are breaking down of humans, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that exploit the weak and susceptible." [164] This requires the continuous prudence and cautious discernment of all users regarding their activity online. [165]

90. Humans are inherently relational, and the data each person creates in the digital world can be viewed as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data communicates not only details but also personal and relational understanding, which, in a significantly 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 may touch upon the person's interiority, perhaps even their conscience. Seen in this way, personal privacy plays an essential function in safeguarding the boundaries of an individual's inner life, maintaining their flexibility to relate to others, express themselves, and make decisions without unnecessary control. This defense is also connected to the defense of religious liberty, as monitoring can also be misused to exert control over the lives of believers and how they reveal their faith.


91. It is appropriate, therefore, to attend to the issue of privacy from an issue for the legitimate flexibility and inalienable self-respect of the human person "in all scenarios." [166] The Second Vatican Council consisted of the right "to secure personal privacy" among the basic rights "required for living a really human life," a right that should be extended to all individuals on account of their "superb dignity." [167] Furthermore, the Church has actually also affirmed the right to the legitimate regard for a personal life in the context of affirming the person's right to a good reputation, defense of their physical and psychological stability, and freedom from harm or unnecessary intrusion [168] -important components of the due regard for the intrinsic dignity 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 thinking from even a percentage of details, making the function of data personal privacy much more crucial as a secure for the dignity and relational nature of the human person. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant attitudes towards others are on the rise, distances are otherwise diminishing or disappearing to the point that the right to personal privacy hardly exists. Everything has actually become a type of spectacle to be taken a look at and inspected, and individuals's lives are now under continuous surveillance." [170]

93. While there can be genuine and correct ways to use AI in keeping with human self-respect and the common excellent, utilizing it for security aimed at making use of, limiting others' flexibility, or benefitting a few at the expenditure of the many is unjustifiable. The risk of security overreach must be kept an eye on by appropriate regulators to make sure openness and public responsibility. Those responsible for monitoring ought to never ever exceed their authority, which need to always prefer the self-respect and flexibility of every person as the important basis of a just and gentle society.


94. Furthermore, "basic respect for human self-respect demands that we refuse to allow the originality of the individual to be related to a set of data." [171] This especially applies when AI is used to assess people or groups based on their behavior, attributes, or history-a practice referred to as "social scoring": "In social and economic decision-making, we ought to beware about entrusting judgments to algorithms that process information, often collected surreptitiously, on an individual's makeup and prior behavior. Such data can be infected by societal bias and preconceptions. A person's past habits ought to not be utilized to deny him or her the opportunity to change, grow, and contribute to society. We can not permit algorithms to restrict or condition respect for human dignity, or to exclude compassion, grace, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able to alter." [172]

95. AI has numerous promising applications for improving our relationship with our "common home," such as producing models to anticipate severe climate occasions, proposing engineering services to reduce their effect, handling relief operations, and forecasting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable farming, enhance energy usage, and supply early caution systems for public health emergencies. These developments have the potential to strengthen strength against climate-related difficulties and promote more sustainable development.


96. At the very same time, existing AI designs and the hardware required to support them consume vast amounts of energy and water, significantly adding to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This truth is often obscured by the method this innovation exists in the popular imagination, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can offer the impression that data is kept and processed in an intangible world, detached from the real world. However, "the cloud" is not a heavenly domain separate from the physical world; as with all computing technologies, it relies on physical makers, cable televisions, and energy. The same holds true of the innovation behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, especially large language designs (LLMs), they require ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and higher storage facilities. Considering the heavy toll these innovations handle the environment, it is essential to develop sustainable services that minimize their influence on our common home.


97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is vital "that we try to find options not just in technology however in a change of humanity." [175] A complete and authentic understanding of production acknowledges that the worth of all produced things can not be minimized to their mere utility. Therefore, a totally human method to the stewardship of the earth rejects the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which seeks to "extract everything possible" from the world, [176] and turns down the "myth of progress," which presumes that "eco-friendly issues will fix themselves simply with the application of new innovation and without any need for ethical factors to consider or deep change." [177] Such a state of mind needs to provide method to a more holistic method that appreciates the order of development and promotes the important good of the human individual while securing our common home. [178]

98. The Second Vatican Council and the constant mentor of the Popes ever since have firmly insisted that peace is not simply the lack of war and is not restricted to maintaining a balance of powers in between adversaries. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the tranquility of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without securing the products of persons, totally free interaction, respect for the self-respect of individuals and individuals, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity and can not be attained through force alone; instead, it should be mainly constructed through client diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, solidarity, essential human development, and respect for the dignity of all people. [180] In this method, the tools utilized to maintain peace must never ever be enabled to validate injustice, violence, or oppression. Instead, they need to always be governed by a "firm determination to regard other individuals and countries, in addition to their dignity, in addition to the purposeful practice of fraternity." [181]

99. While AI's analytical capabilities might assist countries seek peace and make sure security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can also be extremely bothersome. Pope Francis has actually observed that "the capability to conduct military operations through push-button control systems has resulted in a minimized understanding of the devastation triggered by those weapon systems and the concern of duty for their use, leading to an even more cold and separated approach to the immense catastrophe of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which self-governing weapons make war more viable militates against the principle of war as a last hope in genuine self-defense, [183] potentially increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and speeding up a destabilizing arms race, with disastrous consequences for human rights. [184]

100. In particular, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which can determining and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for serious ethical concern" since they lack the "special human capability 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 restriction on their usage, starting with "an effective and concrete dedication to present ever higher and appropriate human control. No device must ever pick to take the life of a person." [186]

101. Since it is a little action from devices that can kill autonomously with precision to those efficient in massive destruction, some AI scientists have actually expressed issues that such innovation poses an "existential risk" by having the possible to act in methods that might threaten the survival of entire regions and even of humanity itself. This risk demands severe attention, reflecting the enduring concern about technologies that approve war "an uncontrollable harmful power over varieties of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing kids. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "undertake an assessment of war with a totally new attitude" [188] is more immediate than ever.


102. At the same time, while the theoretical dangers of AI deserve attention, the more immediate and pushing concern lies in how people with malicious intents may abuse this technology. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future abilities are unforeseeable, humankind's previous actions provide clear cautions. The atrocities committed throughout history suffice to raise deep concerns about the prospective abuses of AI.


103. Saint John Paul II observed that "mankind now has instruments of extraordinary power: we can turn this world into a garden, or lower 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 use our intelligence towards things evolving positively," or towards "decadence and shared damage." [191] To prevent mankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there need to be a clear stand against all applications of technology that inherently threaten human life and self-respect. This commitment needs cautious discernment about the use of AI, especially in military defense applications, to ensure that it always appreciates human self-respect and serves the common good. The development and implementation of AI in armaments ought to go through the greatest levels of ethical examination, governed by a concern for human dignity and the sanctity of life. [193]

104. Technology provides exceptional tools to supervise and establish the world's resources. However, in some cases, humanity is increasingly ceding control of these resources to makers. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, there is optimism about the potential of synthetic basic intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical type of AI that would match or exceed human intelligence and cause unimaginable improvements. Some even speculate that AGI could attain superhuman capabilities. At the same time, as society drifts away from a connection with the transcendent, some are lured to turn to AI searching for meaning or fulfillment-longings that can just be genuinely satisfied 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 show a lot more sexy than conventional idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths however do not speak; eyes, but do not see; ears, but do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or at least provides the illusion of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is important to keep in mind that AI is but a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated product, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not have a number of the abilities specific to human life, and it is likewise imperfect. By turning to AI as a perceived "Other" higher than itself, with which to share existence and obligations, humanity threats producing a replacement for God. However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, however mankind itself-which, in this method, becomes enslaved to its own work. [195]

106. While AI has the possible to serve mankind and contribute to the typical great, it remains a creation of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and ingenuity" (Acts 17:29). It should never ever be ascribed excessive worth. As the Book of Wisdom affirms: "For a male 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 much better than the things he worships considering that he has life, but they never ever have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).


107. On the other hand, human beings, "by their interior life, transcend the whole material universe; they experience this deep interiority when they get in into their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they choose their own destiny in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis reminds us, that each individual discovers the "mysterious connection in between self-knowledge and openness to others, in between the encounter with one's personal individuality and the determination to give oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "capable of setting our other powers and enthusiasms, and our whole individual, in a stance of reverence and caring obedience before the Lord," [198] who "uses to deal with each one of us as a 'Thou,' always and permanently." [199]

108. Considering the various difficulties postured 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 technology brings [200] -acknowledging that "with an increase in human power comes a broadening of responsibility on the part of people and neighborhoods." [201]

109. At the same time, the "necessary and fundamental question" remains "whether in the context of this development male, as man, is becoming really better, that is to state, more mature spiritually, more familiar with the dignity of his humankind, more accountable, more available to others, particularly the neediest and the weakest, and readier to give and to aid all." [202]

110. As an outcome, it is vital to know how to examine specific applications of AI in specific contexts to figure out whether its use promotes human self-respect, the vocation of the human individual, and the common good. Just like numerous innovations, the effects of the various uses of AI may not always be foreseeable from their inception. As these applications and their social impacts become clearer, proper responses ought to be made at all levels of society, following the concept of subsidiarity. Individual users, households, civil society, corporations, institutions, federal governments, and worldwide companies must operate at their correct levels to guarantee that AI is utilized for the good of all.


111. A considerable difficulty and opportunity for the typical good today depends on thinking about AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which highlights the interconnectedness of people and neighborhoods and highlights our shared obligation for fostering the integral wellness of others. The twentieth-century theorist Nicholas Berdyaev observed that people often blame machines for personal and social problems; however, "this just embarrasses male and does not represent his dignity," for "it is not worthy to move obligation from male to a maker." [203] Only the human individual can be ethically accountable, and the obstacles of a technological society are ultimately spiritual in nature. Therefore, dealing with those obstacles "needs an accumulation of spirituality." [204]

112. An additional indicate consider is the call, prompted by the look of AI on the world stage, for a renewed gratitude of all that is human. Years back, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos cautioned that "the threat is not in the reproduction of makers, however in the ever-increasing number of guys accustomed from their childhood to desire only what machines can offer." [205] This challenge is as true today as it was then, as the fast speed of digitization runs the risk of a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable aspects of life are reserved and after that forgotten or even deemed irrelevant since they can not be calculated in formal terms. AI needs to be utilized just as a tool to match human intelligence rather than replace its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that transcend calculation is crucial for maintaining "a genuine mankind" that "seems to dwell in the middle of our technological culture, practically undetected, like a mist permeating carefully below a closed door." [207]

113. The large stretch of the world's knowledge is now available in methods that would have filled past generations with wonder. However, to make sure that developments in knowledge do not end up being humanly or spiritually barren, one need to exceed the simple build-up of information and aim to attain real knowledge. [208]

114. This wisdom is the present that humankind requires most to deal with the extensive concerns and ethical challenges postured by AI: "Only by adopting a spiritual method of seeing reality, only by recuperating a wisdom of the heart, can we challenge and translate the newness of our time." [209] Such "wisdom of the heart" is "the virtue that allows us to incorporate the entire and its parts, our decisions and their consequences." It "can not be sought from devices," but it "lets itself be discovered by those who seek it and be seen by those who enjoy it; it anticipates those who prefer it, and it goes in search of those who are worthy of it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]

115. In a world marked by AI, we require the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "enables us to look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, scenarios, occasions and to uncover their genuine significance." [211]

116. Since a "person's perfection is determined 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 bros and siblings, the vulnerable, and those most in need, will be the real measure of our humanity." [213] The "knowledge of the heart" can brighten and assist the human-centered usage of this technology to help promote the common excellent, look after our "common home," advance the look for the fact, foster integral human development, favor human solidarity and fraternity, and lead mankind to its ultimate objective: joy and full communion with God. [214]

117. From this viewpoint of knowledge, believers will be able to serve as ethical representatives efficient in using this technology to promote a genuine vision of the human person and society. [215] This should be finished with the understanding that technological progress belongs to God's plan for creation-an activity that we are contacted us to order toward the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the consistent search 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, authorized this Note and ordered its publication.


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


Ex audientia pass away 14 ianuarii 2025
Franciscus


Contents


I. Introduction


II. What is Artificial Intelligence?


III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition


Rationality


Embodiment


Relationality


Relationship with the Truth


Stewardship of the World


An 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 document explaining the outputs or procedures of AI are utilized figuratively to explain its operations and are not planned to anthropomorphize the machine.
[8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[9] Here, one can see the main positions of the "transhumanists" and the "posthumanists." Transhumanists argue that technological developments will enable human beings to overcome their biological constraints and improve both their physical and cognitive capabilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, contend that such advances will ultimately modify human identity to the degree that humanity itself might no longer be considered really "human." Both views rest on a basically negative perception of human corporality, which treats the body more as a challenge than as an essential part of the person's identity and call to full awareness. Yet, this unfavorable view of the body is irregular with an appropriate understanding of human dignity. While the Church supports real scientific progress, it affirms that human self-respect is rooted in "the person as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "dignity is also fundamental in everyone's body, which gets involved in its own way in remaining in imago Dei" (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18).
[10] This technique reflects a functionalist viewpoint, which lowers the human mind to its functions and presumes that its functions can be completely quantified in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear truly smart, it would still remain practical in nature.
[11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460.
[12] If "believing" is credited to devices, it should be clarified that this refers to calculative thinking instead of important thinking. Similarly, if makers are said to operate utilizing logical thinking, 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 process that avoids shows and transcends constraints.
[13] On the foundational function of language in forming understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York City 2010, 141-182).
[14] For additional conversation of these anthropological and theological structures, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144.
[15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21.
[16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi advertisement litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [professors] by which he is exceptional to the unreasonable animals. Now, this [professors] is factor itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it might more suitably be offered"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When thinking about all that they have, human beings discover that they are most distinguished from animals specifically by the truth they have intelligence." This is also repeated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who states that "guy is the most best of all earthly beings enhanced with movement, and his proper and natural operation is intellection," by which man abstracts from things and "receives in his mind things actually intelligible" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 76).
[17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, ad 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a contemporary perspective that echoes components of the classical and middle ages distinction in between these 2 modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York City 2011.
[19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp.
[20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138.
[21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intellect can investigate the truth of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and pertain to acknowledge in that truth, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal ethical demands."
[22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp.
[24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "generally thinks about the human person as a being who exists in the body and is unthinkable outside of it" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Che cosa è l'uomo?" (Sal 8,5): Un itinerario di antropologia biblica [30 September 2019], par. 19). Cf. ibid., pars. 20-21, 43-44, 48.
[25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100 (2008 ), 863: "Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, however instead fully revealed its significance and value."
[26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81.
[27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and hence it is united to the body in order that it might have a presence and an operation ideal to its nature."
[29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18.
[30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357.
[31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54.
[32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221.
[33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27.
[34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls also possess reason and with it they circle in discourse around the fact of things. [...] [O] n account of the way in which they can focusing 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 - Mahwah 1987, 106-107).
[35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 3: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7.
[36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 42: AAS 91 (1999 ), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1043: "the human mind can transcending instant concerns and comprehending certain facts that are unchanging, as true now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, reason 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 permits us to understand messages in any kind of communication in a manner that both takes into consideration and transcends their material or empirical structures (such as computer code). Here, intelligence ends up being a wisdom that "enables us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, scenarios, 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 creativity enables us to produce new material or ideas, mainly by using an original viewpoint on reality. Both capacities depend on the existence of a personal subjectivity for their full realization.
[41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931.
[42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a dedication to the reality, is far more than personal feeling [...] Certainly, its close relation to reality fosters its universality and maintains it from being 'confined to a narrow field lacking relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to reality 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 estimated in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294.
[47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure likens the universe to "a book showing, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who approves 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 an unique location in the universe according to the magnificent plan: they take pleasure in the benefit of sharing in the magnificent governance of noticeable production. [...] Since male's location as ruler remains in reality a participation in the magnificent governance of creation, we speak of it here as a type of stewardship."
[49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165.
[50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This idea is likewise shown in the development account, where God brings animals 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 good by sensing and enjoying facts."
[61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232).
[62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he greatest norm of human life is the magnificent law itself-eternal, objective and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the methods of the human community according to a strategy conceived in his knowledge and love. God has actually enabled man to take part in this law of his so that, under the gentle personality of magnificent providence, lots of may be able to come to a deeper and deeper knowledge of unchangeable fact." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037.
[63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016.
[64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892.
[65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042.
[66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has actually inscribed his own image and likeness on guy (cf. Gen 1:26), giving upon him an unparalleled dignity [...] 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, but which flow from his important 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 show this technology, recalling that the expression is also 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 scientific expedition in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the gratitude for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These authors, among a long list of other Catholics participated in scientific research and technological exploration, illustrate that "faith and science can be joined in charity, provided that science is put at the service of the guys and lady of our time and not misused to damage or perhaps ruin them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87.
[73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378.
[74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888.
[77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658.
[78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim.
[79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293.
[80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4.
[81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes guy an ethical topic. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the daddy of his acts."
[82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776.
[83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777.
[84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father motivated efforts "to guarantee that technology remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed towards 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 firm in selecting a wider aim (Ziel) that then informs the specific purpose (Zweck) for which each technological application is produced, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um die Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71.
[86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a purpose and, in its influence on human society, constantly represents a type of order in social relations and a plan of power, hence allowing certain people to perform specific actions while avoiding others from performing different ones. In a basically explicit way, this constitutive power-dimension of technology constantly includes the worldview of those who created and developed it."
[87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309.
[88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045.
[90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Confronted with the marvels of machines, which seem to know how to select individually, we ought to be really clear that decision-making [...] need to always be delegated the human person. We would condemn humanity to a future without hope if we eliminated people's capability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend on the choices of machines."
[92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[93] The term "predisposition" in this document describes algorithmic predisposition (methodical and constant mistakes in computer system systems that may disproportionately prejudice certain groups in unintentional ways) or learning predisposition (which will lead to training on a biased data set) and not the "bias vector" in neural networks (which is a parameter used to adjust the output of "nerve cells" to change 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 affirmed the growth in consensus "on the requirement for development procedures to appreciate such worths as inclusion, openness, security, equity, personal privacy and dependability," and also invited "the efforts of worldwide organizations to regulate these innovations so that they promote genuine development, contributing, that is, to a much better world and an integrally higher quality of life."
[95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8.
[96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.
[97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571.
[98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For additional conversation of the ethical questions raised by AI from a Catholic perspective, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253.
[99] On the importance of dialogue in a pluralist society oriented toward a "robust and strong social principles," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045.
[100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.
[102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464.
[104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10.
[105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; 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 individuals] want their social relationships provided by advanced equipment, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel tells us continuously to run the threat of an in person encounter with others, with their physical existence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their happiness which contaminates us in our close and continuous interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from subscription in the neighborhood, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045.
[124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1.
[125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899.
[126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107.
[128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' mentor about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893.
[129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as priced quote in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453.
[130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: "work is 'for guy' 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 (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12.
[139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465.
[141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops' Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: "If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture is manifest, with its painful consequences, it is that of healthcare. When an ill person is not positioned in the center or their self-respect is ruled out, this provides increase to attitudes that can lead even to speculation on the misery of others. And this is extremely severe! [...] The application of a company technique to the healthcare sector, if indiscriminate [...] may risk discarding humans."
[142] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[143] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729.
[144] Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on making use of Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729; Francis, Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016), 6: AAS 108 (2016 ), 57-58.
[145] Francis, Address to Members of the Global Researchers Advancing Catholic Education Project (20 April 2022): AAS 114 (2022 ), 580.
[146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), par. 41: AAS 68 (1976 ), 31, quoting Id., Address to the Members of the "Consilium de Laicis" (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: "if [the modern individual] does listen to instructors, it is because they are witnesses."
[147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126.
[148] Francis, Meeting with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316.
[149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, quoting the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592.
[150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167.
[151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413.
[152] In a 2023 policy file about using generative AI in education and research, UNESCO notes: "Among the key concerns [of using generative AI (GenAI) in education and research study] is whether human beings can perhaps deliver standard levels of thinking and skill-acquisition processes to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking skills based on the outputs offered by AI. Writing, for example, is often connected with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], humans can now start with a well-structured overview offered by GenAI. Some specialists have actually defined making use of GenAI to generate text in this method as 'writing without believing'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American philosopher Hannah Arendt visualized such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and warned: "If it must end up being real that knowledge (in the sense of knowledge) and believed have actually parted company for great, then we would certainly become the defenseless servants, not so much of our machines 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 "array of resources for producing higher understanding of truth" contained in the works of viewpoint (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8.
[159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62.
[160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074.
[162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be truly indifferent to the concern of whether what they know holds true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he writes: 'I have actually fulfilled numerous who wished to deceive, but none who desired to be deceived'"; 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 Network (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149.
[166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24.
[167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no guy might with impunity violate that human self-respect which God himself treats with excellent reverence"; as quoted in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804.
[168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203.
[169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human self-respect in cyberspace requires States to also appreciate the right to personal privacy, by protecting residents from intrusive monitoring and enabling 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 identified a list of "early guarantees of AI helping to attend to environment modification" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The file observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can change information into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools may assist develop brand-new methods and investments to decrease emissions, influence brand-new personal sector investments in net no, safeguard biodiversity, and construct broad-based social resilience" (ibid.).
[174] "The cloud" describes a network of physical servers throughout the world that enables users to store, procedure, and handle their data remotely.
[175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850.
[176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890.
[177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870.
[178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852.
[179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640.
[180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317.
[181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), forum.batman.gainedge.org par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101.
[182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310.
[184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105.
[185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We need to guarantee and secure an area for proper human control over the choices made by expert system programs: human self-respect itself depends on it."
[186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The development and usage of deadly self-governing weapons systems (LAWS) that lack the suitable human control would pose essential ethical concerns, provided that LAWS can never be ethically responsible subjects capable of abiding by worldwide 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 ending up in the wrong hands, assisting in, for circumstances, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the institutions of genuine systems of federal government. In a word, the world does not require brand-new technologies that add to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and as a result end up promoting the recklessness of war."
[190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565.
[191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878.
[192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687.
[193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39.
[194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661.
[195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a much better understanding today that the mere build-up of products and services [...] is not enough for the awareness of human happiness. Nor, in effect, does the availability of the many genuine advantages supplied in current times by science and innovation, including the computer technology, bring flexibility from every kind of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the considerable body of resources and possible at guy's disposal is guided by an ethical understanding and by an orientation towards the real good of the mankind, it easily turns against male to oppress him." Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564.
[196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5.
[198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6.
[199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6.
[200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. The End of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83).
[201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288.
[203] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," in C. Mitcham - R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York 19832, 212-213.
[204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210.
[205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829.
[206] Cf. Francis, Meeting with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023).
[207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: "The flood of details at our fingertips does not make for higher knowledge. Wisdom is not born of quick searches on the internet nor is it a mass of unverified data. That is not the method to mature in the encounter with reality."
[209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[210] Ibid.
[211] Ibid.
[212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121.
[213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124.
[214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.