II. What Is Artificial Intelligence

1. With wisdom both ancient and brand-new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to assess the present obstacles and opportunities presented by scientific and technological developments, particularly by the current advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian custom regards the present of intelligence as an essential aspect of how human beings are created "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Beginning with an important vision of the human person and the scriptural calling to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church emphasizes that this gift of intelligence must be expressed through the accountable use of reason and technical abilities in the stewardship of the produced world.


2. The Church encourages the development of science, innovation, the arts, and other types of human undertaking, viewing them as part of the "collaboration of male and female with God in improving the noticeable creation." [1] As Sirach affirms, God "provided skill to humans, that he may be glorified in his splendid works" (Sir. 38:6). Human capabilities and imagination originate from God and, when utilized appropriately, glorify God by showing his wisdom and goodness. In light of this, when we ask ourselves what it implies to "be human," we can not exclude a consideration of our clinical and technological capabilities.


3. It is within this perspective that today Note addresses the anthropological and ethical challenges raised by AI-issues that are particularly considerable, as one of the goals of this technology is to imitate the human intelligence that designed it. For instance, unlike many other human productions, AI can be trained on the results of human imagination and after that generate brand-new "artifacts" with a level of speed and skill that often rivals or surpasses what people can do, such as producing text or images indistinguishable from human compositions. This raises crucial issues about AI's possible role in the growing crisis of fact in the general public online forum. Moreover, this technology is designed to discover and make certain choices autonomously, adjusting to new scenarios and supplying services not visualized by its developers, and thus, it raises basic questions about ethical responsibility and human security, with wider ramifications for society as a whole. This new situation has prompted lots of people to show on what it means to be human and the role of humankind worldwide.


4. Taking all this into account, there is broad agreement that AI marks a brand-new and considerable phase in mankind's engagement with technology, positioning it at the heart of what Pope Francis has actually explained as an "epochal change." [2] Its impact is felt internationally and in a large range of areas, consisting of interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, health care, law, warfare, and global relations. As AI advances rapidly towards even greater achievements, it is seriously essential to consider its anthropological and ethical implications. This involves not just mitigating risks and preventing damage but likewise guaranteeing that its applications are used to promote human development and the typical good.


5. To contribute favorably to the discernment relating to AI, and in response to Pope Francis' call for a restored "knowledge of heart," [3] the Church uses its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active function in the worldwide dialogue on these issues, the Church welcomes those delegated with transmitting the faith-including moms and dads, instructors, pastors, and bishops-to commit themselves to this critical subject with care and attention. While this document is intended especially for them, it is also suggested to be available to a wider audience, particularly those who share the conviction that clinical and technological advances ought to be directed towards serving the human individual and the common good. [4]

6. To this end, the document begins by differentiating in between concepts of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then checks out the Christian understanding of human intelligence, supplying a structure rooted in the Church's philosophical and doctrinal tradition. Finally, the file uses guidelines to guarantee that the development and use of AI maintain human dignity and promote the integral development of the human individual and society.


7. The idea of "intelligence" in AI has actually progressed in time, drawing on a variety of ideas from various disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a considerable milestone took place in 1956 when the American computer system researcher John McCarthy arranged a summertime workshop at Dartmouth University to explore the problem of "Artificial Intelligence," which he specified as "that of making a maker behave in ways that would be called intelligent if a human were so acting." [5] This workshop introduced a research study program concentrated on creating machines capable of carrying out tasks normally connected with the human intellect and smart habits.


8. Since then, AI research study has advanced rapidly, causing the advancement of complex systems capable of carrying out highly sophisticated tasks. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are typically developed to manage particular and restricted functions, such as equating languages, anticipating the trajectory of a storm, classifying images, answering concerns, or creating visual material at the user's demand. While the meaning of "intelligence" in AI research study differs, the majority of contemporary AI systems-particularly those utilizing maker learning-rely on statistical reasoning rather than sensible deduction. By evaluating large datasets to identify patterns, AI can "anticipate" [7] results and propose new techniques, imitating some cognitive procedures common of human analytical. Such accomplishments have been made possible through advances in calculating innovation (including neural networks, not being watched artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) along with hardware developments (such as specialized processors). Together, these innovations allow AI systems to react to numerous kinds of human input, adapt to brand-new scenarios, and even suggest unique solutions not anticipated by their original programmers. [8]

9. Due to these quick developments, lots of jobs once managed exclusively by humans are now turned over to AI. These systems can enhance or even supersede what humans have the ability to carry out in numerous fields, especially in specialized areas such as data analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is designed for a specific job, numerous researchers aim to develop what is referred to as "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system efficient in operating across all cognitive domains and performing any job within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI could one day attain the state of "superintelligence," surpassing human intellectual capabilities, or contribute to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, however, fear that these possibilities, even if hypothetical, might one day eclipse the human person, while still others welcome this prospective transformation. [9]

10. Underlying this and lots of other point of views on the subject is the implicit assumption that the term "intelligence" can be utilized in the exact same method to describe both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not catch the complete scope of the principle. When it comes to people, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the person in his or her totality, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is understood functionally, typically with the anticipation that the activities characteristic of the human mind can be broken down into digitized steps that machines can reproduce. [10]

11. This functional viewpoint is exhibited by the "Turing Test," which considers a maker "intelligent" if an individual can not distinguish its behavior from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "habits" refers just to the efficiency of specific intellectual tasks; it does not account for the complete breadth of human experience, that includes abstraction, emotions, creativity, and the visual, ethical, and religious perceptiveness. Nor does it encompass the full variety of expressions particular of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the "intelligence" of a system is assessed methodologically, but also reductively, based on its ability to produce appropriate responses-in this case, those connected with the human intellect-regardless of how those responses are produced.


12. AI's sophisticated functions offer it sophisticated capabilities to perform tasks, however not the capability to believe. [12] This distinction is most importantly important, as the way "intelligence" is defined undoubtedly forms how we understand the relationship in between human thought and this technology. [13] To appreciate this, one need to remember 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 teaching on the nature, dignity, and occupation of the human person. [14]

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

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

15. Explaining the human person as a "rational" being does not lower the individual to a specific mode of thought; rather, it acknowledges that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and permeates all elements of human activity. [20] Whether exercised well or badly, this capacity is an intrinsic element of humanity. In this sense, the "term 'reasonable' includes all the capacities of the human individual," consisting of those related to "understanding and understanding, along with those of willing, caring, choosing, and preferring; it likewise includes all corporeal functions closely related to these capabilities." [21] This detailed perspective underscores how, in the human individual, produced in the "image of God," factor is incorporated in such a way that raises, shapes, and transforms both the person's will and actions. [22]

16. Christian thought thinks about the intellectual professors of the human individual within the structure of an important sociology that sees the human being as essentially embodied. In the human individual, spirit and matter "are not two natures joined, however 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 housing an intangible "core." Rather, the whole human individual is simultaneously both product and spiritual. This understanding reflects the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which sees the human person as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and therefore, an authentically spiritual measurement) within and through this embodied existence. [24] The profound significance of this condition is more brightened by the secret of the Incarnation, through which God himself handled our flesh and "raised it approximately a superb dignity." [25]

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


18. Humans are "purchased by their very nature to social communion," [30] possessing 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 but is worked out in relationships, finding its maximum expression in dialogue, cooperation, and uniformity. We find out with others, and we find out through others.


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

20. This occupation to communion with God is always connected to the call to communion with others. Love of God can not be separated from love for one's neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20; Mt. 22:37 -39). By the grace of sharing God's life, Christians are likewise called to mimic Christ's outpouring gift (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "love one another, as I have enjoyed you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the magnificent life of self-giving, transcend self-interest to respond more fully to the human vocation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Much more superb than understanding lots of things is the commitment to take care of one another, for if "I comprehend all mysteries and all understanding [...] but do not have love, I am nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2).


21. Human intelligence is ultimately "God's present fashioned for the assimilation of truth." [34] In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it allows the person to check out truths that exceed mere sensory experience or utility, because "the desire for reality is part of human nature itself. It is an innate residential or commercial property of human factor to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limits of empirical data, human intelligence can "with authentic certitude attain to reality itself as knowable." [36] While reality remains only partially known, the desire for reality "spurs factor constantly to go even more; certainly, it is as if factor were overwhelmed to see that it can always exceed what it has currently attained." [37] Although Truth in itself transcends the borders of human intelligence, prazskypantheon.cz it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this destination, the human person is led to look for "realities of a higher order." [39]

22. This innate drive towards the pursuit of reality is specifically apparent in the distinctly human capacities for semantic understanding and imagination, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "manner that is appropriate to the social nature and self-respect of the human individual." [41] Likewise, a steadfast orientation to the truth is vital for charity to be both authentic and universal. [42]

23. The search for truth discovers its highest expression in openness to truths that go beyond the physical and created world. In God, all truths attain their ultimate and original meaning. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "essential choice that engages the entire person." [44] In this way, the human individual becomes fully what he or she is called to be: "the intelligence and the will show their spiritual nature," allowing the individual "to act in a way that understands personal liberty to the full." [45]

24. The Christian faith understands production as the free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, develops "not to increase his magnificence, but to reveal it forth and to interact it." [46] Since God produces according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), development is imbued with an intrinsic order that reflects God's plan (cf. Gen. 1; Dan. 2:21 -22; Is. 45:18; Ps. 74:12 -17; 104), [47] within which God has called humans to assume a special role: to cultivate and look after the world. [48]

25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, human beings live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and abilities to take care of and establish creation in accord with God's strategy. [49] In this, human intelligence shows the Divine Intelligence that developed all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] constantly sustains them, and guides them to their ultimate purpose in him. [51] Moreover, human beings are contacted us to develop their abilities in science and technology, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in a proper relationship with production, people, on the one hand, utilize their intelligence and ability to work together with God in directing production towards the function to which he has actually called it. [52] On the other hand, development itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, assists the human mind to "rise 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 essential part of how the whole individual engages with truth. Authentic engagement requires welcoming the complete scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.


27. This engagement with reality unfolds in different ways, as everyone, in his or her diverse uniqueness [54], looks for to comprehend the world, connect to others, solve issues, express imagination, and pursue essential wellness through the harmonious interaction of the different dimensions of the individual's intelligence. [55] This involves rational and linguistic abilities however can also encompass other modes of interacting with truth. Consider the work of an artisan, who "should know how to determine, in inert matter, a specific kind that others can not recognize" [56] and bring it forth through insight and practical ability. Indigenous peoples who live near the earth typically have an extensive sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a good friend who knows the right word to state or a person skilled at handling human relationships exhibits an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, discussion and generous encounter in between persons." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of synthetic intelligence, we can not forget that poetry and love are required to save 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 individual, assisting his/her actions because of God's goodness and truth. According to God's plan, intelligence, in its max sense, likewise consists of the ability to enjoy what is real, great, and lovely. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel expressed, "intelligence is absolutely nothing without pleasure." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the greatest heaven in Paradiso, testifies that the conclusion of this intellectual delight is found in the "light intellectual loaded with love, love of real good filled with joy, pleasure which transcends every sweetness." [61]

29. A proper understanding of human intelligence, therefore, can not be reduced to the simple acquisition of realities or the ability to perform particular jobs. Instead, it includes the individual's openness to the supreme questions of life and reflects an orientation towards the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the magnificent image within the person, human intelligence has the capability to access the totality of being, pondering existence in its fullness, which goes beyond what is quantifiable, and comprehending the significance of what has been understood. For followers, this capability consists of, in a specific way, the ability to grow in the knowledge of the secrets of God by using factor to engage ever more profoundly with exposed realities (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is shaped by magnificent love, which "is put forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence has an essential reflective measurement, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian function.


30. In light of the foregoing conversation, the differences between human intelligence and existing AI systems end up being apparent. While AI is an amazing technological accomplishment capable of mimicing certain outputs associated with human intelligence, it runs by performing tasks, attaining goals, or making choices based upon quantitative data and computational reasoning. For instance, with its analytical power, AI excels at incorporating information from a variety of fields, modeling complex systems, and cultivating interdisciplinary connections. In this way, it can help specialists collaborate in resolving 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 simulates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains basically confined to a logical-mathematical structure, which enforces intrinsic constraints. Human intelligence, in contrast, develops naturally throughout the individual's physical and mental development, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although innovative AI systems can "find out" through processes such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is essentially different from the developmental development of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, including sensory input, psychological reactions, social interactions, and the special context of each minute. These aspects shape and type individuals within their individual history.In contrast, AI, doing not have a physical body, counts on computational thinking and knowing based on vast datasets that include taped human experiences and understanding.


32. Consequently, although AI can simulate elements of human thinking and perform specific tasks with extraordinary speed and performance, its computational capabilities represent only a portion of the broader capabilities of the human mind. For example, AI can not currently replicate ethical discernment or the capability to develop authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is situated within a personally lived history of intellectual and ethical development that essentially forms the individual's perspective, including the physical, psychological, social, moral, and spiritual dimensions of life. Since AI can not use this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely solely on this innovation or treat it as the main ways of translating the world can result in "a loss of gratitude for the entire, for the relationships in between things, and for the broader horizon." [65]

33. Human intelligence is not mainly about finishing practical jobs but about understanding and actively engaging with reality in all its dimensions; it is likewise efficient in unexpected insights. Since AI does not have the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to fact and goodness, its capacities-though relatively limitless-are unparalleled with the human capability to understand reality. A lot can be gained from an illness, an embrace of reconciliation, and even a simple sunset; certainly, many experiences we have as people open brand-new horizons and offer the possibility of attaining brand-new knowledge. No device, working entirely with information, can determine up to these and numerous other experiences present in our lives.


34. Drawing an excessively close equivalence between human intelligence and AI risks catching a functionalist point of view, where individuals are valued based upon the work they can carry out. However, a person's worth does not depend upon possessing specific skills, cognitive and technological accomplishments, or individual success, however on the individual's fundamental self-respect, grounded in being developed in the image of God. [66] This self-respect remains undamaged in all circumstances, including for those unable to exercise their capabilities, whether it be an unborn child, an unconscious individual, or an older person who is suffering. [67] It likewise underpins the tradition of human rights (and, in particular, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "a crucial point of convergence in the search for commonalities" [68] and can, hence, function as a fundamental ethical guide in discussions on the accountable advancement and use of AI.


35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the very use of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can show misleading" [69] and risks neglecting what is most precious in the human individual. In light of this, AI must not be viewed as an artificial type of human intelligence but as a product of it. [70]

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

37. Seen as a fruit of the potential inscribed within human intelligence, [72] clinical questions and the advancement of technical skills belong to the "partnership of male and woman with God in perfecting the noticeable development." [73] At the same time, all scientific and technological achievements are, ultimately, gifts from God. [74] Therefore, people should constantly utilize their abilities in view of the higher purpose for which God has actually granted them. [75]

38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has "corrected countless evils which utilized to harm and limit people," [76] a reality for which we should rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological advancements in themselves represent authentic human development. [77] The Church is especially opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the self-respect of the human individual. [78] Like any human undertaking, technological development must be directed to serve the human person and add to the pursuit of "greater justice, more comprehensive fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations," which are "better than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical ramifications of technological development are shared not just within the Church but also among many researchers, technologists, and expert associations, who increasingly call for ethical reflection to assist this development in an accountable way.


39. To attend to these obstacles, it is important to highlight the importance of ethical obligation grounded in the dignity and vocation of the human individual. This guiding principle likewise applies to concerns worrying AI. In this context, the ethical measurement handles main significance since it is individuals who design systems and identify the functions for which they are used. [80] Between a maker and a person, just the latter is truly a moral agent-a topic of ethical duty who exercises flexibility in his or her choices and accepts their effects. [81] It is not the maker however the human who remains in relationship with fact and goodness, directed by a moral conscience that calls the person "to enjoy and to do what is excellent and to avoid evil," [82] attesting to "the authority of reality in reference to the supreme Good to which the human individual is drawn." [83] Likewise, in between a maker and a human, only the human can be sufficiently self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, discerning with prudence, and looking for the excellent that is possible in every scenario. [84] In truth, all of this also belongs to the person's workout of intelligence.


40. Like any item of human imagination, AI can be directed towards favorable or negative ends. [85] When utilized in manner ins which appreciate human dignity and promote the wellness of individuals and communities, it can contribute favorably to the human occupation. Yet, as in all areas where humans are contacted us to make decisions, the shadow of evil likewise looms here. Where human liberty enables for the possibility of picking what is incorrect, the moral examination of this innovation will require to take into account how it is directed and utilized.


41. At the exact same time, it is not just the ends that are fairly substantial however likewise the methods utilized to attain them. Additionally, the general vision and understanding of the human individual ingrained within these systems are very important to think about too. Technological items show the worldview of their developers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to "form the world and engage consciences on the level of worths." [87] On a social level, some technological advancements might likewise enhance relationships and power characteristics that are irregular with an appropriate understanding of the human individual and society.


42. Therefore, completions and the ways utilized in an offered application of AI, in addition to the overall vision it integrates, need to all be assessed to guarantee they appreciate human dignity and promote the typical good. [88] As Pope Francis has stated, "the intrinsic dignity of every guy and every woman" must be "the crucial criterion in evaluating emerging innovations; these will show fairly sound to the degree that they assist respect that dignity and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] including in the social and financial spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays an essential role not just in developing and producing technology however also in directing its usage in line with the genuine good of the human person. [90] The responsibility for handling this carefully pertains to every level of society, assisted by the principle of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.


43. The dedication to ensuring that AI always supports and promotes the supreme worth of the self-respect of every human being and the fullness of the human vocation functions as a requirement of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, along with to its users. It remains valid for every single application of the technology at every level of its usage.


44. An assessment of the implications of this directing principle could start by thinking about the value of ethical duty. Since full ethical causality belongs just to personal agents, not synthetic ones, it is important to be able to recognize and define who bears responsibility for the processes involved in AI, particularly those capable of finding out, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up techniques and extremely deep neural networks allow AI to resolve intricate issues, they make it hard to comprehend the procedures that lead to the solutions they adopted. This makes complex responsibility considering that if an AI application produces undesirable outcomes, identifying who is accountable ends up being hard. To resolve this problem, attention requires to be offered to the nature of responsibility processes in complex, highly automated settings, where results may just end up being evident in the medium to long term. For this, it is necessary that supreme responsibility for decisions made using AI rests with the human decision-makers which there is responsibility for making use of AI at each stage of the decision-making process. [91]

45. In addition to identifying who is responsible, it is vital to identify the objectives offered to AI systems. Although these systems might use not being watched self-governing knowing systems and often follow paths that human beings can not rebuild, they eventually pursue goals that people have designated to them and are governed by procedures developed by their designers and programmers. Yet, this provides a challenge since, as AI designs become progressively efficient in independent knowing, the capability to maintain control over them to guarantee that such applications serve human functions might successfully decrease. This raises the vital question of how to make sure that AI systems are ordered for the good of people and not against them.


46. While responsibility for the ethical use of AI systems starts with those who develop, produce, manage, and oversee such systems, it is also shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis kept in mind, the machine "makes a technical choice among a number of possibilities based either on distinct criteria or on statistical inferences. People, however, not just choose, but in their hearts are capable of choosing." [92] Those who use AI to achieve a job and follow its results produce a context in which they are eventually responsible for the power they have actually delegated. Therefore, insofar as AI can help human beings in making choices, the algorithms that govern it ought to be reliable, secure, robust enough to handle inconsistencies, and transparent in their operation to reduce predispositions and unintentional side results. [93] Regulatory structures ought to guarantee that all legal entities remain liable for using AI and all its effects, with proper safeguards for transparency, personal privacy, and responsibility. [94] Moreover, those utilizing AI should be mindful not to become excessively depending on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases contemporary society's already high reliance on innovation.


47. The Church's moral and social mentor supplies resources to assist guarantee that AI is utilized in a manner that maintains human agency. Considerations about justice, for instance, ought to also address issues such as fostering simply social dynamics, maintaining international security, and promoting peace. By working out vigilance, people and communities can recognize methods to use AI to benefit humanity while avoiding applications that could degrade human dignity or damage the environment. In this context, the idea of duty need to be understood not just in its most minimal sense but as a "duty for the take care of others, which is more than simply accounting for results attained." [95]

48. Therefore, AI, like any innovation, can be part of a conscious and accountable answer to mankind's occupation to the excellent. However, as formerly gone over, AI needs to be directed by human intelligence to align with this occupation, ensuring it respects the self-respect of the human person. Recognizing this "exalted dignity," the Second Vatican Council affirmed that "the social order and its advancement must invariably work to the advantage of the human person." [96] Due to this, the use of AI, as Pope Francis said, must be "accompanied by an ethic motivated by a vision of the typical good, a principles of freedom, responsibility, and fraternity, capable of cultivating the complete development of people in relation to others and to the whole of development." [97]

49. Within this basic viewpoint, some observations follow below to highlight how the preceding arguments can help supply an ethical orientation in useful circumstances, in line with the "wisdom of heart" that Pope Francis has actually proposed. [98] While not exhaustive, this discussion is offered 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 human being and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human household should support the development of new technologies and work as unassailable criteria for evaluating them before they are utilized." [100]

51. Viewed through this lens, AI might "introduce essential innovations in farming, education and culture, an improved level of life for whole countries and individuals, and the growth of human fraternity and social friendship," and therefore be "used to promote important human advancement." [101] AI could likewise assist organizations determine those in need and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other similar applications of this technology might contribute to human advancement and the common good. [102]

52. However, while AI holds numerous possibilities for promoting the great, it can also hinder and even counter human development and the typical good. Pope Francis has actually noted that "proof to date suggests that digital innovations have actually increased inequality in our world. Not just distinctions in material wealth, which are likewise substantial, however also distinctions in access to political and social influence." [103] In this sense, AI could be utilized to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, develop brand-new kinds of poverty, expand the "digital divide," and intensify existing social inequalities. [104]

53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a few powerful business raises significant ethical concerns. Exacerbating this issue is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single person can work out total oversight over the huge and complex datasets utilized for calculation. This absence of distinct responsibility produces the threat that AI might be controlled for personal or business gain or to direct public viewpoint for the advantage of a specific industry. Such entities, inspired by their own interests, possess the capacity to work out "types of control as subtle as they are invasive, producing mechanisms for the adjustment of consciences and of the democratic process." [105]

54. Furthermore, there is the risk of AI being utilized to promote what Pope Francis has called the "technocratic paradigm," which views all the world's problems as understandable through technological means alone. [106] In this paradigm, human self-respect and fraternity are frequently set aside in the name of effectiveness, "as if reality, goodness, and reality instantly flow from technological and economic power as such." [107] Yet, human dignity and the common good needs to never be violated for the sake of effectiveness, [108] for "technological advancements that do not cause an enhancement in the lifestyle of all mankind, but on the contrary, exacerbate inequalities and disputes, can never ever count as real development. " [109] Instead, AI should be put "at the service of another kind of development, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more essential." [110]

55. Attaining this goal requires a deeper reflection on the relationship between autonomy and responsibility. Greater autonomy increases each person's responsibility throughout numerous aspects of communal life. For Christians, the foundation of this obligation lies in the acknowledgment that all human capacities, consisting of the person's autonomy, originated from God and are suggested to be used in the service of others. [111] Therefore, instead of simply pursuing economic or technological goals, AI needs to serve "the common good of the whole human household," which is "the amount total of social conditions that permit people, either as groups or as people, to reach their satisfaction more totally and more quickly." [112]

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

57. Such a mission, along with other aspects of human communication, presupposes encounters and shared exchange between individuals shaped by their distinct histories, thoughts, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a diverse, complex, and complex truth: individual and social, rational and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis highlights this vibrant, noting that "together, we can look for the fact in discussion, in relaxed conversation or in enthusiastic argument. To do so requires perseverance; it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently accept the more comprehensive experience of people and individuals. [...] The procedure of building fraternity, be it local 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 a person can think about the difficulties AI poses to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the prospective to cultivate connections within the human household. However, it might likewise prevent a true encounter with reality and, ultimately, lead people to "a deep and melancholic frustration with interpersonal relations, or a hazardous sense of seclusion." [117] Authentic human relationships need the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their joy. [118] Since human intelligence is revealed and improved likewise in social and embodied methods, genuine and spontaneous encounters with others are indispensable for engaging with truth in its fullness.


59. Because "real knowledge demands an encounter with reality," [119] the rise of AI introduces another obstacle. Since AI can successfully mimic the products of human intelligence, the ability to know when one is communicating with a human or a maker can no longer be taken for approved. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other innovative outputs that are typically related to people. Yet, it should be understood for what it is: a tool, not a person. [120] This difference is frequently obscured by the language utilized by specialists, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and thus blurs the line in between human and machine.


60. Anthropomorphizing AI likewise postures specific obstacles for the development of kids, possibly motivating them to establish patterns of interaction that deal with human relationships in a transactional manner, as one would relate to a chatbot. Such practices might lead young people to see teachers as simple dispensers of details rather than as mentors who direct and support their intellectual and moral development. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and an unfaltering commitment to the good of the other, are essential and irreplaceable in fostering the full advancement of the human person.


61. In this context, it is necessary to clarify that, despite the usage of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can genuinely experience compassion. Emotions can not be reduced to facial expressions or phrases generated in action to prompts; they reflect the method an individual, as a whole, associates with the world and to his/her own life, with the body playing a main function. True empathy needs the capability to listen, recognize another's irreducible originality, welcome their otherness, and comprehend the meaning behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the realm of analytical judgment in which AI excels, real empathy comes from the relational sphere. It includes intuiting and nabbing the lived experiences of another while maintaining the distinction in between self and other. [122] While AI can simulate empathetic reactions, it can not reproduce the incomparably individual and relational nature of genuine compassion. [123]

62. Due to the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as a person must always be prevented; doing so for fraudulent functions is a serious ethical infraction that might deteriorate social trust. Similarly, utilizing AI to trick in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, including the sphere of sexuality-is likewise to be thought about immoral and requires cautious oversight to prevent damage, maintain openness, and guarantee the dignity of all people. [124]

63. In a significantly isolated world, some individuals have actually turned to AI in search of deep human relationships, simple friendship, or even emotional bonds. However, while humans are suggested to experience genuine relationships, AI can only mimic them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an essential part of how an individual grows to become who he or she is meant to be. If AI is utilized to assist people foster real connections between individuals, it can contribute favorably to the full awareness of the person. Conversely, if we replace relationships with God and with others with interactions with innovation, we run the risk of changing authentic relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of retreating into artificial worlds, we are contacted us to take part in a committed and intentional method with truth, especially by identifying with the bad and suffering, consoling those in sadness, and creating bonds of communion with all.


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


65. Other more comprehensive elements of AI's influence 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 consideration in this regard involves the coexistence of varied and alternative types of economic and banks within an offered context. This factor ought to be motivated, as it can bring benefits in how it supports the real economy by promoting its advancement and stability, particularly throughout times of crisis. Nevertheless, it ought to be stressed that digital truths, not restricted by any spatial bonds, tend to be more homogeneous and impersonal than communities rooted in a specific location and a specific history, with a typical journey characterized by shared worths and hopes, however also by unavoidable disputes and divergences. This diversity is an indisputable property to a neighborhood's financial life. Turning over the economy and financing totally to digital innovation would decrease this variety and richness. As a result, numerous services to economic problems that can be reached through natural discussion between the involved celebrations might no longer be attainable in a world controlled by treatments and only the appearance of nearness.


66. Another area where AI is currently having a profound effect is the world of work. As in many other fields, AI is driving fundamental changes across many professions, with a series of effects. On the one hand, it has the potential to enhance competence and efficiency, produce new tasks, allow workers to concentrate on more innovative jobs, and open new horizons for creativity and innovation.


67. However, while AI assures to increase performance by taking over ordinary jobs, it frequently forces employees to adjust to the speed and demands of machines instead of devices being created to support those who work. As an outcome, contrary to the advertised advantages of AI, current approaches to the technology can paradoxically deskill workers, subject them to automated monitoring, and relegate them to rigid and repetitive jobs. The need to stay up to date with the pace of innovation can deteriorate employees' sense of company and suppress the ingenious capabilities they are expected to bring to their work. [125]

68. AI is presently eliminating the need for some tasks that were once performed by people. If AI is utilized to change human workers rather than match them, there is a "substantial threat of disproportionate advantage for the few at the rate of the impoverishment of lots of." [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more powerful, there is an associated danger that human labor may lose its value in the financial world. This is the logical effect of the technocratic paradigm: a world of mankind enslaved to efficiency, where, eventually, the cost of humanity must be cut. Yet, human lives are intrinsically valuable, independent of their financial output. Nevertheless, the "present model," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to prefer a financial investment in efforts to assist the sluggish, the weak, or the less skilled to find opportunities in life." [127] In light of this, "we can not enable a tool as effective and essential as Artificial Intelligence to strengthen such a paradigm, but rather, we need to make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its expansion." [128]

69. It is essential to remember that "the order of things need to be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other method around." [129] Human work must not only be at the service of revenue however at "the service of the entire human person [...] taking into consideration the individual's material needs and the requirements of his/her intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and religious life." [130] In this context, the Church acknowledges that work is "not only a method of making one's daily bread" however is also "an important measurement of social life" and "a way [...] of personal development, the structure of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of presents. Work gives 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 development, human advancement and personal fulfillment," "the objective needs to not be that technological development increasingly replaces human work, for this would be harmful to humanity" [132] -rather, it needs to promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI should assist, not replace, human judgment. Similarly, it needs to never degrade creativity or decrease workers to simple "cogs in a machine." Therefore, "regard for the self-respect of workers and the value of work for the economic well-being of people, families, and societies, for task security and just wages, ought to be a high priority for the global neighborhood as these kinds of innovation penetrate more deeply into our workplaces." [133]

71. As individuals in God's recovery work, health care experts have the vocation and duty to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the health care occupation brings an "intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension," recognized by the Hippocratic Oath, which requires doctors and health care specialists to dedicate themselves to having "outright respect for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Do-gooder, this dedication is to be performed by males and females "who decline the development of a society of exclusion, and act instead as neighbors, raising up and rehabilitating the fallen for the sake of the typical good." [136]

72. Seen in this light, AI seems to hold immense potential in a range of applications in the medical field, such as helping the diagnostic work of doctor, facilitating relationships between clients and medical personnel, providing new treatments, and broadening access to quality care also for those who are separated or marginalized. In these methods, the innovation could boost the "thoughtful and caring nearness" [137] that doctor are contacted us to encompass the sick and suffering.


73. However, if AI is used not to boost however to replace the relationship between patients and health care providers-leaving patients to interact with a device instead of a human being-it would reduce a most importantly crucial human relational structure to a central, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of encouraging solidarity with the ill and suffering, such applications of AI would run the risk of getting worse the loneliness that frequently accompanies illness, specifically in the context of a culture where "individuals are no longer seen as a paramount worth to be looked after and respected." [138] This abuse of AI would not line up with regard for the dignity of the human person and solidarity 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 accountability requires medical specialists to exercise all their ability and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options relating to those entrusted to their care, always respecting the inviolable self-respect of the clients and the requirement for informed consent. As an outcome, choices relating to client treatment and the weight of responsibility they entail must always remain with the human individual and ought to never ever be handed over to AI. [139]

75. In addition, utilizing AI to determine who ought to receive treatment based mainly on economic measures or metrics of efficiency represents a particularly problematic circumstances of the "technocratic paradigm" that need to be turned down. [140] For, "optimizing resources suggests using them in an ethical and fraternal way, and not penalizing the most fragile." [141] Additionally, AI tools in healthcare are "exposed to kinds of bias and discrimination," where "systemic mistakes can quickly increase, producing not just injustices in individual cases however also, due to the domino effect, genuine kinds of social inequality." [142]

76. The combination of AI into healthcare likewise presents the threat of amplifying other existing variations in access to medical care. As health care becomes increasingly oriented towards prevention and lifestyle-based methods, AI-driven services might accidentally prefer more wealthy populations who already enjoy better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This pattern threats strengthening a "medicine for the rich" model, where those with financial methods gain from advanced preventative tools and individualized health details while others struggle to gain access to even standard services. To avoid such inequities, fair structures are required to guarantee that using AI in health care does not get worse existing healthcare inequalities but rather serves the common good.


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


78. This technique includes a dedication to cultivating the mind, but always as a part of the integral development of the person: "We should break that concept of education which holds that informing means filling one's head with concepts. That is the method we inform robots, cerebral minds, not people. Educating is taking a risk in the tension between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]

79. At the center of this work of forming the whole human individual is the important relationship between teacher and trainee. Teachers do more than convey knowledge; they model vital human qualities and inspire the happiness of discovery. [146] Their existence encourages trainees both through the material they teach and the care they show for their trainees. This bond cultivates trust, mutual understanding, and the capability to address each individual's special self-respect and potential. On the part of the trainee, this can produce a real desire to grow. The physical presence of a teacher develops a relational dynamic that AI can not duplicate, one that deepens engagement and supports the trainee's essential advancement.


80. In this context, AI presents both chances and difficulties. If used in a sensible way, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and ordered to the authentic objectives of education, AI can end up being a valuable educational resource by enhancing access to education, offering tailored assistance, and providing instant feedback to trainees. These advantages might boost the knowing experience, specifically in cases where customized attention is required, or academic resources are otherwise scarce.


81. Nevertheless, a necessary part of education is forming "the intellect to factor well in all matters, to connect towards reality, and to grasp it," [147] while assisting the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is all the more important in an age marked by technology, in which "it is no longer simply a concern of 'utilizing' instruments of interaction, however of residing in an extremely digitalized culture that has had a profound influence on [...] our capability to communicate, discover, be informed and get in into relationship with others." [149] However, instead of fostering "a cultivated intelligence," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and profession that it carries out," [150] the substantial use of AI in education could result in the trainees' increased dependence on innovation, deteriorating their capability to perform some skills separately and intensifying their dependence on screens. [151]

82. Additionally, while some AI systems are created to assist individuals develop their vital thinking abilities and analytical skills, numerous others merely offer responses instead of prompting trainees to reach responses themselves or write text on their own. [152] Instead of training youths how to collect details and create fast actions, education ought to motivate "the accountable usage of flexibility to face issues with common sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in making use of forms of artificial intelligence should aim above all at promoting vital thinking. Users of all ages, however specifically the young, require to develop a discerning approach to the usage of information and content gathered online or produced by synthetic intelligence systems. Schools, universities, and clinical societies are challenged to assist trainees and professionals to understand the social and ethical elements of the advancement and uses of innovation." [154]

83. As Saint John Paul II remembered, "in the world today, defined by such fast developments in science and technology, the jobs of a Catholic University presume an ever higher importance and seriousness." [155] In a particular method, Catholic universities are advised to be present as fantastic labs of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary key, they are urged to engage "with knowledge and imagination" [156] in careful research on this phenomenon, assisting to extract the salutary potential within the various fields of science and reality, and assisting them constantly towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the typical excellent, reaching brand-new frontiers in the discussion in between faith and factor.


84. Moreover, it needs to be kept in mind that present AI programs have been known to offer prejudiced or produced details, which can lead trainees to trust inaccurate material. This issue "not only runs the risk of legitimizing phony news and enhancing a dominant culture's advantage, but, in brief, it likewise weakens the academic process itself." [157] With time, clearer distinctions might emerge between appropriate and improper usages of AI in education and research. Yet, a decisive standard is that the use of AI need to always be transparent and never ever misrepresented.


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

86. However, AI also provides a major danger of generating controlled material and false details, which can quickly mislead people due to its similarity to the reality. Such misinformation might occur unintentionally, as when it comes to AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine however are not. Since generating content that mimics human artifacts is main to AI's functionality, alleviating these risks proves tough. Yet, the consequences of such aberrations and false details can be quite severe. For this factor, all those associated with producing and utilizing AI systems should be dedicated to the truthfulness and accuracy of the details processed by such systems and disseminated to the general public.


87. While AI has a hidden potential to produce false details, a much more unpleasant problem lies in the intentional misuse of AI for adjustment. This can happen when individuals or organizations intentionally produce and spread out incorrect material with the aim to trick or trigger damage, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to an incorrect representation of an individual, modified or generated by an AI algorithm. The danger of deepfakes is especially evident when they are utilized to target or harm others. While the images or videos themselves may be synthetic, the damage they cause is genuine, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "genuine wounds in their human self-respect." [159]

88. On a more comprehensive scale, by distorting "our relationship with others and with truth," [160] AI-generated fake media can gradually undermine the structures of society. This concern needs mindful policy, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or affected media-can spread unintentionally, sustaining political polarization and social discontent. When society ends up being indifferent to the fact, various groups build their own versions of "facts," weakening the "reciprocal ties and mutual reliances" [161] that underpin the fabric of social life. As deepfakes trigger individuals to question whatever and AI-generated incorrect content erodes rely on what they see and hear, polarization and conflict will just grow. Such widespread deception is no minor matter; it strikes at the core of humankind, taking apart the foundational trust on which societies are built. [162]

89. Countering AI-driven falsehoods is not just the work of industry experts-it needs the efforts of all people of goodwill. "If technology is to serve human dignity and not damage it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human neighborhood needs to be proactive in attending to these trends with regard to human self-respect and the promo of the great." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated material should constantly exercise diligence in validating the fact of what they disseminate 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 make use of the weak and susceptible." [164] This requires the ongoing vigilance and careful discernment of all users concerning their activity online. [165]

90. Humans are naturally relational, and the data each person generates in the digital world can be seen as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data communicates not just details however likewise individual and relational knowledge, which, in a significantly digitized context, can total up to power over the individual. Moreover, while some kinds of data might pertain to public aspects of an individual's life, others might discuss the individual's interiority, maybe even their conscience. Seen in this way, personal privacy plays a vital role in protecting the boundaries of an individual's inner life, maintaining their freedom to relate to others, reveal themselves, and make decisions without excessive control. This defense is also tied to the defense of spiritual liberty, as security can also be misused to apply control over the lives of believers and how they reveal their faith.


91. It is appropriate, therefore, to attend to the problem of personal privacy from an issue for the legitimate flexibility and inalienable self-respect of the human individual "in all situations." [166] The Second Vatican Council included the right "to secure personal privacy" amongst the basic rights "needed for living a truly human life," a right that ought to be extended to all people on account of their "sublime self-respect." [167] Furthermore, the Church has likewise verified the right to the legitimate respect for a personal life in the context of verifying the individual's right to a good credibility, defense of their physical and psychological integrity, and freedom from harm or excessive invasion [168] -essential elements of the due regard for the intrinsic self-respect of the human person. [169]

92. Advances in AI-powered information processing and analysis now make it possible to infer patterns in an individual's behavior and thinking from even a small amount of details, making the function of data privacy even more imperative as a protect for the dignity and relational nature of the human individual. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant mindsets towards others are on the rise, distances are otherwise diminishing or disappearing to the point that the right to privacy scarcely exists. Everything has actually ended up being a type of phenomenon to be analyzed and inspected, and individuals's lives are now under constant security." [170]

93. While there can be genuine and correct methods to use AI in keeping with human self-respect and the common good, using it for surveillance aimed at making use of, restricting others' flexibility, or benefitting a couple of at the cost of the numerous is unjustifiable. The threat of monitoring overreach must be kept an eye on by proper regulators to guarantee transparency and public responsibility. Those responsible for security ought to never ever surpass their authority, which should constantly favor the self-respect and freedom of everyone as the essential basis of a simply and humane society.


94. Furthermore, "fundamental respect for human self-respect needs that we decline to enable the originality of the individual to be related to a set of information." [171] This especially uses when AI is used to evaluate individuals or groups based on their behavior, attributes, or history-a practice referred to as "social scoring": "In social and economic decision-making, we need to beware about handing over judgments to algorithms that process information, frequently gathered surreptitiously, on an individual's makeup and prior habits. Such data can be contaminated by social bias and prejudgments. A person's past behavior must not be utilized to deny him or her the opportunity to alter, grow, and add to society. We can not enable algorithms to limit or condition regard for human self-respect, or to omit empathy, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that individuals have the ability to change." [172]

95. AI has numerous promising applications for enhancing our relationship with our "common home," such as developing models to anticipate severe climate events, proposing engineering options to lower their impact, managing relief operations, and predicting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable farming, enhance energy use, and provide early warning systems for public health emergency situations. These developments have the potential to strengthen strength against climate-related obstacles and promote more sustainable development.


96. At the same time, present AI designs and the hardware needed to support them take in huge quantities of energy and water, substantially contributing to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This truth is typically obscured by the way this technology exists in the popular creativity, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can offer the impression that data is kept and processed in an intangible realm, separated from the real world. However, "the cloud" is not an ethereal domain separate from the physical world; similar to all computing innovations, it relies on physical makers, cables, and energy. The same holds true of the technology behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, specifically big language designs (LLMs), they need ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and higher storage infrastructure. Considering the heavy toll these innovations take on the environment, it is crucial to develop sustainable services that minimize their effect on our common home.


97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is important "that we try to find options not only in innovation but in a modification of humankind." [175] A total and genuine understanding of creation acknowledges that the value of all produced things can not be reduced to their simple energy. Therefore, a fully human method to the stewardship of the earth rejects the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which looks for to "extract everything possible" from the world, [176] and rejects the "myth of development," which presumes that "environmental issues will fix themselves simply with the application of brand-new innovation and with no need for ethical factors to consider or deep change." [177] Such a mindset needs to pave the way to a more holistic approach that respects the order of production and promotes the essential good of the human person while protecting our common home. [178]

98. The Second Vatican Council and the consistent teaching of the Popes because then have actually insisted that peace is not merely the absence of war and is not restricted to maintaining a balance of powers in between enemies. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the tranquility of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without protecting the items of persons, complimentary communication, regard for the self-respect of individuals and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity and can not be attained through force alone; instead, it should be mainly constructed through patient diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, uniformity, integral human advancement, and respect for the dignity of all people. [180] In this way, the tools used to maintain peace should never be enabled to validate injustice, violence, or injustice. Instead, they should always be governed by a "firm decision to regard other individuals and countries, in addition to their self-respect, along with the purposeful practice of fraternity." [181]

99. While AI's analytical abilities could assist countries look for peace and ensure security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can also be extremely problematic. Pope Francis has actually observed that "the ability to carry out military operations through remote control systems has actually led to a decreased perception of the destruction caused by those weapon systems and the problem of duty for their usage, leading to a much more cold and separated method to the enormous tragedy of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which autonomous weapons make war more viable militates against the concept of war as a last option in legitimate self-defense, [183] possibly increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and speeding up a destabilizing arms race, with devastating effects for human rights. [184]

100. In particular, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which can identifying and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for severe ethical issue" since they do not have the "unique human capability for ethical judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this reason, Pope Francis has actually urgently required a reconsideration of the advancement of these weapons and a prohibition on their usage, starting with "a reliable and concrete commitment to introduce ever higher and appropriate human control. No machine must ever select to take the life of a human being." [186]

101. Since it is a little action from makers that can eliminate autonomously with accuracy to those efficient in large-scale destruction, some AI researchers have actually expressed concerns that such technology presents an "existential danger" by having the prospective to act in manner ins which might threaten the survival of whole regions and even of humankind itself. This risk demands severe attention, showing the enduring issue about innovations that give war "an unmanageable destructive power over multitudes of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing children. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "carry out an assessment of war with a totally new mindset" [188] is more immediate than ever.


102. At the very same time, while the theoretical threats of AI deserve attention, the more immediate and pushing issue depends on how people with harmful intentions might abuse this technology. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future abilities are unforeseeable, mankind's past actions offer clear cautions. The atrocities devoted throughout history are sufficient 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 minimize it to a pile of rubble." [190] Given this reality, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are free to apply our intelligence towards things progressing positively," or towards "decadence and mutual damage." [191] To prevent humankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there must be a clear stand against all applications of innovation that inherently threaten human life and self-respect. This commitment needs mindful discernment about making use of AI, particularly in military defense applications, to ensure that it constantly respects human self-respect and serves the typical good. The development and implementation of AI in weaponries ought to go through the highest levels of ethical analysis, governed by an issue for human self-respect and the sanctity of life. [193]

104. Technology provides amazing tools to manage and develop the world's resources. However, sometimes, humankind is progressively ceding control of these resources to machines. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, there is optimism about the potential of synthetic basic intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical form of AI that would match or exceed human intelligence and produce inconceivable developments. 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 tempted to turn to AI in search of significance or fulfillment-longings that can just be truly pleased in communion with God. [194]

105. However, the presumption of substituting 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 might prove a lot more sexy than traditional idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths however do not speak; eyes, however do not see; ears, but do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or a minimum of provides the illusion of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is vital to keep in mind that AI is however a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated material, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not have numerous of the capabilities specific to human life, and it is also fallible. By turning to AI as a viewed "Other" higher than itself, with which to share presence and duties, humanity dangers developing a replacement for God. However, it is not AI that is eventually deified and worshipped, however mankind itself-which, in this method, becomes enslaved to its own work. [195]

106. While AI has the prospective to serve mankind and contribute to the common great, it remains a production of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and resourcefulness" (Acts 17:29). It should never be ascribed undue worth. As the Book of Wisdom affirms: "For a male made them, and one whose spirit is obtained formed them; for no male can form a god which resembles himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is better than the things he worships since he has life, however they never have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).


107. On the other hand, humans, "by their interior life, transcend the entire product universe; they experience this deep interiority when they enter into their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they choose their own fate in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis reminds us, that each private finds the "mysterious connection between self-knowledge and openness to others, in between the encounter with one's personal individuality and the determination to provide oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "capable of setting our other powers and enthusiasms, and our entire person, in a stance of respect and loving obedience before the Lord," [198] who "uses to deal with every one people as a 'Thou,' constantly and forever." [199]

108. Considering the different challenges positioned by advances in innovation, Pope Francis stressed the requirement for growth in "human duty, worths, and conscience," proportionate to the growth in the capacity that this innovation brings [200] -acknowledging that "with a boost in human power comes a broadening of obligation on the part of people and communities." [201]

109. At the same time, the "essential and essential question" remains "whether in the context of this development guy, as guy, is ending up being genuinely much better, that is to state, more mature spiritually, more knowledgeable about the self-respect of his mankind, more responsible, more available to others, particularly the neediest and the weakest, and readier to offer and to aid all." [202]

110. As an outcome, it is vital to know how to evaluate private applications of AI in specific contexts to determine whether its usage promotes human self-respect, the vocation of the human individual, and the common good. Just like numerous technologies, the impacts of the various uses of AI might not always be foreseeable from their creation. As these applications and their social effects become clearer, suitable actions need to be made at all levels of society, following the concept of subsidiarity. Individual users, households, civil society, corporations, organizations, federal governments, and worldwide companies ought to work at their correct levels to make sure that AI is used for the good of all.


111. A substantial challenge and chance for the typical good today depends on thinking about AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which highlights the interconnectedness of individuals and neighborhoods and highlights our shared duty for fostering the integral wellness of others. The twentieth-century theorist Nicholas Berdyaev observed that people often blame makers for individual and social problems; however, "this only embarrasses male and does not represent his self-respect," for "it is not worthy to move duty from guy to a machine." [203] Only the human person can be morally responsible, and the obstacles of a technological society are ultimately spiritual in nature. Therefore, dealing with those challenges "demands an augmentation of spirituality." [204]

112. A more point to think about is the call, prompted by the appearance of AI on the world phase, for a renewed gratitude of all that is human. Years back, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos warned that "the threat is not in the multiplication of makers, but in the ever-increasing variety of guys accustomed from their childhood to desire only what machines can give." [205] This difficulty is as real today as it was then, as the rapid pace of digitization risks a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable elements of life are set aside and after that forgotten or even deemed unimportant due to the fact that they can not be computed in official terms. AI must be used only as a tool to complement human intelligence rather than change its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that go beyond calculation is important for maintaining "an authentic mankind" that "seems to stay in the midst of our technological culture, almost unnoticed, like a mist permeating gently below a closed door." [207]

113. The huge stretch of the world's knowledge is now available in manner ins which would have filled past generations with awe. However, to make sure that advancements in understanding do not become humanly or spiritually barren, one should exceed the simple build-up of data and aim to attain true wisdom. [208]

114. This knowledge is the gift that mankind requires most to attend to the profound concerns and ethical difficulties presented by AI: "Only by embracing a spiritual way of seeing reality, just by recovering a knowledge of the heart, can we face and translate the newness of our time." [209] Such "wisdom of the heart" is "the virtue that enables us to integrate the entire and its parts, our choices and their repercussions." It "can not be sought from makers," but it "lets itself be discovered by those who seek it and be seen by those who like it; it expects those who want it, and it goes in search of those who are worthwhile of it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]

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

116. Since a "individual's excellence is determined not by the details or knowledge they possess, but by the depth of their charity," [212] how we incorporate AI "to consist of the least of our brothers and sis, the susceptible, and those most in requirement, will be the real step of our humanity." [213] The "wisdom of the heart" can light up and guide the human-centered use of this technology to assist promote the common good, take care of our "typical home," advance the search for the truth, foster important human development, prefer human solidarity and fraternity, and lead humankind to its ultimate goal: joy and full communion with God. [214]

117. From this viewpoint of knowledge, believers will have the ability to function as ethical representatives efficient in utilizing this technology to promote a genuine vision of the human person and society. [215] This need to be finished with the understanding that technological progress is part of God's prepare for creation-an activity that we are called to buy toward the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the consistent search for the True and the Good.


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


Given 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 processes of AI are utilized figuratively to explain its operations and are not meant to anthropomorphize the machine.
[8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[9] Here, one can see the main positions of the "transhumanists" and the "posthumanists." Transhumanists argue that technological advancements will enable humans to overcome their biological constraints and enhance both their physical and cognitive capabilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, contend that such advances will eventually alter human identity to the level that mankind itself may no longer be thought about genuinely "human." Both views rest on a basically unfavorable perception of human corporality, which deals with the body more as a barrier than as an integral part of the individual's identity and call to complete realization. Yet, this unfavorable view of the body is irregular with a correct understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports authentic scientific development, it verifies that human self-respect is rooted in "the person as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "self-respect is also inherent in each person's body, which participates 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 method shows a functionalist point of view, which reduces the human mind to its functions and presumes that its functions can be totally measured in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear really 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 attributed to devices, it must be clarified that this describes calculative thinking rather than crucial thinking. Similarly, if devices are said to operate using abstract thought, it should be defined that this is restricted to computational logic. On the other hand, by its very nature, human idea is an imaginative procedure that eludes shows and goes beyond constraints.
[13] On the foundational role of language in shaping understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York 2010, 141-182).
[14] For more conversation of these anthropological and doctrinal structures, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144.
[15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21.
[16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [faculty] by which he transcends to the unreasonable animals. Now, this [professors] is reason itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it might more appropriately be offered"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When considering all that they have, humans find that they are most distinguished from animals specifically by the truth they have intelligence." This is also restated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who states that "guy is the most perfect of all earthly beings endowed with motion, and his proper and natural operation is intellection," by which man abstracts from things and "gets in his mind things really 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 point of view that echoes aspects of the classical and middle ages distinction between these two modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York 2011.
[19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp.
[20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138.
[21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intellect can examine the truth of things through reflection, experience and discussion, and pertain to recognize 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 "typically considers the human person as a being who exists in the body and is unimaginable outside of it" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Che cosa è l'uomo?" (Sal 8,5): Un itinerario di antropologia biblica [30 September 2019], par. 19). Cf. ibid., pars. 20-21, 43-44, 48.
[25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100 (2008 ), 863: "Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, but rather totally divulged its meaning and worth."
[26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81.
[27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and hence it is joined to the body in order that it may have an existence and an operation ideal to its nature."
[29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18.
[30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357.
[31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54.
[32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221.
[33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27.
[34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls likewise have factor and with it they circle in discourse around the reality of things. [...] [O] n account of the manner in which they are capable of focusing the numerous into the one, they too, in their own fashion and as far as they can, are deserving of conceptions like those of the angels" (en. tr. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York - Mahwah 1987, 106-107).
[35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 3: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7.
[36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 42: AAS 91 (1999 ), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1043: "the human mind is capable of going beyond instant concerns and comprehending certain realities that are changeless, as true now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, factor finds universal values obtained from that same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034.
[38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last proceeding of reason is to recognize that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York 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 capacity permits us to comprehend messages in any kind of interaction in a way that both takes into account and transcends their material or empirical structures (such as computer system code). Here, intelligence becomes a knowledge that "enables us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, scenarios, events and to discover their genuine significance" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our creativity allows us to produce brand-new material or concepts, mainly by providing an initial perspective on reality. Both capabilities depend on the presence of an individual subjectivity for their complete realization.
[41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931.
[42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a dedication to the reality, is far more than personal feeling [...] Certainly, its close relation to truth fosters its universality and maintains it from being 'restricted to a narrow field lacking relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to truth hence 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 reflecting, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who gives presence to all things (Breviloquium 2.12.1). Cf. Alain de Lille, De Incarnatione Christi, PL 210, 579a: "Omnis mundi creatura quasi liber et pictura nobis est et speculum."
[48] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 67: AAS 107 (2015 ), 874; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589-592; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 57: "humans inhabit a distinct place in the universe according to the magnificent plan: they enjoy the advantage of sharing in the magnificent governance of noticeable creation. [...] Since man's location as ruler remains in fact an involvement 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 also shown in the production 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 greater excellent by noticing and enjoying truths."
[61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232).
[62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he greatest norm of human life is the magnificent law itself-eternal, unbiased and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the whole world and the methods of the human neighborhood according to a strategy conceived in his wisdom and love. God has enabled male to take part in this law of his so that, under the mild disposition of divine providence, many may have the ability to reach 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 inscribed his own image and similarity on male (cf. Gen 1:26), conferring upon him an unparalleled self-respect [...] In effect, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not correspond to any work he performs, however 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 comprehended as a technical term to show this technology, recalling that the expression is likewise used to designate the field of study and not only its applications.
[71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857.
[72] For example, see the encouragement 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 writers, amongst a long list of other Catholics engaged in clinical research study and technological expedition, highlight that "faith and science can be joined in charity, supplied that science is put at the service of the men and female of our time and not misused to damage and even ruin them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87.
[73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378.
[74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888.
[77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658.
[78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim.
[79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293.
[80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4.
[81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes man an ethical subject. When he acts intentionally, male is, so to speak, the father of his acts."
[82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776.
[83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777.
[84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father encouraged efforts "to make sure that technology remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed toward the excellent."
[85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the function of human company in selecting a broader aim (Ziel) that then notifies the particular purpose (Zweck) for which each technological application is developed, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um die Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71.
[86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a function and, in its effect on human society, always represents a type of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, hence making it possible for certain people to carry out specific actions while preventing others from carrying out various ones. In a more or less specific 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, rocksoff.org 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 devices, which seem to know how to select individually, we must be really clear that decision-making [...] must always be delegated the human person. We would condemn humanity to a future without hope if we took away individuals's ability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend upon the choices of makers."
[92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[93] The term "bias" in this file refers to algorithmic predisposition (systematic and consistent errors in computer systems that may disproportionately prejudice certain groups in unexpected methods) or learning bias (which will result in training on a prejudiced information set) and not the "predisposition vector" in neural networks (which is a specification utilized to adjust the output of "neurons" 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 need for development procedures to respect such values as addition, transparency, security, equity, personal privacy and reliability," and likewise welcomed "the efforts of global organizations to control these technologies so that they promote real development, contributing, that is, to a better world and an integrally greater quality of life."
[95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8.
[96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.
[97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571.
[98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For additional conversation of the ethical questions raised by AI from a Catholic point of view, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253.
[99] On the importance of discussion in a pluralist society oriented toward a "robust and strong social ethics," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045.
[100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.
[102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464.
[104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10.
[105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; pricing estimate the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245.
[106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050.
[107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047.
[108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309.
[109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892.
[111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027.
[112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123.
[113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034.
[114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149.
[115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414.
[118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057.
[119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985.
[120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989).
[123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Many people] want their social relationships offered by sophisticated devices, by screens and systems which can be turned on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel informs us constantly to risk of a face-to-face encounter with others, with their physical existence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their happiness which infects us in our close and constant interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from subscription in the neighborhood, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045.
[124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1.
[125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899.
[126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107.
[128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' teaching about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893.
[129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as priced quote in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453.
[130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: "work is 'for man' and not male 'for work.' Through this conclusion one rightly pertains to acknowledge the pre-eminence of the subjective significance of work over the objective one."
[132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320.
[133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502.
[135] Ibid.
[136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as priced estimate in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8.
[137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12.
[138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12.
[139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465.
[141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops' Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: "If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture appears, with its painful effects, it is that of healthcare. When an ill person is not put in the center or their self-respect is ruled out, this gives increase to mindsets that can lead even to speculation on the misery of others. And this is very serious! [...] The application of a business technique to the healthcare sector, if indiscriminate [...] might run the risk of discarding human beings."
[142] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[143] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729.
[144] Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on making use of Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729; Francis, Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016), 6: AAS 108 (2016 ), 57-58.
[145] Francis, Address to Members of the Global Researchers Advancing Catholic Education Project (20 April 2022): AAS 114 (2022 ), 580.
[146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), par. 41: AAS 68 (1976 ), 31, quoting Id., Address to the Members of the "Consilium de Laicis" (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: "if [the contemporary person] does listen to teachers, it is because they are witnesses."
[147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126.
[148] Francis, Meeting with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316.
[149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, pricing quote the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592.
[150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167.
[151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413.
[152] In a 2023 policy document about the use of generative AI in education and research study, UNESCO notes: "One of the essential questions [of using generative AI (GenAI) in education and research study] is whether people can possibly deliver basic levels of thinking and skill-acquisition processes to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking skills based on the outputs provided by AI. Writing, for example, is typically related to the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], people can now begin with a well-structured overview offered by GenAI. Some specialists have defined the use of GenAI to create text in this method as 'composing without thinking'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American theorist Hannah Arendt anticipated such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and cautioned: "If it ought to end up being true that knowledge (in the sense of knowledge) and thought have actually parted business for good, then we would certainly become the helpless slaves, not a lot of our devices as of our knowledge" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3).
[153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417.
[154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914.
[155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479.
[156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10.
[157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3.
[158] For example, it may help people gain access to the "selection of resources for creating greater knowledge of reality" contained in the works of viewpoint (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8.
[159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62.
[160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074.
[162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be genuinely indifferent to the concern of whether what they know holds true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he composes: 'I have met many who wanted to trick, however none who desired to be deceived'"; estimating Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794.
[163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62.
[164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8.
[165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Media (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149.
[166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24.
[167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no male might with impunity violate that human dignity which God himself treats with excellent respect"; as estimated in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804.
[168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203.
[169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human dignity in the online world obliges States to likewise respect the right to privacy, by shielding residents from intrusive monitoring and allowing them to secure their personal details from unauthorized gain access to."
[170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984.
[171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body recognized a list of "early pledges of AI helping to deal with environment change" (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 data into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools may help establish new techniques and financial investments to reduce emissions, influence brand-new private sector financial investments in net no, protect biodiversity, and build broad-based social durability" (ibid.).
[174] "The cloud" describes a network of physical servers throughout the world that enables users to shop, procedure, and handle their information remotely.
[175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850.
[176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890.
[177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870.
[178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852.
[179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640.
[180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317.
[181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101.
[182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310.
[184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105.
[185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We require to guarantee and safeguard an area for proper human control over the options made by artificial intelligence programs: human self-respect itself depends on it."
[186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The development and usage of deadly autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) that lack the suitable human control would position basic ethical concerns, offered that LAWS can never be ethically responsible subjects capable of abiding by international humanitarian law."
[187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104.
[188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104.
[189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: "Nor can we disregard the possibility of advanced weapons ending up in the incorrect hands, helping with, for example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the organizations of genuine systems of federal government. In a word, the world does not need new innovations that add to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and subsequently 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 simple build-up of items and services [...] is inadequate for the realization of human happiness. Nor, in repercussion, does the availability of the lots of real benefits supplied in recent times by science and technology, including the computer system sciences, bring freedom from every type of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the substantial body of resources and potential at guy's disposal is guided by an ethical understanding and by an orientation towards the true good of the human race, it quickly 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. Completion of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83).
[201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288.
[203] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," in C. Mitcham - R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York 19832, 212-213.
[204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210.
[205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829.
[206] Cf. Francis, Meeting the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023).
[207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: "The flood of details at our fingertips does not produce higher wisdom. Wisdom is not born of fast searches on the internet nor is it a mass of unverified data. That is not the way to grow in the encounter with truth."
[209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[210] Ibid.
[211] Ibid.
[212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121.
[213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124.
[214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.