II. What Is Artificial Intelligence

1. With knowledge both ancient and new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are contacted us to reflect on the present obstacles and chances postured by scientific and technological improvements, especially by the recent development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian tradition relates to the gift of intelligence as a necessary element of how humans are produced "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Beginning with an important vision of the human individual and the biblical calling to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church highlights that this present of intelligence ought to be expressed through the accountable usage of reason and technical abilities in the stewardship of the produced world.


2. The Church encourages the development of science, technology, the arts, and other types of human undertaking, viewing them as part of the "partnership of male and lady with God in perfecting the noticeable development." [1] As Sirach affirms, God "gave skill to people, that he might be glorified in his magnificent works" (Sir. 38:6). Human capabilities and imagination originate from God and, when used appropriately, glorify God by showing his wisdom and goodness. In light of this, when we ask ourselves what it suggests to "be human," we can not exclude a factor to consider of our clinical and technological capabilities.


3. It is within this point of view that today Note addresses the anthropological and ethical difficulties raised by AI-issues that are especially substantial, as one of the objectives of this innovation is to imitate the human intelligence that developed it. For example, unlike many other human creations, AI can be trained on the outcomes of human creativity and then create new "artifacts" with a level of speed and ability that typically equals or exceeds what humans can do, such as producing text or images identical from human structures. This raises crucial concerns about AI's potential function in the growing crisis of truth in the public online forum. Moreover, this innovation is designed to find out and make certain choices autonomously, adapting to new situations and offering options not visualized by its developers, and hence, it raises fundamental concerns about ethical obligation and human safety, with broader implications for society as a whole. This brand-new circumstance has prompted numerous individuals to review what it means to be human and the role of humanity on the planet.


4. Taking all this into account, there is broad consensus that AI marks a new and substantial phase in humanity's engagement with technology, positioning it at the heart of what Pope Francis has actually explained as an "epochal modification." [2] Its effect is felt internationally and in a vast array of areas, consisting of interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, health care, law, warfare, and international relations. As AI advances rapidly towards even higher achievements, it is critically crucial to consider its anthropological and ethical ramifications. This includes not only mitigating dangers and avoiding damage but likewise making sure that its applications are used to promote human development and the common good.


5. To contribute positively to the discernment regarding AI, and in action to Pope Francis' require a restored "wisdom of heart," [3] the Church provides its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active role in the global dialogue on these problems, the Church welcomes those turned over with transmitting the faith-including moms and dads, instructors, pastors, and bishops-to commit themselves to this important topic with care and attention. While this file is meant specifically for them, it is likewise meant to be available to a more comprehensive audience, especially those who share the conviction that clinical and technological advances need to be directed towards serving the human person and the typical good. [4]

6. To this end, the document starts by comparing principles of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then explores the Christian understanding of human intelligence, supplying a structure rooted in the Church's philosophical and theological tradition. Finally, the document offers standards to ensure that the development and usage 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 evolved gradually, drawing on a range of ideas from various disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a considerable milestone happened in 1956 when the American computer system researcher John McCarthy organized a summertime workshop at Dartmouth University to explore the problem of "Artificial Intelligence," which he defined as "that of making a maker behave in manner ins which would be called smart if a human were so acting." [5] This workshop launched a research study program focused on creating makers capable of carrying out jobs typically associated with the human intelligence and intelligent habits.


8. Since then, AI research has actually advanced rapidly, leading to the development of complex systems efficient in performing extremely advanced tasks. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are typically designed to handle particular and minimal functions, such as translating languages, forecasting the trajectory of a storm, categorizing images, responding to concerns, or producing visual material at the user's request. While the meaning of "intelligence" in AI research differs, the majority of contemporary AI systems-particularly those utilizing machine learning-rely on analytical inference rather than logical deduction. By examining big datasets to recognize patterns, AI can "anticipate" [7] results and propose new techniques, mimicking some cognitive processes common of human problem-solving. Such achievements have been enabled through advances in calculating technology (including neural networks, not being watched artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) as well as hardware developments (such as specialized processors). Together, these technologies make it possible for AI systems to react to numerous types of human input, adjust to brand-new circumstances, and even suggest unique services not prepared for by their initial developers. [8]

9. Due to these quick improvements, many tasks as soon as handled specifically by people are now turned over to AI. These systems can augment or perhaps supersede what human beings have the ability to carry out in numerous fields, especially in specialized locations such as information analysis, image acknowledgment, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is created for a particular task, lots of scientists aim to establish what is called "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system capable of operating across all cognitive domains and carrying out any task within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI could one day attain the state of "superintelligence," exceeding human intellectual capabilities, or contribute to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, however, fear that these possibilities, even if theoretical, might one day eclipse the human person, while still others invite this prospective change. [9]

10. Underlying this and many other perspectives on the subject is the implicit presumption that the term "intelligence" can be used in the exact same way to refer to both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not record the full scope of the idea. When it comes to humans, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the individual in his or her entirety, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is comprehended functionally, frequently with the presumption that the activities quality of the human mind can be broken down into digitized actions that devices can replicate. [10]

11. This functional viewpoint is exemplified by the "Turing Test," which considers a machine "intelligent" if an individual can not differentiate its behavior from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "behavior" refers just to the performance of particular intellectual tasks; it does not represent the complete breadth of human experience, that includes abstraction, emotions, imagination, and the visual, ethical, and religious sensibilities. Nor does it encompass the complete variety of expressions characteristic of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the "intelligence" of a system is examined methodologically, however likewise reductively, based on its ability to produce appropriate responses-in this case, those connected with the human intellect-regardless of how those responses are created.


12. AI's sophisticated functions offer it sophisticated abilities to perform jobs, but not the ability to think. [12] This difference is most importantly important, as the way "intelligence" is defined inevitably shapes how we comprehend the relationship between human thought and this technology. [13] To value this, one must recall the richness of the philosophical custom and Christian faith, which provide a deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's mentor on the nature, dignity, and vocation of the human individual. [14]

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

14. In the classical tradition, the concept of intelligence is typically comprehended through the complementary ideas of "reason" (ratio) and "intellect" (intellectus). These are not separate professors however, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are two 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 concise description highlights the 2 essential and complementary measurements of human intelligence. Intellectus refers to the intuitive grasp of the truth-that is, nabbing it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and premises argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to reasoning proper: the discursive, analytical procedure that results in judgment. Together, intellect and factor form the 2 elements of the act of intelligere, "the appropriate operation of the human being as such." [19]

15. Explaining the human individual as a "reasonable" being does not minimize the person to a specific mode of thought; rather, it recognizes that the ability for intellectual understanding shapes and penetrates all elements of human activity. [20] Whether exercised well or improperly, this capacity is an intrinsic aspect of human nature. In this sense, the "term 'logical' incorporates all the capacities of the human individual," including those associated to "understanding and comprehending, along with those of willing, caring, selecting, and wanting; it likewise includes all corporeal functions closely associated to these capabilities." [21] This detailed viewpoint underscores how, in the human person, produced in the "image of God," reason is integrated in a manner that raises, shapes, and transforms both the person's will and actions. [22]

16. Christian believed thinks about the intellectual professors of the human individual within the structure of an essential sociology that views the human being as basically embodied. In the human person, spirit and matter "are not 2 natures unified, but rather their union forms a single nature." [23] Simply put, the soul is not simply the immaterial "part" of the person contained within the body, nor is the body an outer shell housing an intangible "core." Rather, the whole human person is concurrently both product and spiritual. This understanding shows the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which views the human person as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and thus, an authentically spiritual measurement) within and through this embodied presence. [24] The extensive 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 sublime dignity." [25]

17. Although deeply rooted in physical presence, the human person goes beyond the material world through the soul, which is "almost on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intellect's capability for transcendence and the self-possessed freedom of the will belong to the soul, by which the human individual "shares in the light of the magnificent mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its typical mode of understanding without the body. [28] In this method, the intellectual professors of the human individual are an integral 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 developed in what follows.


18. Human beings are "bought by their very nature to interpersonal communion," [30] having the capacity to know one another, to offer themselves in love, and to participate in communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not an isolated professors however is worked out in relationships, finding its fullest expression in discussion, collaboration, and solidarity. We learn with others, and we discover through others.


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

20. This vocation to communion with God is always connected to the call to communion with others. Love of God can not be separated from love for one's neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20; Mt. 22:37 -39). By the grace of sharing God's life, Christians are likewise contacted us to imitate Christ's outpouring gift (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "enjoy one another, as I have liked you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the magnificent life of self-giving, go beyond self-interest to respond more fully to the human vocation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Even more sublime than understanding lots of things is the dedication to look after one another, for if "I comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge [...] however do not have love, I am absolutely nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2).


21. Human intelligence is eventually "God's present fashioned for the assimilation of reality." [34] In the double sense of intellectus-ratio, it allows the individual to check out realities that exceed mere sensory experience or utility, because "the desire for reality becomes part of humanity itself. It is a natural property of human factor to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limits of empirical information, human intelligence can "with genuine certitude attain to truth itself as knowable." [36] While truth remains only partially understood, the desire for fact "stimulates factor always to go further; certainly, it is as if factor were overwhelmed to see that it can always go beyond what it has currently attained." [37] Although Truth in itself transcends the limits of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this tourist attraction, the human individual is caused look for "realities of a higher order." [39]

22. This natural drive toward the pursuit of reality is especially obvious in the definitely human capabilities 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 person." [41] Likewise, a steadfast orientation to the fact is necessary for charity to be both authentic and universal. [42]

23. The look for reality discovers its greatest expression in openness to truths that transcend the physical and developed world. In God, all realities attain their supreme 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 completely what she or he is called to be: "the intelligence and the will display their spiritual nature," allowing the person "to act in a method that realizes personal liberty to the complete." [45]

24. The Christian faith comprehends production as the totally free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, creates "not to increase his magnificence, however to reveal it forth and to communicate it." [46] Since God creates according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), creation is imbued with an intrinsic order that reflects God's strategy (cf. Gen. 1; Dan. 2:21 -22; Is. 45:18; Ps. 74:12 -17; 104), [47] within which God has actually called humans to presume a distinct function: to cultivate and look after the world. [48]

25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, humans live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and abilities to look after and establish development in accord with God's plan. [49] In this, human intelligence shows the Divine Intelligence that developed all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] constantly sustains them, and guides them to their ultimate function in him. [51] Moreover, humans are contacted us to establish their capabilities in science and innovation, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in a proper relationship with creation, human beings, on the one hand, utilize their intelligence and ability to comply with God in guiding production toward the purpose to which he has actually called it. [52] On the other hand, development itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, assists the human mind to "ascend gradually to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]

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


27. This engagement with reality unfolds in different ways, as each individual, in his or her complex individuality [54], seeks to comprehend the world, relate to others, fix problems, express creativity, and pursue essential wellness through the unified interaction of the numerous measurements of the person's intelligence. [55] This involves sensible and linguistic capabilities however can also include other modes of communicating with reality. Consider the work of a craftsmen, who "must understand how to determine, in inert matter, a specific form that others can not acknowledge" [56] and bring it forth through insight and useful skill. Indigenous peoples who live close to the earth frequently possess a profound sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a buddy who understands the right word to say or a person proficient at managing human relationships exhibits an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, dialogue and generous encounter in between individuals." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of expert system, we can not forget that poetry and love are needed to conserve our mankind." [59]

28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the combination of reality into the moral and spiritual life of the person, guiding his or her actions due to God's goodness and fact. According to God's strategy, intelligence, in its fullest sense, likewise includes the capability to savor what is true, great, and lovely. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel revealed, "intelligence is nothing without delight." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the greatest heaven in Paradiso, testifies that the conclusion of this intellectual delight is found in the "light intellectual filled with love, love of real great filled with joy, happiness which goes beyond every sweet taste." [61]

29. An appropriate understanding of human intelligence, therefore, can not be decreased to the simple acquisition of realities or the capability to perform particular tasks. Instead, it involves the person's openness to the supreme questions of life and reflects an orientation towards the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the divine image within the individual, human intelligence has the capability to access the totality of being, considering presence in its fullness, which exceeds what is quantifiable, and understanding the significance of what has actually been understood. For followers, this capacity includes, in a specific method, 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 divine love, which "is put forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence possesses an important reflective measurement, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any practical function.


30. In light of the foregoing discussion, the differences in between human intelligence and present AI systems become apparent. While AI is a remarkable technological achievement efficient in mimicing certain outputs connected with human intelligence, it runs by performing jobs, attaining goals, or making choices based on quantitative data and computational reasoning. For example, with its analytical power, AI excels at integrating information from a range of fields, modeling complex systems, and promoting interdisciplinary connections. In this way, it can help experts team up in solving intricate problems that "can not be dealt with from a single viewpoint or from a single set of interests." [64]

31. However, even as AI processes and replicates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains fundamentally confined to a logical-mathematical framework, which imposes fundamental constraints. Human intelligence, in contrast, establishes organically throughout the individual's physical and mental growth, formed by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although innovative AI systems can "discover" through procedures such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is basically different from the developmental development of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, consisting of sensory input, psychological responses, social interactions, and the of each moment. These elements shape and kind people within their individual history.In contrast, AI, lacking a physical body, depends on computational reasoning and knowing based on huge datasets that consist of recorded human experiences and understanding.


32. Consequently, although AI can mimic aspects of human thinking and carry out particular jobs with amazing speed and efficiency, its computational abilities represent only a portion of the wider capacities of the human mind. For instance, AI can not presently replicate moral discernment or the capability to establish authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is situated within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral development that essentially forms the person's perspective, including the physical, emotional, social, moral, and spiritual measurements of life. Since AI can not use this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely entirely on this technology or treat it as the main means of analyzing the world can result in "a loss of gratitude for the whole, for the relationships between things, and for the more comprehensive horizon." [65]

33. Human intelligence is not mainly about completing practical jobs however about understanding and actively engaging with truth in all its dimensions; it is also efficient in surprising insights. Since AI does not have the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to fact and goodness, its capacities-though apparently limitless-are incomparable with the human capability to understand reality. A lot can be gained from a health problem, an accept of reconciliation, and even an easy sunset; certainly, numerous experiences we have as human beings open new horizons and use the possibility of attaining new knowledge. No gadget, working entirely with data, can determine up to these and numerous other experiences present in our lives.


34. Drawing an extremely close equivalence between human intelligence and AI threats catching a functionalist point of view, where people are valued based upon the work they can perform. However, an individual's worth does not depend upon possessing particular abilities, cognitive and technological achievements, or private success, cadizpedia.wikanda.es however on the individual's fundamental self-respect, grounded in being produced in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains undamaged in all situations, consisting of for those not able to exercise their capabilities, whether it be an unborn child, an unconscious person, or an older individual who is suffering. [67] It also underpins the tradition of human rights (and, in particular, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "an important point of convergence in the look for commonalities" [68] and can, therefore, serve as a fundamental ethical guide in conversations on the responsible development and use of AI.


35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the extremely usage of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can prove deceptive" [69] and risks overlooking what is most valuable in the human individual. Because of this, AI should not be seen as an artificial form of human intelligence however as an item of it. [70]

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

37. Seen as a fruit of the possible engraved within human intelligence, [72] scientific questions and the advancement of technical abilities are part of the "collaboration of man and lady with God in improving the visible production." [73] At the exact same time, all scientific and technological accomplishments are, eventually, gifts from God. [74] Therefore, people should always utilize their abilities in view of the higher purpose for which God has approved them. [75]

38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has "remedied numerous evils which utilized to damage and restrict people," [76] a reality for which we should rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological advancements in themselves represent genuine human development. [77] The Church is particularly opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human individual. [78] Like any human undertaking, technological advancement must be directed to serve the human individual and contribute to the pursuit of "higher justice, more substantial fraternity, and a more gentle order of social relations," which are "more valuable than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical ramifications of technological development are shared not only within the Church but also among lots of scientists, technologists, and expert associations, who increasingly call for ethical reflection to guide this development in an accountable way.


39. To address these obstacles, it is necessary to stress the value of moral obligation grounded in the dignity and vocation of the human person. This assisting principle likewise uses to concerns worrying AI. In this context, the ethical measurement takes on main value since it is individuals who design systems and identify the functions for which they are utilized. [80] Between a device and a human being, only the latter is truly an ethical agent-a topic of moral duty who works out freedom in his or her choices and accepts their effects. [81] It is not the maker but the human who remains in relationship with reality and goodness, guided by a moral conscience that calls the person "to enjoy and to do what is excellent and to prevent evil," [82] bearing witness to "the authority of fact in recommendation to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn." [83] Likewise, between a machine 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 great that is possible in every circumstance. [84] In reality, all of this likewise comes from the person's exercise of intelligence.


40. Like any product of human creativity, AI can be directed towards favorable or negative ends. [85] When utilized in manner ins which appreciate human dignity and promote the well-being of people and neighborhoods, it can contribute favorably to the human vocation. Yet, as in all areas where humans are contacted us to make decisions, the shadow of evil likewise looms here. Where human liberty permits for the possibility of selecting what is wrong, 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 only the ends that are fairly significant but likewise the ways used to attain them. Additionally, the overall vision and understanding of the human individual ingrained within these systems are essential to think about also. Technological products reflect the worldview of their designers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to "form the world and engage consciences on the level of values." [87] On a societal level, some technological advancements might also reinforce relationships and power characteristics that are inconsistent with a proper understanding of the human individual and society.


42. Therefore, completions and the means utilized in an offered application of AI, along with the total vision it integrates, must all be evaluated to ensure they appreciate human dignity and promote the typical good. [88] As Pope Francis has actually stated, "the intrinsic dignity of every man and every woman" should be "the essential criterion in examining emerging innovations; these will prove fairly sound to the degree that they assist respect that self-respect and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] consisting of in the social and financial spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays an essential function not just in designing and producing innovation but also in directing its usage in line with the authentic good of the human individual. [90] The responsibility for handling this wisely pertains to every level of society, guided by the concept of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.


43. The commitment to guaranteeing that AI always supports and promotes the supreme value of the self-respect of every human being and the fullness of the human vocation acts as a criterion of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, as well as to its users. It remains valid for every application of the innovation at every level of its usage.


44. An assessment of the ramifications of this directing principle could begin by considering the importance of moral obligation. Since complete moral causality belongs just to personal representatives, not synthetic ones, it is essential to be able to determine and define who bears responsibility for the procedures associated with AI, particularly those capable of finding out, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up techniques and very deep neural networks enable AI to resolve complicated problems, they make it tough to comprehend the processes that lead to the solutions they embraced. This complicates responsibility since if an AI application produces undesirable results, identifying who is responsible becomes difficult. To address this issue, attention needs to be offered to the nature of responsibility processes in complex, extremely automated settings, where results may only end up being evident in the medium to long term. For this, it is crucial that supreme obligation for choices used AI rests with the human decision-makers and that there is responsibility for making use of AI at each phase of the decision-making procedure. [91]

45. In addition to identifying who is accountable, it is necessary to identify the objectives provided to AI systems. Although these systems may utilize unsupervised self-governing knowing systems and sometimes follow courses that human beings can not reconstruct, they ultimately pursue goals that human beings have appointed to them and are governed by processes established by their designers and developers. Yet, this provides a difficulty since, as AI models become significantly efficient in independent learning, the ability to maintain control over them to guarantee that such applications serve human functions might successfully diminish. This raises the crucial concern of how to ensure that AI systems are ordered for the good of individuals and not against them.


46. While duty for the ethical use of AI systems starts with those who establish, produce, handle, and oversee such systems, it is also shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis noted, the machine "makes a technical option amongst several possibilities based either on distinct requirements or on analytical reasonings. Human beings, nevertheless, not just pick, but in their hearts can deciding." [92] Those who utilize AI to accomplish a task and follow its results produce a context in which they are eventually responsible for the power they have delegated. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist human beings in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it should be credible, protected, robust enough to manage disparities, and transparent in their operation to reduce biases and unintended side effects. [93] Regulatory structures should ensure that all legal entities remain responsible for making use of AI and all its effects, with proper safeguards for transparency, privacy, and accountability. [94] Moreover, those utilizing AI needs to be careful not to end up being excessively based on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases contemporary society's already high dependence on technology.


47. The Church's moral and social mentor provides resources to assist make sure that AI is utilized in such a way that maintains human agency. Considerations about justice, for example, ought to also attend to problems such as fostering simply social characteristics, maintaining global security, and promoting peace. By working out prudence, people and communities can discern ways to utilize AI to benefit humanity while preventing applications that could deteriorate human self-respect or harm the environment. In this context, the principle of duty need to be comprehended not just in its most minimal sense but as a "duty for the look after others, which is more than merely representing outcomes attained." [95]

48. Therefore, AI, like any technology, can be part of a mindful and responsible answer to humanity's vocation to the good. However, as previously gone over, AI must be directed by human intelligence to align with this vocation, ensuring it appreciates the dignity of the human individual. Recognizing this "exalted dignity," the Second Vatican Council affirmed that "the social order and its advancement should inevitably work to the benefit of the human individual." [96] Because of this, using AI, as Pope Francis said, need to be "accompanied by an ethic motivated by a vision of the common great, an ethic of liberty, responsibility, and fraternity, efficient in fostering the full advancement of people in relation to others and to the entire of production." [97]

49. Within this basic viewpoint, some observations follow listed below to highlight how the preceding arguments can help provide an ethical orientation in practical scenarios, in line with the "wisdom of heart" that Pope Francis has proposed. [98] While not extensive, this discussion is used in service of the dialogue that considers how AI can be used to maintain the self-respect of the human individual and promote the typical good. [99]

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

51. Viewed through this lens, AI might "introduce essential innovations in farming, education and culture, an improved level of life for entire countries and individuals, and the development of human fraternity and social relationship," and hence be "utilized to promote essential human advancement." [101] AI might likewise help organizations determine those in requirement and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other comparable applications of this technology could add to human development and the common good. [102]

52. However, while AI holds many possibilities for promoting the great, it can likewise impede or even counter human advancement and the typical good. Pope Francis has kept in mind that "evidence to date suggests that digital technologies have increased inequality in our world. Not simply distinctions in product wealth, which are likewise considerable, but likewise differences in access to political and social impact." [103] In this sense, AI could be used to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, create new kinds of poverty, widen the "digital divide," and worsen existing social inequalities. [104]

53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a few effective companies raises considerable ethical issues. Exacerbating this problem is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single individual can work out total oversight over the large and intricate datasets utilized for computation. This absence of well-defined responsibility develops the threat that AI could be manipulated for individual or corporate gain or to direct popular opinion for the benefit of a specific market. Such entities, encouraged by their own interests, have the capability to work out "types of control as subtle as they are invasive, creating systems for the manipulation of consciences and of the democratic process." [105]

54. Furthermore, there is the threat of AI being used to promote what Pope Francis has actually called the "technocratic paradigm," which views all the world's issues as understandable through technological ways alone. [106] In this paradigm, human dignity and fraternity are often set aside in the name of efficiency, "as if truth, goodness, and truth immediately flow from technological and financial power as such." [107] Yet, human dignity and the typical excellent needs to never be breached for the sake of performance, [108] for "technological advancements that do not cause an enhancement in the lifestyle of all mankind, however on the contrary, exacerbate inequalities and disputes, can never ever count as real development. " [109] Instead, AI ought to be put "at the service of another type of development, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more essential." [110]

55. Attaining this goal needs a much deeper reflection on the relationship in between autonomy and responsibility. Greater autonomy increases each person's duty across various elements of common life. For Christians, the foundation of this duty depends on the recognition that all human capabilities, including the person's autonomy, originated from God and are meant to be utilized in the service of others. [111] Therefore, rather than simply pursuing financial or technological goals, AI must serve "the typical good of the whole human household," which is "the amount overall of social conditions that allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their satisfaction more completely and more quickly." [112]

56. The Second Vatican Council observed that "by his inner nature male is a social being; and if he does not get in into relations with others, he can neither live nor develop his gifts." [113] This conviction highlights that residing in society is intrinsic to the nature and vocation of the human individual. [114] As social beings, we seek relationships that involve mutual exchange and the pursuit of reality, in the course of which, people "show each other the truth they have found, or believe they have discovered, in such a method that they help one another in the look for truth." [115]

57. Such a mission, together with other elements of human communication, presupposes encounters and mutual exchange in between individuals formed by their unique histories, ideas, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a diverse, diverse, and complicated reality: individual and social, logical and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis highlights this dynamic, noting that "together, we can look for the reality in dialogue, in relaxed conversation or in passionate dispute. To do so calls for determination; it entails minutes of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently accept the broader experience of individuals and peoples. [...] The process of structure fraternity, be it regional or universal, can just be undertaken by spirits that are totally free and available to authentic encounters." [116]

58. It remains in this context that a person can think about the difficulties AI postures to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the possible to foster connections within the human household. However, it could also impede a true encounter with truth 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 pleasure. [118] Since human intelligence is expressed and improved also in interpersonal and embodied ways, genuine and spontaneous encounters with others are vital for engaging with truth in its fullness.


59. Because "true knowledge requires an encounter with truth," [119] the increase of AI introduces another obstacle. Since AI can efficiently imitate the products of human intelligence, the capability to know when one is communicating with a human or a device can no longer be considered granted. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other innovative outputs that are generally related to people. Yet, it needs to be comprehended for what it is: a tool, not a person. [120] This difference is typically obscured by the language utilized by professionals, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and therefore blurs the line in between human and maker.


60. Anthropomorphizing AI likewise positions particular obstacles for the development of children, possibly encouraging them to develop patterns of interaction that deal with human relationships in a transactional way, as one would relate to a chatbot. Such habits could lead young individuals to see teachers as simple dispensers of details rather than as coaches who guide and support their intellectual and moral growth. Genuine relationships, rooted in empathy and an unfaltering commitment to the good of the other, are vital and irreplaceable in cultivating the full advancement of the human individual.


61. In this context, it is necessary to clarify that, regardless of the use of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can really experience empathy. Emotions can not be lowered to facial expressions or expressions generated in response to prompts; they reflect the way a person, as an entire, relates to the world and to his or her own life, with the body playing a main function. True compassion needs the ability to listen, recognize another's irreducible uniqueness, welcome their otherness, and comprehend the meaning behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the realm of analytical judgment in which AI excels, true empathy belongs to the relational sphere. It includes intuiting and capturing the lived experiences of another while maintaining the difference in between self and other. [122] While AI can replicate empathetic responses, it can not duplicate the eminently personal and relational nature of genuine compassion. [123]

62. Due to the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as an individual ought to always be prevented; doing so for deceitful purposes is a serious ethical violation that might erode social trust. Similarly, utilizing AI to deceive in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, including the sphere of sexuality-is likewise to be considered unethical and requires mindful oversight to prevent harm, maintain openness, and guarantee the self-respect of all people. [124]

63. In an increasingly isolated world, some people have actually turned to AI in search of deep human relationships, basic friendship, or perhaps psychological bonds. However, while human beings are indicated to experience authentic relationships, AI can just imitate 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 individuals foster authentic connections between individuals, it can contribute favorably to the complete awareness of the person. Conversely, if we change relationships with God and with others with interactions with innovation, we risk replacing authentic relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of retreating into artificial worlds, we are called to participate in a committed and intentional way with truth, particularly by recognizing with the bad and suffering, consoling those in grief, and forging bonds of communion with all.


64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being increasingly integrated into economic and monetary systems. Significant investments are presently being made not just in the technology sector however also in energy, finance, and media, especially in the locations of marketing and sales, logistics, technological development, compliance, and risk management. At the exact same time, AI's applications in these areas have actually likewise highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of incredible opportunities however also extensive risks. A first real important point in this location concerns the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a few corporations-only those big companies would gain from the value produced by AI instead of the services that utilize it.


65. Other broader elements of AI's effect on the economic-financial sphere should also be carefully taken a look at, particularly worrying the interaction between concrete reality and the digital world. One crucial factor to consider in this regard involves the coexistence of diverse and alternative kinds of economic and monetary organizations within a provided context. This factor ought to be encouraged, as it can bring advantages in how it supports the real economy by promoting its development and stability, particularly during times of crisis. Nevertheless, it must be worried that digital truths, not limited by any spatial bonds, tend to be more uniform and impersonal than neighborhoods rooted in a specific location and a specific history, with a common journey identified by shared worths and hopes, however likewise by inevitable disagreements and divergences. This variety is an indisputable asset to a community's financial life. Turning over the economy and financing entirely to digital innovation would decrease this range and richness. As a result, numerous options to economic issues that can be reached through natural dialogue between the included celebrations may no longer be attainable in a world dominated by treatments and just the appearance of nearness.


66. Another location where AI is currently having an extensive impact is the world of work. As in lots of other fields, AI is driving essential improvements across many occupations, with a series of results. On the one hand, it has the potential to improve know-how and efficiency, develop new jobs, make it possible for employees to concentrate on more ingenious jobs, and open brand-new horizons for creativity and innovation.


67. However, while AI promises to increase productivity by taking control of mundane jobs, it regularly forces workers to adjust to the speed and needs of makers instead of makers being designed to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the marketed advantages of AI, present techniques to the technology can paradoxically deskill workers, subject them to automated monitoring, and relegate them to stiff and recurring tasks. The need to keep up with the rate of innovation can deteriorate workers' sense of company and suppress the ingenious capabilities they are anticipated to bring to their work. [125]

68. AI is currently getting rid of the need for some tasks that were once performed by humans. If AI is used to change human employees rather than complement them, there is a "substantial threat of disproportionate benefit for the few at the rate of the impoverishment of numerous." [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more effective, there is an associated risk that human labor may lose its worth in the financial realm. This is the logical consequence of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humanity shackled to performance, where, eventually, the cost of mankind must be cut. Yet, human lives are intrinsically important, independent of their economic output. Nevertheless, the "present design," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to favor a financial investment in efforts to assist the sluggish, the weak, or the less talented to discover opportunities in life." [127] In light of this, "we can not permit a tool as powerful and vital as Artificial Intelligence to strengthen such a paradigm, but rather, we need to make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its growth." [128]

69. It is essential to keep in mind that "the order of things need to be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other method around." [129] Human work needs to not only be at the service of profit however at "the service of the entire human individual [...] considering the individual's product needs and the requirements of his or her intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and religious life." [130] In this context, the Church recognizes that work is "not only a way of earning one's daily bread" however is also "an essential dimension of social life" and "a means [...] of individual development, the building of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of presents. Work offers us a sense of shared duty for the development of the world, and ultimately, for our life as an individuals." [131]

70. Since work is a "part of the significance of life on this earth, a course to growth, human development and individual fulfillment," "the goal should not be that technological progress significantly changes human work, for this would be destructive 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 break down creativity or minimize employees to simple "cogs in a device." Therefore, "respect for the dignity of workers and the value of work for the economic wellness of people, households, and societies, for task security and just earnings, should be a high priority for the worldwide community as these types of technology penetrate more deeply into our offices." [133]

71. As individuals in God's recovery work, health care professionals have the occupation and duty to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the health care profession carries an "intrinsic and indisputable ethical dimension," acknowledged by the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges doctors and healthcare specialists to commit themselves to having "absolute respect for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Do-gooder, this dedication is to be brought out by males and females "who reject the creation of a society of exemption, and act rather 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 tremendous capacity in a range of applications in the medical field, such as assisting the diagnostic work of doctor, facilitating relationships in between clients and medical personnel, providing brand-new treatments, and broadening access to quality care also for those who are isolated or marginalized. In these ways, the technology could boost the "caring and loving nearness" [137] that health care service providers are called to encompass the ill and suffering.


73. However, if AI is utilized not to improve but to replace the relationship between patients and healthcare providers-leaving clients to engage with a maker rather than a human being-it would minimize a crucially essential human relational structure to a central, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of encouraging uniformity with the ill and suffering, such applications of AI would risk worsening the loneliness that frequently accompanies illness, specifically in the context of a culture where "persons are no longer seen as a paramount worth to be taken care of and appreciated." [138] This abuse of AI would not line up with regard for the dignity of the human person and uniformity with the suffering.


74. Responsibility for the well-being of clients and the decisions that discuss their lives are at the heart of the health care occupation. This responsibility requires doctor to exercise all their ability and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options relating to those turned over to their care, constantly appreciating the inviolable dignity of the patients and the requirement for informed approval. As a result, decisions relating to patient treatment and the weight of obligation they entail must always remain with the human person and should never be entrusted to AI. [139]

75. In addition, utilizing AI to determine who ought to receive treatment based mainly on economic steps or metrics of performance represents an especially troublesome circumstances of the "technocratic paradigm" that must be rejected. [140] For, "optimizing resources indicates utilizing them in an ethical and fraternal way, and not punishing the most delicate." [141] Additionally, AI tools in health care are "exposed to forms of predisposition and discrimination," where "systemic errors can quickly multiply, producing not just injustices in private cases but also, due to the cause and effect, real forms of social inequality." [142]

76. The combination of AI into health care also poses the danger of enhancing other existing disparities in access to treatment. As health care ends up being progressively oriented toward avoidance and lifestyle-based methods, AI-driven services may accidentally prefer more affluent populations who already enjoy much better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This pattern threats reinforcing a "medicine for the rich" design, where those with financial ways gain from advanced preventative tools and personalized health details while others battle to gain access to even fundamental services. To prevent such inequities, fair frameworks are needed to make sure that using AI in health care does not worsen existing healthcare inequalities but rather serves the typical good.


77. The words of the Second Vatican Council remain completely relevant today: "True education aims to form people with a view toward their final end and the good of the society to which they belong." [143] As such, education is "never a mere process of passing on realities and intellectual skills: rather, its aim is to add to the individual's holistic formation in its various aspects (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, etc), consisting of, for example, neighborhood life and relations within the scholastic neighborhood," [144] in keeping with the nature and self-respect of the human individual.


78. This method involves a dedication to cultivating the mind, however constantly as a part of the essential development of the person: "We need to break that concept of education which holds that educating methods filling one's head with concepts. That is the method we educate robots, cerebral minds, not individuals. Educating is taking a threat in the tension between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]

79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human person is the important relationship in between instructor and trainee. Teachers do more than convey knowledge; they design vital human qualities and inspire the delight 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, good understanding, and the capacity to deal with each person's special dignity and potential. On the part of the trainee, this can create an authentic desire to grow. The physical presence of an instructor develops a relational dynamic that AI can not replicate, one that deepens engagement and nurtures the trainee's essential advancement.


80. In this context, AI presents both opportunities and obstacles. If used in a sensible manner, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and bought to the authentic goals of education, AI can end up being an important academic resource by enhancing access to education, using tailored assistance, and supplying instant feedback to trainees. These advantages could enhance the knowing experience, particularly in cases where individualized attention is required, or academic resources are otherwise scarce.


81. Nevertheless, a vital part of education is forming "the intellect to reason well in all matters, to reach out towards truth, and to 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 even more essential in an age marked by technology, in which "it is no longer merely a question of 'utilizing' instruments of communication, but of residing in a highly digitalized culture that has had a profound impact on [...] our capability to communicate, find out, be informed and participate in relationship with others." [149] However, instead of promoting "a cultivated intelligence," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and profession that it undertakes," [150] the extensive usage of AI in education could cause the trainees' increased reliance on technology, deteriorating their ability to carry out some abilities separately and worsening their reliance on screens. [151]

82. Additionally, while some AI systems are developed to assist people develop their important thinking abilities and problem-solving abilities, many others simply provide answers rather of prompting trainees to come to responses themselves or write text on their own. [152] Instead of training young people how to accumulate details and generate fast responses, education needs to encourage "the responsible usage of flexibility to face problems with excellent sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in using kinds of artificial intelligence must aim above all at promoting vital thinking. Users of any ages, but especially the young, need to establish a critical technique to using information and content collected on the web or produced by synthetic intelligence systems. Schools, universities, and scientific societies are challenged to assist trainees and experts to comprehend the social and ethical aspects of the advancement and uses of innovation." [154]

83. As Saint John Paul II recalled, "worldwide today, characterized by such fast developments in science and technology, the tasks of a Catholic University presume an ever greater significance and urgency." [155] In a specific way, Catholic universities are advised to be present as fantastic laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary key, they are urged to engage "with knowledge and imagination" [156] in mindful research study on this phenomenon, helping to draw out the salutary capacity within the various fields of science and truth, and guiding them always towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the typical excellent, reaching new frontiers in the dialogue between faith and reason.


84. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that current AI programs have been understood to supply prejudiced or made details, which can lead trainees to rely on inaccurate material. This problem "not only runs the danger of legitimizing phony news and reinforcing a dominant culture's advantage, however, in other words, it also weakens the instructional process itself." [157] With time, clearer distinctions might emerge in between correct and inappropriate uses of AI in education and research. Yet, a decisive guideline is that the usage of AI must always be transparent and never ever misrepresented.


85. AI might be used as an aid to human self-respect if it assists people understand complex principles or directs them to sound resources that support their look for the reality. [158]

86. However, AI likewise presents a major risk of creating manipulated material and incorrect details, which can easily misinform people due to its similarity to the truth. Such misinformation might happen accidentally, as in the case of AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine but are not. Since creating content that mimics human artifacts is main to AI's functionality, alleviating these dangers proves difficult. Yet, the repercussions of such aberrations and false details can be rather severe. For this factor, all those involved in producing and using AI systems must be committed to the truthfulness and accuracy of the details processed by such systems and shared to the public.


87. While AI has a hidden capacity to create false details, a a lot more uncomfortable issue depends on the deliberate abuse of AI for manipulation. This can occur when individuals or companies deliberately generate and spread false content with the aim to deceive or cause harm, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to an incorrect representation of a person, edited or produced by an AI algorithm. The risk of deepfakes is particularly apparent when they are utilized to target or harm others. While the images or videos themselves might be artificial, the damage they cause is real, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "genuine wounds in their human dignity." [159]

88. On a more comprehensive scale, by distorting "our relationship with others and with reality," [160] AI-generated fake media can slowly weaken the structures of society. This concern needs careful guideline, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or influenced media-can spread inadvertently, sustaining political polarization and social discontent. When society becomes indifferent to the truth, various groups construct their own variations of "truths," deteriorating the "reciprocal ties and mutual dependences" [161] that underpin the fabric of social life. As deepfakes trigger individuals to question everything and AI-generated false content deteriorates trust in what they see and hear, polarization and conflict will only grow. Such extensive deceptiveness is no unimportant matter; it strikes at the core of mankind, 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 requires the efforts of all individuals of goodwill. "If innovation is to serve human self-respect and not damage it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human community must be proactive in resolving these patterns with respect to human self-respect and the promotion of the great." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated content should constantly exercise diligence in validating the fact of what they share and, in all cases, must "prevent the sharing of words and images that are breaking down of humans, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that exploit the weak and susceptible." [164] This calls for the ongoing vigilance and cautious discernment of all users regarding their activity online. [165]

90. Humans are naturally relational, and the data everyone produces in the digital world can be seen as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data communicates not just details but likewise personal and relational knowledge, which, in a significantly digitized context, can amount to power over the individual. Moreover, while some kinds of data may pertain to public aspects of an individual's life, others might touch upon the person's interiority, possibly even their conscience. Seen in this way, privacy plays a vital function in safeguarding the limits of a person's inner life, maintaining their freedom to associate with others, express themselves, and make choices without undue control. This defense is likewise tied to the defense of spiritual freedom, as monitoring can likewise be misused to apply control over the lives of believers and how they reveal their faith.


91. It is appropriate, for that reason, to resolve the issue of privacy from a concern for the genuine flexibility and inalienable dignity of the human person "in all situations." [166] The Second Vatican Council included the right "to secure personal privacy" among the essential rights "required for living a genuinely human life," a right that ought to be extended to all people on account of their "sublime dignity." [167] Furthermore, the Church has actually likewise verified the right to the genuine respect for a personal life in the context of affirming the individual's right to a good reputation, defense of their physical and mental integrity, and freedom from damage or unnecessary invasion [168] -necessary components of the due regard for the intrinsic self-respect of the human individual. [169]

92. Advances in AI-powered information processing and analysis now make it possible to presume patterns in an individual's habits and believing from even a percentage of details, making the function of information personal privacy much more necessary as a protect for the dignity and relational nature of the human person. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant attitudes towards others are on the increase, ranges are otherwise diminishing or vanishing to the point that the right to privacy rarely exists. Everything has ended up being a sort of spectacle to be taken a look at and inspected, and people's lives are now under constant monitoring." [170]

93. While there can be legitimate and correct methods to utilize AI in keeping with human dignity and the typical great, using it for security aimed at exploiting, limiting others' flexibility, or benefitting a few at the cost of the lots of is unjustifiable. The risk of monitoring overreach need to be monitored by appropriate regulators to make sure openness and public accountability. Those responsible for security needs to never exceed their authority, which should constantly favor the dignity and freedom of every individual as the important basis of a just and gentle society.


94. Furthermore, "essential respect for human self-respect needs that we refuse to allow the originality of the individual to be related to a set of data." [171] This particularly uses when AI is utilized to evaluate individuals or groups based upon their habits, attributes, or history-a practice understood as "social scoring": "In social and economic decision-making, we must beware about delegating judgments to algorithms that process information, frequently gathered surreptitiously, on an individual's makeup and prior behavior. Such information can be contaminated by societal prejudices and prejudgments. An individual's past habits should not be utilized to reject him or her the chance to alter, grow, and contribute to society. We can not permit algorithms to restrict or condition regard for human dignity, or to omit empathy, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that individuals are able to change." [172]

95. AI has many appealing applications for enhancing our relationship with our "common home," such as creating designs to forecast extreme environment events, proposing engineering solutions to decrease their impact, managing relief operations, and predicting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable farming, optimize energy usage, and supply early caution systems for public health emergency situations. These advancements have the prospective to strengthen durability against climate-related difficulties and promote more sustainable development.


96. At the very same time, current AI designs and the hardware required to support them take in vast quantities of energy and water, significantly adding to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This reality is typically obscured by the way this innovation exists in the popular imagination, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can offer the impression that data is saved and processed in an intangible realm, separated from the real world. However, "the cloud" is not an ethereal domain separate from the physical world; as with all computing technologies, it relies on physical devices, cable televisions, and energy. The very same is true of the innovation behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, especially big language designs (LLMs), they need ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and greater storage facilities. Considering the heavy toll these innovations take on the environment, it is crucial to develop sustainable options that decrease their influence on our typical home.


97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is vital "that we try to find solutions not just in technology but in a modification of mankind." [175] A total and authentic understanding of development recognizes that the worth of all created things can not be minimized to their simple utility. Therefore, a completely human approach to the stewardship of the earth turns down the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which seeks to "extract whatever possible" from the world, [176] and declines the "misconception of development," which presumes that "ecological problems will resolve themselves just with the application of brand-new technology and with no requirement for ethical factors to consider or deep change." [177] Such a frame of mind should offer method to a more holistic approach that respects the order of creation and promotes the integral good of the human person while securing our typical home. [178]

98. The Second Vatican Council and the constant teaching of the Popes because then have firmly insisted that peace is not merely the absence of war and is not restricted to maintaining a balance of powers in between enemies. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the serenity of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without protecting the goods of individuals, totally free interaction, regard for the self-respect of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the result of charity and can not be attained through force alone; rather, it needs to be mainly built through client diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, uniformity, integral human advancement, and regard for the dignity of all individuals. [180] In this way, the tools utilized to maintain peace needs to never be permitted to justify oppression, violence, or oppression. Instead, they should constantly be governed by a "firm decision to regard other individuals and countries, along with their self-respect, along with the deliberate practice of fraternity." [181]

99. While AI's analytical abilities might help countries seek peace and ensure security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can likewise be extremely troublesome. Pope Francis has observed that "the ability to carry out military operations through push-button control systems has resulted in a minimized understanding of the destruction brought on by those weapon systems and the concern of responsibility for their use, resulting in an even more cold and removed approach to the enormous disaster of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which self-governing weapons make war more practical militates against the concept of war as a last hope in legitimate self-defense, [183] potentially increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and speeding up a destabilizing arms race, with catastrophic consequences for human rights. [184]

100. In particular, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which are capable of recognizing and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for severe ethical issue" due to the fact that they lack the "distinct human capacity for moral judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this factor, Pope Francis has actually urgently required a reconsideration of the development of these weapons and a restriction on their usage, starting with "a reliable and concrete commitment to introduce ever greater and correct human control. No maker ought to ever choose to take the life of a human being." [186]

101. Since it is a small action from machines that can kill autonomously with precision to those efficient in large-scale damage, some AI researchers have revealed issues that such innovation postures an "existential threat" by having the possible to act in manner ins which might threaten the survival of whole areas or perhaps of mankind itself. This threat demands major attention, showing the long-standing concern about innovations that give war "an uncontrollable harmful power over varieties of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing kids. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "undertake an assessment of war with a totally new mindset" [188] is more immediate than ever.


102. At the exact same time, while the theoretical dangers of AI deserve attention, the more instant and pressing issue depends on how individuals with harmful intents may misuse this technology. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future capabilities are unforeseeable, humanity's past actions offer clear cautions. The atrocities dedicated throughout history suffice to raise deep concerns about the possible abuses of AI.


103. Saint John Paul II observed that "humanity now has instruments of unprecedented power: we can turn this world into a garden, or decrease it to a pile of debris." [190] Given this fact, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are free to apply our intelligence towards things evolving positively," or towards "decadence and mutual damage." [191] To avoid humankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there need to be a clear stand against all applications of innovation that naturally threaten human life and dignity. This commitment needs mindful discernment about making use of AI, especially in military defense applications, to make sure that it constantly respects human dignity and serves the typical good. The development and release of AI in weaponries must go through the highest levels of ethical scrutiny, governed by an issue for human self-respect and the sanctity of life. [193]

104. Technology uses amazing tools to supervise and establish the world's resources. However, in many cases, humanity is significantly ceding control of these resources to devices. Within some circles of researchers and futurists, there is optimism about the potential of synthetic general intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical kind of AI that would match or go beyond human intelligence and produce inconceivable improvements. Some even hypothesize that AGI might attain superhuman capabilities. At the exact same time, as society drifts away from a connection with the transcendent, some are lured to turn to AI in search of significance or fulfillment-longings that can just be genuinely pleased in communion with God. [194]

105. However, the presumption of substituting God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture explicitly alerts against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI might show even more seductive than standard idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths however do not speak; eyes, but do not see; ears, but do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or a minimum of offers the impression of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is important 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 possess numerous of the abilities particular to human life, and it is also fallible. By turning to AI as a perceived "Other" higher than itself, with which to share existence and obligations, humanity risks developing an alternative to God. However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, but humankind itself-which, in this method, ends up being enslaved to its own work. [195]

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


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

108. Considering the various challenges postured by advances in innovation, Pope Francis stressed the requirement for growth in "human duty, values, and conscience," proportionate to the development in the potential that this innovation brings [200] -acknowledging that "with a boost in human power comes a broadening of responsibility on the part of individuals and communities." [201]

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

110. As an outcome, it is vital to understand how to assess individual applications of AI in particular contexts to identify whether its usage promotes human self-respect, the vocation of the human individual, and the typical good. Similar to lots of technologies, the effects of the numerous uses of AI might not always be predictable from their creation. As these applications and their social impacts become clearer, proper actions should be made at all levels of society, following the concept of subsidiarity. Individual users, families, civil society, corporations, organizations, federal governments, and international companies should work at their appropriate levels to ensure that AI is used for the good of all.


111. A significant challenge and code.snapstream.com chance for the common excellent today lies in thinking about AI within a structure of relational intelligence, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of individuals and neighborhoods and highlights our shared obligation for fostering the important well-being of others. The twentieth-century philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev observed that individuals often blame machines for personal and social issues; however, "this just embarrasses male and does not represent his self-respect," for "it is unworthy to transfer duty from man to a device." [203] Only the human person can be ethically accountable, and the difficulties of a technological society are ultimately spiritual in nature. Therefore, facing those difficulties "needs a climax of spirituality." [204]

112. An additional point to consider is the call, triggered by the look of AI on the world stage, for a renewed appreciation of all that is human. Years back, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos warned that "the threat is not in the reproduction of machines, but in the ever-increasing variety of males accustomed from their youth to desire just what machines can provide." [205] This difficulty is as real today as it was then, as the fast speed of digitization risks a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable elements of life are set aside and after that forgotten or even considered irrelevant due to the fact that they can not be calculated in official terms. AI ought to be utilized just as a tool to match human intelligence instead of change its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that go beyond computation is crucial for maintaining "a genuine humanity" that "appears to stay in the middle of our technological culture, practically undetected, like a mist leaking gently below a closed door." [207]

113. The large expanse of the world's understanding is now available in methods that would have filled past generations with wonder. However, to guarantee that improvements in understanding do not end up being humanly or spiritually barren, one must surpass the simple accumulation of information and aim to attain real wisdom. [208]

114. This knowledge is the gift that humankind needs most to deal with the profound concerns and ethical challenges postured by AI: "Only by embracing a spiritual method of seeing reality, just by recuperating a wisdom of the heart, can we face and translate the newness of our time." [209] Such "knowledge of the heart" is "the virtue that enables us to integrate the entire and its parts, our decisions and their effects." It "can not be sought from devices," however it "lets itself be found by those who seek it and be seen by those who love it; it anticipates those who desire it, and it enters search of those who deserve it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]

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

116. Since a "individual's excellence is determined not by the details or knowledge they have, however by the depth of their charity," [212] how we integrate AI "to consist of the least of our siblings and siblings, the vulnerable, and those most in need, will be the real step of our mankind." [213] The "wisdom of the heart" can brighten and direct the human-centered usage of this innovation to assist promote the typical excellent, look after our "common home," advance the search for the fact, foster integral human development, favor human solidarity and fraternity, ratemywifey.com and lead humanity to its supreme objective: joy and complete communion with God. [214]

117. From this viewpoint of wisdom, believers will have the ability to act as ethical agents capable of utilizing this innovation to promote an authentic vision of the human individual and society. [215] This must be made with the understanding that technological progress becomes part of God's plan for creation-an activity that we are called to purchase towards the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the consistent look for the True and the Good.


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


Contents


I. Introduction


II. What is Artificial Intelligence?


III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition


Rationality


Embodiment


Relationality


Relationship with the Truth


Stewardship of the World


An Essential Understanding of Human Intelligence


The Limits of AI


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


Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making


V. Specific Questions


AI and Society


AI and Human Relationships


AI, the Economy, and Labor


AI and Healthcare


AI and Education


AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse


AI, Privacy, and Surveillance


AI and the Protection of Our Common Home


AI and Warfare


AI and Our Relationship with God


VI. Concluding Reflections


True Wisdom


[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See also Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053.
[2] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 307. Cf. Id., Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (21 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020 ), 43.
[3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[5] J. McCarthy, et al., "A Proposition for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence" (31 August 1955), http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024).
[6] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), pars. 2-3: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[7] Terms in this file explaining the outputs or procedures of AI are utilized figuratively to explain its operations and are not planned to anthropomorphize the maker.
[8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[9] Here, one can see the main positions of the "transhumanists" and the "posthumanists." Transhumanists argue that technological developments will enable people to overcome their biological constraints and enhance both their physical and cognitive abilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, compete that such advances will eventually alter human identity to the degree that humankind itself might no longer be considered truly "human." Both views rest on a basically negative understanding of human corporality, which deals with the body more as a challenge than as an essential part of the person's identity and call to full realization. Yet, this negative view of the body is irregular with a correct understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports genuine scientific progress, it affirms that human dignity is rooted in "the person as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "self-respect is also inherent in everyone's body, which takes part 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 perspective, which reduces the human mind to its functions and presumes that its functions can be completely quantified in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear 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 credited to machines, it needs to be clarified that this refers to calculative thinking rather than critical thinking. Similarly, if devices are said to run using sensible thinking, it should be defined that this is limited to computational logic. On the other hand, by its very nature, human thought is an imaginative process that eludes programs and transcends constraints.
[13] On the foundational function of language in forming understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York City 2010, 141-182).
[14] For more conversation of these anthropological and doctrinal foundations, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144.
[15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21.
[16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi advertisement litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [professors] by which he is superior to the illogical animals. Now, this [faculty] is factor itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it may more appropriately be given"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When thinking about all that they have, people find that they are most differentiated from animals precisely by the fact they possess intelligence." This is likewise repeated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who states that "guy is the most best of all earthly beings enhanced with motion, and his proper and natural operation is intellection," by which male abstracts from things and "receives 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 viewpoint that echoes elements of the classical and middle ages distinction in between these 2 modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and wiki.die-karte-bitte.de Slow, New York City 2011.
[19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp.
[20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138.
[21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intelligence can examine the truth of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and pertain to recognize because truth, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal ethical demands."
[22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp.
[24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "generally considers the human individual as a being who exists in the body and is unthinkable beyond it" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Che cosa è l'uomo?" (Sal 8,5): Un itinerario di antropologia biblica [30 September 2019], par. 19). Cf. ibid., pars. 20-21, 43-44, 48.
[25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100 (2008 ), 863: "Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, but rather fully revealed its meaning and value."
[26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81.
[27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and for this reason it is unified to the body in order that it may have an existence and an operation appropriate to its nature."
[29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18.
[30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357.
[31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54.
[32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221.
[33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27.
[34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls likewise have factor and with it they circle in discourse around the fact of things. [...] [O] n account of the manner in which they can focusing the lots of into the one, they too, in their own fashion and as far as they can, are worthwhile 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 immediate concerns and grasping certain realities that are constant, as real now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, reason discovers universal values obtained from that very same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034.
[38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last case of reason is to recognize that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York City 1958, 77).
[39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[40] Our semantic capacity enables us to understand messages in any kind of interaction in a way that both takes into consideration and transcends their product or empirical structures (such as computer system code). Here, intelligence ends up being a knowledge that "allows us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, scenarios, events and to uncover their genuine significance" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our imagination allows us to create new material or ideas, mainly by offering an original viewpoint on reality. Both capacities depend on the existence of a personal subjectivity for their complete realization.
[41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931.
[42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a commitment to the fact, is much more than individual sensation [...] Certainly, its close relation to reality fosters its universality and maintains it from being 'restricted to a narrow field lacking relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to truth hence protects it from 'a fideism that deprives it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643.
[43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7.
[44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15.
[46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294.
[47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure likens 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 deep space according to the magnificent strategy: they take pleasure in the privilege of sharing in the divine governance of noticeable production. [...] Since guy's location as ruler remains in fact a participation in the divine governance of creation, we speak of it here as a form of stewardship."
[49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165.
[50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This idea is likewise shown in the 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 creation. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117.
[51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301.
[52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302.
[53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2.
[54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7.
[55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316.
[56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8.
[57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906.
[58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987.
[59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5.
[60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: "L'intelligence n'est rien sans la délectation." Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: "The mind and the will are put at the service of the higher excellent by noticing and appreciating truths."
[61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232).
[62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he greatest standard of human life is the divine law itself-eternal, objective and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the methods of the human neighborhood according to a strategy developed in his knowledge and love. God has enabled man to participate in this law of his so that, under the mild disposition of divine providence, numerous might be able to get to a much deeper and much deeper understanding of unchangeable reality." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037.
[63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016.
[64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892.
[65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042.
[66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has actually imprinted his own image and similarity on male (cf. Gen 1:26), giving upon him an incomparable dignity [...] In result, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not correspond to any work he carries out, however which circulation from his vital dignity as an individual." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22.
[68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310.
[69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is understood as a technical term to show this innovation, recalling that the expression is also utilized to designate the field of research 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 instance, see the motivation of scientific expedition in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the appreciation for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These writers, amongst a long list of other Catholics participated in scientific research study and technological expedition, show that "faith and science can be unified in charity, offered that science is put at the service of the men and lady of our time and not misused to damage and even destroy them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87.
[73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378.
[74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888.
[77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658.
[78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim.
[79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293.
[80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4.
[81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes guy a moral topic. When he acts deliberately, guy is, so to speak, the dad of his acts."
[82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776.
[83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777.
[84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father encouraged efforts "to guarantee that technology remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed toward the great."
[85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the function of human firm in choosing a broader aim (Ziel) that then notifies the specific function (Zweck) for which each technological application is developed, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um pass away Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71.
[86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a function and, in its impact on human society, constantly represents a type of order in social relations and a plan of power, therefore enabling certain people to perform specific actions while avoiding others from performing different ones. In a basically specific method, this constitutive power-dimension of innovation always consists of the worldview of those who developed and developed it."
[87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309.
[88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045.
[90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Faced with the marvels of devices, which appear to understand how to pick independently, we must be very clear that decision-making [...] must constantly be left to the human person. We would condemn mankind to a future without hope if we took away people's ability to make choices about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend on 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 "predisposition" in this file refers to algorithmic bias (organized and constant mistakes in computer systems that may disproportionately prejudice certain groups in unexpected ways) or learning predisposition (which will result in training on a biased data set) and not the "predisposition vector" in neural networks (which is a criterion used to adjust the output of "nerve cells" to change more accurately to the information).
[94] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father affirmed the development in agreement "on the requirement for development procedures to respect such worths as inclusion, openness, security, equity, personal privacy and dependability," and also invited "the efforts of international companies to manage these technologies so that they promote real development, contributing, that is, to a much better world and an integrally higher quality of life."
[95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8.
[96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.
[97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571.
[98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For more conversation of the ethical concerns raised by AI from a Catholic viewpoint, 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 solid social ethics," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045.
[100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.
[102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464.
[104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10.
[105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; quoting the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245.
[106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050.
[107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047.
[108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309.
[109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892.
[111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027.
[112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123.
[113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034.
[114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149.
[115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), allmy.bio 413-414.
[118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057.
[119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985.
[120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989).
[123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Many individuals] desire their social relationships offered by advanced equipment, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel tells us continuously to run the danger of a face-to-face encounter with others, with their physical presence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their joy which contaminates us in our close and constant interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from subscription in the community, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045.
[124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1.
[125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899.
[126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107.
[128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' mentor about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893.
[129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as estimated in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453.
[130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: "work is 'for guy' and not male 'for work.' Through this conclusion one appropriately pertains to acknowledge the pre-eminence of the subjective meaning of work over the unbiased one."
[132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320.
[133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502.
[135] Ibid.
[136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as 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 repercussions, it is that of healthcare. When an ill person is not placed in the center or their self-respect is not thought about, this generates mindsets that can lead even to speculation on the bad luck of others. And this is extremely severe! [...] The application of a service method to the healthcare sector, if indiscriminate [...] might risk 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 using 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, pricing estimate 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 the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316.
[149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, quoting the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592.
[150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167.
[151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413.
[152] In a 2023 policy file about using generative AI in education and research, UNESCO notes: "One of the crucial questions [of the usage of generative AI (GenAI) in education and research study] is whether humans can perhaps deliver standard levels of thinking and skill-acquisition processes to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking abilities based on the outputs provided by AI. Writing, for example, is frequently associated with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], people can now start with a well-structured overview supplied by GenAI. Some specialists have defined the usage of GenAI to produce text in this way as 'composing without believing'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American philosopher Hannah Arendt foresaw such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and warned: "If it ought to end up being real that knowledge (in the sense of know-how) and believed have parted business for great, then we would certainly become the powerless slaves, not a lot of our makers as of our know-how" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3).
[153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417.
[154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914.
[155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479.
[156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10.
[157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3.
[158] For example, it may assist individuals gain access to the "range of resources for generating greater understanding of truth" contained in the works of approach (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8.
[159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62.
[160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074.
[162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be really indifferent to the concern of whether what they understand holds true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he composes: 'I have actually satisfied numerous who wished to deceive, however none who wished to be tricked'"; pricing estimate Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794.
[163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62.
[164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8.
[165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Network (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149.
[166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24.
[167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no guy might with impunity break that human self-respect which God himself treats with excellent reverence"; as priced estimate in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804.
[168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203.
[169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human self-respect in the online world requires States to also respect the right to privacy, by protecting citizens from invasive surveillance and permitting them to safeguard their individual details from unauthorized gain access to."
[170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984.
[171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body identified a list of "early guarantees of AI assisting to attend to climate change" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The document observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can change data into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools might assist establish new techniques and investments to decrease emissions, influence brand-new personal sector financial investments in net no, protect biodiversity, and develop broad-based social strength" (ibid.).
[174] "The cloud" describes a network of physical servers throughout the world that allows users to shop, process, and handle their data from another location.
[175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850.
[176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890.
[177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870.
[178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852.
[179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640.
[180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317.
[181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101.
[182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310.
[184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105.
[185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We require to ensure and protect an area for appropriate human control over the options made by expert system programs: human self-respect itself depends on it."
[186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The advancement and use of deadly self-governing weapons systems (LAWS) that lack the appropriate human control would pose essential ethical issues, given that LAWS can never ever be morally accountable subjects capable of adhering to worldwide humanitarian law."
[187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104.
[188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104.
[189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: "Nor can we disregard the possibility of sophisticated weapons ending up in the wrong hands, helping with, for instance, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the organizations of legitimate systems of federal government. In a word, the world does not require brand-new innovations that add to the unfair advancement of commerce and the weapons trade and subsequently wind up promoting the folly of war."
[190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565.
[191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878.
[192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687.
[193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39.
[194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661.
[195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a better understanding today that the simple accumulation of products and services [...] is not enough for the awareness of human happiness. Nor, in effect, does the availability of the many genuine benefits supplied in recent times by science and innovation, consisting of the computer technology, bring freedom from every type of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the significant body of resources and possible at man's disposal is guided by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the real good of the mankind, it quickly turns against guy to oppress him." Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564.
[196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5.
[198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6.
[199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6.
[200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. The End of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83).
[201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288.
[203] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," in C. Mitcham - R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York City 19832, 212-213.
[204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210.
[205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829.
[206] Cf. Francis, Meeting with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023).
[207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: "The flood of details at our fingertips does not make for higher knowledge. Wisdom is not born of fast searches on the web nor is it a mass of unproven information. That is not the way to develop in the encounter with reality."
[209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[210] Ibid.
[211] Ibid.
[212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121.
[213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124.
[214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.