II. What Is Artificial Intelligence

1. With knowledge both ancient and brand-new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to review the current challenges and chances posed by clinical and technological developments, particularly by the recent advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian custom relates to the present of intelligence as a vital element of how people are created "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Beginning with an important vision of the human person and the scriptural contacting us to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church stresses that this present of intelligence need to be expressed through the responsible use of reason and technical abilities in the stewardship of the developed world.


2. The Church motivates the improvement of science, technology, the arts, and other kinds of human endeavor, viewing them as part of the "partnership of man and female with God in refining the noticeable production." [1] As Sirach affirms, God "offered ability to people, that he may be glorified in his magnificent works" (Sir. 38:6). Human abilities and creativity originate from God and, when utilized appropriately, glorify God by showing his wisdom and goodness. Due to this, when we ask ourselves what it implies to "be human," we can not leave out a factor to consider of our clinical and technological capabilities.


3. It is within this perspective that the present Note addresses the anthropological and ethical difficulties raised by AI-issues that are especially significant, as one of the objectives of this technology is to imitate the human intelligence that created it. For circumstances, unlike many other human productions, AI can be trained on the outcomes of human creativity and then create brand-new "artifacts" with a level of speed and ability that typically rivals or exceeds what human beings can do, such as producing text or images identical from human structures. This raises critical concerns about AI's prospective role in the growing crisis of truth in the public online forum. Moreover, this innovation is developed to learn and make certain choices autonomously, adapting to brand-new circumstances and providing services not visualized by its developers, and therefore, it raises fundamental questions about ethical duty and human security, with broader ramifications for society as a whole. This brand-new scenario has actually triggered lots of people to review what it means to be human and the role of mankind on the planet.


4. Taking all this into account, there is broad consensus that AI marks a new and substantial stage in humankind's engagement with technology, positioning it at the heart of what Pope Francis has actually explained as an "epochal change." [2] Its impact is felt worldwide and in a broad variety of locations, including interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, healthcare, law, warfare, and worldwide relations. As AI advances rapidly towards even higher achievements, it is seriously crucial to consider its anthropological and ethical ramifications. This includes not only mitigating threats and avoiding harm however likewise ensuring that its applications are utilized to promote human progress and the typical good.


5. To contribute positively to the discernment regarding AI, and in action to Pope Francis' call for a renewed "wisdom of heart," [3] the Church uses its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active function in the global dialogue on these issues, the Church invites those entrusted with transferring the faith-including moms and dads, instructors, pastors, and bishops-to dedicate themselves to this critical subject with care and attention. While this file is planned specifically for them, it is also implied to be available to a wider audience, especially those who share the conviction that scientific and technological advances must be directed towards serving the human individual and the common 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, providing a framework rooted in the Church's philosophical and doctrinal tradition. Finally, the file provides guidelines to make sure that the development and use of AI maintain human self-respect and promote the essential development of the human individual and society.


7. The concept of "intelligence" in AI has actually developed gradually, drawing on a variety of ideas from various disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a significant turning point occurred in 1956 when the American computer system scientist John McCarthy arranged a summertime workshop at Dartmouth University to explore the issue of "Artificial Intelligence," which he defined as "that of making a maker act in manner ins which would be called smart if a human were so acting." [5] This workshop introduced a research program focused on creating machines capable of performing tasks usually connected with the human intellect and smart habits.


8. Ever since, AI research has actually advanced quickly, resulting in the development of complex systems capable of carrying out highly advanced jobs. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are generally created to deal with specific and restricted functions, such as equating languages, anticipating the trajectory of a storm, categorizing images, addressing concerns, or generating visual material at the user's demand. While the definition of "intelligence" in AI research study varies, many contemporary AI systems-particularly those utilizing device learning-rely on analytical inference rather than rational reduction. By examining large datasets to identify patterns, AI can "forecast" [7] outcomes and propose new techniques, mimicking some cognitive procedures common of human analytical. Such achievements have been enabled through advances in calculating technology (including neural networks, without supervision artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) as well as hardware developments (such as specialized processors). Together, these technologies enable AI systems to respond to various kinds of human input, adjust to brand-new situations, and even suggest unique services not prepared for by their original programmers. [8]

9. Due to these fast improvements, lots of jobs as soon as handled solely by humans are now turned over to AI. These systems can enhance or perhaps supersede what humans are able to do in many fields, particularly in specialized areas such as data analysis, image acknowledgment, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is developed for a particular task, lots of researchers aim to develop what is referred to as "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system capable of operating across all cognitive domains and performing any job within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI might one day attain the state of "superintelligence," surpassing human intellectual capacities, or add to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, however, fear that these possibilities, even if theoretical, could one day eclipse the human individual, while still others invite this possible transformation. [9]

10. Underlying this and many other perspectives on the topic is the implicit presumption that the term "intelligence" can be utilized in the same way to refer to both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not catch the complete scope of the principle. When it comes to people, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the individual in his/her entirety, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is understood functionally, often with the anticipation that the activities characteristic of the human mind can be broken down into digitized actions that devices can reproduce. [10]

11. This practical viewpoint is exhibited by the "Turing Test," which considers a machine "intelligent" if a person can not identify its habits from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "habits" refers just to the performance of particular intellectual jobs; it does not account for the full breadth of human experience, that includes abstraction, feelings, creativity, and the visual, moral, and religious sensibilities. Nor does it include the complete variety of expressions characteristic of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the "intelligence" of a system is evaluated methodologically, however likewise reductively, based on its capability to produce suitable responses-in this case, those connected with the human intellect-regardless of how those responses are created.


12. AI's advanced features provide it sophisticated abilities to perform tasks, but not the ability to think. [12] This difference is most importantly important, as the way "intelligence" is defined undoubtedly forms how we comprehend the relationship in between human idea and this technology. [13] To value this, one must recall the richness of the philosophical tradition and Christian faith, which offer a much deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's mentor on the nature, self-respect, and occupation of the human person. [14]

13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has actually played a main function in comprehending what it indicates to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all individuals by nature desire to know." [15] This understanding, with its capacity for abstraction that comprehends the nature and meaning of things, sets people apart from the animal world. [16] As philosophers, theologians, and psychologists have actually taken a look at the precise nature of this intellectual faculty, they have also checked out how humans comprehend the world and their special location within it. Through this expedition, the Christian tradition has 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 idea of intelligence is typically understood through the complementary concepts of "factor" (ratio) and "intellect" (intellectus). These are not different professors but, 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 factor is drawn from the curious and discursive procedure." [18] This succinct description highlights the 2 essential and complementary measurements of human intelligence. Intellectus describes the user-friendly grasp of the truth-that is, apprehending it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and grounds argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to reasoning proper: the discursive, analytical process that results in judgment. Together, intellect and reason form the 2 aspects of the act of intelligere, "the appropriate operation of the human being as such." [19]

15. Explaining the human person as a "reasonable" being does not decrease the person to a specific mode of idea; rather, it recognizes that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and penetrates all aspects of human activity. [20] Whether worked out well or badly, this capacity is an intrinsic element of humanity. In this sense, the "term 'rational' incorporates all the capabilities of the human individual," consisting of those associated to "understanding and understanding, as well as those of prepared, loving, picking, and wanting; it also includes all corporeal functions carefully associated to these abilities." [21] This detailed point of view underscores how, in the human person, developed in the "picture of God," reason is integrated in a manner that raises, shapes, and transforms both the person's will and actions. [22]

16. Christian thought thinks about the intellectual professors of the human person within the framework of an integral sociology that sees the human being as essentially embodied. In the human person, spirit and matter "are not 2 natures united, however rather their union forms a single nature." [23] In other words, the soul is not merely the immaterial "part" of the person contained within the body, nor is the body an external shell housing an intangible "core." Rather, the entire human person is simultaneously both product and spiritual. This understanding reflects the teaching of Sacred Scripture, which views the human person as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and therefore, an authentically spiritual measurement) within and through this embodied presence. [24] The profound meaning of this condition is further lit up by the secret of the Incarnation, through which God himself handled our flesh and "raised it as much as a sublime self-respect." [25]

17. Although deeply rooted in physical presence, the human individual goes beyond the material world through the soul, which is "nearly on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intellect's capacity 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 person are an integral part of a sociology that acknowledges that the human person is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further elements of this understanding will be established in what follows.


18. Human beings are "bought by their very nature to social communion," [30] having the capability to know one another, to provide themselves in love, and to participate in communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not an isolated faculty but is worked out in relationships, discovering its fullest expression in discussion, partnership, and uniformity. We find out with others, and we discover through others.


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

20. This occupation to communion with God is always tied to the call to communion with others. Love of God can not be separated from love for one's neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20; Mt. 22:37 -39). By the grace of sharing God's life, Christians are also contacted us to mimic Christ's outpouring present (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "like one another, as I have actually loved you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the magnificent life of self-giving, go beyond self-interest to react more completely to the human occupation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). A lot more superb than understanding numerous things is the dedication to take care of one another, for if "I understand all secrets and all knowledge [...] however do not have love, I am nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2).


21. Human intelligence is ultimately "God's gift made for the assimilation of fact." [34] In the double sense of intellectus-ratio, it enables the person to check out realities that go beyond mere sensory experience or energy, given that "the desire for fact is part of human nature itself. It is an innate property of human factor to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limitations of empirical data, human intelligence can "with real certitude attain to reality itself as knowable." [36] While truth remains just partially understood, the desire for fact "spurs factor constantly to go even more; certainly, it is as if factor were overwhelmed to see that it can constantly exceed what it has currently attained." [37] Although Truth in itself goes beyond the borders of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this attraction, the human individual is led to seek "facts of a greater order." [39]

22. This natural drive towards the pursuit of reality is particularly evident in the clearly human capacities for semantic understanding and imagination, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "way that is proper to the social nature and self-respect of the human individual." [41] Likewise, an unfaltering orientation to the reality is essential for charity to be both authentic and universal. [42]

23. The look for reality discovers its greatest expression in openness to realities that transcend the physical and produced world. In God, all facts attain their supreme and initial significance. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "basic decision that engages the entire individual." [44] In this way, the human person ends up being totally what he or she is contacted us to be: "the intelligence and the will show their spiritual nature," enabling the individual "to act in a manner that recognizes personal freedom to the full." [45]

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

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

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


27. This engagement with reality unfolds in different ways, as each person, in his or her diverse uniqueness [54], seeks to understand the world, associate with others, solve problems, express creativity, and pursue essential wellness through the unified interplay of the numerous measurements of the person's intelligence. [55] This includes logical and linguistic abilities but can likewise include other modes of connecting with reality. Consider the work of an artisan, who "need to know how to discern, in inert matter, a particular kind that others can not acknowledge" [56] and bring it forth through insight and useful ability. Indigenous peoples who live close to the earth frequently possess a profound sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a buddy who knows the best word to say or a person adept 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 synthetic intelligence, we can not forget that poetry and love are essential to conserve our humanity." [59]

28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the combination of truth into the moral and spiritual life of the individual, assisting his or her actions due to God's goodness and reality. According to God's plan, intelligence, in its fullest sense, likewise includes the capability to appreciate what holds true, excellent, and stunning. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel expressed, "intelligence is nothing without delight." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the highest heaven in Paradiso, testifies that the conclusion of this intellectual pleasure is discovered in the "light intellectual filled with love, love of real great filled with joy, joy which goes beyond every sweet taste." [61]

29. A proper understanding of human intelligence, therefore, can not be lowered to the simple acquisition of realities or the capability to carry out particular jobs. Instead, it includes the person's openness to the ultimate concerns of life and shows an orientation toward the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the magnificent image within the individual, human intelligence has the capability to access the totality of being, contemplating existence in its fullness, which surpasses what is measurable, and comprehending the significance of what has been comprehended. For believers, this capacity consists of, in a specific method, the capability to grow in the knowledge of the secrets of God by utilizing reason to engage ever more exceptionally with exposed truths (intellectus fidei). [63] is shaped by magnificent love, which "is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence possesses a necessary reflective dimension, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian function.


30. In light of the foregoing conversation, the differences between human intelligence and existing AI systems end up being apparent. While AI is an extraordinary technological achievement efficient in imitating certain outputs related to human intelligence, it runs by carrying out tasks, attaining objectives, or making decisions based on quantitative information and computational logic. For instance, with its analytical power, AI stands out at integrating data from a range of fields, modeling complex systems, and cultivating interdisciplinary connections. In this way, it can assist experts work together in resolving complex problems that "can not be dealt with from a single point of view or from a single set of interests." [64]

31. However, even as AI procedures and mimics certain expressions of intelligence, it remains basically confined to a logical-mathematical framework, which enforces fundamental constraints. Human intelligence, in contrast, establishes naturally throughout the person's physical and psychological growth, formed by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although sophisticated AI systems can "discover" through processes such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is basically different from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, consisting of sensory input, emotional actions, social interactions, and the distinct context of each minute. These aspects shape and kind people within their individual history.In contrast, AI, lacking a physique, depends on computational reasoning and knowing based on vast datasets that consist of taped human experiences and understanding.


32. Consequently, although AI can imitate aspects of human reasoning and carry out specific jobs with incredible speed and effectiveness, its computational abilities represent just a portion of the broader capabilities of the human mind. For circumstances, AI can not currently reproduce ethical discernment or the ability to develop authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is located within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral development that fundamentally forms the person's point of view, including the physical, emotional, social, ethical, 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 methods of interpreting the world can cause "a loss of appreciation for the entire, for the relationships between things, and for the wider horizon." [65]

33. Human intelligence is not mainly about finishing functional jobs but about understanding and actively engaging with truth in all its dimensions; it is likewise efficient in unexpected insights. Since AI does not have the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to reality and goodness, its capacities-though apparently limitless-are matchless with the human capability to comprehend reality. A lot can be gained from an illness, a welcome of reconciliation, and even a basic sunset; certainly, numerous experiences we have as human beings open new horizons and offer the possibility of attaining brand-new knowledge. No device, working exclusively with information, can measure up to these and countless other experiences present in our lives.


34. Drawing an excessively 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 on possessing particular skills, cognitive and technological achievements, or private success, but on the individual's fundamental self-respect, grounded in being produced in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains undamaged in all scenarios, consisting of for those unable to exercise their abilities, whether it be a coming child, an unconscious person, or an older person 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 typical ground" [68] and can, thus, function as a fundamental ethical guide in discussions on the accountable development and use of AI.


35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the very use of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can show deceptive" [69] and risks ignoring what is most precious in the human individual. In light of this, AI needs to not be viewed as a synthetic form of human intelligence however as an item of it. [70]

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

37. Seen as a fruit of the potential engraved within human intelligence, [72] scientific query and the advancement of technical abilities become part of the "partnership of guy and woman with God in refining the visible development." [73] At the very same time, all scientific and technological achievements are, eventually, gifts from God. [74] Therefore, people should always use their capabilities in view of the greater purpose for which God has approved them. [75]

38. We can gratefully acknowledge how technology has "fixed numerous evils which utilized to damage and limit human beings," [76] a fact for which we must rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological improvements in themselves represent authentic human development. [77] The Church is particularly opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the self-respect of the human person. [78] Like any human venture, technological advancement must be directed to serve the human individual and add to the pursuit of "higher justice, more substantial fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations," which are "better than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical implications of technological advancement are shared not only within the Church but also amongst numerous researchers, technologists, and expert associations, who progressively require ethical reflection to guide this development in a responsible method.


39. To resolve these difficulties, it is important to emphasize the value of ethical responsibility grounded in the dignity and vocation of the human individual. This assisting concept likewise uses to questions concerning AI. In this context, the ethical measurement handles main importance due to the fact that it is individuals who develop systems and figure out the functions for which they are utilized. [80] Between a maker and a human, just the latter is truly an ethical agent-a topic of ethical responsibility who works out flexibility in his or her decisions and accepts their effects. [81] It is not the maker but the human who remains in relationship with reality and goodness, assisted by an ethical conscience that calls the individual "to like and to do what is great and to avoid wicked," [82] attesting to "the authority of reality in recommendation to the supreme Good to which the human individual is drawn." [83] Likewise, between a maker and a human, only the human can be adequately self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, discerning with vigilance, and seeking the great that is possible in every circumstance. [84] In reality, all of this likewise comes from the individual's exercise of intelligence.


40. Like any item of human imagination, AI can be directed toward favorable or unfavorable ends. [85] When used in ways that appreciate human self-respect and promote the well-being of individuals and communities, it can contribute favorably to the human occupation. Yet, as in all areas where people are contacted us to make decisions, the shadow of evil likewise looms here. Where human flexibility permits the possibility of picking what is wrong, the ethical assessment of this innovation will require to consider how it is directed and utilized.


41. At the very same time, it is not only the ends that are fairly considerable however likewise the methods employed to attain them. Additionally, the total vision and understanding of the human person ingrained within these systems are necessary to think about too. Technological items reflect the worldview of their developers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to "form the world and engage consciences on the level of worths." [87] On a social level, some technological developments could likewise enhance relationships and power characteristics that are inconsistent with a correct understanding of the human individual and society.


42. Therefore, the ends and the ways utilized in a given application of AI, along with the overall vision it includes, should all be assessed to guarantee they appreciate human self-respect and promote the common good. [88] As Pope Francis has actually stated, "the intrinsic self-respect of every guy and every female" need to be "the crucial requirement in evaluating emerging technologies; these will show fairly sound to the level that they help respect that self-respect and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] including in the social and economic spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays an essential function not only in creating and producing technology however likewise in directing its use in line with the authentic good of the human person. [90] The responsibility for handling this carefully pertains to every level of society, directed by the concept of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.


43. The commitment to making sure that AI constantly supports and promotes the supreme value of the self-respect of every person and the fullness of the human vocation serves as a requirement of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, as well as to its users. It remains legitimate for every application of the innovation at every level of its use.


44. An evaluation of the implications of this directing principle could start by considering the significance of moral responsibility. Since full ethical causality belongs just to individual agents, not artificial ones, it is important to be able to identify and specify who bears responsibility for the processes associated with AI, particularly those capable of finding out, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up methods and extremely deep neural networks make it possible for AI to solve complicated problems, they make it difficult to comprehend the processes that lead to the solutions they embraced. This makes complex accountability given that if an AI application produces undesirable results, determining who is accountable ends up being difficult. To resolve this issue, attention needs to be provided to the nature of accountability processes in complex, extremely automated settings, where outcomes may only become evident in the medium to long term. For this, it is crucial that supreme obligation for decisions made utilizing AI rests with the human decision-makers which there is responsibility for using AI at each stage of the decision-making procedure. [91]

45. In addition to determining who is accountable, it is necessary to recognize the objectives provided to AI systems. Although these systems may utilize not being watched self-governing knowing systems and in some cases follow paths that human beings can not rebuild, they ultimately pursue objectives that human beings have actually assigned to them and are governed by procedures established by their designers and developers. Yet, this presents an obstacle since, as AI models end up being increasingly efficient in independent knowing, the capability to maintain control over them to ensure that such applications serve human functions might successfully diminish. This raises the critical concern of how to make sure that AI systems are bought for the good of people and not against them.


46. While duty for the ethical use of AI systems starts with those who develop, produce, handle, and manage such systems, it is likewise shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis noted, the machine "makes a technical option among numerous possibilities based either on distinct criteria or on statistical inferences. People, nevertheless, not only pick, but in their hearts can choosing." [92] Those who utilize AI to achieve a task and follow its outcomes develop a context in which they are ultimately responsible for the power they have delegated. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist human beings in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it must be credible, safe and secure, robust enough to handle disparities, and transparent in their operation to mitigate biases and unintentional side results. [93] Regulatory structures ought to guarantee that all legal entities remain accountable for using AI and all its consequences, with proper safeguards for transparency, personal privacy, and accountability. [94] Moreover, those using AI needs to take care not to end up being extremely dependent on it for their decision-making, a pattern that increases contemporary society's already high dependence on innovation.


47. The Church's moral and social mentor supplies resources to help make sure that AI is used in a method that maintains human firm. Considerations about justice, for instance, ought to also address problems such as cultivating just social characteristics, maintaining global security, and promoting peace. By exercising prudence, people and neighborhoods can discern ways to use AI to benefit humankind while avoiding applications that could break down human self-respect or harm the environment. In this context, the idea of obligation must be comprehended not just in its most limited sense but as a "responsibility for the care for others, which is more than merely representing outcomes attained." [95]

48. Therefore, AI, like any innovation, can be part of a mindful and responsible answer to humankind's occupation to the good. However, as formerly gone over, AI needs to be directed by human intelligence to align with this vocation, ensuring it respects the dignity of the human person. Recognizing this "exalted dignity," the Second Vatican Council verified that "the social order and its development must invariably work to the advantage of the human individual." [96] Because of this, using AI, as Pope Francis said, need to be "accompanied by an ethic inspired by a vision of the typical good, a principles of liberty, responsibility, and fraternity, efficient in promoting the full development of individuals in relation to others and to the whole of production." [97]

49. Within this general viewpoint, some observations follow listed below to illustrate how the preceding arguments can help supply an ethical orientation in practical scenarios, in line with the "knowledge of heart" that Pope Francis has proposed. [98] While not extensive, this discussion is provided in service of the dialogue that thinks about how AI can be utilized to maintain the dignity of the human individual and promote the common good. [99]

50. As Pope Francis observed, "the intrinsic dignity of each human and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human family must undergird the development of brand-new technologies and act as unassailable criteria for assessing them before they are utilized." [100]

51. Viewed through this lens, AI could "present essential innovations in agriculture, education and culture, a better level of life for entire countries and peoples, and the development of human fraternity and social friendship," and therefore be "used to promote important human advancement." [101] AI could likewise help companies recognize those in need and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other similar applications of this innovation might contribute to human advancement and the typical good. [102]

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

53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a couple of powerful companies raises significant ethical issues. Exacerbating this problem is the intrinsic nature of AI systems, where no single person can work out complete oversight over the huge and intricate datasets used for calculation. This absence of distinct responsibility produces the danger that AI might be manipulated for personal or business gain or to direct popular opinion for the benefit of a particular market. Such entities, motivated by their own interests, possess the capacity to work out "forms of control as subtle as they are invasive, creating systems for the control of consciences and of the democratic process." [105]

54. Furthermore, there is the danger of AI being utilized to promote what Pope Francis has actually called the "technocratic paradigm," which perceives all the world's issues as solvable through technological ways alone. [106] In this paradigm, human self-respect and fraternity are often reserved in the name of effectiveness, "as if truth, goodness, and reality automatically flow from technological and economic power as such." [107] Yet, human self-respect and the typical great needs to never ever be breached for the sake of effectiveness, [108] for "technological advancements that do not result in an enhancement in the lifestyle of all mankind, but on the contrary, worsen inequalities and conflicts, can never ever count as real progress. " [109] Instead, AI needs to be put "at the service of another kind of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral." [110]

55. Attaining this goal needs a much deeper reflection on the relationship in between autonomy and duty. Greater autonomy heightens everyone's obligation across various elements of communal life. For Christians, the foundation of this obligation lies in the acknowledgment that all human capabilities, consisting of the person's autonomy, come from God and are indicated to be used in the service of others. [111] Therefore, rather than merely pursuing economic or technological objectives, AI ought to serve "the common good of the entire human family," which is "the sum overall of social conditions that permit people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more quickly." [112]

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

57. Such a mission, together with other aspects of human interaction, presupposes encounters and mutual exchange in between people shaped by their distinct histories, thoughts, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a diverse, multifaceted, and intricate truth: specific and social, rational and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis underscores this vibrant, noting that "together, we can look for the truth in discussion, in relaxed conversation or in enthusiastic dispute. To do so requires determination; it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently welcome the more comprehensive experience of people and peoples. [...] The process of building fraternity, be it local or universal, can only be undertaken by spirits that are complimentary and available to genuine 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 prospective to foster connections within the human family. However, it might also impede a real encounter with truth and, eventually, lead people to "a deep and melancholic discontentment with interpersonal relations, or a damaging sense of isolation." [117] Authentic human relationships require the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their pleasure. [118] Since human intelligence is expressed and enhanced likewise in interpersonal and embodied methods, genuine and spontaneous encounters with others are indispensable for engaging with reality in its fullness.


59. Because "real knowledge demands an encounter with truth," [119] the increase of AI introduces another difficulty. Since AI can successfully mimic the products of human intelligence, the capability to know when one is communicating with a human or a machine can no longer be taken for approved. Generative AI can produce text, humanlove.stream speech, images, and other innovative outputs that are typically connected with humans. Yet, it needs to be understood for what it is: a tool, not a person. [120] This difference is often obscured by the language used by specialists, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and thus blurs the line in between human and machine.


60. Anthropomorphizing AI also poses particular challenges for the development of children, potentially motivating them to develop patterns of interaction that deal with human relationships in a transactional manner, as one would relate to a chatbot. Such routines might lead young individuals to see teachers as mere dispensers of details rather than as mentors who guide and support their intellectual and ethical growth. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and an unfaltering commitment to the good of the other, are essential and irreplaceable in cultivating the full development of the human individual.


61. In this context, it is necessary to clarify that, in spite of making use of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can truly experience compassion. Emotions can not be decreased to facial expressions or expressions produced in response to prompts; they reflect the method an individual, as a whole, associates with the world and to his/her own life, with the body playing a main role. True compassion requires the capability 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, real empathy belongs to the relational sphere. It includes intuiting and collaring the lived experiences of another while maintaining the difference between self and other. [122] While AI can simulate empathetic actions, it can not reproduce the eminently personal and relational nature of genuine compassion. [123]

62. Because of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as a person must always be prevented; doing so for deceitful functions is a grave ethical violation that might deteriorate social trust. Similarly, utilizing AI to deceive in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, consisting of the sphere of sexuality-is likewise to be considered immoral and requires careful oversight to avoid damage, maintain openness, and guarantee the dignity of all people. [124]

63. In a progressively isolated world, some individuals have turned to AI in search of deep human relationships, easy friendship, or even emotional bonds. However, while human beings are meant to experience genuine relationships, AI can just replicate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an essential part of how a person grows to become who he or she is meant to be. If AI is utilized to assist people foster real connections in between individuals, it can contribute favorably to the complete realization of the person. Conversely, if we change relationships with God and with others with interactions with innovation, we risk changing authentic relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of retreating into artificial worlds, we are called to take part in a dedicated and intentional method with reality, especially by relating to the bad and suffering, consoling those in grief, and forging bonds of communion with all.


64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being significantly incorporated into economic and financial systems. Significant financial investments are presently being made not just in the innovation sector but also in energy, financing, and media, particularly in the areas of marketing and sales, logistics, technological innovation, compliance, and risk management. At the exact same time, AI's applications in these locations have actually likewise highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of tremendous opportunities however also profound dangers. A very first real crucial point in this area worries the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a few corporations-only those large companies would gain from the value produced by AI rather than the businesses that use it.


65. Other broader elements of AI's effect on the economic-financial sphere must also be carefully taken a look at, particularly concerning the interaction between concrete truth and the digital world. One crucial factor to consider in this regard involves the coexistence of diverse and alternative types of financial and monetary institutions within a given context. This element ought to be motivated, as it can bring advantages in how it supports the real economy by cultivating its development and stability, specifically throughout times of crisis. Nevertheless, it should be worried that digital realities, not limited by any spatial bonds, tend to be more homogeneous and impersonal than neighborhoods rooted in a particular place and a particular history, with a common journey identified by shared worths and hopes, but likewise by inescapable differences and divergences. This variety is an indisputable property to a neighborhood's financial life. Turning over the economy and financing completely to digital innovation would lower this variety and richness. As an outcome, many services to economic problems that can be reached through natural discussion between the involved parties may no longer be attainable in a world dominated by treatments and only the look of nearness.


66. Another area where AI is currently having an extensive impact is the world of work. As in lots of other fields, AI is driving essential transformations across lots of occupations, with a series of effects. On the one hand, it has the potential to enhance competence and productivity, develop brand-new tasks, make it possible for workers to concentrate on more innovative jobs, and open brand-new horizons for creativity and innovation.


67. However, while AI assures to increase efficiency by taking control of ordinary jobs, it frequently forces employees to adjust to the speed and needs of makers rather than devices being created to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the marketed advantages of AI, existing techniques to the technology can paradoxically deskill workers, subject them to automated security, and relegate them to stiff and repetitive tasks. The need to stay up to date with the rate of innovation can erode workers' sense of firm and stifle the ingenious capabilities they are anticipated to bring to their work. [125]

68. AI is presently getting rid of the need for some jobs that were when carried out by human beings. If AI is used to change human employees instead of match them, there is a "considerable danger of disproportionate advantage for the few at the price of the impoverishment of numerous." [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more effective, there is an involved threat that human labor may lose its value in the economic world. This is the sensible repercussion of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humanity oppressed to efficiency, where, eventually, the expense of mankind need to be cut. Yet, human lives are inherently important, independent of their financial output. Nevertheless, the "existing design," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to prefer a financial investment in efforts to help the slow, the weak, or the less talented to discover chances in life." [127] Because of this, "we can not enable a tool as effective and indispensable as Artificial Intelligence to strengthen such a paradigm, but rather, we need to make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its expansion." [128]

69. It is very important to bear in mind that "the order of things must be secondary to the order of individuals, and not the other method around." [129] Human work needs to not just be at the service of profit however at "the service of the entire human person [...] taking into consideration the individual's product requirements 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 method of earning one's daily bread" but is also "an essential dimension of social life" and "a way [...] of personal development, the structure of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of gifts. Work provides us a sense of shared obligation for the development of the world, and eventually, 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 ought to not be that technological progress significantly changes human work, for this would be harmful to humankind" [132] -rather, it must promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI must assist, not change, human judgment. Similarly, it needs to never ever break down creativity or reduce employees to mere "cogs in a machine." Therefore, "respect for the dignity of laborers and the importance of employment for the financial well-being of people, families, and societies, for job security and just wages, ought to be a high concern for the worldwide community as these forms of technology penetrate more deeply into our workplaces." [133]

71. As participants in God's recovery work, health care specialists have the vocation and duty to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the healthcare occupation carries an "intrinsic and undeniable ethical measurement," acknowledged by the Hippocratic Oath, which requires physicians and healthcare experts to commit themselves to having "outright regard for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Good Samaritan, this dedication is to be carried out by males and ladies "who decline the production of a society of exclusion, and act rather as neighbors, raising up and fixing up the succumbed to the sake of the common good." [136]

72. Seen in this light, AI seems to hold immense capacity in a variety of applications in the medical field, such as helping the diagnostic work of health care providers, assisting in relationships in between patients and medical staff, using brand-new treatments, and expanding access to quality care likewise for those who are isolated or marginalized. In these methods, the innovation might improve the "caring and loving closeness" [137] that health care providers are contacted us to reach the sick and suffering.


73. However, if AI is used not to enhance but to replace the relationship in between patients and health care providers-leaving clients to interact with a machine rather than a human being-it would lower a most importantly essential human relational structure to a central, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of encouraging solidarity with the sick and suffering, such applications of AI would risk worsening the loneliness that often accompanies illness, particularly in the context of a culture where "individuals are no longer seen as a critical value to be taken care of and respected." [138] This abuse of AI would not line up with respect for the self-respect of the human individual and uniformity with the suffering.


74. Responsibility for the wellness of clients and the decisions that discuss their lives are at the heart of the healthcare occupation. This accountability requires physician to exercise all their ability and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options regarding those delegated to their care, constantly respecting the inviolable dignity of the clients and the need for informed consent. As an outcome, decisions concerning patient treatment and the weight of responsibility they entail need to always remain with the human individual and must never ever be entrusted to AI. [139]

75. In addition, using AI to determine who ought to receive treatment based mainly on economic steps or metrics of efficiency represents a particularly troublesome instance of the "technocratic paradigm" that should be turned down. [140] For, "optimizing resources indicates utilizing them in an ethical and fraternal method, and not punishing the most fragile." [141] Additionally, AI tools in healthcare are "exposed to kinds of predisposition and discrimination," where "systemic errors can easily multiply, producing not only injustices in private cases however likewise, due to the cause and effect, genuine kinds of social inequality." [142]

76. The combination of AI into health care also positions the threat of amplifying other existing variations in access to medical care. As health care becomes progressively oriented toward prevention and lifestyle-based methods, AI-driven solutions might accidentally prefer more upscale populations who currently take pleasure in better access to medical resources and wiki.woge.or.at quality nutrition. This trend threats reinforcing a "medicine for the abundant" model, where those with financial means gain from advanced preventative tools and individualized health details while others battle to gain access to even basic services. To avoid such injustices, fair structures are required to guarantee that making use of AI in health care does not get worse existing health care inequalities but rather serves the common good.


77. The words of the Second Vatican Council remain fully relevant today: "True education aims to form individuals 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 handing down realities and intellectual skills: rather, its aim is to add to the individual's holistic development in its different aspects (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, and so on), consisting of, for instance, neighborhood life and relations within the scholastic community," [144] in keeping with the nature and self-respect of the human individual.


78. This approach includes a dedication to cultivating the mind, however always as a part of the important advancement of the individual: "We need to break that concept of education which holds that educating methods filling one's head with concepts. That is the way we inform robots, cerebral minds, not individuals. Educating is taking a threat in the tension in between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]

79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human person is the essential relationship in between instructor and trainee. Teachers do more than convey knowledge; they design vital human qualities and motivate 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 fosters trust, mutual understanding, and the capability to deal with everyone's distinct self-respect and capacity. On the part of the trainee, this can produce a real desire to grow. The physical existence of a teacher produces a relational dynamic that AI can not reproduce, one that deepens engagement and nurtures the trainee's essential advancement.


80. In this context, AI presents both opportunities and challenges. If used in a sensible way, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and bought to the authentic goals of education, AI can become a valuable instructional resource by improving access to education, using tailored support, and supplying immediate feedback to trainees. These benefits might improve the knowing experience, especially in cases where individualized attention is required, or educational resources are otherwise limited.


81. Nevertheless, an important part of education is forming "the intelligence to reason well in all matters, to reach out towards fact, and to comprehend it," [147] while helping the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is all the more important in an age marked by technology, in which "it is no longer simply a question of 'using' instruments of communication, but of living in an extremely digitalized culture that has had a profound influence on [...] our ability to communicate, discover, be informed and get in into relationship with others." [149] However, rather of cultivating "a cultivated intellect," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and profession that it carries out," [150] the extensive usage of AI in education could lead to the trainees' increased reliance on innovation, deteriorating their capability to carry out some skills individually and aggravating their dependence on screens. [151]

82. Additionally, while some AI systems are created to help individuals develop their crucial believing capabilities and problem-solving abilities, numerous others merely supply answers instead of prompting trainees to come to answers themselves or compose text on their own. [152] Instead of training youths how to amass details and create fast reactions, education should encourage "the accountable usage of flexibility to face concerns with common sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in using forms of synthetic intelligence must aim above all at promoting important thinking. Users of all ages, however especially the young, need to establish a critical approach to making use of information and content collected online or produced by expert system systems. Schools, universities, and scientific societies are challenged to assist trainees and specialists to comprehend the social and ethical aspects of the advancement and usages of innovation." [154]

83. As Saint John Paul II recalled, "on the planet today, characterized by such rapid advancements in science and technology, the jobs of a Catholic University presume an ever greater value and urgency." [155] In a specific way, Catholic universities are advised to be present as great laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary secret, they are advised to engage "with knowledge and imagination" [156] in mindful research study on this phenomenon, assisting to draw out the salutary potential within the various fields of science and truth, and directing them constantly towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the common good, reaching new frontiers in the discussion in between faith and factor.


84. Moreover, it should be noted that present AI programs have been known to provide prejudiced or produced details, which can lead trainees to rely on incorrect material. This problem "not only risks of legitimizing phony news and enhancing a dominant culture's advantage, but, in brief, it also weakens the educational procedure itself." [157] With time, clearer distinctions might emerge between correct and incorrect usages of AI in education and research. Yet, a definitive guideline is that using AI need to constantly be transparent and never misrepresented.


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

86. However, AI likewise provides a serious risk of generating manipulated content and incorrect details, which can quickly mislead individuals due to its resemblance to the reality. Such false information might happen inadvertently, as in the case of AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear real however are not. Since producing material that simulates human artifacts is main to AI's functionality, reducing these dangers proves tough. Yet, the repercussions of such aberrations and incorrect details can be rather serious. For this factor, all those associated with producing and using AI systems need to be dedicated to the truthfulness and accuracy of the details processed by such systems and disseminated to the public.


87. While AI has a hidden potential to generate incorrect details, a a lot more troubling issue depends on the purposeful abuse of AI for control. This can happen when individuals or organizations purposefully generate and demo.qkseo.in spread out incorrect content with the aim to deceive or cause harm, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to a false depiction of a person, edited or created by an AI algorithm. The threat of deepfakes is especially obvious when they are used to target or damage others. While the images or videos themselves may be artificial, the damage they trigger is genuine, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "genuine wounds in their human dignity." [159]

88. On a wider scale, by misshaping "our relationship with others and with truth," [160] AI-generated phony media can gradually undermine the foundations of society. This concern needs careful guideline, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or affected media-can spread unintentionally, sustaining political polarization and social unrest. When society ends up being indifferent to the fact, different groups construct their own variations of "truths," compromising the "reciprocal ties and shared reliances" [161] that underpin the material of social life. As deepfakes cause individuals to question everything and AI-generated false content erodes rely on what they see and hear, polarization and conflict will just grow. Such prevalent deceptiveness is no unimportant matter; it strikes at the core of humanity, dismantling the foundational trust on which societies are built. [162]

89. Countering AI-driven frauds is not only the work of market experts-it requires the efforts of all people of goodwill. "If innovation is to serve human self-respect and not hurt it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human neighborhood must be proactive in dealing with these trends with regard to human dignity and the promotion of the excellent." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated content ought to constantly work out diligence in confirming the reality of what they distribute and, in all cases, ought to "prevent the sharing of words and images that are breaking down of people, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that exploit the weak and susceptible." [164] This requires the continuous vigilance and mindful discernment of all users regarding their activity online. [165]

90. Humans are naturally relational, and the data each individual generates in the digital world can be viewed as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data conveys not just details but likewise personal and relational understanding, which, in a progressively digitized context, can amount to power over the person. Moreover, while some kinds of information may pertain to public aspects of an individual's life, others may touch upon the individual's interiority, possibly even their conscience. Seen in this way, privacy plays an essential role in safeguarding the borders of an individual's inner life, maintaining their flexibility to connect to others, express themselves, and make decisions without excessive control. This protection is also connected to the defense of spiritual flexibility, as monitoring can also be misused to exert control over the lives of followers and how they express their faith.


91. It is appropriate, for that reason, to deal with the issue of personal privacy from a concern for the legitimate freedom and inalienable self-respect of the human person "in all situations." [166] The Second Vatican Council consisted of the right "to secure privacy" amongst the essential rights "essential for living a truly human life," a right that ought to be extended to all individuals on account of their "superb dignity." [167] Furthermore, the Church has likewise verified the right to the genuine regard for a personal life in the context of verifying the individual's right to an excellent track record, defense of their physical and psychological integrity, and freedom from harm or undue invasion [168] -important elements of the due respect 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 a person's habits and believing from even a small quantity of details, making the role of data personal privacy even more necessary as a safeguard for the self-respect and relational nature of the human person. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant attitudes towards others are on the increase, distances are otherwise diminishing or vanishing to the point that the right to privacy rarely exists. Everything has actually become a kind of spectacle to be analyzed and inspected, and people's lives are now under constant surveillance." [170]

93. While there can be legitimate and proper ways to utilize AI in keeping with human dignity and the typical good, utilizing it for monitoring aimed at exploiting, limiting others' liberty, or benefitting a few at the expenditure of the many is unjustifiable. The risk of monitoring overreach need to be kept track of by appropriate regulators to guarantee openness and public accountability. Those responsible for security must never exceed their authority, which need to constantly favor the dignity and liberty of every person as the essential basis of a simply and humane society.


94. Furthermore, "essential regard for human self-respect needs that we refuse to allow the individuality of the person to be identified with a set of data." [171] This especially uses when AI is used to examine people or groups based on their habits, qualities, or history-a practice called "social scoring": "In social and financial decision-making, we should beware about delegating judgments to algorithms that process data, frequently collected surreptitiously, on an individual's makeup and previous habits. Such information can be polluted by societal bias and preconceptions. An individual's past habits should not be used to deny him or her the chance to change, grow, and contribute to society. We can not permit algorithms to limit or condition regard for human self-respect, or to exclude empathy, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that individuals have the ability to change." [172]

95. AI has lots of appealing applications for enhancing our relationship with our "common home," such as developing models to forecast severe environment occasions, proposing engineering solutions to lower their effect, vetlek.ru 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 emergencies. These improvements have the possible to reinforce resilience against climate-related difficulties and promote more sustainable development.


96. At the very same time, present AI designs and the hardware needed to support them consume huge quantities of energy and water, considerably contributing to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This truth is typically obscured by the way this technology is presented in the popular creativity, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can offer the impression that information is stored and processed in an intangible realm, removed from the real world. However, "the cloud" is not an ethereal domain different from the real world; similar to all calculating innovations, it relies on physical makers, cable televisions, and energy. The same holds true of the technology behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, specifically large language models (LLMs), they need ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and higher storage infrastructure. Considering the heavy toll these innovations take on the environment, it is essential to establish sustainable options that decrease their impact on our common home.


97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is necessary "that we look for options not only in innovation but in a change of humankind." [175] A complete and genuine understanding of development recognizes that the value of all created things can not be minimized to their mere utility. Therefore, a totally human method to the stewardship of the earth rejects the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which seeks to "draw out whatever possible" from the world, [176] and rejects the "misconception of progress," which presumes that "environmental issues will solve themselves just with the application of brand-new innovation and without any need for ethical factors to consider or deep modification." [177] Such a frame of mind should provide method to a more holistic method that appreciates the order of creation and promotes the important good of the human individual while safeguarding our typical home. [178]

98. The Second Vatican Council and the consistent mentor of the Popes since then have firmly insisted that peace is not merely the lack of war and is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between foes. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the serenity of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without securing the products of persons, complimentary communication, respect 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 developed through patient diplomacy, the active promo of justice, solidarity, integral human development, and regard for the dignity of all people. [180] In this method, the tools utilized to maintain peace needs to never ever be allowed to validate oppression, violence, or injustice. Instead, they must constantly be governed by a "firm determination to respect other individuals and countries, along with their dignity, along with the purposeful practice of fraternity." [181]

99. While AI's analytical capabilities could help nations seek peace and make sure security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can likewise be extremely troublesome. Pope Francis has actually observed that "the capability to conduct military operations through remote control systems has caused a minimized perception of the destruction triggered by those weapon systems and the problem of responsibility for their usage, leading to a much more cold and separated technique to the enormous disaster of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which self-governing weapons make war more feasible militates against the principle of war as a last option in legitimate self-defense, [183] potentially increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and precipitating a destabilizing arms race, with devastating repercussions for human rights. [184]

100. In specific, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which can recognizing and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for severe ethical issue" because they lack the "unique human capability for moral judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this factor, Pope Francis has actually urgently called for a reconsideration of the advancement of these weapons and a restriction on their use, starting with "a reliable and concrete dedication to present ever higher and appropriate human control. No machine ought to ever select to take the life of a human being." [186]

101. Since it is a little action from makers that can eliminate autonomously with precision to those capable of large-scale damage, some AI researchers have actually revealed issues that such innovation presents an "existential danger" by having the potential to act in manner ins which might threaten the survival of whole areas or even of humankind itself. This risk demands severe attention, reflecting the long-standing concern about technologies that approve war "an uncontrollable harmful power over great numbers of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing kids. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "undertake an evaluation of war with a totally brand-new attitude" [188] is more immediate than ever.


102. At the exact same time, while the theoretical risks of AI are worthy of attention, the more instant and pressing concern lies in how individuals with malicious intentions might abuse this technology. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future abilities are unpredictable, humankind's previous actions supply clear warnings. The atrocities devoted throughout history are enough to raise deep issues about the possible abuses of AI.


103. Saint John Paul II observed that "humankind now has instruments of unmatched power: we can turn this world into a garden, or decrease it to a stack of debris." [190] Given this truth, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are complimentary to apply our intelligence towards things evolving favorably," or toward "decadence and mutual damage." [191] To avoid mankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there must be a clear stand against all applications of innovation that inherently threaten human life and self-respect. This dedication requires cautious discernment about making use of AI, especially in military defense applications, to make sure that it constantly appreciates human self-respect and serves the common good. The development and implementation of AI in weaponries must undergo the greatest levels of ethical analysis, governed by an issue for human dignity and the sanctity of life. [193]

104. Technology offers impressive tools to manage and establish the world's resources. However, in many cases, humankind is progressively ceding control of these resources to makers. Within some circles of researchers and futurists, there is optimism about the capacity of artificial basic intelligence (AGI), a theoretical kind of AI that would match or go beyond human intelligence and bring about unthinkable advancements. Some even hypothesize that AGI could attain superhuman abilities. At the very same time, as society drifts away from a connection with the transcendent, some are lured to turn to AI searching for meaning or fulfillment-longings that can only be really pleased in communion with God. [194]

105. However, the presumption of substituting God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture clearly cautions against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI might prove a lot 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 gives the illusion of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is crucial to remember that AI is but a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated product, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not have a lot of the abilities particular to human life, and it is likewise fallible. By turning to AI as a viewed "Other" greater than itself, with which to share presence and obligations, humankind risks developing a replacement for God. However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, however humankind itself-which, in this way, becomes enslaved to its own work. [195]

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


107. In contrast, humans, "by their interior life, go beyond the whole product universe; they experience this deep interiority when they get in into their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they choose their own destiny in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis advises us, that each specific discovers the "mystical connection between self-knowledge and openness to others, 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 enthusiasms, and our whole individual, in a stance of respect and caring obedience before the Lord," [198] who "offers to treat each one people as a 'Thou,' always and permanently." [199]

108. Considering the different difficulties presented by advances in technology, Pope Francis emphasized the need for growth in "human duty, worths, and conscience," proportionate to the development in the potential that this technology brings [200] -acknowledging that "with a boost in human power comes a widening of responsibility on the part of individuals and communities." [201]

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

110. As a result, it is essential to understand how to examine specific applications of AI in particular contexts to figure out whether its use promotes human self-respect, the occupation of the human person, and the typical good. Just like numerous technologies, the effects of the different usages of AI might not constantly be foreseeable from their creation. As these applications and their social impacts become clearer, suitable responses need to be made at all levels of society, following the concept of subsidiarity. Individual users, families, civil society, corporations, organizations, governments, and worldwide companies ought to work at their proper levels to make sure that AI is utilized for the good of all.


111. A substantial challenge and chance for the common excellent today lies in considering AI within a structure of relational intelligence, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of individuals and communities and highlights our shared duty for promoting the essential well-being of others. The twentieth-century philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev observed that individuals frequently blame machines for personal and social issues; nevertheless, "this just embarrasses man and does not correspond to his self-respect," for "it is unworthy to transfer duty from man to a device." [203] Only the human individual can be ethically accountable, and the difficulties of a technological society are ultimately spiritual in nature. Therefore, facing those challenges "needs a surge of spirituality." [204]

112. An additional indicate consider is the call, prompted by the appearance of AI on the world stage, for a restored gratitude of all that is human. Years earlier, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos warned that "the threat is not in the reproduction of devices, however in the ever-increasing variety of guys accustomed from their childhood to desire just what machines can offer." [205] This obstacle 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 reserved and after that forgotten or perhaps considered irrelevant since they can not be calculated in formal terms. AI must be used just as a tool to complement human intelligence rather than change its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that transcend calculation is important for maintaining "an authentic mankind" that "appears to dwell in the middle of our technological culture, almost unnoticed, like a mist leaking gently beneath a closed door." [207]

113. The large area of the world's knowledge is now available in manner ins which would have filled past generations with awe. However, to ensure that developments in knowledge do not become humanly or spiritually barren, one must exceed the simple accumulation of data and aim to attain true knowledge. [208]

114. This wisdom is the gift that humankind requires most to resolve the profound questions and ethical challenges postured by AI: "Only by embracing a spiritual method of seeing reality, just by recovering a knowledge of the heart, can we challenge 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 consequences." It "can not be sought from makers," but it "lets itself be discovered by those who seek it and be seen by those who love it; it anticipates those who desire it, and it goes in search of those who are worthy of it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]

115. In a world marked by AI, we need the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "allows us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, circumstances, occasions and to discover their real significance." [211]

116. Since a "individual's excellence is determined not by the details or understanding they have, but by the depth of their charity," [212] how we include AI "to include the least of our bros and sis, the vulnerable, and those most in need, will be the real step of our humankind." [213] The "knowledge of the heart" can light up and assist the human-centered use of this innovation to assist promote the typical good, look after our "typical home," advance the search for the truth, foster important human development, prefer human solidarity and fraternity, and lead humankind to its supreme objective: joy and complete communion with God. [214]

117. From this perspective of wisdom, followers will have the ability to act as ethical representatives capable of utilizing this technology to promote a genuine vision of the human individual and society. [215] This ought to be done with the understanding that technological progress is part of God's strategy for creation-an activity that we are called to buy towards the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the consistent look for the True and the Good.


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


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


Ex audientia 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 document explaining the outputs or procedures of AI are used figuratively to explain its operations and are not intended to anthropomorphize the machine.
[8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[9] Here, one can see the main positions of the "transhumanists" and the "posthumanists." Transhumanists argue that technological developments will make it possible for humans to conquer their biological constraints and enhance both their physical and cognitive capabilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, contend that such advances will ultimately modify human identity to the degree that mankind itself may no longer be thought about really "human." Both views rest on an essentially unfavorable perception of human corporality, which treats the body more as an obstacle than as an integral part of the person's identity and call to complete awareness. Yet, this negative view of the body is inconsistent with a proper understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports genuine scientific development, it verifies that human self-respect is rooted in "the individual as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "dignity is likewise inherent in each person'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 technique shows a functionalist viewpoint, which lowers the human mind to its functions and presumes that its functions can be completely measured in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear really intelligent, it would still remain functional in nature.
[11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460.
[12] If "thinking" is associated to makers, it must be clarified that this refers to calculative thinking instead of vital thinking. Similarly, if makers are said to run utilizing abstract thought, it must be defined that this is restricted to computational logic. On the other hand, by its very nature, human thought is an imaginative procedure that avoids programming and transcends constraints.
[13] On the fundamental role of language in shaping understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York City 2010, 141-182).
[14] For additional 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 ad litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [faculty] by which he is exceptional to the illogical animals. Now, this [professors] is factor itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it might more suitably be offered"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When thinking about all that they have, human beings find that they are most distinguished from animals exactly by the truth they possess intelligence." This is likewise reiterated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who specifies that "guy is the most ideal of all earthly beings endowed with motion, and his appropriate and natural operation is intellection," by which man abstracts from things and "gets in his mind things in fact intelligible" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 76).
[17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, advertisement 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a contemporary point of view that echoes elements of the classical and medieval difference between these two modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York 2011.
[19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp.
[20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138.
[21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intelligence can examine the truth of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and pertain to acknowledge because reality, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal moral needs."
[22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp.
[24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "usually thinks about the human person 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 divulged its significance and worth."
[26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81.
[27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036.
[28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and hence it is united to the body in order that it might have a presence and an operation appropriate to its nature."
[29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18.
[30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357.
[31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54.
[32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221.
[33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27.
[34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls likewise possess factor and with it they circle in discourse around the truth of things. [...] [O] n account of the way in which they are capable of concentrating the lots of into the one, they too, in their own fashion and as far as they can, are worthy of conceptions like those of the angels" (en. tr. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York - 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 issues and grasping certain facts that are changeless, as real now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, factor discovers universal values obtained from that exact same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034.
[38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last case of factor is to acknowledge that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York 1958, 77).
[39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[40] Our semantic capability permits us to understand messages in any kind of communication in a manner that both takes into account and transcends their material or empirical structures (such as computer code). Here, intelligence ends up being a wisdom that "allows us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, scenarios, events and to discover their real meaning" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our creativity allows us to produce brand-new content or ideas, mainly by offering an original viewpoint on truth. Both capabilities depend on the presence of an individual subjectivity for their full awareness.
[41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931.
[42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a commitment to the reality, is far more than personal feeling [...] Certainly, its close relation to fact fosters its universality and maintains it from being 'restricted to a narrow field without relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to fact therefore safeguards it from 'a fideism that denies it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643.
[43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7.
[44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492.
[45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15.
[46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as estimated in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294.
[47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure compares deep space to "a book reflecting, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who grants existence to all things (Breviloquium 2.12.1). Cf. Alain de Lille, De Incarnatione Christi, PL 210, 579a: "Omnis mundi creatura quasi liber et pictura nobis est et speculum."
[48] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 67: AAS 107 (2015 ), 874; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589-592; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 57: "people inhabit a distinct location in the universe according to the magnificent plan: they take pleasure in the benefit of sharing in the divine governance of visible development. [...] Since guy's place as ruler remains in fact an involvement in the magnificent governance of production, we speak of it here as a type of stewardship."
[49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165.
[50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This concept is likewise shown in the development account, where God brings animals to Adam "to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living animal, that was its name" (Gen. 2:19), an action that shows the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's production. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117.
[51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301.
[52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302.
[53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2.
[54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7.
[55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316.
[56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8.
[57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906.
[58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987.
[59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5.
[60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: "L'intelligence n'est rien sans la délectation." Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: "The mind and the will are put at the service of the higher good by picking up and savoring truths."
[61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232).
[62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he highest norm of human life is the divine law itself-eternal, unbiased and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the ways of the human community according to a strategy developed in his knowledge and love. God has made it possible for male to take part in this law of his so that, under the gentle personality of magnificent providence, numerous may be able to reach a deeper and deeper understanding of unchangeable truth." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037.
[63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016.
[64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892.
[65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042.
[66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has imprinted his own image and similarity on male (cf. Gen 1:26), conferring upon him an incomparable self-respect [...] In impact, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not represent any work he carries out, but which circulation from his vital self-respect as a person." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22.
[68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310.
[69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is comprehended as a technical term to suggest this innovation, recalling that the expression is likewise utilized to designate the field of study and not just its applications.
[71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857.
[72] For instance, see the encouragement of scientific exploration in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the appreciation for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These authors, among a long list of other Catholics took part in clinical research and technological exploration, illustrate that "faith and science can be united in charity, provided that science is put at the service of the males and woman of our time and not misused to hurt or perhaps ruin them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87.
[73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378.
[74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053.
[76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888.
[77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658.
[78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim.
[79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293.
[80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4.
[81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes male a moral subject. When he acts intentionally, male 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 motivated efforts "to guarantee that innovation remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed toward the excellent."
[85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the role of human firm in choosing a wider aim (Ziel) that then informs the particular function (Zweck) for which each technological application is produced, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um pass away Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71.
[86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a purpose and, in its impact on human society, constantly represents a kind of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, hence allowing certain individuals to perform particular actions while preventing others from carrying out different ones. In a basically explicit method, this constitutive power-dimension of innovation always includes the worldview of those who invented and established it."
[87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309.
[88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045.
[90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Confronted with the marvels of devices, which seem to understand how to choose individually, we should be very clear that decision-making [...] must constantly be left to the human person. We would condemn humanity to a future without hope if we took away individuals's capability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend on the choices of devices."
[92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[93] The term "bias" in this document refers to algorithmic predisposition (methodical and constant errors in computer systems that might disproportionately bias certain groups in unintentional ways) or finding out predisposition (which will result in training on a biased information set) and not the "predisposition vector" in neural networks (which is a parameter used to change the output of "neurons" to change more accurately to the information).
[94] Cf. Francis, photorum.eclat-mauve.fr Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father verified the development in agreement "on the requirement for advancement procedures to appreciate such worths as addition, openness, security, equity, personal privacy and reliability," and likewise welcomed "the efforts of international organizations to control these innovations so that they promote genuine development, contributing, that is, to a much better world and an integrally higher quality of life."
[95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8.
[96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.
[97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571.
[98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For additional conversation of the ethical 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 value of discussion in a pluralist society oriented toward a "robust and strong social principles," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045.
[100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.
[102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464.
[104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10.
[105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; pricing quote the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245.
[106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050.
[107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047.
[108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309.
[109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2.
[110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892.
[111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027.
[112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123.
[113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034.
[114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149.
[115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414.
[118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057.
[119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985.
[120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987.
[122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989).
[123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Many individuals] want their interpersonal relationships provided by sophisticated devices, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel tells us constantly to run the risk of a face-to-face encounter with others, with their physical presence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their delight which contaminates us in our close and constant interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from membership in the neighborhood, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045.
[124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1.
[125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899.
[126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107.
[128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' teaching about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893.
[129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as priced estimate in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453.
[130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: "work is 'for guy' and not guy 'for work.' Through this conclusion one appropriately pertains to acknowledge the pre-eminence of the subjective significance of work over the objective one."
[132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320.
[133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502.
[135] Ibid.
[136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as priced estimate in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8.
[137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12.
[138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12.
[139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2.
[140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465.
[141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops' Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: "If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture appears, with its painful repercussions, it is that of health care. When an ill person is not put in the center or their dignity is not considered, this triggers mindsets that can lead even to speculation on the misfortune of others. And this is extremely severe! [...] The application of a business method to the health care sector, if indiscriminate [...] might run the risk of disposing of people."
[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 modern 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, pricing estimate the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592.
[150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167.
[151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413.
[152] In a 2023 policy file about making use of generative AI in education and research, UNESCO notes: "Among the crucial concerns [of using generative AI (GenAI) in education and research study] is whether human beings can potentially deliver fundamental levels of thinking and skill-acquisition processes to AI and rather concentrate on higher-order thinking skills based upon the outputs offered by AI. Writing, for example, is typically associated with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], people can now begin with a well-structured outline supplied by GenAI. Some specialists have actually characterized making use of GenAI to create text in this method as 'composing without thinking'" (UNESCO, Guidance for wiki.vst.hs-furtwangen.de Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American theorist Hannah Arendt foresaw such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and cautioned: "If it should turn out to be real that understanding (in the sense of know-how) and believed have parted business for good, then we would certainly end up being the powerless servants, not a lot of our machines as of our knowledge" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3).
[153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417.
[154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914.
[155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479.
[156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10.
[157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3.
[158] For example, it may assist individuals gain access to the "selection of resources for producing greater knowledge 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 is real or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he composes: 'I have met lots of who wanted to trick, however none who wanted to be deceived'"; estimating Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794.
[163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62.
[164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8.
[165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Media (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149.
[166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24.
[167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no male may with impunity breach that human dignity which God himself treats with great respect"; as priced quote in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804.
[168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203.
[169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human dignity in the online world requires States to likewise respect the right to personal privacy, by protecting people from invasive monitoring and allowing them to secure their personal details from unapproved gain access to."
[170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984.
[171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body determined a list of "early pledges of AI helping to attend to environment 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 transform data into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools might assist establish brand-new strategies and financial investments to decrease emissions, influence new private sector investments in net no, protect biodiversity, and construct broad-based social resilience" (ibid.).
[174] "The cloud" refers to a network of physical servers throughout the world that enables users to store, process, and manage their data from another location.
[175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850.
[176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890.
[177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870.
[178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852.
[179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640.
[180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317.
[181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101.
[182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
[183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310.
[184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105.
[185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We need to guarantee and safeguard a space for proper human control over the choices made by artificial intelligence programs: human dignity itself depends on it."
[186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The development and use of deadly self-governing weapons systems (LAWS) that do not have the appropriate human control would present essential ethical issues, considered that LAWS can never ever be morally accountable topics capable of complying with global humanitarian law."
[187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104.
[188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104.
[189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: "Nor can we overlook the possibility of sophisticated weapons winding up in the incorrect hands, assisting in, for example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the institutions of genuine systems of government. In a word, the world does not require new technologies that add to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and as a result end 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 much better understanding today that the simple build-up of goods and services [...] is inadequate for the awareness of human joy. Nor, in consequence, does the availability of the many genuine benefits offered in recent times by science and technology, consisting of the computer technology, bring freedom from every kind of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the substantial body of resources and possible at male's disposal is guided by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the true 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, Consulting With the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023).
[207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: "The flood of details at our fingertips does not produce higher wisdom. Wisdom is not born of fast searches on the internet nor is it a mass of unproven information. That is not the method to mature in the encounter with truth."
[209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8.
[210] Ibid.
[211] Ibid.
[212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121.
[213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124.
[214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893.
[215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.