GitLab

1. With wisdom both ancient and new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to show on the current challenges and chances posed by scientific and technological developments, especially by the recent advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian tradition regards the gift of intelligence as a necessary element of how people are created "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Starting from an integral vision of the human person and the scriptural contacting us to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church highlights that this gift of intelligence ought to be revealed through the accountable use of factor and technical capabilities in the stewardship of the created world.

2. The Church motivates the advancement of science, technology, the arts, and other types of human undertaking, viewing them as part of the "collaboration of man and woman with God in refining the noticeable creation." [1] As Sirach affirms, God "provided ability to humans, that he may be glorified in his marvelous works" (Sir. 38:6). Human abilities and imagination come from God and, when used rightly, glorify God by reflecting his knowledge and goodness. Because of this, when we ask ourselves what it implies to "be human," we can not omit a factor to consider of our scientific and technological capabilities.

3. It is within this perspective that today Note addresses the anthropological and ethical obstacles raised by AI-issues that are particularly significant, as one of the goals of this innovation is to mimic the human intelligence that created it. For example, unlike numerous other human productions, AI can be trained on the results of human creativity and after that generate brand-new "artifacts" with a level of speed and skill that often rivals or surpasses what people can do, such as producing text or images indistinguishable from human compositions. This raises vital concerns about AI's potential function in the growing crisis of truth in the public forum. Moreover, this technology is designed to learn and make certain options autonomously, adapting to new scenarios and providing options not predicted by its programmers, and therefore, it raises basic questions about ethical responsibility and human security, with wider ramifications for society as a whole. This brand-new situation has prompted numerous individuals to review what it implies to be human and the function of humankind on the planet.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad agreement that AI marks a new and significant phase in humanity's engagement with innovation, positioning it at the heart of what Pope Francis has explained as an "epochal modification." [2] Its impact is felt globally and in a vast array of locations, consisting of social relationships, education, work, art, health care, law, warfare, and international relations. As AI advances quickly towards even greater accomplishments, it is critically crucial to consider its anthropological and ethical ramifications. This involves not only mitigating risks and preventing damage but also making sure that its applications are used to promote human progress and the common good.

5. To contribute favorably to the discernment regarding AI, and in response to Pope Francis' call for a restored "wisdom of heart," [3] the Church provides its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active function in the international discussion on these concerns, the Church welcomes those turned over with sending the faith-including parents, instructors, pastors, and bishops-to dedicate themselves to this vital subject with care and attention. While this document is intended particularly for them, it is also implied to be available to a broader audience, particularly those who share the conviction that scientific and technological advances must be directed toward serving the human person and the common good. [4]
6. To this end, the file begins by distinguishing between ideas of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then explores the Christian understanding of human intelligence, supplying a structure rooted in the Church's philosophical and doctrinal tradition. Finally, the document provides guidelines to make sure that the development and use of AI maintain human self-respect and promote the integral development of the human individual and society.

7. The idea of "intelligence" in AI has actually developed gradually, drawing on a series of ideas from different disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a substantial milestone occurred in 1956 when the American computer system scientist John McCarthy arranged a summer season workshop at Dartmouth University to check out the issue of "Artificial Intelligence," which he defined as "that of making a device act in manner ins which would be called intelligent if a human were so acting." [5] This workshop introduced a research program concentrated on creating devices efficient in carrying out jobs typically related to the human intellect and intelligent habits.

8. Since then, AI research study has actually advanced rapidly, resulting in the development of complex systems efficient in performing highly sophisticated jobs. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are normally developed to manage particular and limited functions, such as equating languages, forecasting the trajectory of a storm, classifying images, responding to questions, or creating visual material at the user's demand. While the meaning of "intelligence" in AI research study differs, most contemporary AI systems-particularly those using device learning-rely on statistical inference instead of sensible deduction. By examining big datasets to determine patterns, AI can "anticipate" [7] results and propose new techniques, simulating some cognitive processes typical of human analytical. Such accomplishments have been enabled through advances in calculating innovation (including neural networks, without supervision artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) along with hardware developments (such as specialized processors). Together, these innovations enable AI systems to react to various forms of human input, adapt to brand-new situations, and even suggest novel services not anticipated by their original programmers. [8]
9. Due to these rapid improvements, many jobs when handled specifically by people are now turned over to AI. These systems can augment and even supersede what people have the ability to perform in lots of fields, especially in specialized locations such as information analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is created for a particular job, many researchers aim to establish what is called "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system capable of operating throughout all cognitive domains and performing any task within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI might one day attain the state of "superintelligence," exceeding human intellectual capabilities, or contribute to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, nevertheless, fear that these possibilities, even if hypothetical, might one day eclipse the human person, while still others welcome this prospective improvement. [9]
10. Underlying this and many other perspectives on the topic is the implicit assumption that the term "intelligence" can be used in the exact same method to refer to both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not capture the complete scope of the idea. When it comes to people, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the person in his or her totality, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is understood functionally, often with the presumption that the activities quality of the human mind can be broken down into digitized actions that devices can reproduce. [10]
11. This functional viewpoint is exhibited by the "Turing Test," which considers a maker "smart" if an individual can not distinguish its behavior from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "habits" refers only to the performance of particular intellectual tasks; it does not represent the complete breadth of human experience, which consists of abstraction, feelings, imagination, and the visual, ethical, and spiritual sensibilities. Nor does it encompass the complete variety of expressions characteristic of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the "intelligence" of a system is examined methodologically, however also reductively, based on its ability to produce appropriate responses-in this case, those associated with the human intellect-regardless of how those responses are produced.

12. AI's sophisticated features offer it sophisticated capabilities to perform tasks, however not the capability to think. [12] This difference is most importantly important, as the way "intelligence" is specified inevitably forms how we understand the relationship between human idea and this innovation. [13] To appreciate this, one need to remember the richness of the philosophical custom and Christian faith, which provide a deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's teaching on the nature, dignity, and vocation of the human person. [14]
13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has played a main function in comprehending what it implies to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all individuals by nature desire to understand." [15] This knowledge, with its capability for abstraction that comprehends the nature and significance of things, sets people apart from the animal world. [16] As theorists, theologians, and psychologists have analyzed the exact nature of this intellectual professors, they have actually also explored how human beings understand the world and their unique location within it. Through this exploration, the Christian custom has actually pertained to comprehend the human person as a being consisting of both body and soul-deeply connected to this world and yet transcending it. [17]
14. In the classical tradition, the concept of intelligence is often understood through the complementary principles of "reason" (ratio) and "intelligence" (intellectus). These are not different faculties but, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are 2 modes in which the same intelligence runs: "The term intellect is inferred from the inward grasp of the reality, while the name reason is taken from the curious and discursive process." [18] This succinct description highlights the 2 essential and complementary dimensions of human intelligence. Intellectus refers to the intuitive grasp of the truth-that is, nabbing it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and premises argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to reasoning correct: the discursive, analytical procedure that leads to judgment. Together, intelligence and reason form the two aspects of the act of intelligere, "the proper operation of the human being as such." [19]
15. Explaining the human individual as a "logical" being does not reduce the person to a specific mode of idea; rather, it recognizes that the ability for intellectual understanding shapes and penetrates all elements of human activity. [20] Whether exercised well or badly, this capability is an intrinsic element of human nature. In this sense, the "term 'rational' encompasses all the capacities of the human person," consisting of those associated to "knowing and comprehending, in addition to those of ready, caring, choosing, and desiring; it likewise includes all corporeal functions carefully associated to these abilities." [21] This detailed perspective highlights how, in the human person, produced in the "image of God," factor is integrated in a way that raises, shapes, and changes both the individual's will and actions. [22]
16. Christian thought considers the intellectual faculties of the human individual within the framework of an important sociology that views the human being as basically embodied. In the human individual, spirit and matter "are not two natures joined, but rather their union forms a single nature." [23] Simply put, the soul is not simply the immaterial "part" of the person contained within the body, nor is the body an outer shell housing an intangible "core." Rather, the entire human individual is concurrently both product and spiritual. This understanding reflects the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which views the human individual as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and hence, an authentically spiritual dimension) within and through this embodied presence. [24] The profound meaning of this condition is additional brightened by the mystery of the Incarnation, through which God himself took on our flesh and "raised it up to a sublime self-respect." [25]
17. Although deeply rooted in physical presence, the human person goes beyond the material world through the soul, which is "practically 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 divine mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of understanding without the body. [28] In this method, the intellectual faculties of the human person are an important part of an anthropology that acknowledges that the human individual is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further elements of this understanding will be established in what follows.

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

19. The relational orientation of the human person is ultimately grounded in the everlasting self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is revealed in development and redemption. [31] The human individual is "called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life." [32]
20. This vocation to communion with God is necessarily connected to the call to communion with others. Love of God can not be separated from love for one's next-door neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20; Mt. 22:37 -39). By the grace of sharing God's life, Christians are likewise called to imitate Christ's outpouring present (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "love one another, as I have actually loved you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the divine life of self-giving, transcend self-interest to respond more completely to the human vocation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). A lot more superb than understanding lots of things is the commitment to look after one another, for if "I comprehend all secrets and all knowledge [...] however do not have love, I am absolutely nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2).

21. Human intelligence is ultimately "God's present fashioned for the assimilation of fact." [34] In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it makes it possible for the individual to check out realities that go beyond mere sensory experience or utility, since "the desire for truth belongs to human nature itself. It is an innate property of human reason to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limitations of empirical information, human intelligence can "with real certitude attain to truth itself as knowable." [36] While reality remains just partly understood, the desire for reality "spurs factor constantly to go further; certainly, it is as if reason were overwhelmed to see that it can constantly go beyond what it has actually already attained." [37] Although Truth in itself goes beyond the borders of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this tourist attraction, the human individual is resulted in seek "realities of a greater order." [39]
22. This natural drive toward the pursuit of truth is particularly obvious in the distinctly human capacities for semantic understanding and creativity, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "way that is appropriate to the social nature and dignity of the human individual." [41] Likewise, an unfaltering orientation to the fact is essential for charity to be both genuine and universal. [42]
23. The look for fact discovers its highest expression in openness to truths that go beyond the physical and developed world. In God, all facts attain their supreme and initial meaning. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "basic choice that engages the entire individual." [44] In this method, the human person ends up being fully what he or she is called to be: "the intelligence and the will show their spiritual nature," allowing the person "to act in a way that understands personal liberty to the full." [45]
24. The Christian faith understands production as the totally free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, creates "not to increase his splendor, however to reveal it forth and to interact it." [46] Since God produces according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), development is imbued with an intrinsic order that 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 assume an unique function: 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 skills to look after and establish creation in accord with God's plan. [49] In this, human intelligence reflects the Divine Intelligence that produced all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] continually sustains them, and guides them to their ultimate function in him. [51] Moreover, humans are contacted us to develop their capabilities in science and innovation, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in an appropriate relationship with creation, humans, on the one hand, utilize their intelligence and skill to work together with God in assisting creation towards the purpose to which he has actually called it. [52] On the other hand, development itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, assists the human mind to "ascend gradually to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]
26. In this context, human intelligence ends up being more plainly understood as a faculty that forms an essential part of how the entire person engages with reality. Authentic engagement requires accepting the full scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with truth unfolds in various ways, as each person, in his or her diverse individuality [54], looks for to understand the world, relate to others, solve issues, express creativity, and pursue important wellness through the unified interaction of the different dimensions of the individual's intelligence. [55] This involves logical and linguistic capabilities but can also incorporate other modes of engaging with truth. Consider the work of a craftsmen, who "must understand how to discern, in inert matter, a particular kind that others can not recognize" [56] and bring it forth through insight and useful skill. Indigenous individuals who live near the earth frequently have a profound sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a buddy who understands the right word to say or an individual skilled at managing human relationships exemplifies an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, discussion and generous encounter in between persons." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of expert system, we can not forget that poetry and love are needed to save our mankind." [59]
28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the integration of fact into the ethical and spiritual life of the person, guiding his/her actions because of God's goodness and reality. According to God's plan, intelligence, in its fullest sense, likewise consists of the ability to savor what is real, excellent, and stunning. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel revealed, "intelligence is absolutely nothing without pleasure." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the highest heaven in Paradiso, testifies that the culmination of this intellectual pleasure is found in the "light intellectual filled with love, love of real good filled with happiness, joy which transcends every sweet taste." [61]
29. An appropriate understanding of human intelligence, for that reason, can not be decreased to the simple acquisition of truths or the capability to carry out particular jobs. Instead, it includes the person's openness to the supreme concerns of life and reflects an orientation towards the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the magnificent image within the person, human intelligence has the capability to access the totality of being, pondering presence in its fullness, which surpasses what is quantifiable, and grasping the meaning of what has actually been comprehended. For followers, this capacity includes, in a specific way, the capability to grow in the knowledge of the mysteries of God by using reason to engage ever more exceptionally with exposed truths (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is shaped by divine love, which "is put forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence possesses a vital reflective measurement, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian purpose.

30. Because of the foregoing conversation, the differences in between human intelligence and present AI systems become evident. While AI is an amazing technological achievement efficient in imitating certain outputs connected with human intelligence, it operates by performing jobs, attaining goals, or making choices based upon quantitative information and computational logic. For example, with its analytical power, AI stands out at integrating information from a variety of fields, modeling complex systems, and cultivating interdisciplinary connections. In this way, it can help professionals collaborate in solving complicated issues that "can not be handled from a single viewpoint or from a single set of interests." [64]
31. However, even as AI procedures and imitates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains basically restricted to a logical-mathematical framework, which enforces fundamental constraints. Human intelligence, on the other hand, develops naturally throughout the person's physical and mental growth, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although sophisticated AI systems can "find out" through processes such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is fundamentally various from the developmental development of human intelligence, which is formed by embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional reactions, social interactions, and the special context of each minute. These components shape and type individuals within their individual history.In contrast, AI, lacking a physical body, relies on computational thinking and knowing based on vast datasets that include tape-recorded human experiences and knowledge.

32. Consequently, although AI can simulate elements of human thinking and perform particular jobs with incredible speed and efficiency, its computational abilities represent just a fraction of the wider capacities of the human mind. For example, AI can not presently replicate moral discernment or the capability to establish genuine relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is situated within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral formation that fundamentally shapes the person's perspective, including the physical, emotional, social, moral, and spiritual dimensions of life. Since AI can not provide this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely exclusively on this technology or treat it as the main means of interpreting the world can result in "a loss of gratitude for the entire, for the relationships in between things, and for the broader horizon." [65]
33. Human intelligence is not mainly about completing practical tasks however about understanding and actively engaging with truth in all its dimensions; it is likewise efficient in unexpected insights. Since AI lacks the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to fact and goodness, its capacities-though apparently limitless-are incomparable with the human capability to comprehend reality. A lot can be gained from a disease, a welcome of reconciliation, and even an easy sunset; certainly, numerous experiences we have as humans open new horizons and provide the possibility of attaining brand-new knowledge. No device, working solely with data, can determine up to these and many other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an overly close equivalence in between human intelligence and AI dangers succumbing to a functionalist point of view, where individuals are valued based on the work they can perform. However, a person's worth does not depend on possessing particular abilities, cognitive and technological accomplishments, or individual success, however on the individual's inherent self-respect, grounded in being developed in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains intact in all scenarios, including for those unable to exercise their capabilities, whether it be a coming kid, an unconscious person, or an older person who is suffering. [67] It likewise underpins the tradition of human rights (and, in particular, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "an important point of convergence in the search for typical ground" [68] and can, thus, function as an essential ethical guide in conversations on the accountable advancement and usage of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the extremely use of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can show deceptive" [69] and risks overlooking what is most precious in the human person. In light of this, AI must not be seen as a synthetic kind of human intelligence but as a product of it. [70]
36. Given these factors to consider, one can ask how AI can be understood within God's plan. To answer this, it is very important to recall that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character however is a human venture that engages the humanistic and cultural measurements of human creativity. [71]
37. Viewed as a fruit of the potential engraved within human intelligence, [72] scientific questions and the advancement of technical abilities become part of the "cooperation of guy and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation." [73] At the exact same time, all clinical and technological achievements are, eventually, presents from God. [74] Therefore, human beings must constantly use their capabilities in view of the higher function for which God has actually given them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how technology has actually "remedied numerous evils which used to hurt and restrict people," [76] a fact for which we need to rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological developments in themselves represent genuine human progress. [77] The Church is particularly opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human individual. [78] Like any human venture, technological development must be directed to serve the human individual and contribute to the pursuit of "greater 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 development are shared not only within the Church however likewise amongst numerous researchers, technologists, and expert associations, who progressively call for ethical reflection to direct this advancement in an accountable way.

39. To attend to these challenges, it is important to stress the importance of moral obligation grounded in the dignity and occupation of the human individual. This guiding principle also applies to questions worrying AI. In this context, the ethical dimension takes on main importance because it is individuals who create systems and figure out the functions for which they are utilized. [80] Between a maker and a human, just the latter is genuinely a moral agent-a topic of ethical responsibility who exercises liberty in his or her choices and accepts their consequences. [81] It is not the machine but the human who remains in relationship with truth and goodness, directed by an ethical conscience that calls the person "to enjoy and to do what is great and to prevent evil," [82] bearing witness to "the authority of fact in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn." [83] Likewise, between a machine and a human, only the human can be adequately self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, discerning with prudence, and seeking the great that is possible in every circumstance. [84] In truth, all of this likewise belongs to the individual's exercise of intelligence.

40. Like any product of human creativity, AI can be directed toward favorable or negative ends. [85] When utilized in ways that appreciate human self-respect and promote the wellness of individuals and neighborhoods, it can contribute positively to the human vocation. Yet, as in all areas where human beings are contacted us to make decisions, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human flexibility permits the possibility of picking what is incorrect, the ethical assessment of this technology will require to take into consideration how it is directed and utilized.

41. At the exact same time, it is not only the ends that are fairly significant however likewise the means utilized to attain them. Additionally, the overall vision and understanding of the human person ingrained within these systems are very important to consider too. Technological products 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 values." [87] On a societal level, some technological advancements might likewise strengthen relationships and power characteristics that are inconsistent with a correct understanding of the human individual and society.

42. Therefore, completions and the means used in a given application of AI, along with the general vision it incorporates, must all be examined to guarantee they respect human self-respect and promote the typical good. [88] As Pope Francis has actually mentioned, "the intrinsic dignity of every guy and every lady" must be "the essential criterion in evaluating emerging innovations; these will prove fairly sound to the level that they help respect that self-respect and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] consisting of in the social and economic spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays an important function not just in designing and producing technology but likewise in directing its use in line with the genuine good of the human individual. [90] The responsibility for managing this carefully pertains to every level of society, directed by the principle of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The dedication to making sure that AI always supports and promotes the supreme worth of the self-respect of every human and the fullness of the human vocation works as a criterion of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, as well as to its users. It remains valid for each application of the innovation at every level of its usage.

44. An evaluation of the implications of this directing concept might begin by thinking about the value of moral obligation. Since full ethical causality belongs just to individual representatives, not synthetic ones, it is essential to be able to identify and specify who bears obligation for the processes associated with AI, particularly those capable of discovering, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up methods and really deep neural networks make it possible for AI to fix complex problems, they make it challenging to understand the processes that cause the options they embraced. This complicates responsibility considering that if an AI application produces undesired results, determining who is responsible ends up being hard. To address this issue, attention requires to be offered to the nature of responsibility processes in complex, highly automated settings, where results might just become evident in the medium to long term. For this, it is necessary that ultimate duty for decisions made using AI rests with the human decision-makers which there is responsibility for the usage of AI at each phase of the decision-making process. [91]
45. In addition to determining who is accountable, it is necessary to identify the objectives provided to AI systems. Although these systems might use not being watched self-governing learning mechanisms and often follow paths that humans can not reconstruct, they eventually pursue objectives that humans have actually designated to them and are governed by processes developed by their designers and developers. Yet, this provides a challenge since, as AI models end up being significantly capable of independent knowing, the ability to maintain control over them to ensure that such applications serve human purposes may efficiently decrease. This raises the vital question of how to make sure that AI systems are purchased for the good of people and not against them.

46. While responsibility for the ethical usage of AI systems starts with those who establish, produce, manage, and oversee such systems, it is also shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis kept in mind, the device "makes a technical choice amongst a number of possibilities based either on distinct criteria or on statistical inferences. People, nevertheless, not just choose, but in their hearts can deciding." [92] Those who utilize AI to achieve a job and follow its results produce a context in which they are eventually accountable for the power they have actually delegated. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist people in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it ought to be credible, safe, robust enough to handle inconsistencies, and transparent in their operation to mitigate biases and unintended adverse effects. [93] Regulatory frameworks need to make sure that all legal entities remain responsible for using AI and all its effects, with proper safeguards for transparency, privacy, and accountability. [94] Moreover, those utilizing AI needs to beware not to end up being overly based on it for their decision-making, a pattern that increases contemporary society's currently high dependence on innovation.

47. The Church's ethical and social teaching provides resources to help ensure that AI is utilized in such a way that maintains human firm. Considerations about justice, for instance, need to likewise attend to concerns such as fostering just social dynamics, maintaining international security, and promoting peace. By working out prudence, people and communities can recognize methods to use AI to benefit mankind while avoiding applications that could break down human dignity or damage the environment. In this context, the concept of obligation ought to be understood not only in its most restricted sense however as a "responsibility for the look after others, which is more than simply accounting for results attained." [95]
48. Therefore, AI, like any innovation, can be part of a conscious and accountable answer to mankind's occupation to the great. However, as formerly talked about, AI needs to be directed by human intelligence to line up with this vocation, guaranteeing it appreciates the dignity of the human individual. Recognizing this "exalted dignity," the Second Vatican Council affirmed that "the social order and its advancement should invariably work to the advantage of the human person." [96] Because of this, the use of AI, as Pope Francis said, should be "accompanied by an ethic influenced by a vision of the common good, an ethic of liberty, obligation, and fraternity, efficient in cultivating the full advancement of people in relation to others and to the entire of creation." [97]
49. Within this general point of view, some observations follow below to illustrate how the preceding arguments can help supply an ethical orientation in useful scenarios, in line with the "knowledge of heart" that Pope Francis has proposed. [98] While not extensive, this discussion is offered in service of the dialogue that thinks about how AI can be used to maintain the dignity of the human individual and promote the typical good. [99]
50. As Pope Francis observed, "the intrinsic dignity of each human being and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human family should support the development of new technologies and work as unassailable criteria for assessing them before they are used." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI might "introduce essential innovations in agriculture, education and culture, an enhanced level of life for entire nations and peoples, and the development of human fraternity and social relationship," and thus be "utilized to promote integral human advancement." [101] AI could likewise assist organizations recognize those in requirement and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other comparable applications of this innovation might contribute to human development and the typical good. [102]
52. However, while AI holds numerous possibilities for promoting the good, it can likewise prevent or perhaps 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 product wealth, which are also significant, however likewise distinctions in access to political and social influence." [103] In this sense, AI could be utilized to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, create new kinds of hardship, broaden the "digital divide," and aggravate existing social inequalities. [104]
53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a couple of powerful companies raises significant ethical issues. Exacerbating this issue is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single person can work out total oversight over the large and intricate datasets used for calculation. This absence of distinct accountability develops the risk that AI might be controlled for personal or corporate gain or to direct popular opinion for the advantage of a specific market. Such entities, inspired by their own interests, possess the capability to work out "forms of control as subtle as they are intrusive, producing systems for the manipulation of consciences and of the democratic process." [105]
54. Furthermore, there is the risk of AI being utilized to promote what Pope Francis has called the "technocratic paradigm," which views all the world's issues as solvable through technological methods alone. [106] In this paradigm, human dignity and fraternity are frequently set aside in the name of performance, "as if reality, goodness, and fact automatically flow from technological and financial power as such." [107] Yet, human self-respect and the common good should never ever be violated for the sake of performance, [108] for "technological developments that do not result in an improvement in the lifestyle of all mankind, however on the contrary, aggravate inequalities and disputes, can never count as true development. " [109] Instead, AI needs to be put "at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more important." [110]
55. Attaining this objective requires a much deeper reflection on the relationship in between autonomy and responsibility. Greater autonomy heightens each individual's responsibility throughout various aspects of communal life. For Christians, the foundation of this responsibility lies in the recognition that all human capacities, including the person's autonomy, originated from God and are indicated to be used in the service of others. [111] Therefore, instead of simply pursuing economic or technological goals, AI should serve "the typical good of the entire human household," which is "the amount overall of social conditions that allow individuals, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more completely and more easily." [112]
56. The Second Vatican Council observed that "by his inner nature man is a social being; and if he does not participate in relations with others, he can neither live nor establish his presents." [113] This conviction underscores that living in society is intrinsic to the nature and vocation of the human person. [114] As social beings, we look for relationships that involve shared exchange and the pursuit of reality, in the course of which, people "share with each other the truth they have actually discovered, or think they have actually found, in such a method that they help one another in the search for reality." [115]
57. Such a mission, together with other aspects of human interaction, presupposes encounters and shared exchange between people shaped by their unique histories, thoughts, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a diverse, complex, and complex reality: specific and social, rational and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis highlights this dynamic, keeping in mind that "together, we can look for the fact in dialogue, in relaxed conversation or in enthusiastic dispute. To do so calls for determination; it entails minutes of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently welcome the more comprehensive experience of people and peoples. [...] The process of structure fraternity, be it regional or universal, can only be carried out by spirits that are free and available to authentic encounters." [116]
58. It remains in this context that one can think about the obstacles AI postures to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the prospective to promote connections within the human household. However, it could also prevent a real encounter with truth and, ultimately, lead individuals to "a deep and melancholic discontentment with social relations, or a damaging sense of seclusion." [117] Authentic human relationships need the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their joy. [118] Since human intelligence is revealed and improved likewise in social and embodied ways, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are essential for engaging with truth in its fullness.

59. Because "real knowledge demands an encounter with truth," [119] the rise of AI presents another obstacle. Since AI can efficiently mimic the items of human intelligence, the capability to understand when one is interacting with a human or a maker can no longer be considered approved. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other advanced outputs that are normally associated with human beings. Yet, it should be understood for what it is: a tool, not a person. [120] This difference is typically obscured by the language utilized by specialists, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and therefore blurs the line in between human and device.

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

61. In this context, it is essential to clarify that, despite making use of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can genuinely experience compassion. Emotions can not be reduced to facial expressions or expressions created in reaction to triggers; they show the method a person, as a whole, relates to the world and to his/her own life, with the body playing a main role. True empathy needs 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, true compassion belongs to the relational sphere. It involves intuiting and capturing the lived experiences of another while maintaining the distinction between self and other. [122] While AI can imitate empathetic reactions, it can not duplicate the eminently personal and relational nature of genuine compassion. [123]
62. In light of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as an individual should always be prevented; doing so for deceitful functions is a serious ethical infraction that might wear down social trust. Similarly, utilizing AI to trick in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, consisting of the sphere of sexuality-is likewise to be thought about immoral and requires mindful oversight to avoid damage, maintain transparency, and make sure the self-respect of all people. [124]
63. In a progressively separated world, some people have actually turned to AI in search of deep human relationships, basic companionship, or even emotional bonds. However, while humans are meant to experience authentic relationships, AI can only simulate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an integral part of how an individual grows to become who he or she is meant to be. If AI is utilized to help people foster authentic connections between individuals, it can contribute positively to the complete realization of the person. Conversely, if we change relationships with God and with others with interactions with innovation, we run the risk of changing genuine relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of retreating into artificial worlds, we are contacted us to take part in a dedicated and deliberate way with truth, particularly by recognizing with the bad and suffering, consoling those in grief, and forging bonds of communion with all.

64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being significantly incorporated into economic and financial systems. Significant financial investments are currently being made not just in the innovation sector but also in energy, finance, and media, particularly in the areas of marketing and sales, logistics, technological innovation, compliance, and threat management. At the same time, AI's applications in these areas have also highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of tremendous opportunities however likewise profound risks. A 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 business would gain from the value created by AI instead of the services that utilize it.

65. Other wider aspects of AI's effect on the economic-financial sphere must also be carefully taken a look at, particularly worrying the interaction in between concrete reality and the digital world. One essential consideration in this regard includes the coexistence of varied and alternative forms of financial and banks within an offered context. This aspect should be encouraged, as it can bring advantages in how it supports the genuine economy by cultivating its development and stability, particularly throughout times of crisis. Nevertheless, it ought to be worried that digital realities, not limited by any spatial bonds, tend to be more uniform and impersonal than neighborhoods rooted in a specific location and a specific history, with a common journey identified by shared worths and hopes, however likewise by inevitable differences and divergences. This diversity is an indisputable property to a neighborhood's economic life. Turning over the economy and finance totally to digital technology would reduce this range and richness. As a result, lots of services to financial problems that can be reached through natural discussion between the included parties may no longer be attainable in a world dominated by treatments and only the appearance of proximity.

66. Another location where AI is currently having an extensive effect is the world of work. As in lots of other fields, AI is driving basic improvements throughout many professions, with a range of results. On the one hand, it has the potential to boost knowledge and productivity, produce brand-new jobs, allow workers to concentrate on more innovative jobs, and open new horizons for creativity and development.

67. However, while AI guarantees to enhance performance by taking over ordinary tasks, it regularly forces employees to adjust to the speed and needs of machines instead of machines being created to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the marketed advantages of AI, present approaches to the innovation can paradoxically deskill employees, subject them to automated surveillance, and relegate them to rigid and repetitive jobs. The need to stay up to date with the pace of technology can deteriorate workers' sense of agency and suppress the ingenious capabilities they are anticipated to give their work. [125]
68. AI is presently getting rid of the requirement for some tasks that were as soon as carried out by humans. If AI is used to replace human employees rather than match them, there is a "considerable threat of out of proportion benefit for the couple of at the rate of the impoverishment of numerous." [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more powerful, there is an involved threat that human labor might lose its worth in the economic realm. This is the rational repercussion of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humanity shackled to effectiveness, where, ultimately, the expense of mankind should be cut. Yet, human lives are intrinsically important, independent of their financial output. Nevertheless, the "existing model," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to favor a financial investment in efforts to assist the slow, the weak, or the less talented to find opportunities in life." [127] In light of this, "we can not allow a tool as powerful and essential as Artificial Intelligence to reinforce such a paradigm, but rather, we should make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its growth." [128]
69. It is essential to bear in mind that "the order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other method around." [129] Human work needs to not only be at the service of earnings but at "the service of the whole human person [...] considering the individual's product needs and the requirements of his/her intellectual, moral, spiritual, and religious life." [130] In this context, the Church acknowledges that work is "not only a method of earning one's daily bread" but is likewise "an essential measurement of social life" and "a method [...] of personal growth, the structure of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of presents. Work gives 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 path to growth, human advancement and personal satisfaction," "the goal needs to not be that technological development significantly replaces human work, for this would be destructive to humanity" [132] -rather, it must promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI needs to help, not replace, human judgment. Similarly, it must never ever deteriorate imagination or reduce workers to simple "cogs in a maker." Therefore, "respect for the dignity of laborers and the importance of employment for the economic wellness of people, households, and societies, for task security and just earnings, ought to be a high concern for the worldwide community as these kinds of technology penetrate more deeply into our work environments." [133]
71. As individuals in God's healing work, health care experts have the occupation and duty to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the health care profession brings an "intrinsic and undeniable ethical measurement," acknowledged by the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges doctors and healthcare specialists to commit themselves to having "outright respect for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Do-gooder, this dedication is to be performed by males and females "who decline the production of a society of exclusion, and act instead as next-door neighbors, raising up and fixing up the fallen for the sake of the common good." [136]
72. Seen in this light, AI seems to hold tremendous potential in a range of applications in the medical field, such as helping the diagnostic work of doctor, facilitating relationships in between clients and medical personnel, providing new treatments, and broadening access to quality care also for those who are separated or marginalized. In these methods, the technology could boost the "caring and caring nearness" [137] that doctor are called to extend to the ill and suffering.

73. However, if AI is utilized not to enhance but to replace the relationship in between patients and healthcare providers-leaving patients to communicate with a maker rather than a human being-it would reduce a most importantly important human relational structure to a centralized, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of motivating uniformity with the ill and suffering, such applications of AI would risk aggravating the loneliness that typically accompanies disease, especially in the context of a culture where "individuals are no longer viewed as a vital worth to be taken care of and appreciated." [138] This abuse of AI would not align with regard for the dignity of the human person and uniformity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the well-being of patients and the choices that discuss their lives are at the heart of the health care occupation. This responsibility requires doctor to exercise all their skill and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options concerning those turned over to their care, always appreciating the inviolable dignity of the patients and the requirement for notified consent. As a result, decisions concerning client treatment and the weight of responsibility they entail should constantly remain with the human individual and needs to never be delegated to AI. [139]
75. In addition, utilizing AI to determine who ought to get treatment based mainly on economic steps or metrics of efficiency represents a particularly problematic circumstances of the "technocratic paradigm" that should be declined. [140] For, "enhancing resources implies using them in an ethical and fraternal method, and not punishing the most delicate." [141] Additionally, AI tools in healthcare are "exposed to kinds of bias and discrimination," where "systemic mistakes can quickly increase, producing not just injustices in specific cases however likewise, due to the domino result, genuine types of social inequality." [142]
76. The combination of AI into health care likewise postures the danger of enhancing other existing disparities in access to treatment. As health care becomes significantly oriented toward prevention and lifestyle-based approaches, AI-driven solutions may accidentally favor more affluent populations who currently take pleasure in better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This pattern dangers strengthening a "medication for the abundant" design, where those with financial ways gain from innovative preventative tools and customized health details while others struggle to gain access to even standard services. To avoid such inequities, fair frameworks are required to ensure that the usage of AI in healthcare does not get worse existing healthcare inequalities however rather serves the common good.

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

78. This technique includes a commitment to cultivating the mind, however always as a part of the integral development of the person: "We should break that idea of education which holds that informing ways filling one's head with concepts. That is the way we inform automatons, cerebral minds, not individuals. Educating is taking a risk 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 individual is the indispensable relationship in between teacher and trainee. Teachers do more than convey knowledge; they design necessary human qualities and inspire the happiness of discovery. [146] Their presence motivates trainees both through the content they teach and the care they demonstrate for their trainees. This bond promotes trust, shared understanding, and the capability to resolve everyone's unique dignity and capacity. On the part of the trainee, this can generate a real desire to grow. The physical existence of a teacher develops a relational dynamic that AI can not reproduce, one that deepens engagement and supports the trainee's integral advancement.

80. In this context, AI presents both chances and difficulties. If utilized in a sensible manner, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and bought to the genuine objectives of education, AI can end up being an important academic resource by enhancing access to education, using tailored assistance, and providing immediate feedback to trainees. These benefits could enhance the learning experience, especially in cases where personalized attention is needed, or instructional resources are otherwise limited.

81. Nevertheless, a crucial part of education is forming "the intellect to factor well in all matters, to reach out towards truth, and to understand it," [147] while assisting the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is all the more important in an age marked by technology, in which "it is no longer simply a question of 'using' instruments of communication, but of living in an extremely digitalized culture that has actually had a profound influence on [...] our capability to interact, discover, be notified and get in into relationship with others." [149] However, rather of cultivating "a cultivated intellect," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and profession that it carries out," [150] the substantial use of AI in education might cause the trainees' increased reliance on technology, eroding their capability to carry out some skills independently and aggravating their reliance on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are designed to assist individuals develop their critical believing abilities and problem-solving skills, many others merely provide answers instead of prompting trainees to get here at responses themselves or compose text on their own. [152] Instead of training young individuals how to collect details and produce fast responses, education must motivate "the responsible usage of freedom to deal with issues with common sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in the use of types of expert system need to aim above all at promoting important thinking. Users of any ages, but especially the young, require to establish a discerning approach to using data and content collected on the web or produced by artificial intelligence systems. Schools, universities, and clinical societies are challenged to assist trainees and experts to understand the social and ethical elements of the development and usages of technology." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II recalled, "worldwide today, identified by such quick advancements in science and innovation, the tasks of a Catholic University assume an ever greater value and urgency." [155] In a specific way, Catholic universities are prompted to be present as excellent labs of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary key, they are advised to engage "with knowledge and creativity" [156] in cautious research study on this phenomenon, assisting to extract the salutary capacity within the numerous fields of science and truth, and assisting them constantly towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the typical good, reaching new frontiers in the discussion in between faith and factor.

84. Moreover, it needs to be kept in mind that present AI programs have actually been known to supply prejudiced or fabricated details, which can lead trainees to rely on inaccurate material. This issue "not only risks of legitimizing fake news and strengthening a dominant culture's advantage, but, in short, it also weakens the academic procedure itself." [157] With time, clearer differences may emerge between proper and incorrect usages of AI in education and research study. Yet, a decisive standard is that making use of AI must always be transparent and never ever misrepresented.

85. AI might be used as an aid to human dignity if it assists individuals comprehend intricate concepts or directs them to sound resources that support their look for the truth. [158]
86. However, AI also presents a severe risk of creating manipulated content and incorrect details, which can quickly misinform people due to its similarity to the reality. Such false information might happen accidentally, as when it comes to AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine however are not. Since producing material that imitates human artifacts is main to AI's functionality, alleviating these dangers proves difficult. Yet, the consequences of such aberrations and incorrect details can be quite serious. For this factor, all those associated with producing and utilizing AI systems need to be devoted to the truthfulness and accuracy of the details processed by such systems and distributed to the general public.

87. While AI has a hidden potential to generate false details, a a lot more unpleasant problem depends on the purposeful misuse of AI for control. This can take place when individuals or companies deliberately generate and spread out incorrect content with the aim to trick or trigger damage, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to a false representation of a person, modified or generated by an AI algorithm. The danger of deepfakes is particularly apparent when they are utilized to target or damage others. While the images or videos themselves might be artificial, the damage they trigger is genuine, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "genuine injuries in their human self-respect." [159]
88. On a broader scale, by misshaping "our relationship with others and with truth," [160] AI-generated phony media can gradually undermine the structures of society. This issue requires careful regulation, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or affected media-can spread unintentionally, sustaining political polarization and social unrest. When society ends up being indifferent to the fact, numerous groups construct their own versions of "realities," 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 material deteriorates rely on what they see and hear, polarization and conflict will just grow. Such prevalent deception is no trivial matter; it strikes at the core of humanity, dismantling the foundational trust on which societies are developed. [162]
89. Countering AI-driven falsehoods is not just the work of industry experts-it needs the efforts of all people of goodwill. "If technology is to serve human dignity and not damage it, and if it is to promote peace instead of violence, then the human neighborhood needs to be proactive in attending to these patterns with respect to human self-respect and the promo of the excellent." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated material should always work out diligence in confirming the truth of what they disseminate and, in all cases, ought to "prevent the sharing of words and images that are deteriorating of humans, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that exploit the weak and susceptible." [164] This calls for the continuous prudence and cautious discernment of all users concerning their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are inherently relational, and the data everyone generates in the digital world can be viewed as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data communicates not just details however also individual and relational understanding, which, in a significantly digitized context, can total up to power over the individual. Moreover, while some types of information may pertain to public aspects of an individual's life, others may touch upon the individual's interiority, perhaps even their conscience. Seen in this method, personal privacy plays an essential function in securing the limits of a person's inner life, maintaining their flexibility to connect to others, express themselves, and make decisions without excessive control. This protection is likewise connected to the defense of spiritual freedom, as surveillance can also be misused to exert control over the lives of followers and how they express their faith.

91. It is proper, therefore, to address the issue of personal privacy from an issue for the genuine flexibility and inalienable dignity of the human individual "in all scenarios." [166] The Second Vatican Council consisted of the right "to safeguard personal privacy" among the basic rights "necessary for living a truly human life," a right that ought to be extended to all people on account of their "sublime self-respect." [167] Furthermore, the Church has also verified the right to the legitimate regard for a private life in the context of affirming the person's right to a great reputation, defense of their physical and mental integrity, and liberty from damage or excessive intrusion [168] -necessary elements of the due regard for the intrinsic self-respect of the human individual. [169]
92. Advances in AI-powered information processing and analysis now make it possible to presume patterns in an individual's habits and believing from even a little amount of details, making the function of information privacy much more necessary as a protect for the dignity and relational nature of the human individual. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant mindsets towards others are on the increase, distances are otherwise shrinking or vanishing to the point that the right to personal privacy hardly exists. Everything has actually ended up being a sort of phenomenon to be analyzed and examined, and individuals's lives are now under constant security." [170]
93. While there can be genuine and appropriate methods to use AI in keeping with human dignity and the common excellent, using it for surveillance aimed at exploiting, limiting others' flexibility, or benefitting a couple of at the cost of the many is unjustifiable. The risk of surveillance overreach must be monitored by suitable regulators to make sure transparency and public responsibility. Those responsible for security should never exceed their authority, which must constantly favor the dignity and liberty of every individual as the important basis of a simply and gentle society.

94. Furthermore, "essential regard for human dignity needs that we decline to enable the originality of the individual to be recognized with a set of information." [171] This specifically uses when AI is utilized to assess people or groups based on their behavior, characteristics, or history-a practice known as "social scoring": "In social and financial decision-making, we ought to be careful about handing over judgments to algorithms that process data, frequently gathered surreptitiously, on an individual's makeup and prior habits. Such data can be polluted by social bias and prejudgments. A person's past habits should not be utilized to reject him or her the chance to alter, grow, and contribute to society. We can not enable algorithms to restrict or condition regard for human dignity, or to exclude empathy, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people have the ability to change." [172]
95. AI has numerous promising applications for enhancing our relationship with our "common home," such as producing designs to anticipate extreme climate events, proposing engineering services to decrease their impact, managing relief operations, and forecasting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable agriculture, optimize energy usage, and supply early caution systems for public health emergency situations. These improvements have the possible to enhance durability against climate-related difficulties and promote more sustainable advancement.

96. At the very same time, current AI models and the hardware required to support them consume huge quantities of energy and water, significantly adding to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This truth is often obscured by the method this innovation is presented in the popular creativity, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can provide the impression that information is kept and processed in an intangible world, removed from the real world. However, "the cloud" is not an ethereal domain different from the real world; similar to all computing technologies, it depends on physical makers, cable televisions, and energy. The exact same is true of the innovation behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, particularly big language models (LLMs), they need ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and higher storage infrastructure. Considering the heavy toll these technologies handle the environment, it is vital to establish sustainable solutions that lower their influence on our typical home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is necessary "that we look for solutions not only in innovation but in a modification of humanity." [175] A total and genuine understanding of production recognizes that the value of all developed things can not be minimized to their simple energy. Therefore, a completely human technique to the stewardship of the earth turns down the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which looks for to "extract whatever possible" from the world, [176] and turns down the "misconception of development," which presumes that "ecological problems will solve themselves merely with the application of new innovation and without any requirement for ethical factors to consider or deep change." [177] Such a mindset must give method to a more holistic technique that appreciates the order of development and promotes the essential good of the human individual while protecting our typical home. [178]
98. The Second Vatican Council and the consistent teaching of the Popes because then have firmly insisted that peace is not simply the absence of war and is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the serenity of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without protecting the products of individuals, free interaction, respect for the dignity of individuals and individuals, 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 should be mainly constructed through client diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, solidarity, essential human advancement, and regard for the dignity of all individuals. [180] In this way, the tools utilized to maintain peace must never be enabled to justify injustice, violence, or injustice. Instead, they ought to constantly be governed by a "firm decision to respect other individuals and countries, along with their dignity, in addition to the intentional practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical abilities could help nations seek peace and make sure security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can likewise be highly bothersome. Pope Francis has observed that "the ability to perform military operations through push-button control systems has actually resulted in a lessened perception of the destruction brought on by those weapon systems and the burden of obligation for their usage, leading to an even more cold and separated technique to the tremendous catastrophe of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which autonomous weapons make war more practical militates against the principle of war as a last hope in genuine self-defense, [183] potentially increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and precipitating a destabilizing arms race, with devastating consequences for human rights. [184]
100. In particular, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which can identifying and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for grave ethical issue" due to the fact that they lack the "distinct human capability for ethical judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this reason, Pope Francis has urgently required a reconsideration of the development of these weapons and a restriction on their use, beginning with "a reliable and concrete commitment to introduce ever greater and correct human control. No maker needs to ever pick to take the life of a person." [186]
101. Since it is a little step from machines that can eliminate autonomously with accuracy to those capable of large-scale destruction, some AI researchers have actually expressed issues that such technology positions an "existential threat" by having the prospective to act in manner ins which could threaten the survival of whole regions and even of mankind itself. This risk demands severe attention, reflecting the long-standing concern about innovations that approve war "an uncontrollable harmful power over varieties of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing kids. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "undertake an evaluation of war with a totally new mindset" [188] is more urgent 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 destructive intents may abuse this innovation. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future abilities are unpredictable, humanity's past actions provide clear cautions. The atrocities dedicated throughout history are adequate to raise deep concerns 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 minimize it to a pile of debris." [190] Given this fact, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are complimentary to use our intelligence towards things developing positively," or towards "decadence and mutual damage." [191] To avoid humankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there must be a clear stand against all applications of innovation that naturally threaten human life and dignity. This commitment needs mindful discernment about making use of AI, especially in military defense applications, to ensure that it always appreciates human dignity and serves the typical good. The advancement and implementation of AI in weaponries should undergo the highest levels of ethical examination, governed by an issue for human dignity and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology provides amazing tools to manage and develop the world's resources. However, in many cases, mankind is increasingly delivering control of these resources to machines. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, there is optimism about the capacity of artificial general intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical form of AI that would match or exceed human intelligence and cause unimaginable advancements. Some even hypothesize that AGI could attain superhuman capabilities. At the exact same time, as society wanders away from a connection with the transcendent, some are tempted to turn to AI in search of meaning or fulfillment-longings that can just be truly satisfied in communion with God. [194]
105. However, the presumption of substituting God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture explicitly warns against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI might prove even more seductive than conventional idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths however do not speak; eyes, but do not see; ears, however do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or at least provides the illusion of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is vital to remember that AI is however 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 numerous of the abilities particular to human life, and it is likewise fallible. By turning to AI as a perceived "Other" greater than itself, with which to share existence and obligations, humankind threats producing an alternative to God. However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, however humanity itself-which, in this way, ends up being enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the potential to serve humanity and add to the common good, it remains a production of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and ingenuity" (Acts 17:29). It must never ever be ascribed unnecessary worth. As the Book of Wisdom verifies: "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 better than the things he worships because he has life, but they never ever have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. In contrast, human beings, "by their interior life, transcend the entire material universe; they experience this deep interiority when they participate in their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they decide their own destiny in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis reminds us, that each private finds the "strange connection in between self-knowledge and openness to others, in between the encounter with one's personal individuality and the determination to give oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "capable of setting our other powers and passions, and our entire individual, in a position of respect and loving obedience before the Lord," [198] who "provides to treat each one of us as a 'Thou,' constantly and permanently." [199]
108. Considering the numerous challenges presented by advances in technology, Pope Francis stressed the need for development in "human duty, values, and conscience," proportionate to the development in the capacity that this innovation brings [200] -recognizing that "with an increase in human power comes a widening of responsibility on the part of individuals and neighborhoods." [201]
109. At the same time, the "necessary and essential question" remains "whether in the context of this development guy, as guy, is ending up being truly much better, that is to say, more mature spiritually, more mindful of the self-respect of his humankind, more accountable, more available to others, particularly the neediest and the weakest, and readier to give and to aid all." [202]
110. As an outcome, it is essential to understand how to evaluate private applications of AI in particular contexts to determine whether its usage promotes human self-respect, the occupation of the human person, and the common good. Similar to numerous innovations, the impacts of the numerous usages of AI may not always be foreseeable from their inception. As these applications and their social effects become clearer, proper actions should be made at all levels of society, following the concept of subsidiarity. Individual users, households, civil society, corporations, organizations, governments, and international organizations should work at their proper levels to guarantee that AI is utilized for the good of all.

111. A significant difficulty and chance for the typical great today depends on considering AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which stresses the interconnectedness of people and neighborhoods and highlights our shared duty for cultivating the integral well-being of others. The twentieth-century philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev observed that people typically blame devices for personal and social issues; however, "this only humiliates male and does not represent his self-respect," for "it is unworthy to transfer obligation from male to a machine." [203] Only the human individual can be ethically responsible, and the difficulties of a technological society are eventually spiritual in nature. Therefore, facing those challenges "needs an accumulation of spirituality." [204]
112. A further point to think about is the call, prompted by the appearance of AI on the world phase, for a restored appreciation of all that is human. Years ago, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos warned that "the danger is not in the reproduction of devices, but in the ever-increasing variety of males accustomed from their childhood to desire only what devices can give." [205] This obstacle is as real today as it was then, as the quick speed of digitization risks a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable elements of life are reserved and then forgotten and even considered unimportant because they can not be calculated in formal terms. AI should be used only as a tool to complement human intelligence rather than replace its richness. [206] Cultivating those elements of human life that transcend calculation is crucial for maintaining "an authentic humanity" that "seems to dwell in the midst of our technological culture, nearly undetected, like a mist seeping gently underneath a closed door." [207]
113. The large expanse of the world's understanding is now available in manner ins which would have filled past generations with wonder. However, to guarantee that advancements in understanding do not end up being humanly or spiritually barren, one must go beyond the mere accumulation of data and aim to attain true wisdom. [208]
114. This wisdom is the present that mankind requires most to deal with the profound questions and ethical difficulties posed by AI: "Only by embracing a spiritual way of viewing truth, just by recovering a wisdom of the heart, can we challenge and interpret 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 choices and their effects." It "can not be looked for from makers," however it "lets itself be discovered by those who seek it and be seen by those who enjoy it; it anticipates those who want it, and it goes in search of those who deserve it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]
115. In a world marked by AI, we require the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "allows us to look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, circumstances, occasions and to reveal their genuine meaning." [211]
116. Since a "person's perfection is measured not by the details or knowledge they possess, but by the depth of their charity," [212] how we integrate AI "to consist of the least of our siblings and sis, the vulnerable, and those most in need, will be the true step of our humankind." [213] The "knowledge of the heart" can illuminate and assist the human-centered use of this technology to help promote the typical good, take care of our "typical home," advance the look for the fact, foster integral human development, favor human uniformity and fraternity, and lead humanity to its ultimate goal: joy and complete communion with God. [214]
117. From this point of view of knowledge, believers will be able to serve as moral representatives efficient in utilizing this technology to promote a genuine vision of the human individual and society. [215] This need to be made with the understanding that technological progress is part of God's prepare for creation-an activity that we are contacted us to buy toward the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the continuous look for the True and the Good.

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

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

Ex audientia pass away 14 ianuarii 2025 Franciscus

Contents

I. Introduction

II. What is Artificial Intelligence?

III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition

Rationality

Embodiment

Relationality

Relationship with the Truth

Stewardship of the World

An Important 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, setiathome.berkeley.edu 2. [7] Terms in this file 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., for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [9] Here, one can see the main positions of the "transhumanists" and the "posthumanists." Transhumanists argue that technological improvements will 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 eventually modify human identity to the degree that humanity itself might no longer be thought about really "human." Both views rest on an essentially unfavorable perception of human corporality, which deals with the body more as a barrier than as an important part of the individual's identity and contact us to full awareness. Yet, this unfavorable view of the body is irregular with an appropriate understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports authentic clinical progress, it verifies that human self-respect is rooted in "the individual as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "self-respect is also intrinsic in each person's body, which takes part in its own method remaining in imago Dei" (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18). [10] This approach reflects a functionalist point of view, which lowers the human mind to its functions and assumes that its functions can be totally measured in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear really smart, it would still remain practical in nature. [11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460. [12] If "thinking" is credited to devices, it needs to be clarified that this describes calculative thinking rather than crucial thinking. Similarly, if devices are said to run utilizing abstract thought, it should be defined that this is restricted to computational logic. On the other hand, by its very nature, human thought is an innovative procedure that eludes shows and goes beyond constraints. [13] On the foundational function of language in forming understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York 2010, 141-182). [14] For additional discussion of these anthropological and doctrinal structures, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144. [15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21. [16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [faculty] by which he is remarkable to the irrational animals. Now, this [professors] is factor itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it might more suitably be provided"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When considering all that they have, humans discover that they are most differentiated from animals exactly by the truth they possess intelligence." This is likewise repeated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who mentions that "man is the most best of all earthly beings enhanced with movement, and his proper and natural operation is intellection," by which male 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 modern perspective 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 investigate the truth of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and pertain to recognize in that truth, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal moral demands." [22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp. [24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "generally thinks about the human person as a being who exists in the body and is unthinkable 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, however rather totally disclosed 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 for this reason it is joined to the body in order that it may have a presence and an operation ideal to its nature." [29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18. [30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357. [31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54. [32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221. [33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27. [34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls also have factor and with it they circle in discourse around the reality of things. [...] [O] n account of the way in which they can concentrating the many into the one, they too, in their own fashion and as far as they can, are worthwhile of conceptions like those of the angels" (en. tr. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York City - Mahwah 1987, 106-107). [35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 3: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7. [36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 42: AAS 91 (1999 ), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1043: "the human mind can going beyond instant concerns and understanding certain realities that are constant, as true now as in the past. As it peers into humanity, reason discovers universal worths obtained from that very same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034. [38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last proceeding of reason is to recognize that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York 1958, 77). [39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [40] Our semantic capacity enables us to understand messages in any form of interaction in a way that both considers and transcends their product or empirical structures (such as computer code). Here, intelligence becomes a knowledge that "enables us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, scenarios, events and to reveal their genuine meaning" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our imagination allows us to create brand-new material or ideas, mainly by using an original viewpoint on truth. Both capacities depend upon the presence of a personal subjectivity for their complete realization. [41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. [42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a commitment to the fact, is a lot more than personal sensation [...] Certainly, its close relation to fact cultivates its universality and maintains it from being 'confined to a narrow field without relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to reality thus safeguards it from 'a fideism that denies it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643. [43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7. [44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. [46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as priced quote in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294. [47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure compares deep space to "a book showing, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who approves 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 an unique place in the universe according to the divine strategy: they take pleasure in the benefit of sharing in the magnificent governance of visible creation. [...] Since man's place as ruler remains in truth a participation in the magnificent governance of production, we mention it here as a form of stewardship." [49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165. [50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This 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 creature, that was its name" (Gen. 2:19), an action that shows the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's creation. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117. [51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301. [52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302. [53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2. [54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7. [55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8. [57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906. [58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987. [59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: "L'intelligence n'est rien sans la délectation." Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: "The mind and the will are put at the service of the higher great by picking up and appreciating truths." [61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232). [62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he greatest norm of human life is the divine law itself-eternal, unbiased and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the whole world and the methods of the human community according to a strategy developed in his wisdom and love. God has allowed male to take part in this law of his so that, under the mild personality of magnificent providence, many may have the ability to come to a much deeper and much deeper understanding of unchangeable truth." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. [63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016. [64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042. [66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has imprinted his own image and similarity on man (cf. Gen 1:26), conferring upon him an unparalleled dignity [...] In impact, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not represent any work he carries out, however which circulation from his important self-respect as an individual." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22. [68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310. [69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is understood as a technical term to indicate this innovation, recalling that the expression is also used to designate the discipline and not only its applications. [71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857. [72] For example, see the support of clinical exploration in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the gratitude for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These authors, amongst a long list of other Catholics engaged in clinical research and technological exploration, show that "faith and science can be unified in charity, supplied that science is put at the service of the men and lady of our time and not misused to damage or even damage 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 topic. When he acts intentionally, guy is, so to speak, the daddy of his acts." [82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776. [83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777. [84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father encouraged efforts "to make sure that technology remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed toward the great." [85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the role of human firm in picking a wider aim (Ziel) that then notifies the specific function (Zweck) for which each technological application is created, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um pass away Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71. [86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a function and, in its influence on human society, constantly represents a type of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, therefore enabling certain individuals to carry out specific actions while preventing others from carrying out different ones. In a more or less explicit method, this constitutive power-dimension of innovation constantly consists of the worldview of those who created and developed it." [87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309. [88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Faced with the marvels of makers, which appear to know how to pick separately, we ought to be very clear that decision-making [...] should constantly be delegated the human individual. We would condemn humanity to a future without hope if we removed people's ability to make choices about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend on the options of makers." [92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [93] The term "predisposition" in this file describes algorithmic bias (methodical and consistent mistakes in computer system systems that might disproportionately bias certain groups in unintentional methods) or finding out bias (which will lead to training on a prejudiced data set) and not the "predisposition vector" in neural networks (which is a parameter utilized to adjust the output of "nerve cells" to change more properly to the information). [94] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father affirmed the growth in agreement "on the requirement for advancement procedures to appreciate such worths as inclusion, openness, security, equity, privacy and reliability," and likewise welcomed "the efforts of worldwide organizations to manage these innovations so that they promote authentic development, contributing, that is, to a much better world and an integrally greater quality of life." [95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8. [96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571. [98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For further discussion of the ethical questions 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 significance of dialogue in a pluralist society oriented towards a "robust and strong social principles," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. [104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10. [105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; quoting the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245. [106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050. [107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047. [108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309. [109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027. [112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123. [113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034. [114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149. [115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414. [118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057. [119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985. [120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989). [123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Lots of people] want their interpersonal relationships offered by advanced devices, by screens and systems which can be turned on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel tells us constantly to risk of an in person encounter with others, with their physical existence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their happiness which infects us in our close and continuous interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from membership in the community, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045. [124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1. [125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899. [126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107. [128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' teaching about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893. [129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as priced quote in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453. [130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: "work is 'for guy' and not male 'for work.' Through this conclusion one rightly pertains to recognize the pre-eminence of the subjective meaning 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 estimated in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8. [137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops' Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: "If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture is manifest, with its painful consequences, it is that of healthcare. When an ill individual is not placed in the center or their dignity is ruled out, this offers rise to attitudes that can lead even to speculation on the misfortune of others. And this is extremely severe! [...] The application of a service approach to the healthcare sector, if indiscriminate [...] might risk discarding 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 quote Id., Address to the Members of the "Consilium de Laicis" (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: "if [the modern individual] does listen to teachers, it is due to the fact that they are witnesses." [147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126. [148] Francis, Consulting With the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, pricing estimate the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592. [150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167. [151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413. [152] In a 2023 policy document about using generative AI in education and research, UNESCO notes: "Among the crucial questions [of the usage of generative AI (GenAI) in education and research] is whether human beings can potentially cede standard levels of thinking and skill-acquisition processes to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking abilities based upon the outputs offered by AI. Writing, for example, is frequently related to the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], people can now start with a well-structured outline provided by GenAI. Some experts have actually identified the usage of GenAI to create text in this way as 'composing without believing'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American philosopher Hannah Arendt foresaw such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and cautioned: "If it should end up being true that understanding (in the sense of knowledge) and thought have parted company for great, then we would certainly end up being the defenseless slaves, not a lot of our devices since 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 instance, it might help individuals gain access to the "array of resources for producing higher understanding of reality" 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 know holds true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he writes: 'I have met numerous who wished to deceive, but none who wished 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 guy may with impunity violate that human dignity which God himself treats with great respect"; as estimated in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804. [168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203. [169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human dignity in cyberspace obliges States to likewise appreciate the right to personal privacy, by shielding people from invasive surveillance and allowing them to secure their individual details from unapproved gain access to." [170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984. [171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body identified a list of "early promises of AI helping to attend to climate modification" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The file observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can transform information into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools might help establish new methods and investments to decrease emissions, affect brand-new economic sector financial investments in net absolutely no, protect biodiversity, and develop broad-based social durability" (ibid.). [174] "The cloud" describes a network of physical servers throughout the world that allows users to shop, process, and handle their information remotely. [175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850. [176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890. [177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870. [178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852. [179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640. [180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317. [181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101. [182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310. [184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105. [185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We require to ensure and protect a space for appropriate human control over the choices made by synthetic intelligence programs: human self-respect itself depends on it." [186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The development and use of deadly self-governing weapons systems (LAWS) that lack the appropriate human control would pose essential ethical concerns, considered that LAWS can never ever be morally responsible topics efficient in adhering to international humanitarian law." [187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: "Nor can we disregard the possibility of advanced weapons winding up in the wrong hands, assisting in, for example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the institutions of legitimate systems of federal government. In a word, the world does not require brand-new innovations that contribute to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and consequently wind up promoting the recklessness of war." [190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565. [191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878. [192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687. [193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39. [194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661. [195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a better understanding today that the mere accumulation of products and services [...] is not enough for the realization of human happiness. Nor, in consequence, does the availability of the lots of genuine advantages provided in current times by science and technology, consisting of the computer technology, bring flexibility from every type of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the substantial body of resources and potential at man's disposal is guided by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the true good of the mankind, it easily 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. Completion of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83). [201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288. [203] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," in C. Mitcham - R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York 19832, 212-213. [204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210. [205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829. [206] Cf. Francis, 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 make for greater knowledge. Wisdom is not born of quick searches on the internet nor is it a mass of unverified data. That is not the way to grow in the encounter with reality." [209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [210] Ibid. [211] Ibid. [212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121. [213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124. [214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.