GitLab

1. With knowledge both ancient and brand-new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are contacted us to assess the current difficulties and chances postured by scientific and technological advancements, especially by the current advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian tradition regards the gift of intelligence as an important aspect of how humans are produced "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Starting from an essential vision of the human person and the biblical contacting us to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church emphasizes that this gift of intelligence ought to be expressed through the responsible use of factor and technical capabilities in the stewardship of the developed world.

2. The Church motivates the improvement of science, innovation, the arts, and other types of human venture, viewing them as part of the "partnership of man and woman with God in improving the noticeable production." [1] As Sirach affirms, God "gave skill to people, that he may be glorified in his marvelous works" (Sir. 38:6). Human capabilities and imagination originate from God and, when utilized rightly, glorify God by showing his knowledge and goodness. Because of this, when we ask ourselves what it indicates to "be human," we can not omit a consideration 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 lots of other human creations, AI can be trained on the results of human imagination and after that generate brand-new "artifacts" with a level of speed and skill that typically equals or exceeds what human beings can do, such as producing text or images identical from human compositions. This raises important issues about AI's prospective function in the growing crisis of reality in the general public online forum. Moreover, this technology is created to learn and make certain choices autonomously, adjusting to new circumstances and supplying options not visualized by its developers, and thus, it raises basic concerns about ethical duty and human safety, with wider implications for society as a whole. This brand-new circumstance has actually triggered many people to show on what it means to be human and the role of humanity worldwide.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad consensus that AI marks a new and significant stage in humankind's engagement with technology, putting it at the heart of what Pope Francis has explained as an "epochal modification." [2] Its impact is felt worldwide and in a wide variety of areas, consisting of interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, healthcare, law, warfare, and worldwide relations. As AI advances quickly towards even higher accomplishments, it is critically essential to consider its anthropological and ethical ramifications. This involves not only mitigating threats and avoiding harm but likewise making sure that its applications are utilized to promote human development and the typical good.

5. To contribute positively to the discernment concerning AI, and in action 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 worldwide dialogue on these problems, the Church welcomes those delegated with sending the faith-including parents, teachers, pastors, and bishops-to dedicate themselves to this crucial subject with care and attention. While this document is intended particularly for them, it is also suggested to be available to a more comprehensive audience, especially those who share the conviction that scientific and technological advances need to be directed towards serving the human person and the typical good. [4]
6. To this end, the document begins by distinguishing between principles of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then explores the Christian understanding of human intelligence, providing a structure rooted in the Church's philosophical and doctrinal custom. Finally, the file provides guidelines to make sure that the advancement 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 evolved with time, making use of a variety of ideas from different disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a significant milestone happened in 1956 when the American computer scientist John McCarthy organized a summertime workshop at Dartmouth University to check out the problem of "Artificial Intelligence," which he defined as "that of making a device behave in manner ins which would be called smart if a human were so acting." [5] This workshop introduced a research program focused on designing machines efficient in performing tasks usually connected with the human intelligence and smart behavior.

8. Ever since, AI research has actually advanced rapidly, resulting in the development of complex systems efficient in carrying out highly advanced jobs. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are usually developed to manage particular and limited functions, such as equating languages, predicting the trajectory of a storm, categorizing images, addressing concerns, or generating visual content at the user's demand. While the definition of "intelligence" in AI research study varies, the majority of modern AI systems-particularly those utilizing device learning-rely on analytical reasoning instead of logical deduction. By analyzing big datasets to identify patterns, AI can "anticipate" [7] results and propose brand-new approaches, mimicking some cognitive procedures normal of human problem-solving. Such achievements have been made possible through advances in calculating technology (including neural networks, not being watched artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) as well as hardware innovations (such as specialized processors). Together, these technologies enable AI systems to respond to different forms of human input, adapt to new situations, and even suggest novel services not prepared for by their initial programmers. [8]
9. Due to these rapid advancements, lots of jobs as soon as handled specifically by people are now delegated to AI. These systems can enhance or even supersede what humans have the ability to perform in many fields, particularly in specialized areas such as information analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is designed for a particular task, numerous researchers aim to establish what is known as "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system efficient in running across 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 add to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, nevertheless, fear that these possibilities, even if hypothetical, could one day eclipse the human individual, while still others welcome this potential change. [9]
10. Underlying this and many other viewpoints on the topic is the implicit assumption that the term "intelligence" can be utilized in the very same method to describe both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not catch the full scope of the idea. In the case of human beings, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the person in his or her entirety, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is understood functionally, typically with the anticipation that the activities characteristic of the human mind can be broken down into digitized steps that devices can replicate. [10]
11. This functional perspective is exhibited by the "Turing Test," which considers a maker "smart" if a person can not identify its behavior from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "behavior" refers only to the performance of specific intellectual jobs; it does not account for the full breadth of human experience, that includes abstraction, feelings, imagination, and the aesthetic, moral, and spiritual sensibilities. Nor does it include the full series of expressions particular of the human mind. Instead, when it comes to AI, the "intelligence" of a system is evaluated methodologically, however likewise reductively, based upon its ability to produce proper responses-in this case, those associated with the human intellect-regardless of how those reactions are created.

12. AI's sophisticated features offer it advanced capabilities to carry out jobs, but not the capability to think. [12] This distinction is crucially essential, as the way "intelligence" is specified undoubtedly forms how we understand the relationship in between human thought and this technology. [13] To appreciate this, one must recall the richness of the philosophical tradition and Christian faith, which use a deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's mentor on the nature, self-respect, and occupation of the human person. [14]
13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has played a main function in comprehending what it suggests to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all people by nature desire to know." [15] This knowledge, with its capacity for abstraction that grasps the nature and meaning of things, sets humans apart from the animal world. [16] As thinkers, theologians, and psychologists have analyzed the exact nature of this intellectual professors, they have also explored how people comprehend the world and their distinct location within it. Through this expedition, the Christian tradition has pertained to comprehend the human individual as a being consisting of both body and soul-deeply linked to this world and yet transcending it. [17]
14. In the classical custom, the concept of intelligence is frequently comprehended through the complementary principles of "reason" (ratio) and "intelligence" (intellectus). These are not separate professors however, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are two modes in which the same intelligence operates: "The term intelligence is presumed from the inward grasp of the reality, while the name reason is taken from the inquisitive and discursive process." [18] This concise description highlights the 2 fundamental and complementary dimensions of human intelligence. Intellectus refers to the instinctive grasp of the truth-that is, capturing it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and grounds argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to reasoning appropriate: the discursive, analytical procedure that leads to judgment. Together, intelligence and reason form the two facets of the act of intelligere, "the correct operation of the human being as such." [19]
15. Explaining the human person as a "logical" being does not lower the person to a specific mode of thought; rather, it acknowledges that the ability for intellectual understanding shapes and penetrates all aspects of human activity. [20] Whether exercised well or inadequately, this capability is an intrinsic element of humanity. In this sense, the "term 'logical' incorporates all the capabilities of the human person," consisting of those associated to "knowing and understanding, along with those of prepared, caring, picking, and desiring; it also includes all corporeal functions carefully associated to these capabilities." [21] This detailed perspective underscores how, in the human individual, created in the "image of God," reason is integrated in a method that raises, shapes, and transforms both the person's will and actions. [22]
16. Christian thought considers the intellectual faculties of the human person within the structure of an essential sociology that sees the human being as basically embodied. In the human individual, spirit and matter "are not 2 natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature." [23] In other words, the soul is not merely the immaterial "part" of the individual contained within the body, nor is the body an outer shell housing an intangible "core." Rather, the entire human individual is concurrently both material and spiritual. This understanding shows the teaching of Sacred Scripture, which views the human person as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and hence, an authentically spiritual measurement) within and through this embodied presence. [24] The profound meaning of this condition is further illuminated by the secret of the Incarnation, through which God himself handled our flesh and "raised it up to a sublime self-respect." [25]
17. Although deeply rooted in physical existence, the human person transcends the material world through the soul, which is "nearly on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intellect's capability for transcendence and the self-possessed freedom of the will come from the soul, by which the human individual "shares in the light of the magnificent mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its regular mode of knowledge without the body. [28] In this way, the intellectual faculties of the human person are an important part of an anthropology that recognizes that the human person is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further elements of this understanding will be developed in what follows.

18. People are "bought by their very nature to interpersonal communion," [30] possessing the capacity to know one another, to offer themselves in love, and to get in into communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not an isolated faculty but is worked out in relationships, discovering its fullest expression in dialogue, collaboration, and solidarity. We learn with others, and we discover through others.

19. The relational orientation of the human individual is ultimately grounded in the everlasting self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is revealed in development and redemption. [31] The human individual is "called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life." [32]
20. This occupation to communion with God is always tied to the call to communion with others. Love of God can not be separated from love for one's neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20; Mt. 22:37 -39). By the grace of sharing God's life, Christians are also contacted us to imitate Christ's outpouring present (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "enjoy one another, as I have actually liked you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the divine life of self-giving, transcend self-interest to react more completely to the human occupation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Even more sublime than knowing many things is the commitment to care for 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 eventually "God's present made for the assimilation of reality." [34] In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it enables the person to check out truths that exceed simple sensory experience or energy, because "the desire for truth belongs to humanity itself. It is an inherent residential or commercial property of human factor to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limits of empirical data, human intelligence can "with genuine certitude attain to truth itself as knowable." [36] While truth remains only partially understood, the desire for truth "stimulates reason always 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 transcends the borders of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this destination, the human individual is led to seek "truths of a higher order." [39]
22. This natural drive toward the pursuit of truth is especially obvious in the definitely human capabilities for semantic understanding and creativity, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "way that is suitable to the social nature and dignity of the human individual." [41] Likewise, an unfaltering orientation to the reality is necessary for charity to be both authentic and universal. [42]
23. The search for truth discovers its greatest expression in openness to realities that go beyond the physical and produced world. In God, all truths attain their supreme and original meaning. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "basic decision that engages the entire individual." [44] In this way, the human individual ends up being totally what he or she is contacted us to be: "the intellect and the will show their spiritual nature," allowing the individual "to act in a way that understands personal liberty to the complete." [45]
24. The Christian faith understands production as the complimentary act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, develops "not to increase his glory, but to reveal it forth and to interact it." [46] Since God develops according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), development is imbued with an intrinsic order that reflects God's plan (cf. Gen. 1; Dan. 2:21 -22; Is. 45:18; Ps. 74:12 -17; 104), [47] within which God has called people to assume a distinct function: to cultivate and care for the world. [48]
25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, humans live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and skills to take care of and develop development in accord with God's strategy. [49] In this, human intelligence shows the Divine Intelligence that developed all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] continuously sustains them, and guides them to their ultimate function in him. [51] Moreover, people are called to establish their capabilities in science and innovation, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in an appropriate relationship with development, humans, on the one hand, use their intelligence and skill to work together with God in guiding production towards the purpose to which he has actually called it. [52] On the other hand, development itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, helps the human mind to "ascend gradually to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]
26. In this context, human intelligence becomes more plainly comprehended as a faculty that forms an important part of how the whole individual engages with truth. Authentic engagement requires embracing the full scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with truth unfolds in numerous methods, as everyone, in his or her diverse individuality [54], seeks to comprehend the world, relate to others, solve issues, reveal creativity, and pursue important well-being through the harmonious interplay of the different measurements of the person's intelligence. [55] This includes rational and linguistic abilities but can likewise encompass other modes of interacting with truth. Consider the work of an artisan, who "must understand how to recognize, in inert matter, a specific form that others can not acknowledge" [56] and bring it forth through insight and useful ability. Indigenous individuals who live near to the earth typically have an extensive sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a buddy who understands the best word to say or a person adept at managing human relationships exemplifies an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, dialogue 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 humanity." [59]
28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the combination of fact into the ethical and spiritual life of the person, directing his or her actions in light of God's goodness and truth. According to God's strategy, intelligence, in its maximum sense, likewise consists of the capability to appreciate what is true, good, and beautiful. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel expressed, "intelligence is absolutely nothing without delight." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the highest paradise in Paradiso, affirms that the conclusion of this intellectual delight is discovered in the "light intellectual full of love, love of true great filled with happiness, happiness which transcends every sweetness." [61]
29. A correct understanding of human intelligence, therefore, can not be minimized to the simple acquisition of facts or the ability to perform specific tasks. Instead, it includes the individual's openness to the supreme concerns of life and shows an orientation toward the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the divine image within the person, human intelligence has the ability to access the totality of being, pondering presence in its fullness, which exceeds what is quantifiable, and grasping the significance of what has actually been comprehended. For followers, this capacity includes, in a specific method, the capability to grow in the knowledge of the secrets of God by utilizing factor to engage ever more exceptionally with exposed realities (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is shaped by magnificent love, which "is put forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence possesses an essential reflective dimension, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian function.

30. Because of the foregoing conversation, the distinctions in between human intelligence and current AI systems become evident. While AI is an amazing technological achievement capable of imitating certain outputs connected with human intelligence, it operates by performing jobs, attaining objectives, or making decisions based on quantitative information and computational logic. For example, with its analytical power, AI excels at incorporating information from a variety of fields, modeling complex systems, and promoting interdisciplinary connections. In this method, it can assist specialists team up in solving complicated problems that "can not be handled from a single perspective or from a single set of interests." [64]
31. However, even as AI procedures and mimics certain expressions of intelligence, it remains basically restricted to a logical-mathematical structure, which enforces fundamental constraints. Human intelligence, on the other hand, develops organically throughout the person's physical and mental development, formed by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although advanced AI systems can "find out" through procedures such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is essentially various from the developmental development of human intelligence, which is formed by embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the distinct context of each moment. These components shape and kind people within their personal history.In contrast, AI, doing not have a physical body, counts on computational reasoning and learning based upon vast datasets that consist of taped human experiences and understanding.

32. Consequently, although AI can mimic aspects of human reasoning and perform particular tasks with amazing speed and performance, its computational capabilities represent just a fraction of the wider capacities of the human mind. For example, AI can not currently duplicate ethical discernment or the capability to establish authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is positioned within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral development that fundamentally forms the individual's viewpoint, encompassing the physical, psychological, social, ethical, and spiritual measurements of life. Since AI can not offer this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely exclusively on this technology or treat it as the main means of analyzing the world can result in "a loss of gratitude for the entire, for the relationships between things, and for the wider horizon." [65]
33. Human intelligence is not mainly about finishing practical tasks but about understanding and actively engaging with reality in all its measurements; it is also capable of surprising insights. Since AI does not have the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to truth and goodness, its capacities-though seemingly limitless-are incomparable with the human ability to understand reality. A lot can be gained from a disease, an embrace of reconciliation, and even a simple sunset; certainly, many experiences we have as humans open brand-new horizons and offer the possibility of attaining brand-new knowledge. No device, working exclusively with data, can measure up to these and countless other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an extremely close equivalence between human intelligence and AI risks catching a functionalist viewpoint, where individuals are valued based upon the work they can carry out. However, a person's worth does not depend upon possessing specific skills, cognitive and technological achievements, or specific success, however on the individual's intrinsic self-respect, grounded in being produced in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains undamaged in all circumstances, including for those unable to exercise their abilities, whether it be an unborn kid, an unconscious individual, or an older individual who is suffering. [67] It also underpins the custom of human rights (and, in particular, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "an essential point of convergence in the look for common ground" [68] and can, therefore, function as a fundamental ethical guide in discussions on the responsible advancement and usage of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the really use of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can prove misleading" [69] and threats overlooking what is most valuable in the human individual. Because of this, AI should not be viewed as a synthetic form of human intelligence but as an item of it. [70]
36. Given these considerations, one can ask how AI can be understood within God's strategy. To address this, it is necessary to recall that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character but is a human undertaking that engages the humanistic and cultural measurements of human imagination. [71]
37. Viewed as a fruit of the possible engraved within human intelligence, [72] scientific questions and the development of technical skills belong to the "collaboration of male and female with God in perfecting the noticeable development." [73] At the exact same time, all scientific and technological achievements are, eventually, presents from God. [74] Therefore, people need to constantly utilize their abilities in view of the greater purpose for which God has actually approved them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has "remedied many evils which utilized to damage and limit humans," [76] a truth for which we must rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological improvements in themselves represent genuine human development. [77] The Church is especially opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human person. [78] Like any human undertaking, technological development should be directed to serve the human person and contribute to the pursuit of "greater justice, more substantial fraternity, and a more gentle order of social relations," which are "more valuable than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical implications of technological development are shared not only within the Church but also among many scientists, technologists, and professional associations, who significantly call for ethical reflection to assist this development in a responsible method.

39. To address these challenges, it is necessary to emphasize the significance of ethical duty grounded in the self-respect and vocation of the human individual. This directing principle likewise uses to questions concerning AI. In this context, the ethical measurement handles main significance because it is individuals who create systems and identify the purposes for which they are utilized. [80] Between a machine and a person, just the latter is truly an ethical agent-a topic of moral duty who works out freedom in his or her decisions and accepts their effects. [81] It is not the machine but the human who remains in relationship with truth and goodness, assisted by a moral conscience that calls the person "to love and to do what is great and to avoid wicked," [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 sufficiently self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, critical with prudence, and seeking the good that is possible in every circumstance. [84] In fact, all of this likewise belongs to the person's exercise of intelligence.

40. Like any product of human creativity, AI can be directed toward favorable or unfavorable ends. [85] When utilized in manner ins which respect human dignity and promote the wellness of people and neighborhoods, it can contribute positively to the human occupation. Yet, as in all locations where human beings are called to make decisions, the shadow of evil likewise looms here. Where human liberty enables the possibility of choosing what is incorrect, the ethical evaluation of this innovation will require to take into account how it is directed and utilized.

41. At the same time, it is not only completions that are fairly substantial however likewise the methods utilized to attain them. Additionally, the general vision and understanding of the human person ingrained within these systems are essential to think about as well. Technological products show the worldview of their developers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to "shape the world and engage consciences on the level of worths." [87] On a societal level, some technological developments could likewise reinforce relationships and power characteristics that are inconsistent with a correct understanding of the human person and society.

42. Therefore, the ends and the methods used in an offered application of AI, as well as the general vision it integrates, need to all be examined to ensure they respect human dignity and promote the typical good. [88] As Pope Francis has specified, "the intrinsic dignity of every guy and every lady" should be "the essential criterion in evaluating emerging technologies; these will prove fairly sound to the level that they assist regard that dignity 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 role not only in creating and producing technology however likewise in directing its usage in line with the authentic good of the human person. [90] The responsibility for managing this carefully pertains to every level of society, by the concept of subsidiarity and other concepts of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The commitment to making sure that AI constantly supports and promotes the supreme value of the dignity of every person and the fullness of the human vocation works as a requirement of discernment for designers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, in addition to to its users. It remains legitimate for each application of the innovation at every level of its use.

44. An evaluation of the implications of this directing principle might start by considering the importance of moral responsibility. Since full moral causality belongs just to individual representatives, not artificial ones, it is vital to be able to recognize and specify who bears obligation for the procedures associated with AI, especially those capable of learning, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up techniques and extremely deep neural networks make it possible for AI to fix complex problems, they make it hard to comprehend the procedures that lead to the options they adopted. This makes complex responsibility since if an AI application produces undesirable outcomes, identifying who is accountable ends up being challenging. To address this problem, attention requires to be provided to the nature of accountability processes in complex, highly automated settings, where outcomes might only become apparent in the medium to long term. For this, it is necessary that ultimate responsibility for decisions made utilizing AI rests with the human decision-makers which there is responsibility for making use of AI at each phase of the decision-making procedure. [91]
45. In addition to identifying who is responsible, it is important to identify the goals provided to AI systems. Although these systems may utilize without supervision autonomous learning systems and in some cases follow paths that humans can not reconstruct, they ultimately pursue objectives that humans have designated to them and are governed by processes developed by their designers and developers. Yet, this presents a challenge because, as AI models end up being increasingly capable of independent knowing, the ability to maintain control over them to guarantee that such applications serve human functions might successfully decrease. This raises the critical question of how to guarantee that AI systems are ordered for the good of people and not against them.

46. While obligation for the ethical use of AI systems begins with those who develop, produce, manage, and supervise such systems, it is also shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis noted, the device "makes a technical choice among a number of possibilities based either on well-defined requirements or on statistical inferences. Human beings, nevertheless, not only select, but in their hearts are capable of choosing." [92] Those who utilize AI to accomplish a task and follow its results develop a context in which they are ultimately responsible for the power they have entrusted. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist humans in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it ought to be credible, safe, robust enough to deal with inconsistencies, and transparent in their operation to reduce predispositions and unintentional adverse effects. [93] Regulatory structures must make sure that all legal entities remain responsible for making use of AI and all its effects, with appropriate safeguards for openness, privacy, and accountability. [94] Moreover, those using AI ought to be careful not to end up being overly depending on it for their decision-making, a pattern that increases contemporary society's currently high reliance on innovation.

47. The Church's ethical and social teaching provides resources to help make sure that AI is utilized in a manner that maintains human company. Considerations about justice, for example, need to also attend to concerns such as promoting just social characteristics, maintaining international security, and promoting peace. By working out vigilance, individuals and communities can discern ways to use AI to benefit humankind while avoiding applications that could degrade human dignity or damage the environment. In this context, the principle of duty ought to be comprehended not only in its most restricted sense but as a "obligation for the care for others, which is more than just accounting for outcomes attained." [95]
48. Therefore, AI, like any technology, can be part of a mindful and accountable answer to mankind's vocation to the great. However, as formerly talked about, AI must be directed by human intelligence to line up with this vocation, ensuring it respects the self-respect of the human person. Recognizing this "exalted self-respect," the Second Vatican Council affirmed that "the social order and its development must usually work to the advantage of the human individual." [96] In light of this, the use of AI, as Pope Francis said, need to be "accompanied by an ethic motivated by a vision of the common excellent, a principles of freedom, obligation, and fraternity, efficient in cultivating the complete development of people in relation to others and to the whole of development." [97]
49. Within this basic viewpoint, some observations follow listed below to illustrate how the preceding arguments can assist offer an ethical orientation in useful circumstances, in line with the "wisdom of heart" that Pope Francis has actually proposed. [98] While not extensive, this conversation is used in service of the dialogue that thinks about how AI can be used to maintain the self-respect of the human individual and promote the typical good. [99]
50. As Pope Francis observed, "the inherent self-respect of each human being and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human household must undergird the development of brand-new technologies and function as unassailable criteria for examining them before they are used." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI might "introduce important developments in agriculture, education and culture, an improved level of life for entire countries and individuals, and the development of human fraternity and social relationship," and thus be "used to promote important human advancement." [101] AI might likewise assist companies identify those in requirement and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other comparable applications of this technology could add to human advancement and the common good. [102]
52. However, while AI holds many possibilities for promoting the excellent, it can likewise impede or perhaps counter human development and the typical good. Pope Francis has kept in mind that "evidence to date recommends that digital innovations have actually increased inequality in our world. Not simply differences in product wealth, which are likewise significant, however likewise differences in access to political and social influence." [103] In this sense, AI might be utilized to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, create brand-new forms of poverty, broaden the "digital divide," and worsen existing social inequalities. [104]
53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a few effective companies raises considerable ethical issues. Exacerbating this issue is the inherent nature of AI systems, disgaeawiki.info where no single individual can work out complete oversight over the vast and intricate datasets used for calculation. This absence of well-defined responsibility creates the threat that AI might be controlled for individual or corporate gain or to direct public viewpoint for the advantage of a particular industry. Such entities, motivated by their own interests, possess the capacity to exercise "types of control as subtle as they are intrusive, creating systems for the adjustment of consciences and of the democratic process." [105]
54. Furthermore, there is the danger of AI being used to promote what Pope Francis has called the "technocratic paradigm," which views all the world's issues as understandable through technological means alone. [106] In this paradigm, human self-respect and fraternity are frequently set aside in the name of efficiency, "as if truth, goodness, and fact instantly stream from technological and economic power as such." [107] Yet, human self-respect and the typical good needs to never ever be breached for the sake of performance, [108] for "technological advancements that do not lead to an enhancement in the quality of life of all humankind, but on the contrary, exacerbate inequalities and conflicts, can never count as true progress. " [109] Instead, AI needs to be put "at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more essential." [110]
55. Attaining this goal requires a deeper reflection on the relationship in between autonomy and obligation. Greater autonomy heightens each individual's responsibility throughout different elements of communal life. For Christians, the structure of this duty lies in the acknowledgment that all human capabilities, consisting of the person's autonomy, come from God and are suggested to be utilized in the service of others. [111] Therefore, instead of merely pursuing economic or technological goals, AI ought to serve "the typical good of the entire human household," which is "the sum overall of social conditions that enable individuals, either as groups or as people, to reach their satisfaction more fully and more quickly." [112]
56. The Second Vatican Council observed that "by his innermost nature man is a social being; and if he does not participate in relations with others, he can neither live nor develop his gifts." [113] This conviction underscores that residing in society is intrinsic to the nature and vocation of the human individual. [114] As social beings, we look for relationships that involve mutual exchange and the pursuit of fact, in the course of which, people "share with each other the truth they have actually discovered, or believe they have actually found, in such a method that they assist one another in the search for reality." [115]
57. Such a mission, along with other elements of human communication, presupposes encounters and mutual exchange between individuals shaped by their special histories, ideas, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a diverse, multifaceted, and intricate truth: private and social, rational and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis underscores this dynamic, noting that "together, we can look for the fact in discussion, in relaxed conversation or in enthusiastic argument. To do so calls for perseverance; it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently embrace the broader experience of people and peoples. [...] The process of building fraternity, be it regional or universal, can only be undertaken by spirits that are complimentary and available to authentic encounters." [116]
58. It remains in this context that a person can think about the obstacles AI presents to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the prospective to promote connections within the human family. However, it might also hinder a real encounter with reality and, eventually, lead people to "a deep and melancholic frustration with interpersonal relations, or a harmful sense of seclusion." [117] Authentic human relationships need the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their delight. [118] Since human intelligence is revealed and improved likewise in social and embodied ways, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are vital for engaging with truth in its fullness.

59. Because "real knowledge demands an encounter with reality," [119] the increase of AI introduces another difficulty. Since AI can successfully imitate the items of human intelligence, the ability to know when one is communicating with a human or a machine can no longer be considered granted. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other innovative outputs that are normally associated with people. Yet, it must be understood for what it is: a tool, not a person. [120] This distinction is frequently obscured by the language utilized by professionals, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and thus blurs the line between human and maker.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI also positions particular difficulties for the advancement of kids, possibly encouraging them to establish patterns of interaction that deal with human relationships in a transactional way, as one would relate to a chatbot. Such routines might lead youths to see teachers as simple dispensers of details instead of as mentors who direct and nurture their intellectual and moral development. Genuine relationships, rooted in empathy and an unfaltering dedication to the good of the other, are vital and irreplaceable in fostering the complete advancement of the human person.

61. In this context, it is essential to clarify that, despite the usage of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can truly experience empathy. Emotions can not be decreased to facial expressions or expressions created in response to triggers; they reflect the way an individual, as a whole, associates with the world and to his or her own life, with the body playing a main role. True compassion requires the capability to listen, recognize another's irreducible originality, invite their otherness, and understand the significance behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the realm of analytical judgment in which AI stands out, real compassion comes from the relational sphere. It includes intuiting and apprehending the lived experiences of another while maintaining the distinction in between self and other. [122] While AI can imitate understanding actions, it can not replicate the incomparably individual and relational nature of authentic compassion. [123]
62. Due to the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as a person should always be avoided; doing so for deceptive purposes is a grave ethical infraction that could erode social trust. Similarly, using AI to trick in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, including the sphere of sexuality-is also to be considered immoral and needs mindful oversight to avoid harm, maintain openness, and guarantee the self-respect of all individuals. [124]
63. In an increasingly separated world, some people have turned to AI looking for deep human relationships, basic friendship, or perhaps emotional bonds. However, while human beings are meant to experience authentic relationships, AI can only simulate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an essential part of how a person grows to become who he or she is meant to be. If AI is used to assist individuals foster genuine connections between people, it can contribute positively to the full awareness of the individual. Conversely, if we replace relationships with God and with others with interactions with innovation, we risk changing authentic relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of retreating into synthetic worlds, we are contacted us to take part in a dedicated and intentional way with truth, particularly by determining with the bad and suffering, consoling those in sadness, and forging bonds of communion with all.

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

65. Other more comprehensive aspects of AI's effect on the economic-financial sphere need to also be thoroughly taken a look at, particularly concerning the interaction between concrete truth and the digital world. One essential consideration in this regard involves the coexistence of diverse and alternative forms of financial and banks within an offered context. This aspect ought to be motivated, as it can bring benefits in how it supports the real economy by fostering its development and stability, specifically throughout times of crisis. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that digital realities, not restricted by any spatial bonds, tend to be more homogeneous and impersonal than communities rooted in a particular place and a particular history, with a typical journey characterized by shared worths and hopes, however likewise by inescapable differences and divergences. This diversity is an undeniable property to a community's financial life. Turning over the economy and finance completely to digital innovation would decrease this variety and richness. As a result, numerous options to economic problems that can be reached through natural dialogue in between the included celebrations may no longer be attainable in a world controlled by treatments and only the look of nearness.

66. Another area where AI is currently having a profound impact is the world of work. As in many other fields, AI is driving basic transformations throughout many occupations, with a series of results. On the one hand, it has the possible to boost proficiency and productivity, create new jobs, make it possible for employees to focus on more ingenious jobs, and open new horizons for creativity and development.

67. However, while AI promises to improve performance by taking over ordinary tasks, it regularly forces workers to adjust to the speed and needs of makers rather than machines being developed to support those who work. As an outcome, contrary to the marketed advantages of AI, current approaches to the innovation can paradoxically deskill employees, subject them to automated monitoring, and relegate them to rigid and recurring jobs. The requirement to stay up to date with the speed of innovation can erode workers' sense of company and suppress the innovative abilities they are expected to bring to their work. [125]
68. AI is currently eliminating the requirement for some tasks that were when carried out by humans. If AI is used to change human workers rather than complement them, there is a "substantial danger of disproportionate advantage for the couple of at the cost of the impoverishment of lots of." [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more effective, there is an involved threat that human labor may lose its worth in the economic world. This is the logical consequence of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humanity enslaved to effectiveness, where, eventually, the cost of humanity should be cut. Yet, human lives are fundamentally important, independent of their economic output. Nevertheless, the "existing design," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to prefer an investment in efforts to assist the sluggish, the weak, or the less skilled to discover chances in life." [127] Because of this, "we can not permit a tool as effective and indispensable as Artificial Intelligence to strengthen such a paradigm, however rather, we should make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its expansion." [128]
69. It is essential to bear in mind that "the order of things should be subordinate to the order of individuals, and not the other way around." [129] Human work must not just be at the service of profit however at "the service of the entire human person [...] considering the person's product requirements and the requirements of his or her intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and religious life." [130] In this context, the Church acknowledges that work is "not just a means of making one's daily bread" but is likewise "a vital measurement of social life" and "a means [...] of personal growth, the structure of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of presents. Work gives us a sense of shared duty for the advancement of the world, and eventually, for our life as a people." [131]
70. Since work is a "part of the significance of life on this earth, a course to growth, human advancement and individual satisfaction," "the objective must not be that technological development progressively replaces human work, for this would be destructive to humankind" [132] -rather, it must promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI ought to help, not replace, human judgment. Similarly, it needs to never deteriorate creativity or reduce employees to mere "cogs in a machine." Therefore, "respect for the self-respect of workers and the significance of employment for the economic well-being of individuals, households, and societies, for task security and simply incomes, ought to be a high top priority for the global neighborhood as these forms of technology permeate more deeply into our offices." [133]
71. As individuals in God's recovery work, health care specialists have the vocation and responsibility to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the healthcare profession carries an "intrinsic and undeniable ethical measurement," acknowledged by the Hippocratic Oath, which requires doctors and health care experts to dedicate themselves to having "absolute respect for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Good Samaritan, this commitment is to be brought out by males and females "who reject the production of a society of exemption, and act rather as neighbors, raising up and fixing up the succumbed to the sake of the common good." [136]
72. Seen in this light, AI appears to hold immense potential in a variety of applications in the medical field, such as helping the diagnostic work of doctor, facilitating relationships in between clients and medical staff, using new treatments, and expanding access to quality care also for those who are isolated or marginalized. In these ways, the innovation might boost the "thoughtful and loving nearness" [137] that doctor are contacted us to encompass the ill and suffering.

73. However, if AI is used not to improve however to change the relationship in between patients and health care providers-leaving patients to interact with a maker instead of a human being-it would reduce a crucially important human relational structure to a central, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of motivating uniformity with the sick and suffering, such applications of AI would risk aggravating the isolation that typically accompanies illness, particularly in the context of a culture where "persons are no longer seen as a vital worth to be taken care of and respected." [138] This misuse of AI would not line up with respect for the self-respect of the human person and solidarity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the wellness of patients and the decisions that discuss their lives are at the heart of the health care occupation. This accountability requires physician to work out all their skill and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded choices relating to those entrusted to their care, constantly appreciating the inviolable dignity of the patients and the requirement for notified approval. As an outcome, decisions regarding client treatment and the weight of responsibility they entail must constantly remain with the human individual and must never be entrusted to AI. [139]
75. In addition, utilizing AI to determine who should receive treatment based mainly on economic measures or metrics of efficiency represents a particularly problematic instance of the "technocratic paradigm" that need to be rejected. [140] For, "enhancing resources indicates using them in an ethical and fraternal way, and not penalizing the most delicate." [141] Additionally, AI tools in health care are "exposed to forms of bias and discrimination," where "systemic errors can quickly multiply, producing not just oppressions in individual cases however likewise, due to the domino impact, genuine types of social inequality." [142]
76. The combination of AI into health care likewise postures the threat of magnifying other existing variations in access to medical care. As health care becomes increasingly oriented toward avoidance and lifestyle-based techniques, AI-driven options might unintentionally favor more upscale populations who already delight in much better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This trend risks strengthening a "medicine for the rich" model, where those with monetary means gain from sophisticated preventative tools and customized health details while others battle to gain access to even basic services. To avoid such injustices, fair frameworks are needed to guarantee that the use of AI in health care does not intensify existing healthcare inequalities however rather serves the common good.

77. The words of the Second Vatican Council remain totally appropriate today: "True education aims to form individuals with a view towards their last end and the good of the society to which they belong." [143] As such, education is "never a mere procedure of handing down truths and intellectual skills: rather, its aim is to add to the individual's holistic development in its numerous elements (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, etc), including, for instance, community life and relations within the scholastic neighborhood," [144] in keeping with the nature and self-respect of the human individual.

78. This technique involves a dedication to cultivating the mind, but always as a part of the essential development of the individual: "We should break that concept of education which holds that educating ways filling one's head with concepts. That is the way we educate robots, cerebral minds, not individuals. Educating is taking a danger in the stress between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]
79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human person is the vital relationship between instructor and trainee. Teachers do more than communicate understanding; they model necessary human qualities and influence the happiness of discovery. [146] Their presence encourages trainees both through the material they teach and the care they show for their trainees. This bond cultivates trust, good understanding, and the capability to deal with everyone's unique self-respect and capacity. On the part of the trainee, this can generate an authentic desire to grow. The physical existence of an instructor develops a relational dynamic that AI can not duplicate, one that deepens engagement and supports the trainee's important development.

80. In this context, AI provides both chances and difficulties. If used in a prudent manner, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and purchased to the genuine goals of education, AI can become an important educational resource by boosting access to education, using tailored assistance, and providing instant feedback to trainees. These advantages might improve the learning experience, particularly in cases where personalized attention is required, or instructional resources are otherwise scarce.

81. Nevertheless, a vital part of education is forming "the intelligence to factor well in all matters, to connect towards truth, and to grasp it," [147] while helping the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is even more important in an age marked by innovation, in which "it is no longer simply a concern of 'utilizing' instruments of interaction, but of residing in an extremely digitalized culture that has actually had an extensive influence on [...] our ability to interact, learn, be notified and participate in relationship with others." [149] However, instead of promoting "a cultivated intellect," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and profession that it undertakes," [150] the extensive usage of AI in education could lead to the trainees' increased reliance on technology, eroding their ability to carry out some skills individually and intensifying their dependence on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are designed to help people develop their important believing abilities and analytical abilities, lots of others simply provide answers instead of triggering trainees to get to responses themselves or write text for themselves. [152] Instead of training youths how to collect details and produce fast reactions, education needs to encourage "the accountable usage of liberty to deal with concerns with excellent sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in using kinds of expert system should aim above all at promoting crucial thinking. Users of any ages, but particularly the young, require to develop a critical approach to making use of 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 advancement and usages of technology." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II remembered, "worldwide today, characterized by such fast developments in science and technology, the jobs of a Catholic University presume an ever higher significance and urgency." [155] In a particular method, Catholic universities are advised to be present as great laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary secret, they are prompted to engage "with knowledge and imagination" [156] in careful research on this phenomenon, assisting to draw out the salutary capacity within the different fields of science and truth, and assisting them constantly towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the common excellent, reaching new frontiers in the discussion between faith and reason.

84. Moreover, it must be kept in mind that existing AI programs have been understood to provide prejudiced or fabricated details, which can lead trainees to rely on unreliable content. This issue "not just risks of legitimizing fake news and reinforcing a dominant culture's advantage, however, in other words, it also undermines the instructional procedure itself." [157] With time, clearer differences may emerge in between proper and incorrect uses of AI in education and research study. Yet, a decisive standard is that making use of AI need to constantly be transparent and never misrepresented.

85. AI might be used as an aid to human dignity if it helps people comprehend complicated concepts or directs them to sound resources that support their look for the fact. [158]
86. However, AI also provides a severe threat of creating controlled content and false details, which can quickly deceive individuals due to its similarity to the reality. Such false information may happen accidentally, as when it comes to AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine but are not. Since creating material that imitates human artifacts is main to AI's functionality, alleviating these risks proves difficult. Yet, the consequences of such aberrations and incorrect details can be rather severe. 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 public.

87. While AI has a hidden potential to create incorrect details, a much more unpleasant problem lies in the intentional abuse of AI for control. This can happen when people or organizations purposefully create and spread out incorrect material with the aim to trick or trigger harm, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to an incorrect depiction of a person, modified or created by an AI algorithm. The danger of deepfakes is particularly evident when they are used to target or damage others. While the images or videos themselves might be synthetic, the damage they cause is genuine, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "genuine wounds in their human self-respect." [159]
88. On a wider scale, by misshaping "our relationship with others and with reality," [160] AI-generated phony media can slowly undermine the foundations of society. This concern requires mindful guideline, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or influenced media-can spread unintentionally, sustaining political polarization and social discontent. When society ends up being indifferent to the reality, numerous groups construct their own variations of "truths," weakening the "reciprocal ties and mutual dependences" [161] that underpin the fabric of social life. As deepfakes trigger individuals to question whatever and AI-generated incorrect content deteriorates rely on what they see and hear, polarization and conflict will just grow. Such extensive deception is no minor matter; it strikes at the core of humanity, taking apart the fundamental trust on which societies are constructed. [162]
89. Countering AI-driven frauds is not only the work of market experts-it requires the efforts of all individuals of goodwill. "If technology is to serve human dignity and not hurt it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human neighborhood should be proactive in attending to these trends with regard to human dignity and the promo of the excellent." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated content must always exercise diligence in confirming the fact of what they share and, in all cases, should "prevent the sharing of words and images that are degrading of people, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that exploit the weak and vulnerable." [164] This calls for the continuous vigilance and mindful discernment of all users concerning their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are naturally relational, and the information each person generates in the digital world can be seen as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data conveys not just details but likewise personal and relational understanding, which, in a significantly digitized context, can total up to power over the person. Moreover, while some kinds of information might pertain to public elements of an individual's life, others might discuss the person's interiority, maybe even their conscience. Seen in this way, privacy plays a necessary function in securing the boundaries of a person's inner life, maintaining their liberty to connect to others, express themselves, and make decisions without excessive control. This defense is likewise connected to the defense of religious freedom, as monitoring can likewise be misused to put in control over the lives of believers and how they reveal their faith.

91. It is proper, therefore, to attend to the problem of personal privacy from a concern for the legitimate liberty and inalienable self-respect of the human person "in all circumstances." [166] The Second Vatican Council consisted of the right "to safeguard personal privacy" among the fundamental rights "essential for living a really human life," a right that ought to be encompassed all people on account of their "superb self-respect." [167] Furthermore, the Church has also verified the right to the genuine regard for a personal life in the context of affirming the individual's right to a great reputation, defense of their physical and psychological integrity, and liberty from harm or undue invasion [168] -vital components of the due regard for the intrinsic self-respect of the human person. [169]
92. Advances in AI-powered data processing and analysis now make it possible to presume patterns in a person's behavior and believing from even a percentage of details, making the role of data privacy a lot more vital as a secure for the dignity and relational nature of the human person. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant attitudes towards others are on the increase, distances are otherwise diminishing or disappearing to the point that the right to privacy scarcely exists. Everything has actually ended up being a sort of spectacle to be taken a look at and inspected, and individuals's lives are now under constant security." [170]
93. While there can be legitimate and correct ways to use AI in keeping with human dignity and the typical great, using it for security aimed at exploiting, restricting others' flexibility, or benefitting a few at the expense of the numerous is unjustifiable. The danger of monitoring overreach should be kept track of by proper regulators to make sure openness and public responsibility. Those accountable for security should never ever surpass their authority, which should constantly prefer the dignity and freedom of every individual as the important basis of a simply and humane society.

94. Furthermore, "essential regard for human self-respect needs that we decline to enable the uniqueness of the individual to be related to a set of information." [171] This especially uses when AI is utilized to evaluate people or groups based on their behavior, qualities, or history-a practice referred to as "social scoring": "In social and financial decision-making, we need to be careful about entrusting judgments to algorithms that process information, typically collected surreptitiously, on a person's makeup and previous behavior. Such data can be contaminated by social bias and preconceptions. A person's previous habits must not be used to deny him or her the opportunity to change, grow, and add to society. We can not allow algorithms to limit or condition regard for human self-respect, or to leave out compassion, grace, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that individuals have the ability to change." [172]
95. AI has lots of appealing applications for enhancing our relationship with our "common home," such as creating models to anticipate extreme environment events, proposing engineering options to minimize their effect, handling relief operations, and anticipating population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable farming, enhance energy use, and offer early caution systems for public health emergencies. These developments have the prospective to strengthen strength against climate-related obstacles and promote more sustainable development.

96. At the exact same time, existing AI designs and the hardware required to support them consume vast amounts of energy and water, considerably adding to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This reality is often obscured by the way this technology exists in the popular imagination, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can give the impression that information is saved and processed in an intangible world, separated from the physical world. However, "the cloud" is not an ethereal domain separate from the real world; as with all computing technologies, it relies on physical machines, cables, and energy. The very same holds true of the technology behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, especially big language models (LLMs), they need ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and higher storage infrastructure. Considering the heavy toll these innovations take on the environment, it is important to develop sustainable services that reduce their impact on our typical home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is essential "that we search for services not only in innovation but in a change of humanity." [175] A complete and authentic understanding of development recognizes that the worth of all created things can not be lowered to their simple energy. Therefore, a totally human method to the stewardship of the earth turns down the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which seeks to "draw out everything possible" from the world, [176] and rejects the "myth of development," which assumes that "eco-friendly issues will solve themselves just with the application of new innovation and without any requirement for ethical factors to consider or deep modification." [177] Such a state of mind should offer way to a more holistic approach that respects the order of production and promotes the essential good of the human person while securing our common home. [178]
98. The Second Vatican Council and the constant teaching of the Popes because then have actually insisted that peace is not merely the lack of war and is not restricted to maintaining a balance of powers in between enemies. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the harmony of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without protecting the items of persons, complimentary communication, regard for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the result of charity and can not be attained through force alone; rather, it must be mainly constructed through patient diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, solidarity, important human development, and respect for the dignity of all individuals. [180] In this way, the tools utilized to maintain peace must never be permitted to justify oppression, violence, or injustice. Instead, they ought to always be governed by a "firm determination to respect other individuals and nations, together with their self-respect, in addition to the deliberate practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical abilities might help nations seek peace and guarantee security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can also be extremely problematic. Pope Francis has actually observed that "the ability to conduct military operations through remote control systems has actually led to a decreased perception of the devastation brought on by those weapon systems and the problem of obligation for their use, resulting in an even more cold and removed approach to the enormous catastrophe of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which autonomous weapons make war more feasible militates against the principle of war as a last option in genuine self-defense, [183] possibly increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and speeding up a destabilizing arms race, with disastrous repercussions 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" because they do not have the "special human capability for ethical judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this reason, Pope Francis has actually urgently called for a reconsideration of the development of these weapons and a restriction on their use, beginning with "a reliable and concrete commitment to present ever greater and appropriate human control. No machine must ever choose to take the life of a person." [186]
101. Since it is a small step from makers that can kill autonomously with precision to those efficient in large-scale destruction, some AI researchers have revealed issues that such technology postures an "existential risk" by having the potential to act in manner ins which might threaten the survival of entire regions or perhaps of mankind itself. This threat demands severe attention, reflecting the enduring concern about technologies that grant war "an unmanageable devastating power over great numbers of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing children. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "carry out an examination of war with a totally brand-new attitude" [188] is more urgent than ever.

102. At the very same time, while the theoretical threats of AI are worthy of attention, the more immediate and pushing concern lies in how people with harmful intents might misuse this innovation. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future capabilities are unforeseeable, humankind's previous actions offer clear warnings. The atrocities dedicated throughout history are adequate to raise deep concerns about the potential abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that "humanity now has instruments of unmatched power: we can turn this world into a garden, or reduce it to a pile of debris." [190] Given this fact, the Church advises us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are free to apply our intelligence towards things evolving positively," or toward "decadence and shared destruction." [191] To avoid mankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there need to be a clear stand against all applications of technology that inherently threaten human life and dignity. This commitment requires careful discernment about making use of AI, particularly in military defense applications, to guarantee that it constantly appreciates human dignity and serves the typical good. The development and implementation of AI in weaponries must go through the highest levels of ethical analysis, governed by a concern for human dignity and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology uses remarkable tools to manage and develop the world's resources. However, in many cases, humanity is significantly delivering control of these resources to devices. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, there is optimism about the potential of synthetic basic intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical type of AI that would match or surpass human intelligence and produce unimaginable developments. Some even hypothesize that AGI could attain superhuman abilities. At the same time, as society wanders away from a connection with the transcendent, some are tempted to turn to AI looking for meaning or fulfillment-longings that can just be genuinely pleased in communion with God. [194]
105. However, the anticipation of replacing God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture clearly cautions against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI may show a lot more seductive than standard idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths but do not speak; eyes, however do not see; ears, however do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or at least provides the impression of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is crucial to remember that AI is but a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated product, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not possess a lot of the capabilities particular to human life, and it is likewise fallible. By turning to AI as a viewed "Other" greater than itself, with which to share existence and duties, humankind threats developing a replacement for God. However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, however humanity itself-which, in this way, becomes enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the possible to serve humanity and contribute to the typical great, it remains a creation of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and resourcefulness" (Acts 17:29). It must never ever be ascribed excessive worth. As the Book of Wisdom verifies: "For a guy made them, and one whose spirit is obtained formed them; for no guy can form a god which resembles himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is better than the objects he worships since he has life, however they never have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. In contrast, humans, "by their interior life, go beyond the entire product universe; they experience this deep interiority when they participate in their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they choose their own fate in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis advises us, that each private discovers the "mystical connection between self-knowledge and openness to others, between the encounter with one's individual uniqueness and the willingness to offer oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "efficient in setting our other powers and passions, and our whole person, in a position of reverence and caring obedience before the Lord," [198] who "uses to deal with each one of us as a 'Thou,' always and permanently." [199]
108. Considering the numerous challenges postured by advances in technology, Pope Francis emphasized the need for growth in "human duty, values, and conscience," proportionate to the growth in the capacity that this innovation brings [200] -acknowledging that "with an increase in human power comes a broadening of duty on the part of people and communities." [201]
109. At the same time, the "important and basic question" remains "whether in the context of this progress man, as male, is becoming truly much better, that is to say, more mature spiritually, more mindful of the self-respect of his mankind, more responsible, more available to others, specifically the neediest and the weakest, and readier to give and to aid all." [202]
110. As a result, it is important to know how to examine individual applications of AI in particular contexts to determine whether its usage promotes human self-respect, the occupation of the human individual, and the typical good. Just like numerous technologies, the impacts of the various uses of AI may not constantly be foreseeable from their creation. As these applications and their social effects become clearer, appropriate reactions ought to be made at all levels of society, following the principle of subsidiarity. Individual users, families, civil society, corporations, institutions, governments, and global organizations ought to operate at their appropriate levels to guarantee that AI is used for the good of all.

111. A substantial difficulty and chance for the typical excellent today depends on considering AI within a structure of relational intelligence, which stresses the interconnectedness of individuals and neighborhoods and highlights our shared duty for fostering the essential well-being of others. The twentieth-century philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev observed that individuals frequently blame machines for individual and social problems; nevertheless, "this just humiliates man and does not correspond to his dignity," for "it is not worthy to transfer responsibility from male to a maker." [203] Only the human individual can be ethically responsible, and the obstacles of a technological society are ultimately spiritual in nature. Therefore, dealing with those difficulties "demands an intensification of spirituality." [204]
112. A more point to consider is the call, triggered by the look of AI on the world phase, for a restored appreciation of all that is human. Years back, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos cautioned that "the threat is not in the multiplication of devices, but in the ever-increasing number of men accustomed from their childhood to desire only what makers can offer." [205] This difficulty is as real today as it was then, as the fast speed of digitization runs the risk of a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable aspects of life are reserved and after that forgotten and even considered unimportant due to the fact that they can not be calculated in formal terms. AI ought to be utilized just as a tool to complement human intelligence instead of change its richness. [206] Cultivating those elements of human life that go beyond calculation is important for maintaining "an authentic mankind" that "appears to dwell in the middle of our technological culture, almost unnoticed, like a mist seeping gently beneath a closed door." [207]
113. The large expanse of the world's understanding is now available in methods that would have filled past generations with awe. However, to ensure that advancements in knowledge do not end up being humanly or spiritually barren, one must go beyond the mere build-up of information and aim to attain real knowledge. [208]
114. This wisdom is the present that humanity needs most to resolve the extensive questions and ethical obstacles presented by AI: "Only by embracing a spiritual way of seeing truth, only by recuperating a knowledge of the heart, can we face and interpret the newness of our time." [209] Such "knowledge of the heart" is "the virtue that enables us to incorporate the entire and its parts, our decisions and their repercussions." It "can not be sought from devices," however it "lets itself be found by those who seek it and be seen by those who enjoy it; it expects those who desire it, and it enters search of those who deserve it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]
115. In a world marked by AI, we need the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "enables us to look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, situations, occasions and to reveal their real meaning." [211]
116. Since a "person's perfection is measured not by the details or understanding they have, but by the depth of their charity," [212] how we incorporate AI "to consist of the least of our bros and sis, the vulnerable, and those most in need, will be the real step of our humankind." [213] The "wisdom of the heart" can illuminate and assist the human-centered usage of this innovation to assist promote the common excellent, look after our "common home," advance the search for the fact, foster essential human development, favor human uniformity and fraternity, and lead mankind to its ultimate goal: happiness and complete communion with God. [214]
117. From this viewpoint of knowledge, believers will have the ability to act as ethical agents efficient in using this innovation to promote a genuine vision of the human individual and society. [215] This ought to be made with the understanding that technological progress belongs to God's strategy for creation-an activity that we are called to buy towards the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the continual look for the True and the Good.

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

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

Ex audientia die 14 ianuarii 2025 Franciscus

Contents

I. Introduction

II. What is Artificial Intelligence?

III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition

Rationality

Embodiment

Relationality

Relationship with the Truth

Stewardship of the World

An 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, 2. [7] Terms in this document explaining the outputs or processes of AI are used figuratively to explain its operations and are not intended to anthropomorphize the device. [8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [9] Here, one can see the main positions of the "transhumanists" and the "posthumanists." Transhumanists argue that technological advancements will enable people to conquer their biological constraints and boost both their physical and cognitive abilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, contend that such advances will ultimately change human identity to the degree that humankind itself may no longer be thought about genuinely "human." Both views rest on an essentially unfavorable understanding of human corporality, which deals with the body more as a barrier than as an integral part of the individual's identity and contact us to complete awareness. Yet, this negative view of the body is irregular with a proper understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports authentic scientific development, it verifies that human self-respect is rooted in "the person as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "self-respect is also inherent in each individual's body, which gets involved 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 technique shows a functionalist viewpoint, which decreases the human mind to its functions and presumes that its functions can be entirely quantified in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear really intelligent, it would still remain functional in nature. [11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460. [12] If "believing" is credited to makers, it needs to be clarified that this describes calculative thinking instead of critical thinking. Similarly, if devices are said to run using rational thinking, it must be specified that this is restricted to computational logic. On the other hand, by its very nature, human idea is an innovative process that avoids shows and transcends constraints. [13] On the fundamental role of language in forming understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York City 2010, 141-182). [14] For further conversation of these anthropological and theological structures, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144. [15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, eet3122salainf.sytes.net I. 1, 980 a 21. [16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [faculty] by which he transcends to the irrational animals. Now, this [professors] is factor itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it might more appropriately be given"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When thinking about all that they have, people discover that they are most identified from animals precisely by the reality they possess intelligence." This is also restated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who states that "man is the most ideal of all earthly beings endowed with motion, and his appropriate and natural operation is intellection," by which guy abstracts from things and "receives in his mind things really intelligible" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 76). [17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, ad 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a contemporary point of view that echoes aspects of the classical and middle ages distinction between these two modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York City 2011. [19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp. [20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138. [21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, wiki.asexuality.org Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intellect can examine the reality of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and pertain to recognize because truth, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal moral needs." [22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp. [24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "generally considers the human individual as a being who exists in the body and is unimaginable outside of it" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Che cosa è l'uomo?" (Sal 8,5): Un itinerario di antropologia biblica [30 September 2019], par. 19). Cf. ibid., pars. 20-21, 43-44, 48. [25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100 (2008 ), 863: "Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, but instead totally disclosed its significance and value." [26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81. [27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and thus it is joined to the body in order that it may have a presence and an operation appropriate to its nature." [29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18. [30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357. [31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54. [32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221. [33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27. [34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls also have reason and with it they circle in discourse around the fact of things. [...] [O] n account of the way in which they are capable of focusing the lots of into the one, they too, in their own style and as far as they can, are deserving of conceptions like those of the angels" (en. tr. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York - Mahwah 1987, 106-107). [35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 3: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7. [36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 42: AAS 91 (1999 ), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1043: "the human mind is capable of transcending instant concerns and comprehending certain realities that are unchanging, as true now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, factor finds universal worths obtained from that same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034. [38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last case of factor is to acknowledge that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York 1958, 77). [39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [40] Our semantic capacity permits us to understand garagesale.es messages in any kind of interaction in a way that both considers and transcends their product or empirical structures (such as computer code). Here, intelligence ends up being a knowledge that "enables us to look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, scenarios, events and to uncover their real significance" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our imagination allows us to generate new material or ideas, mainly by offering an original perspective on truth. Both capacities depend upon the presence of a personal subjectivity for their complete awareness. [41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. [42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a commitment to the fact, is a lot more than individual feeling [...] Certainly, its close relation to reality fosters its universality and maintains it from being 'restricted to a narrow field without relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to reality thus secures it from 'a fideism that deprives it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643. [43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7. [44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. [46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as estimated in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294. [47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure likens deep space to "a book showing, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who gives 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 occupy an unique place in the universe according to the magnificent plan: they take pleasure in the privilege of sharing in the divine governance of noticeable production. [...] Since man's place as ruler remains in truth an involvement in the divine governance of creation, 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 idea is also reflected in the production account, where God brings animals to Adam "to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living animal, that was its name" (Gen. 2:19), an action that demonstrates the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's development. 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 realities." [61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232). [62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he greatest standard of human life is the magnificent law itself-eternal, objective and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the ways of the human community according to a plan developed in his knowledge and love. God has actually made it possible for male to get involved in this law of his so that, under the mild disposition of magnificent providence, many may have the ability to get to a much deeper and much deeper understanding of unchangeable fact." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. [63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016. [64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042. [66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has actually inscribed his own image and likeness on man (cf. Gen 1:26), providing upon him a matchless self-respect [...] In result, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not correspond to any work he carries out, however which flow from his essential 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, oke.zone 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 suggest this technology, remembering that the expression is also utilized to designate the field of research study and not only its applications. [71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857. [72] For instance, see the encouragement of clinical expedition in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the gratitude for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These authors, amongst a long list of other Catholics took part in scientific research and technological exploration, illustrate that "faith and science can be unified in charity, provided that science is put at the service of the guys and lady of our time and not misused to damage or even destroy them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, classifieds.ocala-news.com 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87. [73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. [74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888. [77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658. [78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim. [79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293. [80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4. [81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes man an ethical subject. When he acts intentionally, male is, so to speak, the dad of his acts." [82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776. [83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777. [84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father motivated efforts "to guarantee that technology remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed toward the excellent." [85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the role of human agency in choosing a larger aim (Ziel) that then informs the particular purpose (Zweck) for which each technological application is produced, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um die Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71. [86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a purpose and, in its effect on human society, always represents a kind of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, thus allowing certain people to carry out specific actions while preventing others from carrying out different ones. In a more or less explicit way, this constitutive power-dimension of technology always includes the worldview of those who created and developed it." [87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309. [88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Faced with the marvels of makers, which seem to know how to pick independently, we need to be very clear that decision-making [...] should constantly be left to the human individual. We would condemn mankind to a future without hope if we removed individuals's ability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend on the options of machines." [92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [93] The term "predisposition" in this document describes algorithmic bias (systematic and constant mistakes in computer system systems that might disproportionately bias certain groups in unexpected ways) or learning bias (which will result in training on a prejudiced data set) and not the "bias vector" in neural networks (which is a criterion used to change the output of "neurons" 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 development in consensus "on the requirement for development processes to respect such worths as addition, openness, security, equity, privacy and dependability," and likewise welcomed "the efforts of international organizations to control these innovations so that they promote real progress, contributing, that is, to a better world and an integrally higher quality of life." [95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8. [96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571. [98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For additional 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 discussion in a pluralist society oriented towards a "robust and solid social ethics," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. [104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10. [105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; pricing estimate the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245. [106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050. [107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047. [108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309. [109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027. [112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123. [113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034. [114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149. [115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414. [118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057. [119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985. [120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), asteroidsathome.net 986-987. [122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989). [123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Many individuals] want their social relationships supplied by sophisticated equipment, by screens and systems which can be turned on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel tells us constantly to risk of a face-to-face encounter with others, with their physical existence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their happiness which infects us in our close and constant interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from 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 quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453. [130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: "work is 'for guy' and not guy 'for work.' Through this conclusion one appropriately pertains to acknowledge the pre-eminence of the subjective significance of work over the unbiased one." [132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320. [133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502. [135] Ibid. [136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as quoted in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8. [137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops' Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: "If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture appears, with its painful effects, it is that of healthcare. When an ill individual is not put in the center or their dignity is not considered, this provides increase to mindsets that can lead even to speculation on the bad luck of others. And this is extremely grave! [...] The application of a service approach to the health care sector, if indiscriminate [...] might risk disposing of people." [142] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [143] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729. [144] Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on making use of Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729; Francis, Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016), 6: AAS 108 (2016 ), 57-58. [145] Francis, Address to Members of the Global Researchers Advancing Catholic Education Project (20 April 2022): AAS 114 (2022 ), 580. [146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), par. 41: AAS 68 (1976 ), 31, estimating Id., Address to the Members of the "Consilium de Laicis" (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: "if [the modern individual] does listen to instructors, it is 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, estimating 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 study, UNESCO notes: "One of the key questions [of making use of generative AI (GenAI) in education and research] is whether human beings can potentially cede standard levels of thinking and skill-acquisition procedures to AI and rather concentrate on higher-order thinking skills based on the outputs supplied by AI. Writing, for instance, is typically associated with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], people can now begin with a well-structured summary provided by GenAI. Some professionals have characterized the usage of GenAI to generate text in this way as 'writing without thinking'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American thinker Hannah Arendt visualized such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and warned: "If it ought to end up being true that knowledge (in the sense of knowledge) and believed have parted business for excellent, then we would certainly end up being the helpless slaves, not so much of our makers since our know-how" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3). [153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417. [154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914. [155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479. [156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10. [157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3. [158] For instance, it might assist individuals gain access to the "selection of resources for creating higher knowledge of fact" contained in the works of viewpoint (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8. [159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62. [160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074. [162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be genuinely indifferent to the question of whether what they know holds true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he writes: 'I have actually met many who wished to trick, however none who desired to be tricked'"; 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 breach that human self-respect which God himself treats with fantastic reverence"; as priced estimate in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804. [168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203. [169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human self-respect in cyberspace obliges States to likewise appreciate the right to personal privacy, by shielding residents from intrusive security and permitting them to safeguard their individual details from unauthorized gain access to." [170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984. [171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body recognized a list of "early guarantees of AI assisting to resolve climate modification" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The document observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can transform data into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools may help develop new strategies and financial investments to reduce emissions, affect new economic sector investments in net zero, secure biodiversity, and construct broad-based social durability" (ibid.). [174] "The cloud" refers to a network of physical servers throughout the world that enables users to shop, process, and manage their data remotely. [175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850. [176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890. [177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870. [178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852. [179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640. [180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317. [181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), 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 make sure and protect a space for correct human control over the options made by expert system programs: human dignity itself depends on it." [186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The advancement and usage of deadly autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) that lack the proper human control would posture fundamental ethical issues, considered that LAWS can never be morally responsible topics efficient in adhering to worldwide humanitarian law." [187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: "Nor can we neglect the possibility of advanced weapons ending up in the incorrect hands, facilitating, for instance, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the institutions of legitimate systems of government. In a word, the world does not need brand-new technologies that contribute to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and subsequently end up promoting the recklessness of war." [190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565. [191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878. [192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687. [193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39. [194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661. [195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a much better understanding today that the simple accumulation of items and services [...] is insufficient for the awareness of human joy. Nor, in effect, does the availability of the numerous real advantages offered in current times by science and innovation, including the computer technology, bring flexibility from every form of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the significant body of resources and potential at male's disposal is directed by an ethical understanding and by an orientation towards the real good of the human race, it quickly turns against man 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 City 19832, 212-213. [204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210. [205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829. [206] Cf. Francis, Meeting with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023). [207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: "The flood of details at our fingertips does not produce greater wisdom. Wisdom is not born of quick searches on the internet nor is it a mass of unverified information. That is not the method to develop in the encounter with reality." [209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [210] Ibid. [211] Ibid. [212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121. [213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124. [214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.