GitLab

1. With wisdom both ancient and new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to review the current obstacles and opportunities positioned by clinical and technological advancements, particularly by the current advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian tradition relates to the gift of intelligence as an important element of how human beings are developed "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Beginning with an important vision of the human individual and the biblical contacting us to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church stresses that this gift of intelligence need to be revealed through the accountable usage of reason and technical capabilities in the stewardship of the created world.

2. The Church encourages the improvement of science, innovation, the arts, and other kinds of human venture, viewing them as part of the "cooperation of male and woman with God in improving the noticeable production." [1] As Sirach verifies, God "provided skill to human beings, that he might be glorified in his wonderful works" (Sir. 38:6). Human capabilities and imagination come from God and, when utilized appropriately, glorify God by showing his knowledge and goodness. Due to this, when we ask ourselves what it suggests to "be human," we can not omit a consideration of our scientific and technological abilities.

3. It is within this viewpoint that the present Note addresses the anthropological and ethical challenges raised by AI-issues that are especially substantial, as one of the objectives of this innovation is to mimic the human intelligence that designed it. For example, unlike numerous other human productions, AI can be trained on the results of human imagination and then generate brand-new "artifacts" with a level of speed and ability that typically equals or surpasses what humans can do, such as producing text or images identical from human structures. This raises important concerns about AI's potential function in the growing crisis of truth in the public forum. Moreover, this innovation is designed to discover and make certain choices autonomously, adapting to brand-new circumstances and offering options not anticipated by its programmers, and therefore, it raises essential questions about ethical obligation and human security, with broader implications for society as a whole. This new scenario has prompted many people to reflect on what it implies to be human and the function of humanity in the world.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad agreement that AI marks a new and significant phase in mankind's engagement with technology, positioning it at the heart of what Pope Francis has actually explained as an "epochal change." [2] Its effect is felt internationally and in a large range of areas, consisting of interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, healthcare, law, warfare, and international relations. As AI advances rapidly towards even greater accomplishments, it is critically essential to consider its anthropological and ethical ramifications. This includes not only mitigating threats and preventing damage however likewise ensuring that its applications are utilized to promote human progress and the typical good.

5. To contribute positively to the discernment relating to AI, and in action to Pope Francis' call for a renewed "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 issues, the Church welcomes those delegated with transferring the faith-including moms and dads, teachers, pastors, and bishops-to devote themselves to this critical topic with care and attention. While this file is meant particularly for them, it is also indicated to be available to a wider audience, especially those who share the conviction that scientific and technological advances should be directed towards serving the human individual and the common good. [4]
6. To this end, the document begins by differentiating between ideas of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then checks out the Christian understanding of human intelligence, providing a framework rooted in the Church's philosophical and doctrinal tradition. Finally, the document provides standards to ensure that the advancement and usage of AI maintain human dignity and promote the integral advancement of the human individual and society.

7. The concept of "intelligence" in AI has developed with time, drawing on a series of ideas from different disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a considerable milestone took place in 1956 when the American computer system researcher John McCarthy arranged a summer season workshop at Dartmouth University to explore the problem of "Artificial Intelligence," which he defined as "that of making a machine behave in manner ins which would be called smart if a human were so acting." [5] This workshop released a research program focused on developing devices efficient in performing jobs usually related to the human intelligence and intelligent habits.

8. Since then, AI research has advanced rapidly, causing the advancement of complex systems efficient in performing extremely sophisticated tasks. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are usually designed to handle specific and limited functions, such as equating languages, forecasting the trajectory of a storm, classifying images, addressing concerns, or producing visual material at the user's request. While the definition of "intelligence" in AI research varies, many modern AI systems-particularly those utilizing maker learning-rely on statistical reasoning instead of rational deduction. By examining big datasets to determine patterns, AI can "anticipate" [7] results and propose new approaches, imitating some cognitive processes normal of human analytical. Such accomplishments have actually been enabled through advances in computing innovation (consisting of neural networks, unsupervised artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) along with hardware developments (such as specialized processors). Together, these innovations make it possible for AI systems to react to various forms of human input, adjust to brand-new circumstances, and even suggest novel solutions not anticipated by their initial developers. [8]
9. Due to these quick improvements, numerous jobs when managed solely by human beings are now entrusted to AI. These systems can enhance or perhaps supersede what people are able to perform in numerous fields, particularly in specialized locations such as data analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is designed for a particular job, numerous scientists aim to develop what is understood as "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system capable of running throughout all cognitive domains and performing any task within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI could one day attain the state of "superintelligence," going beyond human intellectual capabilities, or add to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, nevertheless, fear that these possibilities, even if theoretical, could one day eclipse the human person, while still others welcome this prospective transformation. [9]
10. Underlying this and lots of other viewpoints on the subject is the implicit presumption that the term "intelligence" can be used in the same way to describe both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not capture the full scope of the concept. When it comes to humans, intelligence is a professors that pertains to the individual in his or her whole, 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 actions that machines can duplicate. [10]
11. This functional viewpoint is exemplified by the "Turing Test," which considers a maker "intelligent" if an individual can not identify its behavior from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "habits" refers just to the efficiency of particular intellectual jobs; it does not account for the complete breadth of human experience, that includes abstraction, feelings, imagination, and the aesthetic, ethical, and religious sensibilities. Nor does it incorporate the full range of expressions particular of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the "intelligence" of a system is evaluated methodologically, however also reductively, based upon its ability to produce suitable responses-in this case, those related to the human intellect-regardless of how those responses are generated.

12. AI's advanced features provide it sophisticated abilities to perform jobs, but not the ability to believe. [12] This distinction is most importantly essential, as the method "intelligence" is specified undoubtedly forms how we comprehend the relationship between human idea and this innovation. [13] To appreciate this, one must remember the richness of the philosophical tradition and Christian faith, which provide a much deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's mentor on the nature, dignity, and vocation of the human individual. [14]
13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has actually played a main function in comprehending what it implies to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all individuals by nature desire to know." [15] This understanding, with its capacity for abstraction that understands the nature and significance of things, sets human beings apart from the animal world. [16] As thinkers, theologians, and psychologists have actually analyzed the exact nature of this intellectual professors, they have also checked out how humans understand the world and their special location within it. Through this expedition, the Christian tradition has pertained to comprehend the human person as a being including both body and soul-deeply connected to this world and yet transcending it. [17]
14. In the classical custom, the principle of intelligence is typically understood through the complementary concepts of "reason" (ratio) and "intellect" (intellectus). These are not separate professors however, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are two modes in which the exact same intelligence operates: "The term intellect is presumed from the inward grasp of the reality, while the name factor is taken from the analytical and discursive procedure." [18] This succinct description highlights the 2 fundamental and complementary measurements of human intelligence. Intellectus refers to the intuitive grasp of the truth-that is, apprehending it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and grounds argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to thinking proper: the discursive, analytical procedure that causes judgment. Together, intellect and reason form the two aspects of the act of intelligere, "the proper operation of the human being as such." [19]
15. Explaining the human individual as a "logical" being does not lower the person to a specific mode of idea; rather, it acknowledges that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and permeates all aspects of human activity. [20] Whether worked out well or badly, this capacity is an intrinsic aspect of humanity. In this sense, the "term 'reasonable' incorporates all the capacities of the human person," including those related to "understanding and understanding, as well as those of willing, loving, picking, and desiring; it likewise consists of all corporeal functions closely associated to these capabilities." [21] This detailed perspective highlights how, in the human person, created in the "picture of God," reason is integrated in a manner that raises, shapes, and changes both the person's will and actions. [22]
16. Christian believed considers the intellectual faculties of the human individual within the structure of an important sociology that views the human being as essentially embodied. In the human person, spirit and matter "are not 2 natures unified, however rather their union forms a single nature." [23] Simply put, the soul is not merely the immaterial "part" of the individual contained within the body, nor is the body an external shell housing an intangible "core." Rather, the whole human individual is at the same time both material and spiritual. This understanding shows the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which views the human person as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and hence, an authentically spiritual dimension) within and through this embodied presence. [24] The profound significance of this condition is further brightened by the mystery of the Incarnation, through which God himself took on our flesh and "raised it up to a sublime dignity." [25]
17. Although deeply rooted in bodily presence, the human individual 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 flexibility of the will belong to the soul, by which the human individual "shares in the light of the divine mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its regular mode of understanding without the body. [28] In this way, the intellectual faculties of the human person are an important part of an anthropology that acknowledges that the human individual is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further elements of this understanding will be developed in what follows.

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

19. The relational orientation of the human individual is eventually grounded in the everlasting self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is exposed in creation and redemption. [31] The human individual is "called to share, by understanding and love, in God's own life." [32]
20. This vocation 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 next-door neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20; Mt. 22:37 -39). By the grace of sharing God's life, Christians are also contacted us to mimic Christ's outpouring gift (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "enjoy one another, as I have loved you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the divine life of self-giving, transcend self-interest to respond more fully to the human vocation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Much more sublime than understanding many things is the commitment to take care of one another, for if "I understand all mysteries and all knowledge [...] however do not have love, I am absolutely nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2).

21. Human intelligence is eventually "God's gift made for the assimilation of truth." [34] In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it allows the individual to explore truths that exceed mere sensory experience or energy, since "the desire for reality becomes part of humanity itself. It is an inherent home of human factor to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limitations of empirical information, human intelligence can "with real certitude attain to truth itself as knowable." [36] While truth remains just partly known, the desire for reality "stimulates reason always to go further; certainly, it is as if factor were overwhelmed to see that it can constantly exceed what it has already attained." [37] Although Truth in itself transcends the boundaries of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this destination, the human individual is caused look for "realities of a higher order." [39]
22. This innate drive towards the pursuit of reality is especially apparent in the definitely human capabilities for semantic understanding and imagination, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "way that is suitable to the social nature and self-respect of the human individual." [41] Likewise, an unfaltering orientation to the reality is important for charity to be both genuine and universal. [42]
23. The search for reality finds its greatest expression in openness to truths that transcend the physical and developed world. In God, all realities attain their ultimate and original significance. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "fundamental decision that engages the whole individual." [44] In this method, the human individual ends up being completely what he or she is called to be: "the intelligence and the will display their spiritual nature," allowing the individual "to act in such a way that understands personal freedom to the full." [45]
24. The Christian faith comprehends production as the free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, develops "not to increase his splendor, but to reveal it forth and to interact it." [46] Since God produces according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), production is imbued with an intrinsic order that shows God's plan (cf. Gen. 1; Dan. 2:21 -22; Is. 45:18; Ps. 74:12 -17; 104), [47] within which God has actually called human beings to assume a special function: to cultivate and look after the world. [48]
25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, people live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and abilities to take care of and establish development in accord with God's plan. [49] In this, human intelligence shows the Divine Intelligence that developed all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] continually sustains them, and guides them to their ultimate function in him. [51] Moreover, human beings are called to establish their abilities in science and innovation, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in an appropriate relationship with production, human beings, on the one hand, use their intelligence and ability to cooperate with God in guiding production toward the purpose to which he has actually called it. [52] On the other hand, creation itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, assists the human mind to "ascend gradually to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]
26. In this context, human intelligence becomes more plainly comprehended as a professors that forms an integral part of how the whole person engages with truth. Authentic engagement requires welcoming the complete scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with truth unfolds in numerous ways, as everyone, in his or her multifaceted individuality [54], seeks to understand the world, relate to others, resolve problems, reveal creativity, and pursue important well-being through the harmonious interaction of the various measurements of the individual's intelligence. [55] This involves rational and linguistic abilities however can also encompass other modes of interacting with reality. Consider the work of an artisan, who "need to understand how to determine, in inert matter, a specific type that others can not recognize" [56] and bring it forth through insight and useful skill. Indigenous individuals who live near to the earth typically have a profound sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a good friend who understands the best word to say or wiki.asexuality.org a person skilled at handling human relationships exemplifies an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, dialogue and generous encounter between persons." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of expert system, we can not forget that poetry and love are necessary to conserve our humankind." [59]
28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the combination of reality into the ethical and spiritual life of the person, directing his/her actions in light of God's goodness and reality. According to God's strategy, intelligence, in its fullest sense, likewise consists of the capability to appreciate what is real, excellent, and lovely. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel expressed, "intelligence is nothing without pleasure." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the greatest heaven in Paradiso, affirms that the conclusion of this intellectual delight is discovered in the "light intellectual filled with love, love of true good filled with pleasure, delight which goes beyond every sweetness." [61]
29. A correct understanding of human intelligence, therefore, can not be reduced to the mere acquisition of truths or the capability to perform particular tasks. Instead, it involves the individual's openness to the ultimate concerns of life and reflects an orientation toward the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the magnificent image within the individual, human intelligence has the ability to access the totality of being, contemplating presence in its fullness, which surpasses what is quantifiable, and understanding the significance of what has been understood. For believers, this capability consists of, in a particular method, the ability to grow in the knowledge of the secrets of God by using reason to engage ever more profoundly with revealed realities (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is shaped by divine love, which "is put forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence has an important reflective dimension, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian purpose.

30. Due to the foregoing conversation, the differences in between human intelligence and present AI systems become obvious. While AI is a remarkable technological achievement capable of mimicing certain outputs associated with human intelligence, it runs by performing tasks, attaining objectives, or making choices based on quantitative information and computational logic. For example, with its analytical power, AI excels at incorporating data from a variety of fields, modeling complex systems, and cultivating interdisciplinary connections. In this method, it can help specialists team up in fixing complex problems that "can not be dealt with from a single point of view or from a single set of interests." [64]
31. However, even as AI processes and replicates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains basically confined to a logical-mathematical structure, which imposes fundamental constraints. Human intelligence, on the other hand, develops organically throughout the person's physical and psychological growth, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although advanced AI systems can "discover" through processes such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is fundamentally various from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is formed by embodied experiences, including sensory input, psychological responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment. These elements shape and kind individuals within their individual history.In contrast, AI, doing not have a physical body, depends on computational thinking and learning based on large datasets that include tape-recorded human experiences and understanding.

32. Consequently, although AI can simulate aspects of human thinking and carry out particular jobs with amazing speed and efficiency, its computational abilities represent just a portion of the broader capacities of the human mind. For instance, AI can not currently duplicate ethical discernment or the capability to develop authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is situated within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral development that essentially shapes the person's viewpoint, encompassing the physical, emotional, social, ethical, and spiritual dimensions of life. Since AI can not use this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely exclusively on this innovation or treat it as the main means of translating the world can lead to "a loss of appreciation for the entire, for the relationships between things, and for the broader horizon." [65]
33. Human intelligence is not mainly about finishing practical tasks but about understanding and actively engaging with truth in all its measurements; it is also efficient in surprising insights. Since AI does not have the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to fact and goodness, its capacities-though seemingly limitless-are matchless with the human ability to understand reality. A lot can be gained from a disease, an accept of reconciliation, and even an easy sunset; certainly, many experiences we have as people open new horizons and provide the possibility of attaining brand-new knowledge. No gadget, working entirely with data, can measure up to these and numerous other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an excessively close equivalence between human intelligence and AI dangers succumbing to a functionalist perspective, where people are valued based on the work they can perform. However, a person's worth does not depend upon having particular skills, cognitive and technological accomplishments, or individual success, however on the person's intrinsic dignity, grounded in being developed in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains undamaged in all situations, consisting of for those unable to exercise their abilities, whether it be a coming child, an unconscious person, or an older person who is suffering. [67] It likewise underpins the tradition of human rights (and, in specific, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "a crucial point of convergence in the search for commonalities" [68] and can, thus, serve as a fundamental ethical guide in discussions on the responsible development and usage of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the very usage of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can prove misleading" [69] and threats neglecting what is most valuable in the human person. Due to this, AI must not be viewed as an artificial form of human intelligence but as an item of it. [70]
36. Given these factors to consider, one can ask how AI can be understood within God's strategy. To answer this, it is essential to recall that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character however is a human venture that engages the humanistic and cultural measurements of human creativity. [71]
37. Seen as a fruit of the possible engraved within human intelligence, [72] clinical query and the development of technical skills belong to the "partnership of males and female with God in improving the noticeable production." [73] At the very same time, all scientific and technological accomplishments are, ultimately, gifts from God. [74] Therefore, humans should always utilize their capabilities in view of the greater function for which God has approved them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has "treated countless evils which used to damage and restrict human beings," [76] a reality for which we must rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological advancements in themselves represent authentic human development. [77] The Church is particularly opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human person. [78] Like any human venture, technological advancement needs to be directed to serve the human person and add to the pursuit of "higher justice, more extensive fraternity, and a more gentle order of social relations," which are "more important than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical ramifications of technological advancement are shared not only within the Church but also among numerous scientists, technologists, and expert associations, who increasingly call for ethical reflection to direct this development in an accountable way.

39. To deal with these difficulties, it is necessary to stress the value of ethical obligation grounded in the dignity and occupation of the human person. This directing principle likewise applies to concerns worrying AI. In this context, the ethical measurement takes on main importance due to the fact that it is people who create systems and determine the purposes for which they are utilized. [80] Between a maker and a human, just the latter is genuinely a moral agent-a subject of ethical obligation who works out freedom in his or her choices and accepts their consequences. [81] It is not the maker however the human who remains in relationship with truth and goodness, directed by a moral conscience that calls the person "to like and to do what is great and to avoid wicked," [82] bearing witness to "the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human individual is drawn." [83] Likewise, in 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 vigilance, and looking for the excellent that is possible in every situation. [84] In truth, all of this also comes from the individual's workout of intelligence.

40. Like any item of human creativity, AI can be directed toward positive or unfavorable ends. [85] When used in ways that respect human self-respect and promote the well-being of people and neighborhoods, it can contribute positively to the human occupation. Yet, as in all locations where humans are called to make choices, the shadow of evil likewise looms here. Where human flexibility permits the possibility of picking what is incorrect, the moral evaluation of this technology will require to consider how it is directed and used.

41. At the same time, it is not just completions that are fairly significant however also the ways employed to attain them. Additionally, the general vision and understanding of the human individual ingrained within these systems are essential to consider too. Technological products reflect the worldview of their designers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to "shape the world and engage consciences on the level of values." [87] On a social level, some technological developments could also enhance relationships and power dynamics that are inconsistent with a correct understanding of the human individual and society.

42. Therefore, completions and the means used in an offered application of AI, as well as the total vision it incorporates, must all be examined to ensure they respect human self-respect and promote the typical good. [88] As Pope Francis has stated, "the intrinsic self-respect of every male and every female" must be "the essential criterion in examining emerging innovations; these will show fairly sound to the degree that they assist regard that self-respect and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] including in the social and financial spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays an important role not just in developing and producing technology however also in directing its usage in line with the authentic good of the human individual. [90] The responsibility for handling this carefully pertains to every level of society, guided by the concept of subsidiarity and other concepts of Catholic Social Teaching.

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

44. An examination of the implications of this directing concept could start by considering the importance of ethical responsibility. Since full ethical causality belongs just to personal agents, not synthetic ones, it is vital to be able to identify and define who bears responsibility for the procedures involved in AI, especially those capable of learning, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up techniques and extremely deep neural networks enable AI to fix complicated problems, they make it hard to understand the procedures that result in the options they embraced. This makes complex responsibility given that if an AI application produces unwanted outcomes, identifying who is accountable ends up being difficult. To address this problem, attention requires to be offered to the nature of accountability processes in complex, highly automated settings, where results may only become evident in the medium to long term. For this, it is essential that supreme responsibility for decisions used AI rests with the human decision-makers which there is accountability for the usage of AI at each stage of the decision-making process. [91]
45. In addition to determining who is responsible, it is vital to recognize the objectives offered to AI systems. Although these systems may utilize not being watched autonomous knowing mechanisms and often follow paths that people can not reconstruct, they eventually pursue goals that people have actually appointed to them and are governed by processes established by their designers and developers. Yet, this provides a challenge due to the fact that, as AI designs become progressively capable of independent knowing, the ability to maintain control over them to make sure that such applications serve human purposes may successfully diminish. This raises the important concern of how to make sure that AI systems are purchased for the good of individuals and not against them.

46. While duty for the ethical usage of AI systems starts with those who establish, produce, manage, and oversee such systems, it is likewise shared by those who utilize them. As Pope Francis kept in mind, the device "makes a technical choice among a number of possibilities based either on well-defined requirements or on statistical inferences. People, nevertheless, not just select, however in their hearts are capable of choosing." [92] Those who use AI to accomplish a task and follow its outcomes develop a context in which they are eventually responsible for the power they have entrusted. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist human beings in making choices, the algorithms that govern it needs to be reliable, safe and secure, robust enough to handle disparities, and transparent in their operation to mitigate predispositions and unintentional negative effects. [93] Regulatory frameworks need to make sure that all legal entities remain accountable for using AI and all its consequences, with proper safeguards for openness, privacy, and responsibility. [94] Moreover, those utilizing AI must beware not to become excessively depending on it for their decision-making, a pattern that increases modern society's already high dependence on innovation.

47. The Church's ethical and social mentor provides resources to assist ensure that AI is used in a method that maintains human firm. Considerations about justice, for instance, ought to also deal with problems such as promoting simply social dynamics, maintaining global security, and promoting peace. By working out prudence, individuals and communities can recognize methods to use AI to benefit humankind while preventing applications that might degrade human dignity or harm the environment. In this context, the idea of responsibility must be comprehended not just in its most restricted sense however as a "responsibility for the look after others, which is more than simply accounting for outcomes attained." [95]
48. Therefore, AI, like any technology, can be part of a mindful and accountable response to humankind's vocation to the great. However, as formerly talked about, AI must be directed by human intelligence to line up with this vocation, guaranteeing it respects the dignity of the human individual. Recognizing this "exalted self-respect," the Second Vatican Council verified that "the social order and its development must invariably work to the advantage of the human person." [96] In light of this, making use of AI, as Pope Francis said, must be "accompanied by an ethic influenced by a vision of the common great, an ethic of liberty, obligation, and fraternity, capable of promoting the full advancement of individuals in relation to others and to the whole of development." [97]
49. Within this general point of view, some observations follow below to show how the preceding arguments can help provide an ethical orientation in useful situations, in line with the "wisdom of heart" that Pope Francis has actually proposed. [98] While not exhaustive, this discussion is used in service of the discussion that considers how AI can be utilized to maintain the dignity of the human person and promote the common good. [99]
50. As Pope Francis observed, "the fundamental self-respect of each human being and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human family should support the development of new innovations and act as unassailable criteria for assessing them before they are employed." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI might "present important innovations in agriculture, education and culture, an enhanced level of life for whole nations and peoples, and the development of human fraternity and social relationship," and hence be "used to promote integral human development." [101] AI could likewise assist organizations recognize those in need and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other similar applications of this technology could add to human advancement and the typical good. [102]
52. However, while AI holds numerous possibilities for promoting the great, it can also hinder and even counter human development and the typical good. Pope Francis has kept in mind that "evidence to date suggests that digital technologies have increased inequality in our world. Not just differences in material wealth, which are also significant, but likewise distinctions in access to political and social impact." [103] In this sense, AI could be used to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, create new kinds of poverty, expand the "digital divide," and get worse existing social inequalities. [104]
53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a few powerful business raises significant ethical concerns. Exacerbating this problem is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single individual can work out total oversight over the large and complicated datasets used for computation. This absence of well-defined accountability creates the risk that AI could be manipulated for individual or business gain or to direct public viewpoint for the advantage of a specific market. Such entities, encouraged by their own interests, have the capability to work out "kinds of control as subtle as they are intrusive, developing systems for the control of consciences and of the democratic process." [105]
54. Furthermore, there is the danger of AI being utilized to promote what Pope Francis has called the "technocratic paradigm," which perceives all the world's problems as understandable through technological ways alone. [106] In this paradigm, human self-respect and fraternity are frequently reserved in the name of performance, "as if reality, goodness, and reality immediately stream from technological and financial power as such." [107] Yet, human dignity and the typical great should never ever be broken for the sake of effectiveness, [108] for "technological advancements that do not cause an enhancement in the quality of life of all humanity, however on the contrary, exacerbate inequalities and disputes, can never count as true progress. " [109] Instead, AI ought to be put "at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more important." [110]
55. Attaining this goal needs a much deeper reflection on the relationship between autonomy and duty. Greater autonomy heightens everyone's duty throughout different aspects of common life. For Christians, the foundation of this responsibility depends on the recognition that all human capabilities, consisting of the person's autonomy, come from God and are implied to be used in the service of others. [111] Therefore, instead of simply pursuing financial or technological goals, AI needs to serve "the common good of the whole human household," which is "the amount overall of social conditions that enable individuals, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more totally and more easily." [112]
56. The Second Vatican Council observed that "by his inner nature guy is a social being; and if he does not participate in relations with others, he can neither live nor establish his gifts." [113] This conviction highlights that living in society is intrinsic to the nature and occupation of the human individual. [114] As social beings, we seek relationships that involve shared exchange and the pursuit of reality, in the course of which, people "show each other the truth they have actually found, or think they have actually discovered, in such a method that they help one another in the search for fact." [115]
57. Such a quest, together with other aspects of human communication, presupposes encounters and mutual exchange in between people formed by their special histories, thoughts, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a varied, multifaceted, and intricate reality: individual and social, rational and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis underscores this vibrant, keeping in mind that "together, we can look for the fact in dialogue, in unwinded discussion or in enthusiastic dispute. To do so requires perseverance; it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently embrace the wider experience of people and individuals. [...] The process of structure fraternity, be it regional or universal, can just be undertaken by spirits that are complimentary and available to genuine encounters." [116]
58. It remains in this context that a person can consider the challenges AI poses to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the possible to foster connections within the human family. However, it might also hinder a real encounter with reality and, eventually, lead individuals to "a deep and melancholic dissatisfaction with social relations, or a hazardous sense of isolation." [117] Authentic human relationships need the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their pleasure. [118] Since human intelligence is revealed and enhanced likewise in social and embodied ways, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are indispensable for engaging with truth in its fullness.

59. Because "true knowledge requires an encounter with truth," [119] the increase of AI introduces another obstacle. Since AI can effectively mimic the products of human intelligence, the capability to know when one is connecting with a human or a device can no longer be taken for given. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other sophisticated outputs that are generally associated with humans. Yet, it needs to be understood for what it is: a tool, not an individual. [120] This distinction is frequently obscured by the language used by professionals, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and thus blurs the line in between human and maker.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI also poses particular challenges for the development of kids, potentially motivating them to develop patterns of interaction that deal with human relationships in a transactional manner, as one would relate to a chatbot. Such habits could lead youths to see instructors as mere dispensers of details instead of as coaches who assist and support their intellectual and moral growth. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and dokuwiki.stream a steadfast dedication to the good of the other, are important and irreplaceable in cultivating the complete advancement of the human person.

61. In this context, it is very important to clarify that, in spite of using anthropomorphic language, no AI application can really experience compassion. Emotions can not be reduced to facial expressions or phrases created in reaction to triggers; they reflect the method a person, as a whole, associates with the world and to his/her own life, with the body playing a main function. True compassion requires the ability to listen, recognize another's irreducible uniqueness, invite their otherness, and comprehend the meaning behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the world of analytical judgment in which AI stands out, real empathy comes from the relational sphere. It involves intuiting and nabbing the lived experiences of another while maintaining the difference between self and other. [122] While AI can replicate understanding actions, it can not duplicate the eminently personal and relational nature of authentic empathy. [123]
62. Because of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as a person must always be avoided; doing so for deceptive functions is a serious ethical offense that might deteriorate social trust. Similarly, using AI to trick in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, consisting of the sphere of sexuality-is also to be considered immoral and requires cautious oversight to prevent harm, maintain openness, and make sure the self-respect of all people. [124]
63. In an increasingly isolated world, some individuals have turned to AI searching for deep human relationships, easy companionship, and even emotional bonds. However, while human beings are implied to experience genuine relationships, AI can just imitate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an integral part of how an individual grows to become who he or she is implied to be. If AI is utilized to assist individuals foster authentic connections in between individuals, it can contribute positively to the complete awareness of the individual. Conversely, if we replace relationships with God and with others with interactions with innovation, we risk changing genuine relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of pulling away into artificial worlds, we are called to participate in a committed and deliberate method with truth, particularly by determining with the poor and suffering, consoling those in sadness, and creating bonds of communion with all.

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

65. Other wider elements of AI's influence on the economic-financial sphere should also be thoroughly examined, particularly worrying the interaction in between concrete truth and the digital world. One essential consideration in this regard includes the coexistence of varied and alternative forms of financial and banks within a given context. This element ought to be encouraged, as it can bring advantages in how it supports the genuine economy by promoting its advancement and stability, especially throughout times of crisis. Nevertheless, it should be worried that digital realities, not limited by any spatial bonds, tend to be more uniform and impersonal than communities rooted in a specific place and a specific history, with a common journey defined by shared values and hopes, however likewise by unavoidable disagreements and divergences. This variety is an indisputable possession to a community's economic life. Turning over the economy and financing totally to digital technology would lower this range and richness. As a result, lots of options to economic issues that can be reached through natural dialogue between the involved parties might no longer be attainable in a world controlled by treatments and just the look of nearness.

66. Another location where AI is already having an extensive effect is the world of work. As in numerous other fields, AI is driving fundamental transformations across many occupations, with a variety of results. On the one hand, it has the potential to boost competence and efficiency, produce brand-new jobs, enable workers to concentrate on more innovative jobs, and open brand-new horizons for creativity and innovation.

67. However, while AI guarantees to boost productivity by taking control of mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adjust to the speed and demands of makers rather than makers being developed to support those who work. As an outcome, contrary to the advertised advantages of AI, current techniques to the innovation can paradoxically deskill workers, subject them to automated security, and relegate them to rigid and repetitive jobs. The requirement to keep up with the rate of technology can erode workers' sense of agency and stifle the innovative capabilities they are anticipated to bring to their work. [125]
68. AI is presently eliminating the need for some jobs that were as soon as carried out by human beings. If AI is used to change human employees instead of match them, there is a "substantial threat of out of proportion advantage for the couple of at the price of the impoverishment of many." [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more effective, there is an associated danger that human labor might lose its value in the financial realm. This is the rational repercussion of the technocratic paradigm: a world of mankind oppressed to performance, where, eventually, the cost of humanity need to be cut. Yet, human lives are fundamentally valuable, independent of their economic output. Nevertheless, the "existing model," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to favor a financial investment in efforts to help the sluggish, the weak, or the less gifted to find chances in life." [127] Due to this, "we can not allow a tool as effective and important as Artificial Intelligence to strengthen such a paradigm, but rather, we need to make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its growth." [128]
69. It is essential to bear in mind that "the order of things need to be subordinate to the order of individuals, and not the other method around." [129] Human work must not only be at the service of earnings however at "the service of the entire human person [...] taking into consideration the individual's product requirements and the requirements of his/her intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and religious life." [130] In this context, the Church acknowledges that work is "not just a means of earning one's daily bread" however is also "an important dimension of social life" and "a method [...] of individual growth, the building of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of gifts. Work gives us a sense of shared duty for the advancement of the world, and ultimately, for our life as a people." [131]
70. Since work is a "part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to development, human development and personal fulfillment," "the goal must not be that technological development increasingly changes human work, for this would be damaging to humankind" [132] -rather, it must promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI ought to assist, not change, human judgment. Similarly, it needs to never ever deteriorate imagination or minimize workers to simple "cogs in a maker." Therefore, "respect for the dignity of laborers and the significance of work for the economic wellness of individuals, families, and societies, for job security and just earnings, ought to be a high concern for the international neighborhood as these kinds of technology permeate more deeply into our offices." [133]
71. As participants in God's recovery work, health care specialists have the vocation and duty to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the healthcare occupation brings an "intrinsic and indisputable ethical dimension," recognized by the Hippocratic Oath, which requires physicians and healthcare experts to dedicate themselves to having "absolute respect for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Good Samaritan, this dedication is to be performed by men and females "who decline the creation of a society of exemption, and act instead 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 enormous potential in a variety of applications in the medical field, such as helping the diagnostic work of healthcare service providers, assisting in relationships in between clients and medical staff, providing brand-new treatments, and broadening access to quality care also for those who are separated or marginalized. In these methods, the innovation might enhance the "thoughtful and caring closeness" [137] that healthcare providers are called to extend to the ill and suffering.

73. However, if AI is utilized not to enhance but to replace the relationship in between patients and health care providers-leaving patients to communicate with a maker instead of a human being-it would minimize a crucially essential human relational structure to a centralized, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of encouraging solidarity with the sick and suffering, such applications of AI would risk getting worse the solitude that typically accompanies health problem, especially in the context of a culture where "persons are no longer seen as a vital value to be looked after and appreciated." [138] This misuse of AI would not line up with respect for the dignity of the human individual and uniformity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the wellness of clients and the decisions that touch upon their lives are at the heart of the health care profession. This accountability needs doctor to exercise all their ability and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded choices regarding those delegated to their care, constantly appreciating the inviolable dignity of the patients and the requirement for notified permission. As an outcome, decisions relating to client treatment and the weight of obligation they entail must constantly remain with the human individual and must never ever be handed over to AI. [139]
75. In addition, using AI to identify who need to receive treatment based mainly on financial procedures or metrics of performance represents an especially problematic instance of the "technocratic paradigm" that need to be rejected. [140] For, "enhancing resources means using them in an ethical and fraternal way, and not penalizing the most fragile." [141] Additionally, AI tools in healthcare are "exposed to forms of predisposition and discrimination," where "systemic mistakes can easily increase, producing not just oppressions in specific cases but likewise, due to the cause and effect, genuine kinds of social inequality." [142]
76. The integration of AI into healthcare likewise poses the danger of enhancing other existing variations in access to healthcare. As health care ends up being increasingly oriented toward prevention and lifestyle-based approaches, AI-driven solutions might inadvertently prefer more wealthy populations who already take pleasure in better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This trend dangers reinforcing a "medication for the rich" model, where those with financial methods gain from innovative preventative tools and customized health details while others battle to gain access to even basic services. To avoid such inequities, fair structures are required to guarantee that making use of AI in healthcare does not intensify existing health care inequalities however rather serves the typical good.

77. The words of the Second Vatican Council remain totally relevant today: "True education aims to form individuals with a view towards their final end and the good of the society to which they belong." [143] As such, education is "never a simple procedure of handing down truths and intellectual abilities: rather, its aim is to contribute to the individual's holistic formation in its numerous aspects (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, etc), consisting of, for example, neighborhood life and relations within the scholastic neighborhood," [144] in keeping with the nature and self-respect of the human individual.

78. This method involves a dedication to cultivating the mind, but constantly as a part of the essential development of the person: "We need to break that concept of education which holds that educating ways filling one's head with ideas. That is the way we educate automatons, cerebral minds, not people. Educating is taking a threat in the tension between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]
79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human person is the important relationship between teacher and trainee. Teachers do more than communicate understanding; they design important human qualities and inspire the pleasure of discovery. [146] Their presence inspires trainees both through the material they teach and the care they demonstrate for their trainees. This bond cultivates trust, good understanding, and the capability to address everyone's distinct self-respect and capacity. On the part of the trainee, this can produce a genuine desire to grow. The physical existence of a teacher produces a relational dynamic that AI can not duplicate, one that deepens engagement and supports the trainee's important advancement.

80. In this context, AI presents both opportunities and challenges. If utilized in a sensible way, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and ordered to the authentic goals of education, AI can become a valuable educational resource by improving access to education, using tailored assistance, and providing immediate feedback to trainees. These advantages could boost the learning experience, especially in cases where personalized attention is needed, or educational resources are otherwise scarce.

81. Nevertheless, an important part of education is forming "the intelligence to reason well in all matters, to connect towards truth, and to comprehend it," [147] while assisting the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is all the more essential in an age marked by innovation, in which "it is no longer simply a question of 'utilizing' instruments of interaction, however of residing in a highly digitalized culture that has actually had an extensive impact on [...] our ability to communicate, learn, be informed and get in into relationship with others." [149] However, instead of fostering "a cultivated intelligence," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and profession that it carries out," [150] the substantial use of AI in education might result in the trainees' increased dependence on innovation, deteriorating their capability to perform some abilities individually and aggravating their dependence on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are created to help people develop their vital believing capabilities and problem-solving skills, many others simply supply answers rather of triggering trainees to get to responses themselves or write text for themselves. [152] Instead of training young people how to collect details and generate fast reactions, education ought to encourage "the responsible usage of freedom to face concerns with good sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in making use of forms of expert system need to aim above all at promoting crucial thinking. Users of all ages, but especially the young, require to develop a critical technique to the use of information and content gathered on the internet or produced by expert system systems. Schools, universities, and clinical societies are challenged to assist trainees and specialists to comprehend the social and ethical aspects of the advancement and usages of innovation." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II remembered, "on the planet today, characterized by such rapid developments in science and technology, the tasks of a Catholic University assume an ever higher value and seriousness." [155] In a specific way, Catholic universities are prompted to be present as terrific laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary secret, they are urged to engage "with wisdom and creativity" [156] in careful research study on this phenomenon, helping to draw out the salutary capacity within the different fields of science and truth, and assisting them always towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the common good, reaching new frontiers in the dialogue between faith and reason.

84. Moreover, it needs to be kept in mind that present AI programs have actually been understood to provide biased or made details, which can lead trainees to trust inaccurate content. This problem "not only runs the risk of legitimizing fake news and reinforcing a dominant culture's benefit, however, in short, it also weakens the instructional procedure itself." [157] With time, clearer differences might emerge in between appropriate and inappropriate uses of AI in education and research study. Yet, a definitive standard is that the usage of AI ought to always be transparent and never misrepresented.

85. AI might be utilized as an aid to human self-respect if it assists people understand intricate principles or directs them to sound resources that support their look for the truth. [158]
86. However, AI likewise provides a serious threat of producing manipulated material and false details, which can easily misinform individuals due to its resemblance to the truth. Such misinformation may take place accidentally, as in the case of AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine but are not. Since producing content that mimics human artifacts is main to AI's performance, reducing these risks shows challenging. Yet, the effects of such aberrations and incorrect details can be rather severe. For this reason, all those associated with producing and using AI systems need to be committed to the truthfulness and precision of the details processed by such systems and disseminated to the general public.

87. While AI has a latent capacity to produce incorrect details, an even more unpleasant problem lies in the deliberate misuse of AI for control. This can take place when individuals or companies deliberately produce and spread false material with the aim to trick or trigger harm, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to an incorrect representation of an individual, modified or generated by an AI algorithm. The threat of deepfakes is especially apparent when they are utilized to target or damage others. While the images or videos themselves may be artificial, the damage they cause is genuine, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "real wounds in their human self-respect." [159]
88. On a more comprehensive scale, by misshaping "our relationship with others and with reality," [160] AI-generated fake media can slowly undermine the foundations of society. This concern requires careful policy, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or affected media-can spread inadvertently, sustaining political polarization and social discontent. When society ends up being indifferent to the reality, various groups build their own versions of "facts," compromising the "mutual ties and shared dependencies" [161] that underpin the material of social life. As deepfakes cause individuals to question whatever and AI-generated false material deteriorates rely on what they see and hear, polarization and dispute will only grow. Such extensive deceptiveness is no unimportant matter; it strikes at the core of mankind, taking apart the fundamental trust on which societies are built. [162]
89. Countering AI-driven fallacies is not just the work of industry experts-it requires the efforts of all people of goodwill. "If innovation is to serve human dignity and not hurt it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human neighborhood needs to be proactive in addressing these patterns with regard to human dignity and the promotion of the good." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated material ought to always exercise diligence in confirming the truth of what they share and, in all cases, ought to "prevent the sharing of words and images that are degrading of humans, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that exploit the weak and susceptible." [164] This requires the continuous vigilance and cautious discernment of all users regarding their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are naturally relational, and the information each individual creates in the digital world can be viewed as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data communicates not only details but likewise personal and relational understanding, which, in a significantly digitized context, can total up to power over the person. Moreover, while some types of information might pertain to public aspects of a person's life, others may touch upon the person's interiority, possibly even their conscience. Seen in this way, privacy plays a necessary role in securing the limits of an individual's inner life, maintaining their liberty to relate to others, express themselves, and make decisions without excessive control. This security is also connected to the defense of spiritual liberty, as security can likewise be misused to exert control over the lives of believers and how they express their faith.

91. It is suitable, therefore, to deal with the problem of privacy from a concern for the genuine flexibility and inalienable dignity of the human individual "in all scenarios." [166] The Second Vatican Council consisted of the right "to safeguard personal privacy" among the essential rights "required for living a genuinely human life," a right that should be reached all individuals on account of their "sublime self-respect." [167] Furthermore, the Church has actually likewise verified the right to the legitimate regard for a personal life in the context of affirming the individual's right to a great track record, defense of their physical and psychological integrity, and freedom from damage or unnecessary invasion [168] -vital elements of the due regard for the intrinsic self-respect of the human person. [169]
92. Advances in AI-powered information processing and analysis now make it possible to infer patterns in an individual's habits and believing from even a percentage of details, making the function of data personal privacy even more imperative as a safeguard for the self-respect and relational nature of the human person. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant mindsets towards others are on the rise, distances are otherwise diminishing or vanishing to the point that the right to privacy rarely exists. Everything has actually ended up being a sort of spectacle to be examined and inspected, and people's lives are now under continuous security." [170]
93. While there can be legitimate and proper ways to utilize AI in keeping with human dignity and the common great, using it for monitoring aimed at making use of, limiting others' flexibility, or benefitting a couple of at the expense of the lots of is unjustifiable. The threat of monitoring overreach must be kept an eye on by suitable regulators to make sure transparency and public responsibility. Those responsible for monitoring ought to never ever exceed their authority, which should always prefer the self-respect and freedom of every person as the essential basis of a simply and gentle society.

94. Furthermore, "essential regard for human dignity needs that we decline to allow the originality of the person to be related to a set of data." [171] This specifically uses when AI is utilized to examine people or groups based on their habits, qualities, or history-a practice called "social scoring": "In social and financial decision-making, we must beware about delegating judgments to algorithms that process information, typically gathered surreptitiously, on a person's makeup and prior habits. Such information can be infected by social prejudices and preconceptions. A person's past habits should not be used to deny him or her the chance to change, grow, and contribute to society. We can not allow algorithms to limit or condition regard for human dignity, or to leave out compassion, grace, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that individuals are able to change." [172]
95. AI has lots of promising applications for enhancing our relationship with our "typical home," such as producing designs to anticipate extreme environment events, proposing engineering solutions to lower their effect, handling relief operations, and forecasting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable agriculture, enhance energy use, and supply early warning systems for public health emergency situations. These improvements have the prospective to enhance durability against climate-related difficulties and promote more sustainable advancement.

96. At the same time, present AI models and the hardware required to support them consume large amounts of energy and water, significantly contributing to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This reality is often obscured by the way this innovation exists in the popular imagination, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can offer the impression that data is kept and processed in an intangible realm, detached from the physical world. However, "the cloud" is not a heavenly domain separate from the physical world; similar to all computing innovations, it depends on physical machines, cable televisions, and energy. The very same holds true of the technology behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, especially big language models (LLMs), they require ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and higher storage facilities. Considering the heavy toll these technologies take on the environment, it is important to develop sustainable options that decrease their effect on our common home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is necessary "that we look for solutions not only in innovation but in a change of humanity." [175] A complete and authentic understanding of development recognizes that the worth of all produced things can not be minimized to their simple energy. Therefore, a fully human technique to the stewardship of the earth declines the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which seeks to "draw out everything possible" from the world, [176] and rejects the "myth of progress," which assumes that "ecological issues will resolve themselves simply with the application of brand-new innovation and with no need for ethical considerations or deep modification." [177] Such a frame of mind should pave the way to a more holistic approach that respects the order of production and promotes the integral good of the human individual while safeguarding our common home. [178]
98. The Second Vatican Council and the consistent teaching of the Popes ever since have actually firmly insisted that peace is not simply 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 securing the goods of persons, free communication, regard for the self-respect of persons and individuals, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the result of charity and can not be attained through force alone; instead, it needs to be mainly constructed through patient diplomacy, the active promo of justice, uniformity, essential human advancement, and regard for the self-respect of all people. [180] In this method, the tools used to maintain peace should never be allowed to justify oppression, violence, or injustice. Instead, they ought to constantly be governed by a "firm determination to respect other individuals and countries, along with their self-respect, in addition to the purposeful practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical abilities might help countries look for peace and ensure security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can also be highly bothersome. Pope Francis has observed that "the ability to perform military operations through push-button control systems has resulted in a minimized perception of the destruction triggered by those weapon systems and the problem of obligation for their usage, leading to an even more cold and separated approach to the immense disaster of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which self-governing weapons make war more feasible militates against the concept 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 precipitating a destabilizing arms race, with disastrous effects for human rights. [184]
100. In particular, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which can recognizing and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for severe ethical issue" because they do not have the "unique human capacity for ethical judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this factor, Pope Francis has actually urgently required a reconsideration of the advancement of these weapons and a restriction on their use, starting with "an efficient and concrete commitment to present ever greater and correct human control. No maker must ever pick to take the life of a human being." [186]
101. Since it is a small action from machines that can kill autonomously with precision to those efficient in massive destruction, some AI researchers have actually revealed concerns that such technology postures an "existential danger" by having the potential to act in manner ins which might threaten the survival of entire regions and even of humankind itself. This danger needs severe attention, reflecting the long-standing concern about technologies that give war "an unmanageable destructive power over multitudes of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing kids. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "carry out an assessment of war with an entirely brand-new attitude" [188] is more urgent than ever.

102. At the same time, while the theoretical dangers of AI should have attention, the more instant and pressing issue depends on how individuals with destructive intentions might abuse this innovation. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future capabilities are unforeseeable, humanity's previous actions supply clear warnings. The atrocities dedicated throughout history are enough to raise deep concerns about the prospective abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that "humankind now has instruments of extraordinary power: we can turn this world into a garden, or lower it to a stack of rubble." [190] Given this truth, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are totally free to use our intelligence towards things evolving favorably," or towards "decadence and mutual damage." [191] To avoid humankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there need to be a clear stand against all applications of innovation that inherently threaten human life and dignity. This dedication needs careful discernment about the use of AI, especially in military defense applications, to make sure that it always appreciates human dignity and serves the typical good. The advancement and implementation of AI in weaponries ought to be subject to the highest levels of ethical scrutiny, governed by a concern for human self-respect and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology offers remarkable tools to manage and develop the world's resources. However, in many cases, mankind is significantly ceding control of these resources to devices. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, links.gtanet.com.br there is optimism about the capacity of synthetic basic intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical type of AI that would match or surpass human intelligence and cause unimaginable improvements. Some even hypothesize that AGI could attain superhuman capabilities. At the exact same time, as society wanders away from a connection with the transcendent, some are lured to turn to AI in search of significance or annunciogratis.net fulfillment-longings that can only be genuinely satisfied in communion with God. [194]
105. However, the anticipation of substituting God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture clearly cautions against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI might show even more sexy than traditional idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths but do not speak; eyes, but do not see; ears, however do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or a minimum of provides the impression of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is crucial to bear in mind that AI is but a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated material, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not possess numerous of the capabilities particular to human life, and it is also imperfect. By turning to AI as a perceived "Other" greater than itself, with which to share presence and duties, humanity risks developing a replacement for God. However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, however humanity itself-which, in this way, ends up being enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the possible to serve mankind and add to the typical good, it remains a production of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and resourcefulness" (Acts 17:29). It needs to never 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 male can form a god which resembles himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is better than the things he worships given that he has life, however they never have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. On the other hand, humans, "by their interior life, go beyond the whole material universe; they experience this deep interiority when they enter into their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they choose their own destiny in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis reminds us, that each specific finds the "strange connection between self-knowledge and openness to others, between the encounter with one's individual originality and the determination to offer oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "capable of setting our other powers and enthusiasms, and our whole individual, in a stance of respect and loving obedience before the Lord," [198] who "offers to treat each one people as a 'Thou,' constantly and permanently." [199]
108. Considering the numerous difficulties positioned by advances in innovation, Pope Francis emphasized the need for growth in "human obligation, worths, and conscience," proportionate to the growth in the capacity that this technology brings [200] -recognizing that "with a boost in human power comes a broadening of obligation on the part of people and neighborhoods." [201]
109. At the very same time, the "essential and basic question" remains "whether in the context of this progress male, as male, is becoming genuinely much better, that is to say, more fully grown spiritually, more familiar with the dignity of his mankind, more accountable, more available to others, particularly the neediest and the weakest, and readier to offer and to aid all." [202]
110. As a result, it is essential to know how to evaluate specific applications of AI in particular contexts to figure out whether its use promotes human self-respect, the vocation of the human person, and the common good. Similar to numerous innovations, the impacts of the different usages of AI may not constantly be foreseeable from their creation. As these applications and their social effects become clearer, appropriate responses should be made at all levels of society, following the concept of subsidiarity. Individual users, households, civil society, corporations, institutions, federal governments, and international organizations ought to operate at their correct levels to ensure that AI is used for the good of all.

111. A considerable obstacle and chance for the common excellent today depends on considering AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which stresses the interconnectedness of individuals and communities and highlights our shared responsibility for cultivating the essential well-being of others. The twentieth-century thinker Nicholas Berdyaev observed that people frequently blame makers for personal and social problems; however, "this only humiliates man and does not represent his self-respect," for "it is unworthy to move obligation from man to a maker." [203] Only the human person can be morally responsible, and the difficulties of a technological society are eventually spiritual in nature. Therefore, dealing with those difficulties "demands an intensification of spirituality." [204]
112. A further point to consider is the call, triggered by the look of AI on the world stage, for a restored gratitude of all that is human. Years ago, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos alerted that "the danger is not in the reproduction of devices, but in the ever-increasing number of men accustomed from their childhood to desire just what devices can offer." [205] This challenge is as real today as it was then, as the fast pace of digitization runs the risk of a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable aspects of life are reserved and after that forgotten and even deemed unimportant since they can not be computed in official terms. AI must be used only as a tool to match human intelligence instead of replace its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that go beyond computation is essential for maintaining "a genuine humanity" that "seems to stay in the middle of our technological culture, almost unnoticed, like a mist permeating gently below a closed door." [207]
113. The large expanse of the world's understanding is now available in manner ins which would have filled past generations with awe. However, to guarantee that developments in understanding do not end up being humanly or spiritually barren, one need to exceed the mere build-up of information and geohashing.site aim to attain real wisdom. [208]
114. This knowledge is the present that humankind needs most to resolve the profound questions and ethical obstacles positioned by AI: "Only by embracing a spiritual method of viewing reality, only by recovering a knowledge of the heart, can we face and interpret the newness of our time." [209] Such "wisdom of the heart" is "the virtue that enables us to integrate the entire and its parts, our choices and their repercussions." It "can not be sought from makers," but it "lets itself be found by those who seek it and be seen by those who like it; it anticipates those who desire it, and it enters search of those who are worthwhile of 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, circumstances, occasions and to reveal their real meaning." [211]
116. Since a "person's excellence is measured not by the details or understanding they possess, but by the depth of their charity," [212] how we incorporate AI "to consist of the least of our brothers and siblings, the vulnerable, and those most in requirement, will be the true step of our humanity." [213] The "knowledge of the heart" can light up and direct the human-centered usage of this technology to help promote the typical good, care for our "typical home," advance the look for the fact, foster essential human advancement, favor human uniformity and fraternity, and lead humankind to its supreme objective: happiness and full communion with God. [214]
117. From this perspective of wisdom, followers will be able to act as ethical agents capable of utilizing this technology to promote a genuine vision of the human person and society. [215] This should be done with the understanding that technological development becomes part of God's strategy for creation-an activity that we are contacted us to order towards the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the consistent look for the True and the Good.

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

Given up 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 likewise Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. [2] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 307. Cf. Id., Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (21 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020 ), 43. [3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [5] J. McCarthy, et al., "A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence" (31 August 1955), http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024). [6] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), pars. 2-3: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [7] Terms in this document explaining the outputs or processes of AI are utilized figuratively to explain its operations and are not meant to anthropomorphize the 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 developments will enable people to conquer their biological constraints and improve both their physical and cognitive abilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, contend that such advances will eventually alter human identity to the degree that humanity itself may no longer be thought about genuinely "human." Both views rest on a basically unfavorable perception of human corporality, which treats the body more as an obstacle than as an essential part of the individual's identity and contact us to full awareness. Yet, this negative view of the body is inconsistent with a correct understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports genuine clinical progress, it verifies that human dignity is rooted in "the person as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "dignity 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 method shows a functionalist viewpoint, which minimizes the human mind to its functions and presumes that its functions can be totally measured in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear genuinely smart, 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 devices, it should be clarified that this describes calculative thinking instead of crucial thinking. Similarly, if devices are said to run utilizing abstract thought, it should be specified that this is restricted to computational logic. On the other hand, by its very nature, human thought is an imaginative process that eludes programming and transcends constraints. [13] On the foundational function of language in forming understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York 2010, 141-182). [14] For more discussion of these anthropological and theological foundations, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), asteroidsathome.net M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144. [15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21. [16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi advertisement litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [faculty] by which he transcends to the illogical animals. Now, this [professors] is factor itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it may more suitably be provided"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When thinking about all that they have, people discover that they are most differentiated from animals precisely by the truth they possess intelligence." This is also restated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who specifies that "guy is the most perfect of all earthly beings enhanced with movement, and his proper and natural operation is intellection," by which guy abstracts from things and "receives in his mind things actually 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 modern viewpoint that echoes components of the classical and medieval distinction in between these 2 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, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intelligence can investigate the reality of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and pertain to recognize because truth, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal ethical 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 "typically thinks about the human individual as a being who exists in the body and is unthinkable beyond it" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Che cosa è l'uomo?" (Sal 8,5): Un itinerario di antropologia biblica [30 September 2019], par. 19). Cf. ibid., pars. 20-21, 43-44, 48. [25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100 (2008 ), 863: "Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, but instead completely 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 for this reason it is unified 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 possess reason and with it they circle in discourse around the fact of things. [...] [O] n account of the way in which they can concentrating the numerous into the one, they too, in their own fashion and as far as they can, deserve 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 can transcending instant issues and understanding certain realities that are unchanging, as true now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, factor finds universal values obtained from that very same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034. [38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last proceeding 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 City 1958, 77). [39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [40] Our semantic capacity permits us to understand messages in any type of communication in a way that both takes into account and transcends their material or empirical structures (such as computer code). Here, intelligence becomes a knowledge that "allows us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, situations, occasions and to reveal their real meaning" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our imagination allows us to generate brand-new material or ideas, mainly by using an original viewpoint on reality. Both capacities depend upon the existence of a personal subjectivity for their full awareness. [41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. [42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a commitment to the fact, is much more than individual sensation [...] Certainly, its close relation to fact fosters its universality and maintains it from being 'confined to a narrow field devoid of relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to reality hence safeguards it from 'a fideism that denies it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643. [43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7. [44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [45] II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. [46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294. [47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure compares deep space to "a book showing, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who approves presence to all things (Breviloquium 2.12.1). Cf. Alain de Lille, De Incarnatione Christi, PL 210, 579a: "Omnis mundi creatura quasi liber et pictura nobis est et speculum." [48] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 67: AAS 107 (2015 ), 874; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589-592; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), videochatforum.ro par. 57: "people occupy an unique place in the universe according to the magnificent strategy: they enjoy the benefit of sharing in the magnificent governance of noticeable production. [...] Since man's location as ruler remains in reality an involvement in the divine governance of production, we mention it here as a kind of stewardship." [49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165. [50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This concept is likewise reflected in the creation account, where God brings creatures 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 good by noticing and enjoying truths." [61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232). [62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he greatest standard of human life is the divine law itself-eternal, objective and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the methods of the human neighborhood according to a plan conceived in his knowledge and love. God has allowed guy to take part in this law of his so that, under the mild personality of magnificent providence, numerous might have the ability to get to a deeper and deeper knowledge of unchangeable fact." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. [63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016. [64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042. [66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has actually imprinted his own image and similarity on man (cf. Gen 1:26), providing upon him an unparalleled dignity [...] In result, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not represent any work he performs, however which flow from his important dignity as a person." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22. [68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310. [69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is understood as a technical term to indicate this technology, remembering that the expression is likewise utilized to designate the discipline and not only its applications. [71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857. [72] For instance, see the encouragement of scientific expedition in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the gratitude for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These authors, among a long list of other Catholics participated in clinical research and technological exploration, highlight that "faith and science can be unified in charity, offered that science is put at the service of the guys and female of our time and not misused to damage or perhaps damage them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87. [73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. [74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888. [77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658. [78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim. [79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293. [80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4. [81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes guy a moral topic. When he acts deliberately, guy is, so to speak, the dad of his acts." [82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776. [83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777. [84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father encouraged efforts "to make sure that technology remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed towards 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 company in selecting a wider aim (Ziel) that then informs the specific function (Zweck) for which each technological application is created, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um pass away Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71. [86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a function and, in its effect on human society, constantly represents a form of order in social relations and a plan of power, therefore making it possible for certain individuals to perform particular actions while avoiding others from performing various ones. In a more or less specific method, this constitutive power-dimension of innovation constantly consists of the worldview of those who developed and developed it." [87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309. [88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Faced with the marvels of machines, which seem to understand how to select separately, we must be very clear that decision-making [...] should always be left to the human individual. We would condemn humanity to a future without hope if we took away people's ability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend upon the options of makers." [92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [93] The term "predisposition" in this file refers to algorithmic bias (methodical and constant errors in computer systems that might disproportionately bias certain groups in unintended methods) or finding out bias (which will lead to training on a biased information set) and not the "predisposition vector" in neural networks (which is a parameter used to adjust the output of "neurons" to change more accurately to the data). [94] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father verified the growth in consensus "on the need for development procedures to appreciate such worths as inclusion, transparency, security, equity, personal privacy and reliability," and likewise welcomed "the efforts of international companies to control these innovations so that they promote genuine 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 more 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 importance of dialogue in a pluralist society oriented towards a "robust and strong social principles," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. [104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10. [105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; pricing quote the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245. [106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050. [107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047. [108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309. [109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027. [112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123. [113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034. [114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149. [115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414. [118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057. [119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985. [120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989). [123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Lots of people] desire their social relationships provided by advanced equipment, by screens and systems which can be turned on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel informs us constantly to risk of an in person encounter with others, with their physical existence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their delight 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 neighborhood, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045. [124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1. [125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899. [126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107. [128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' mentor about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893. [129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as priced quote in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453. [130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: "work is 'for man' and not male 'for work.' Through this conclusion one appropriately pertains to recognize the pre-eminence of the subjective significance of work over the objective one." [132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320. [133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502. [135] Ibid. [136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as 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 repercussions, it is that of health care. When a sick person is not put in the center or their dignity is ruled out, this gives rise to mindsets that can lead even to speculation on the misery of others. And this is extremely grave! [...] The application of a service method to the healthcare sector, if indiscriminate [...] might risk disposing of human beings." [142] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [143] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729. [144] Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on making use of Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729; Francis, Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016), 6: AAS 108 (2016 ), 57-58. [145] Francis, Address to Members of the Global Researchers Advancing Catholic Education Project (20 April 2022): AAS 114 (2022 ), 580. [146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), par. 41: AAS 68 (1976 ), 31, pricing estimate Id., Address to the Members of the "Consilium de Laicis" (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: "if [the modern person] does listen to teachers, it is because they are witnesses." [147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126. [148] Francis, Meeting 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 file about making use of generative AI in education and research study, UNESCO notes: "Among the essential questions [of using generative AI (GenAI) in education and research] is whether humans can possibly cede standard levels of thinking and skill-acquisition procedures to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking skills based on the outputs supplied by AI. Writing, for instance, is typically connected with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], people can now begin with a well-structured overview offered by GenAI. Some experts have actually identified using GenAI to produce text in this method as 'writing without believing'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American thinker Hannah Arendt anticipated such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and cautioned: "If it must turn out to be true that knowledge (in the sense of know-how) and believed have parted business for good, then we would certainly end up being the powerless slaves, not a lot of our devices as of our knowledge" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3). [153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417. [154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914. [155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479. [156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10. [157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3. [158] For example, it might assist people gain access to the "array of resources for creating higher understanding of truth" 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 really indifferent to the concern of whether what they understand is true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he composes: 'I have met numerous who wished to deceive, but none who wished to be tricked'"; pricing estimate Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794. [163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62. [164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8. [165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social 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 man might with impunity violate that human self-respect which God himself treats with excellent respect"; as priced quote in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804. [168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203. [169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human self-respect in the online world requires States to also appreciate the right to privacy, by protecting residents from intrusive surveillance and enabling them to protect their individual details from unauthorized gain access to." [170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984. [171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body identified a list of "early promises of AI assisting to resolve climate change" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The document observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can change data into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools may help develop brand-new methods and investments to reduce emissions, affect new economic sector financial investments in net no, safeguard biodiversity, and develop broad-based social strength" (ibid.). [174] "The cloud" refers to a network of physical servers throughout the world that makes it possible for users to store, procedure, and manage their information from another location. [175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850. [176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890. [177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870. [178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852. [179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640. [180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317. [181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101. [182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310. [184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105. [185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We require to ensure and secure an area for appropriate 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 lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) that do not have the proper human control would position essential ethical concerns, given that LAWS can never ever be ethically accountable topics capable of adhering to international humanitarian law." [187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: "Nor can we disregard the possibility of advanced weapons winding up in the incorrect hands, assisting in, for example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the institutions of genuine systems of federal government. In a word, the world does not need brand-new technologies that contribute to the unfair advancement of commerce and the weapons trade and consequently wind up promoting the folly of war." [190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565. [191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878. [192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687. [193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39. [194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661. [195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a better understanding today that the mere accumulation of items and services [...] is insufficient for the realization of human joy. Nor, in repercussion, does the availability of the many real advantages supplied in recent times by science and technology, including the computer system sciences, bring flexibility from every kind of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the substantial body of resources and prospective at male's disposal is directed by an ethical understanding and by an orientation towards the true good of the mankind, it quickly turns against guy to oppress him." Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564. [196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6. [199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6. [200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. The End of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83). [201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288. [203] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," in C. Mitcham - R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York City 19832, 212-213. [204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210. [205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829. [206] Cf. Francis, 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 fast searches on the internet nor is it a mass of unverified data. That is not the method to mature 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.