GitLab

1. With knowledge both ancient and new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to show on the present difficulties and opportunities presented by scientific and technological advancements, especially by the current development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian custom regards the gift of intelligence as an important aspect of how human beings are created "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Starting from an integral vision of the human individual and the scriptural calling to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church highlights that this present of intelligence ought to be expressed through the accountable use of factor and technical abilities in the stewardship of the developed world.

2. The Church encourages the advancement of science, technology, the arts, and other forms of human undertaking, seeing them as part of the "collaboration of guy and woman with God in improving the noticeable creation." [1] As Sirach affirms, God "gave ability to humans, that he may be glorified in his wonderful works" (Sir. 38:6). Human abilities and imagination come from God and, when used rightly, glorify God by showing his wisdom and goodness. Due to this, when we ask ourselves what it implies to "be human," we can not leave out a consideration of our scientific and technological abilities.

3. It is within this point of view that the present Note addresses the anthropological and ethical obstacles raised by AI-issues that are especially substantial, as one of the goals of this technology is to imitate the human intelligence that created it. For example, unlike lots of other human developments, AI can be trained on the results of human imagination and then generate brand-new "artifacts" with a level of speed and skill that often measures up to or exceeds what humans can do, such as producing text or images equivalent from human structures. This raises crucial issues about AI's prospective function in the growing crisis of reality in the public forum. Moreover, this technology is designed to find out and make certain choices autonomously, adapting to new circumstances and supplying solutions not anticipated by its developers, and hence, it raises basic concerns about ethical responsibility and human safety, with more comprehensive ramifications for society as a whole. This brand-new circumstance has actually prompted lots of people to review what it suggests to be human and the role of humanity in the world.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad agreement that AI marks a brand-new and substantial phase in humankind's engagement with technology, putting it at the heart of what Pope Francis has actually explained as an "epochal change." [2] Its impact is felt globally and in a vast array of areas, consisting of social relationships, education, work, art, health care, law, warfare, and worldwide relations. As AI advances quickly towards even greater accomplishments, it is seriously essential to consider its anthropological and ethical implications. This includes not just mitigating risks and preventing harm but likewise making sure that its applications are used to promote human progress and the typical good.

5. To contribute favorably to the discernment concerning AI, and in reaction to Pope Francis' call for a restored "knowledge of heart," [3] the Church offers its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active role in the global discussion on these concerns, the Church welcomes those delegated with sending the faith-including moms and dads, teachers, pastors, and bishops-to dedicate themselves to this crucial topic with care and attention. While this file is meant especially for them, it is also implied to be available to a broader audience, especially those who share the conviction that scientific and technological advances ought to be directed toward serving the human individual and the typical good. [4]
6. To this end, the document starts by distinguishing between concepts of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then checks out the Christian understanding of human intelligence, offering a structure rooted in the Church's philosophical and theological custom. Finally, the file uses standards to ensure that the development and use of AI maintain human self-respect and promote the integral development of the human person and society.

7. The principle of "intelligence" in AI has actually progressed over time, drawing on a variety of ideas from various disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a considerable turning point took place in 1956 when the American computer system scientist John McCarthy organized a summertime workshop at University to explore the problem of "Artificial Intelligence," which he specified as "that of making a device act in manner ins which would be called smart if a human were so acting." [5] This workshop launched a research program focused on creating devices capable of carrying out tasks usually connected with the human intelligence and smart habits.

8. Ever since, AI research has actually advanced rapidly, leading to the development of complex systems efficient in carrying out extremely sophisticated jobs. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are typically developed to deal with particular and minimal functions, such as translating languages, anticipating the trajectory of a storm, classifying images, answering concerns, or generating visual material at the user's demand. While the definition of "intelligence" in AI research varies, a lot of contemporary AI systems-particularly those using maker learning-rely on analytical reasoning rather than sensible reduction. By analyzing big datasets to identify patterns, AI can "forecast" [7] outcomes and propose brand-new methods, imitating some cognitive procedures normal of human problem-solving. Such achievements have been made possible through advances in computing innovation (consisting of neural networks, not being watched artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) as well as hardware innovations (such as specialized processors). Together, these technologies allow AI systems to react to different forms of human input, adapt to brand-new circumstances, and even suggest novel solutions not prepared for by their initial developers. [8]
9. Due to these quick developments, many jobs as soon as managed specifically by human beings are now turned over to AI. These systems can enhance or even supersede what people have the ability to perform in numerous fields, particularly in specialized locations such as information analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is created for a particular task, lots of researchers aim to establish what is referred to as "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system efficient in operating throughout all cognitive domains and performing any task within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI might one day attain the state of "superintelligence," surpassing human intellectual capabilities, or contribute to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, nevertheless, fear that these possibilities, even if hypothetical, might one day eclipse the human individual, while still others invite this possible change. [9]
10. Underlying this and numerous other point of views on the topic is the implicit presumption that the term "intelligence" can be used in the very same method to describe both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not record the complete scope of the concept. When it comes to humans, intelligence is a professors that pertains to the individual in his/her totality, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is comprehended functionally, often with the presumption that the activities characteristic of the human mind can be broken down into digitized actions that machines can reproduce. [10]
11. This functional perspective is exemplified by the "Turing Test," which considers a machine "intelligent" if a person can not distinguish its habits from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "behavior" refers just to the performance of particular intellectual jobs; it does not represent the complete breadth of human experience, which includes abstraction, emotions, imagination, and the aesthetic, moral, and religious perceptiveness. Nor does it include the full variety of expressions characteristic of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the "intelligence" of a system is examined methodologically, however likewise reductively, based upon its ability to produce proper responses-in this case, those connected with the human intellect-regardless of how those reactions are generated.

12. AI's innovative functions offer it sophisticated abilities to carry out jobs, but not the ability to believe. [12] This difference is crucially important, as the way "intelligence" is specified inevitably shapes how we comprehend the relationship between human thought and this innovation. [13] To appreciate this, one must recall 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, self-respect, and vocation of the human person. [14]
13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has played a main function in comprehending what it indicates to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all people by nature desire to understand." [15] This understanding, with its capability for abstraction that comprehends the nature and significance of things, sets humans apart from the animal world. [16] As thinkers, theologians, and psychologists have actually taken a look at the exact nature of this intellectual faculty, they have likewise checked out how human beings comprehend the world and their special location within it. Through this exploration, the Christian tradition has pertained to understand the human individual as a being consisting of both body and soul-deeply connected to this world and yet transcending it. [17]
14. In the classical tradition, the idea of intelligence is frequently understood through the complementary concepts of "factor" (ratio) and "intelligence" (intellectus). These are not different faculties however, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are two modes in which the exact same intelligence runs: "The term intellect is presumed from the inward grasp of the fact, while the name reason is taken from the analytical and discursive process." [18] This succinct description highlights the two fundamental and complementary dimensions of human intelligence. Intellectus refers to the instinctive grasp of the truth-that is, capturing it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and grounds argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to reasoning appropriate: the discursive, analytical procedure that results in judgment. Together, intellect and reason form the 2 elements of the act of intelligere, "the proper operation of the human being as such." [19]
15. Explaining the human person as a "rational" being does not minimize the individual to a particular mode of thought; rather, it acknowledges that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and penetrates all elements of human activity. [20] Whether worked out well or poorly, this capacity is an intrinsic element of humanity. In this sense, the "term 'rational' incorporates all the capabilities of the human person," consisting of those associated to "knowing and understanding, along with those of ready, caring, choosing, and wanting; it likewise consists of all corporeal functions closely related to these capabilities." [21] This detailed viewpoint highlights how, in the human individual, produced in the "picture of God," factor is incorporated in a manner that raises, shapes, and changes both the person's will and actions. [22]
16. Christian believed considers the intellectual professors of the human individual within the framework of an important sociology that sees the human being as essentially embodied. In the human individual, humanlove.stream spirit and matter "are not 2 natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature." [23] In other words, the soul is not merely the immaterial "part" of the person contained within the body, nor is the body an outer shell housing an intangible "core." Rather, the whole human person is concurrently both product and spiritual. This understanding reflects the teaching of Sacred Scripture, which sees the human person as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and hence, an authentically spiritual measurement) within and through this embodied existence. [24] The profound significance of this condition is further brightened by the mystery of the Incarnation, through which God himself handled our flesh and "raised it up to a superb dignity." [25]
17. Although deeply rooted in physical existence, the human person transcends the material world through the soul, which is "practically on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intellect's capacity for transcendence and the self-possessed freedom of the will belong to the soul, by which the human individual "shares in the light of the divine mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its typical mode of knowledge without the body. [28] In this method, the intellectual professors of the human person are an essential 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 social communion," [30] possessing the capability to know one another, to provide themselves in love, and to participate in communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not a separated professors but is worked out in relationships, discovering its fullest expression in dialogue, collaboration, and solidarity. We find out with others, and we discover through others.

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

21. Human intelligence is eventually "God's present made for the assimilation of truth." [34] In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it enables the person to check out truths that go beyond mere sensory experience or utility, considering that "the desire for fact becomes part of human nature itself. It is an innate property of human reason to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limits of empirical data, human intelligence can "with genuine certitude attain to truth itself as knowable." [36] While truth remains only partly understood, the desire for fact "stimulates factor constantly to go even more; certainly, it is as if factor were overwhelmed to see that it can constantly go beyond what it has already attained." [37] Although Truth in itself transcends the borders of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this attraction, the human person is led to look for "realities of a greater order." [39]
22. This natural drive towards the pursuit of reality is specifically apparent in the clearly human capabilities for semantic understanding and imagination, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "manner that is suitable to the social nature and dignity of the human person." [41] Likewise, a steadfast orientation to the fact is necessary for charity to be both authentic and universal. [42]
23. The look for fact finds its highest expression in openness to truths that transcend the physical and developed world. In God, all truths attain their ultimate and initial significance. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "basic choice that engages the entire individual." [44] In this way, the human person becomes completely what he or she is contacted us to be: "the intelligence and the will show their spiritual nature," making it possible for the person "to act in a manner that recognizes individual flexibility to the complete." [45]
24. The Christian faith understands creation as the totally free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, develops "not to increase his splendor, however to reveal it forth and to interact it." [46] Since God develops according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), production is imbued with an intrinsic order that shows God's plan (cf. Gen. 1; Dan. 2:21 -22; Is. 45:18; Ps. 74:12 -17; 104), [47] within which God has actually called humans to presume an unique function: to cultivate and take care of the world. [48]
25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, people live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and skills to care for and develop production in accord with God's plan. [49] In this, human intelligence reflects the Divine Intelligence that created all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] continuously sustains them, and guides them to their ultimate function in him. [51] Moreover, humans are called to establish their abilities in science and innovation, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in an appropriate relationship with creation, humans, on the one hand, utilize their intelligence and skill to comply with God in assisting production towards the purpose to which he has called it. [52] On the other hand, creation itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, helps the human mind to "ascend slowly to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]
26. In this context, human intelligence becomes more plainly understood as a professors that forms an integral part of how the entire person engages with truth. Authentic engagement needs accepting the complete scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with reality unfolds in various methods, as everyone, in his/her multifaceted uniqueness [54], seeks to understand the world, connect to others, fix issues, reveal imagination, and pursue important wellness through the unified interplay of the various measurements of the person's intelligence. [55] This involves sensible and linguistic capabilities however can also include other modes of engaging with reality. Consider the work of a craftsmen, who "should know how to determine, in inert matter, a particular type that others can not acknowledge" [56] and bring it forth through insight and useful skill. Indigenous individuals who live near to the earth frequently have a profound sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a good friend who understands the best word to say or an individual adept at handling human relationships exhibits an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, discussion and generous encounter in between persons." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of artificial intelligence, we can not forget that poetry and love are necessary to save our humankind." [59]
28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the integration of reality into the ethical and spiritual life of the individual, assisting his or her actions due to God's goodness and reality. According to God's strategy, intelligence, in its fullest sense, likewise includes the capability to savor what is real, great, and gorgeous. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel revealed, "intelligence is nothing without pleasure." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the greatest paradise in Paradiso, affirms that the conclusion of this intellectual delight is found in the "light intellectual loaded with love, love of real excellent filled with joy, joy which goes beyond every sweet taste." [61]
29. A correct understanding of human intelligence, therefore, can not be lowered to the mere acquisition of truths or the capability to perform particular tasks. Instead, it includes the person's openness to the supreme questions of life and reflects an orientation toward the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the divine image within the individual, human intelligence has the capability to access the totality of being, contemplating presence in its fullness, which surpasses what is measurable, and understanding the meaning of what has been understood. For followers, this capability consists of, in a particular way, the ability to grow in the knowledge of the mysteries of God by utilizing reason to engage ever more exceptionally with revealed truths (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is formed by divine love, which "is put forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence possesses a necessary contemplative dimension, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any practical purpose.

30. Due to the foregoing discussion, the distinctions between human intelligence and existing AI systems become apparent. While AI is an extraordinary technological accomplishment efficient in imitating certain outputs connected with human intelligence, it operates by performing tasks, attaining objectives, or making decisions based on quantitative data and computational reasoning. For example, with its analytical power, AI excels at incorporating data from a range of fields, modeling complex systems, and promoting interdisciplinary connections. In this method, it can assist professionals work together in resolving complicated issues that "can not be handled from a single perspective or from a single set of interests." [64]
31. However, even as AI procedures and imitates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains essentially restricted to a logical-mathematical framework, which enforces intrinsic constraints. Human intelligence, in contrast, develops naturally throughout the individual's physical and psychological development, formed by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although innovative AI systems can "discover" through processes such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is essentially different from the developmental development of human intelligence, which is formed by embodied experiences, consisting of sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the distinct context of each moment. These elements shape and type individuals within their individual history.In contrast, AI, lacking a physical body, counts on computational reasoning and knowing based on large datasets that consist of tape-recorded human experiences and understanding.

32. Consequently, although AI can simulate aspects of human reasoning and perform particular tasks with incredible speed and effectiveness, its computational capabilities represent just a portion of the more comprehensive capabilities of the human mind. For circumstances, AI can not presently reproduce moral discernment or the capability to develop genuine relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is positioned within a personally lived history of intellectual and ethical development that basically shapes the individual's perspective, encompassing the physical, emotional, social, moral, and spiritual measurements of life. Since AI can not offer this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely entirely on this innovation or treat it as the main methods of analyzing the world can lead to "a loss of appreciation for the entire, for the relationships in between things, and for the broader horizon." [65]
33. Human intelligence is not mainly about completing practical jobs but about understanding and actively engaging with truth in all its measurements; it is likewise efficient in unexpected insights. Since AI does not have the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to truth and goodness, its capacities-though seemingly limitless-are unparalleled with the human capability to understand truth. So much can be gained from an illness, an accept of reconciliation, and even a basic sunset; certainly, many experiences we have as human beings open brand-new horizons and offer the possibility of attaining new knowledge. No device, working entirely with data, can measure up to these and numerous other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an extremely close equivalence in between human intelligence and AI dangers catching a functionalist point of view, where people are valued based on the work they can carry out. However, an individual's worth does not depend upon possessing particular abilities, cognitive and technological achievements, or individual success, however on the individual's intrinsic self-respect, grounded in being developed in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains undamaged in all scenarios, including for those unable to exercise their abilities, whether it be an unborn child, an unconscious individual, or an older person who is suffering. [67] It likewise underpins the custom of human rights (and, in particular, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "an important point of convergence in the search for commonalities" [68] and can, hence, work as a fundamental ethical guide in conversations on the responsible advancement and use of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the really use of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can prove misleading" [69] and threats neglecting what is most precious in the human person. Due to this, AI should not be viewed as a synthetic form of human intelligence but as an item of it. [70]
36. Given these considerations, one can ask how AI can be understood within God's plan. To address this, it is necessary to recall that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character however is a human undertaking that engages the humanistic and cultural measurements of human creativity. [71]
37. Seen as a fruit of the prospective engraved within human intelligence, [72] clinical questions and the advancement of technical skills become part of the "partnership of guy and lady with God in perfecting the visible production." [73] At the same time, all scientific and technological achievements are, ultimately, presents from God. [74] Therefore, people must constantly utilize their abilities in view of the greater purpose for which God has actually given them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how technology has "fixed numerous evils which utilized to hurt and restrict humans," [76] a fact for which we must rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological improvements in themselves represent genuine human progress. [77] The Church is especially opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the self-respect of the human individual. [78] Like any human venture, technological advancement needs to be directed to serve the human individual and contribute to the pursuit of "higher justice, more comprehensive fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations," which are "more valuable than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical implications of technological advancement are shared not just within the Church however likewise amongst many researchers, technologists, and professional associations, who progressively call for ethical reflection to direct this advancement in a responsible way.

39. To deal with these obstacles, it is necessary to highlight the significance of moral duty grounded in the self-respect and vocation of the human individual. This assisting principle likewise applies to concerns worrying AI. In this context, the ethical measurement takes on main importance since it is people who develop systems and figure out the purposes for which they are used. [80] Between a machine and a person, only the latter is truly an ethical agent-a subject of moral obligation who exercises flexibility in his/her decisions and accepts their repercussions. [81] It is not the machine but the human who remains in relationship with reality and goodness, assisted by a moral conscience that calls the person "to like and to do what is good and to prevent wicked," [82] attesting to "the authority of reality in referral to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn." [83] Likewise, in between a maker and a human, just the human can be sufficiently self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, discerning with vigilance, and looking for the great that is possible in every situation. [84] In fact, all of this also comes from the person's exercise of intelligence.

40. Like any product of human imagination, AI can be directed towards positive or unfavorable ends. [85] When used in methods that appreciate human dignity and promote the wellness of people and neighborhoods, it can contribute positively to the human vocation. Yet, as in all areas where people are contacted us to make choices, the shadow of evil likewise looms here. Where human freedom permits the possibility of choosing what is wrong, the ethical evaluation of this innovation will require to take into consideration how it is directed and used.

41. At the exact same time, it is not only the ends that are fairly substantial however also the means utilized to attain them. Additionally, the total vision and understanding of the human person ingrained within these systems are very important to think about too. Technological products show the worldview of their developers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to "form the world and engage consciences on the level of worths." [87] On a social level, some technological advancements could likewise strengthen relationships and power characteristics that are inconsistent with a proper understanding of the human person and society.

42. Therefore, the ends and the methods utilized in a given application of AI, in addition to the general vision it incorporates, need to all be evaluated to ensure they respect human dignity and promote the common good. [88] As Pope Francis has specified, "the intrinsic self-respect of every guy and every woman" need to be "the key requirement in assessing emerging technologies; these will prove fairly sound to the level that they assist respect that dignity and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] consisting of in the social and economic spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays an important function not just in designing and producing innovation but likewise in directing its use in line with the genuine good of the human person. [90] The obligation for managing this sensibly pertains to every level of society, directed by the concept of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The dedication to ensuring that AI always supports and promotes the supreme worth of the dignity of every human and the fullness of the human vocation serves as a criterion of discernment for designers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, as well as to its users. It remains legitimate for each application of the technology at every level of its usage.

44. An examination of the implications of this assisting principle might begin by considering the significance of moral responsibility. Since full moral causality belongs only to personal representatives, not artificial ones, it is important to be able to determine and define who bears duty for the procedures associated with AI, especially those efficient in discovering, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up approaches and extremely deep neural networks make it possible for AI to solve intricate problems, they make it difficult to comprehend the procedures that cause the services they embraced. This complicates responsibility because if an AI application produces undesirable results, determining who is accountable ends up being challenging. To resolve this problem, attention requires to be provided to the nature of accountability procedures in complex, extremely automated settings, where results may just end up being evident in the medium to long term. For this, it is necessary that ultimate obligation for decisions made utilizing AI rests with the human decision-makers which there is responsibility for using AI at each phase of the decision-making procedure. [91]
45. In addition to identifying who is accountable, it is necessary to determine the goals given to AI systems. Although these systems might utilize unsupervised self-governing knowing systems and in some cases follow paths that human beings can not rebuild, they ultimately pursue objectives that humans have actually assigned to them and are governed by processes developed by their designers and programmers. Yet, this presents an obstacle due to the fact that, as AI designs become significantly efficient in independent learning, the capability to maintain control over them to ensure that such applications serve human purposes may effectively reduce. This raises the critical concern of how to make sure that AI systems are bought for the good of people and not against them.

46. While obligation for the ethical usage of AI systems starts with those who develop, produce, manage, and manage such systems, it is also shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis kept in mind, the maker "makes a technical choice among numerous possibilities based either on well-defined criteria or on statistical reasonings. People, however, not only pick, but in their hearts can choosing." [92] Those who utilize AI to accomplish a job and follow its results develop a context in which they are ultimately accountable for the power they have actually delegated. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist humans in making choices, the algorithms that govern it must be credible, safe and secure, robust enough to manage inconsistencies, and transparent in their operation to reduce biases and unexpected negative effects. [93] Regulatory frameworks ought to make sure that all legal entities remain accountable for the usage of AI and all its consequences, with suitable safeguards for transparency, privacy, and accountability. [94] Moreover, those utilizing AI ought to take care not to end up being overly depending on it for their decision-making, a pattern that increases contemporary society's currently high dependence on innovation.

47. The Church's ethical and social teaching offers resources to assist ensure that AI is utilized in a manner that maintains human firm. Considerations about justice, for example, need to likewise address issues such as cultivating simply social dynamics, maintaining worldwide security, and promoting peace. By exercising vigilance, individuals and neighborhoods can determine ways to use AI to benefit humankind while avoiding applications that might break down human self-respect or damage the environment. In this context, the idea of responsibility should be comprehended not just in its most restricted sense however as a "obligation for the look after others, which is more than merely accounting for results attained." [95]
48. Therefore, AI, like any technology, can be part of a conscious and accountable response to mankind's occupation to the great. However, as previously gone over, AI needs to be directed by human intelligence to align with this occupation, guaranteeing it respects the dignity of the human individual. Recognizing this "exalted dignity," the Second Vatican Council verified that "the social order and its development must usually work to the advantage of the human person." [96] Because of this, using AI, as Pope Francis said, should be "accompanied by an ethic inspired by a vision of the common good, an ethic of flexibility, responsibility, and fraternity, capable of promoting the full advancement of people in relation to others and to the entire of production." [97]
49. Within this general viewpoint, some observations follow below to show how the preceding arguments can help supply an ethical orientation in useful circumstances, in line with the "knowledge of heart" that Pope Francis has proposed. [98] While not extensive, this conversation is used in service of the dialogue that considers how AI can be used to maintain the self-respect of the human person and promote the typical good. [99]
50. As Pope Francis observed, "the intrinsic self-respect of each person and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human family must support the development of brand-new technologies and function as unassailable requirements for assessing them before they are employed." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI might "introduce important developments in agriculture, education and culture, an enhanced level of life for entire nations and individuals, and the development of human fraternity and social friendship," and therefore be "used to promote important human advancement." [101] AI could also help organizations recognize those in requirement and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other comparable applications of this technology might contribute to human development and the common good. [102]
52. However, while AI holds many possibilities for promoting the good, it can likewise hinder or even counter human development and the common good. Pope Francis has kept in mind that "evidence to date recommends that digital technologies have actually increased inequality in our world. Not just distinctions in product wealth, which are likewise significant, however likewise distinctions in access to political and social impact." [103] In this sense, AI could be utilized to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, produce new forms of poverty, broaden the "digital divide," and aggravate existing social inequalities. [104]
53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a few powerful business raises considerable ethical issues. Exacerbating this issue is the intrinsic nature of AI systems, where no single person can work out complete oversight over the vast and intricate datasets used for calculation. This lack of well-defined responsibility produces the threat that AI could be manipulated for individual or business gain or to direct public opinion for the advantage of a particular market. Such entities, inspired by their own interests, have the capability to exercise "types of control as subtle as they are intrusive, developing mechanisms for the adjustment of consciences and of the democratic procedure." [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 issues as solvable through technological ways alone. [106] In this paradigm, human self-respect and fraternity are frequently reserved in the name of efficiency, "as if reality, goodness, and truth immediately flow from technological and financial power as such." [107] Yet, human self-respect and the common excellent needs to never ever be violated for the sake of effectiveness, [108] for "technological developments that do not result in an improvement in the quality of life of all humankind, however on the contrary, aggravate inequalities and disputes, can never ever count as true development. " [109] Instead, AI needs to be put "at the service of another type of development, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more important." [110]
55. Attaining this objective requires a deeper reflection on the relationship between autonomy and obligation. Greater autonomy heightens each person's duty across various elements of common life. For Christians, the foundation of this responsibility lies in the acknowledgment that all human capabilities, consisting of the person's autonomy, originated from God and are meant to be utilized in the service of others. [111] Therefore, rather than simply pursuing financial or technological goals, AI must serve "the common good of the whole human family," which is "the sum total of social conditions that allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their satisfaction more fully and more easily." [112]
56. The Second Vatican Council observed that "by his inner nature male is a social being; and if he does not participate in relations with others, he can neither live nor develop his presents." [113] This conviction underscores that living in society is intrinsic to the nature and vocation of the human individual. [114] As social beings, we look for relationships that include mutual exchange and the pursuit of fact, in the course of which, people "share with each other the reality they have actually discovered, or believe they have discovered, in such a method that they help one another in the look for reality." [115]
57. Such a quest, along with other elements of human interaction, presupposes encounters and shared exchange between people shaped by their distinct histories, thoughts, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a varied, multifaceted, and intricate reality: private and social, reasonable and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis underscores this vibrant, keeping in mind that "together, we can look for the reality in discussion, in relaxed discussion or in passionate argument. To do so requires determination; it entails minutes of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently accept the more comprehensive experience of people and individuals. [...] The process of structure fraternity, be it regional or universal, can just be undertaken by spirits that are free and available to authentic encounters." [116]
58. It remains in this context that one can consider the obstacles AI postures to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the potential to cultivate connections within the human household. However, it could likewise prevent a real encounter with truth and, ultimately, lead people to "a deep and melancholic dissatisfaction with social relations, or a damaging sense of seclusion." [117] Authentic human relationships require the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their joy. [118] Since human intelligence is revealed and enhanced likewise in interpersonal and embodied ways, genuine and spontaneous encounters with others are important for engaging with truth in its fullness.

59. Because "real knowledge demands an encounter with truth," [119] the increase of AI presents another difficulty. Since AI can successfully imitate the items of human intelligence, the ability to understand when one is interacting with a human or a machine can no longer be taken for given. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other innovative outputs that are typically associated with humans. Yet, it must be understood for what it is: a tool, not an individual. [120] This distinction is frequently obscured by the language utilized by practitioners, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and therefore blurs the line in between human and machine.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI also presents specific challenges for the development of kids, potentially motivating them to establish patterns of interaction that treat human relationships in a transactional way, as one would associate with a chatbot. Such routines might lead youths to see teachers as mere dispensers of details rather than as coaches who direct and nurture their intellectual and moral development. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and an unfaltering commitment to the good of the other, are vital and irreplaceable in fostering the complete advancement of the human individual.

61. In this context, it is very important to clarify that, in spite of the use of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can truly experience compassion. Emotions can not be minimized to facial expressions or phrases produced in response to triggers; they reflect the way a person, as an entire, connects to the world and to his/her own life, with the body playing a main function. True empathy requires the capability to listen, acknowledge another's irreducible originality, invite their otherness, and understand the significance behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the world of analytical judgment in which AI stands out, true empathy comes from the relational sphere. It includes intuiting and apprehending the lived experiences of another while maintaining the distinction between self and other. [122] While AI can replicate compassionate responses, it can not replicate the eminently individual and relational nature of authentic compassion. [123]
62. Because of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as an individual need to always be avoided; doing so for deceitful purposes is a grave ethical infraction that could wear down 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 likewise to be thought about immoral and needs mindful oversight to prevent harm, maintain transparency, and make sure the self-respect of all people. [124]
63. In a significantly isolated world, some individuals have actually turned to AI in search of deep human relationships, basic friendship, or perhaps emotional bonds. However, while people are indicated to experience genuine relationships, AI can just mimic them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an important part of how a person grows to become who she or he is implied to be. If AI is utilized to help people foster real connections between individuals, it can contribute favorably to the full awareness of the person. Conversely, if we replace relationships with God and with others with interactions with technology, we risk replacing genuine relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of pulling back into synthetic worlds, we are contacted us to take part in a dedicated and intentional way with reality, especially by relating to the poor and suffering, consoling those in sorrow, and creating bonds of communion with all.

64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being progressively integrated into economic and monetary systems. Significant financial investments are currently being made not only in the technology sector but likewise in energy, finance, and media, particularly in the areas of marketing and sales, logistics, technological innovation, compliance, and danger management. At the exact same time, AI's applications in these locations have actually also highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of significant opportunities however likewise extensive dangers. A very first genuine crucial point in this area worries the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a couple of corporations-only those large business would gain from the worth produced by AI rather than business that use it.

65. Other broader aspects of AI's influence on the economic-financial sphere must also be carefully analyzed, particularly worrying the interaction in between concrete reality and the digital world. One important factor to consider in this regard involves the coexistence of diverse and alternative types of economic and banks within a given context. This factor should be motivated, as it can bring benefits in how it supports the real economy by fostering its advancement and stability, especially throughout times of crisis. Nevertheless, it must be worried that digital truths, not limited by any spatial bonds, tend to be more uniform and impersonal than neighborhoods rooted in a particular location and a particular history, with a common journey characterized by shared worths and hopes, but also by unavoidable disputes and divergences. This variety is an indisputable asset to a community's financial life. Turning over the economy and finance entirely to digital technology would reduce this range and richness. As a result, numerous options to financial issues that can be reached through natural dialogue between the involved parties might no longer be attainable in a world dominated by treatments and just the appearance of nearness.

66. Another area where AI is already having a profound impact is the world of work. As in many other fields, AI is driving essential changes throughout many occupations, with a variety of impacts. On the one hand, it has the possible to improve competence and performance, create brand-new jobs, allow employees to focus on more innovative tasks, and open new horizons for imagination and innovation.

67. However, while AI assures to enhance performance by taking control of mundane jobs, it frequently requires employees to adjust to the speed and demands of devices rather than machines being created to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the marketed advantages of AI, present approaches to the technology can paradoxically deskill employees, subject them to automated security, and relegate them to stiff and repetitive tasks. The requirement to stay up to date with the speed of technology can erode employees' sense of company and suppress the innovative abilities they are expected to give their work. [125]
68. AI is presently getting rid of the need for some tasks that were once performed by people. If AI is used to replace human employees rather than match them, there is a "significant danger of out of proportion advantage for the few at the cost of the impoverishment of lots of." [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more powerful, there is an involved danger that human labor may lose its worth in the economic realm. This is the sensible repercussion of the technocratic paradigm: a world of mankind shackled to effectiveness, where, eventually, the expense of mankind must be cut. Yet, human lives are inherently valuable, independent of their financial output. Nevertheless, the "existing design," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to favor an investment in efforts to assist the sluggish, the weak, or the less gifted to find chances in life." [127] Because of this, "we can not permit a tool as powerful and important as Artificial Intelligence to enhance such a paradigm, but rather, we should make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its growth." [128]
69. It is essential to remember that "the order of things must be subordinate to the order of individuals, and not the other way around." [129] Human work must not just be at the service of revenue but at "the service of the entire human individual [...] taking into account the person's product requirements and the requirements of his/her intellectual, moral, spiritual, and spiritual life." [130] In this context, the Church acknowledges that work is "not only a method of earning one's daily bread" however is likewise "a vital measurement of social life" and "a way [...] of personal growth, the structure of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of presents. Work gives us a sense of shared obligation for the advancement of the world, and ultimately, for our life as an individuals." [131]
70. Since work is a "part of the significance of life on this earth, a course to development, human advancement and personal satisfaction," "the objective ought to not be that technological progress significantly replaces human work, for this would be destructive to humankind" [132] -rather, it should promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI ought to assist, not change, human judgment. Similarly, it must never ever degrade imagination or lower workers to mere "cogs in a device." Therefore, "regard for the dignity of workers and the value of employment for the financial wellness of people, households, and societies, for task security and just earnings, ought to be a high concern for the worldwide community as these kinds of technology permeate more deeply into our work environments." [133]
71. As individuals in God's healing work, healthcare professionals have the occupation and duty to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the health care occupation brings an "intrinsic and indisputable ethical dimension," acknowledged by the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges physicians and health care professionals to devote 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 males and females "who turn down the development of a society of exemption, and act rather as next-door neighbors, raising up and fixing up the succumbed to the sake of the common good." [136]
72. Seen in this light, AI appears to hold immense potential in a range of applications in the medical field, such as helping the diagnostic work of healthcare service providers, assisting in relationships between patients and medical personnel, offering new treatments, and broadening access to quality care also for those who are separated or marginalized. In these methods, the technology might improve the "caring and loving closeness" [137] that doctor are called to extend to the sick and suffering.

73. However, if AI is used not to improve 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 lower a crucially crucial human relational structure to a central, impersonal, and unequal structure. Instead of encouraging uniformity with the sick and suffering, such applications of AI would risk aggravating the loneliness that often accompanies health problem, specifically in the context of a culture where "individuals are no longer seen as a critical value to be taken care of and appreciated." [138] This abuse of AI would not line up with regard for the self-respect of the human individual and uniformity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the well-being of clients and the choices that touch upon their lives are at the heart of the health care occupation. This accountability requires physician to exercise all their ability and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options regarding those delegated to their care, constantly respecting the inviolable self-respect of the patients and the requirement for informed permission. As a result, choices relating to patient treatment and the weight of obligation they entail should constantly remain with the human individual and should never ever be handed over to AI. [139]
75. In addition, utilizing AI to determine who should get treatment based mainly on economic procedures or metrics of efficiency represents a particularly problematic instance of the "technocratic paradigm" that must be turned down. [140] For, "enhancing resources indicates using them in an ethical and fraternal method, and not punishing the most fragile." [141] Additionally, AI tools in healthcare are "exposed to forms of bias and discrimination," where "systemic errors can easily multiply, producing not just injustices in individual cases but likewise, due to the domino impact, genuine types of social inequality." [142]
76. The integration of AI into healthcare also poses the danger of enhancing other existing disparities in access to treatment. As healthcare ends up being significantly oriented toward prevention and wolvesbaneuo.com lifestyle-based approaches, AI-driven solutions may unintentionally favor more affluent populations who currently take pleasure in much better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This trend threats strengthening a "medication for the abundant" design, where those with financial ways gain from innovative preventative tools and customized health details while others battle to gain access to even fundamental services. To avoid such injustices, fair structures are needed to ensure that the usage of AI in healthcare does not intensify existing healthcare inequalities however rather serves the typical good.

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

78. This technique includes a commitment to cultivating the mind, but constantly as a part of the important advancement of the individual: "We must break that concept of education which holds that educating methods filling one's head with concepts. That is the method we inform automatons, cerebral minds, not individuals. Educating is taking a danger in the stress between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]
79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human individual is the indispensable relationship in between teacher and trainee. Teachers do more than convey knowledge; they design necessary human qualities and influence the delight of discovery. [146] Their presence inspires trainees both through the material they teach and the care they demonstrate for their trainees. This bond promotes trust, good understanding, and the capacity to deal with everyone's distinct self-respect and capacity. On the part of the trainee, this can generate a real desire to grow. The physical existence of a teacher creates a relational dynamic that AI can not replicate, one that deepens engagement and supports the trainee's important development.

80. In this context, AI presents both opportunities and challenges. If used in a prudent way, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and bought to the authentic objectives of education, AI can end up being a valuable academic resource by boosting access to education, using tailored assistance, and providing immediate feedback to trainees. These benefits could improve the knowing experience, especially in cases where individualized attention is needed, or academic resources are otherwise limited.

81. Nevertheless, an important part of education is forming "the intelligence to factor well in all matters, to connect towards fact, and to understand it," [147] while helping the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is all the more crucial in an age marked by technology, in which "it is no longer simply a concern of 'utilizing' instruments of interaction, but of living in a highly digitalized culture that has had a profound influence on [...] our ability to communicate, discover, be informed and participate in relationship with others." [149] However, rather of promoting "a cultivated intellect," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and occupation that it undertakes," [150] the substantial use of AI in education could cause the trainees' increased dependence on innovation, eroding their capability to perform some skills independently and worsening their dependence on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are designed to assist individuals develop their crucial thinking capabilities and problem-solving skills, many others merely supply answers instead of prompting trainees to show up at answers themselves or compose text on their own. [152] Instead of training young individuals how to generate details and generate fast reactions, education ought to motivate "the accountable usage of flexibility to deal with concerns with good sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in the usage of forms of expert system ought to aim above all at promoting crucial thinking. Users of all ages, but especially the young, require to develop a discerning approach to the usage of data and content gathered online or produced by artificial intelligence systems. Schools, universities, and scientific societies are challenged to help trainees and professionals to comprehend the social and ethical aspects of the development and usages of innovation." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II recalled, "in the world today, characterized by such quick advancements in science and innovation, the tasks of a Catholic University presume an ever greater value and urgency." [155] In a particular way, Catholic universities are advised to be present as terrific laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary key, they are advised to engage "with knowledge and creativity" [156] in mindful research study on this phenomenon, assisting to extract the salutary capacity within the different fields of science and reality, and assisting them always towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the common good, reaching brand-new frontiers in the dialogue between faith and reason.

84. Moreover, it ought to be kept in mind that existing AI programs have actually been understood to supply biased or made details, which can lead trainees to trust inaccurate material. This problem "not just risks of legitimizing phony news and enhancing a dominant culture's advantage, but, in other words, it likewise undermines the academic process itself." [157] With time, clearer differences may emerge between correct and improper uses of AI in education and research study. Yet, a definitive guideline is that the use of AI must always be transparent and never misrepresented.

85. AI could be utilized as an aid to human dignity if it assists individuals understand intricate ideas or directs them to sound resources that support their search for the fact. [158]
86. However, AI likewise provides a serious risk of generating manipulated material and false details, which can easily misinform individuals due to its similarity to the reality. Such false information may happen unintentionally, as in the case of AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear real but are not. Since creating content that imitates human artifacts is main to AI's performance, reducing these dangers proves tough. Yet, the consequences of such aberrations and incorrect details can be quite serious. For this factor, all those associated with producing and using AI systems should be committed to the truthfulness and accuracy of the details processed by such systems and shared to the public.

87. While AI has a hidden potential to create incorrect details, an even more troubling problem lies in the intentional misuse of AI for control. This can take place when people or organizations purposefully generate and spread false material with the aim to deceive or cause harm, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to an incorrect depiction of an individual, edited or generated by an AI algorithm. The risk of deepfakes is particularly evident when they are utilized to target or hurt others. While the images or videos themselves may be synthetic, the damage they trigger is genuine, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "genuine wounds in their human dignity." [159]
88. On a wider scale, by distorting "our relationship with others and with reality," [160] AI-generated phony media can slowly undermine the structures of society. This concern needs cautious policy, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or affected media-can spread accidentally, sustaining political polarization and social unrest. When society becomes indifferent to the truth, various groups construct their own versions of "truths," deteriorating the "reciprocal ties and mutual reliances" [161] that underpin the fabric of social life. As deepfakes cause individuals to question everything and AI-generated false material deteriorates rely on what they see and hear, polarization and conflict will only grow. Such extensive deceptiveness is no trivial matter; it strikes at the core of humanity, dismantling the fundamental trust on which societies are developed. [162]
89. Countering AI-driven fallacies is not only the work of market experts-it requires the efforts of all people of goodwill. "If innovation is to serve human self-respect and not harm it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human neighborhood needs to be proactive in dealing with these patterns with respect to human self-respect and the promo of the excellent." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated material needs to always work out diligence in verifying the truth of what they share and, in all cases, ought to "prevent the sharing of words and images that are deteriorating of humans, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that make use of the weak and susceptible." [164] This calls for the ongoing prudence and cautious discernment of all users concerning their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are inherently relational, and the data everyone produces in the digital world can be viewed as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data conveys not only details however also personal and relational understanding, which, in a significantly digitized context, can amount to power over the person. Moreover, while some kinds of information may pertain to public aspects of an individual's life, others may touch upon the person's interiority, possibly even their conscience. Seen in this way, personal privacy plays an essential function in securing the boundaries of a person's inner life, maintaining their flexibility to connect to others, reveal themselves, and make choices without undue control. This defense is also tied to the defense of religious liberty, as security can likewise be misused to apply control over the lives of followers and how they express their faith.

91. It is proper, therefore, to attend to the problem of privacy from a concern for the legitimate liberty and inalienable self-respect of the human individual "in all scenarios." [166] The Second Vatican Council consisted of the right "to safeguard personal privacy" amongst the basic rights "essential for living a truly human life," a right that ought to be reached all individuals on account of their "sublime dignity." [167] Furthermore, the Church has also verified the right to the legitimate respect for a personal life in the context of verifying the person's right to a great reputation, defense of their physical and mental stability, and liberty from harm or unnecessary intrusion [168] -important parts 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 behavior and thinking from even a small quantity of details, making the role of data privacy even more necessary as a protect for the self-respect and relational nature of the human person. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant attitudes towards others are on the increase, distances are otherwise shrinking or vanishing to the point that the right to privacy rarely exists. Everything has become a type of phenomenon to be examined and inspected, and people's lives are now under constant security." [170]
93. While there can be genuine and correct methods to utilize AI in keeping with human dignity and the typical good, using it for monitoring aimed at making use of, restricting others' flexibility, or benefitting a couple of at the expense of the lots of is unjustifiable. The danger of surveillance overreach should be monitored by suitable regulators to guarantee transparency and public accountability. Those responsible for security ought to never surpass their authority, which must constantly prefer the self-respect and freedom of everyone as the vital basis of a simply and gentle society.

94. Furthermore, "fundamental respect for human dignity demands that we refuse to allow the individuality of the person to be identified with a set of data." [171] This particularly 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 should beware about delegating judgments to algorithms that process data, typically gathered surreptitiously, on a person's makeup and prior behavior. Such information can be polluted by social bias and prejudgments. An individual's previous habits should not be utilized to reject him or her the opportunity to alter, grow, and contribute to society. We can not allow algorithms to restrict or condition respect for human dignity, or to omit empathy, 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 creating designs to forecast extreme climate events, proposing engineering solutions to lower their impact, handling relief operations, and forecasting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable agriculture, optimize energy usage, and supply early caution systems for public health emergencies. These advancements have the prospective to enhance resilience against climate-related obstacles and promote more sustainable advancement.

96. At the exact same time, present AI models and the hardware required to support them consume vast amounts of energy and water, substantially contributing to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This reality is frequently obscured by the method this technology exists in the popular imagination, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can give the impression that data is saved and processed in an intangible world, removed from the real world. However, "the cloud" is not an ethereal domain different from the real world; as with all calculating innovations, it relies on physical makers, cables, and energy. The same holds true of the innovation behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, particularly large language designs (LLMs), they require ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and greater storage facilities. Considering the heavy toll these technologies take on the environment, it is essential to develop sustainable solutions that lower their influence on our common home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is essential "that we look for services not just in innovation but in a change of mankind." [175] A complete and genuine understanding of production recognizes that the worth of all created things can not be minimized to their simple energy. Therefore, a fully human technique to the stewardship of the earth turns down the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which seeks to "extract whatever possible" from the world, [176] and turns down the "myth of progress," which assumes that "environmental problems will solve themselves just with the application of new technology and with no need for ethical considerations or deep change." [177] Such a mindset needs to provide way to a more holistic approach that respects the order of creation and promotes the important good of the human individual while protecting our typical home. [178]
98. The Second Vatican Council and the consistent teaching of the Popes ever since have firmly insisted that peace is not simply the lack of war and is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers 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 products of persons, totally free communication, respect for the self-respect of individuals and individuals, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity and can not be attained through force alone; rather, it must be mainly developed through client diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, solidarity, essential human development, and regard for the self-respect of all people. [180] In this way, the tools utilized to maintain peace should never ever be enabled to justify injustice, violence, or oppression. Instead, they ought to always be governed by a "firm decision to regard other individuals and nations, together with their dignity, as well as the deliberate practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical capabilities might help nations seek peace and make sure security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can likewise be highly problematic. Pope Francis has observed that "the capability to carry out military operations through push-button control systems has actually caused a lessened perception of the devastation brought on by those weapon systems and the problem of duty for their usage, leading to a much more cold and removed technique to the tremendous catastrophe of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which self-governing weapons make war more practical militates against the concept of war as a last hope in genuine self-defense, [183] possibly increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and precipitating a destabilizing arms race, with catastrophic repercussions for human rights. [184]
100. In specific, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which can determining and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for serious ethical issue" since they lack the "distinct human capacity for ethical judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this factor, Pope Francis has actually urgently called for a reconsideration of the advancement of these weapons and a prohibition on their usage, beginning with "an efficient and concrete commitment to introduce ever higher and correct human control. No device must ever choose to take the life of a human being." [186]
101. Since it is a little action from machines that can kill autonomously with precision to those capable of large-scale damage, some AI scientists have actually expressed issues that such technology presents an "existential threat" by having the potential to act in ways that might threaten the survival of whole regions or perhaps of humankind itself. This threat demands severe attention, showing the enduring issue about innovations that grant war "an unmanageable harmful power over varieties of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing kids. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "undertake an evaluation of war with a completely new attitude" [188] is more urgent than ever.

102. At the same time, while the theoretical dangers of AI deserve attention, the more instant and pushing concern lies in how people with harmful intents might misuse this technology. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future abilities are unpredictable, mankind's previous actions provide clear cautions. The atrocities dedicated throughout history are enough to raise deep issues about the potential abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that "humankind now has instruments of unmatched power: we can turn this world into a garden, or lower it to a pile of rubble." [190] Given this truth, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are complimentary to use our intelligence towards things progressing positively," or toward "decadence and shared damage." [191] To prevent humankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there must be a clear stand against all applications of innovation that naturally threaten human life and self-respect. This dedication needs cautious discernment about making use of AI, particularly in military defense applications, to ensure that it constantly appreciates human self-respect and serves the common good. The development and deployment of AI in weaponries should go through the greatest levels of ethical examination, governed by a concern for human self-respect and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology provides exceptional tools to manage and develop the world's resources. However, sometimes, humanity is increasingly ceding control of these resources to machines. Within some circles of researchers and futurists, there is optimism about the capacity of synthetic basic intelligence (AGI), a theoretical form of AI that would match or surpass human intelligence and cause unimaginable advancements. Some even speculate that AGI might attain superhuman abilities. At the same time, as society drifts away from a connection with the transcendent, some are tempted to turn to AI looking for significance or fulfillment-longings that can just be truly pleased in communion with God. [194]
105. However, the anticipation of substituting God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture explicitly cautions against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI may show much more sexy than standard idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths however do not speak; eyes, however do not see; ears, however do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or a minimum of gives the illusion of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is essential 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 have much of the capabilities particular to human life, and it is likewise fallible. By turning to AI as a perceived "Other" greater than itself, with which to share presence and obligations, mankind dangers creating an alternative to God. However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, however humanity itself-which, in this way, becomes enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the prospective to serve mankind and contribute to the common good, it remains a development of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and resourcefulness" (Acts 17:29). It should never be ascribed excessive worth. As the Book of Wisdom affirms: "For a guy made them, and one whose spirit is obtained formed them; for no guy can form a god which is like himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is better than the objects he worships because he has life, however they never ever have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. In contrast, humans, "by their interior life, transcend the entire product universe; they experience this deep interiority when they enter into their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they decide their own destiny in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis reminds us, that each specific finds the "mysterious connection in between self-knowledge and openness to others, in between the encounter with one's individual uniqueness and the desire to provide oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "efficient in setting our other powers and enthusiasms, and our entire person, in a position of reverence and loving obedience before the Lord," [198] who "uses to deal with every one people as a 'Thou,' always and permanently." [199]
108. Considering the numerous obstacles postured by advances in technology, Pope Francis highlighted the requirement for development in "human responsibility, values, and conscience," proportionate to the development in the capacity that this technology brings [200] -acknowledging that "with an increase in human power comes an expanding of responsibility on the part of people and communities." [201]
109. At the same time, the "important and essential question" remains "whether in the context of this progress male, as man, is ending up being really much better, that is to say, more fully grown spiritually, more familiar with the dignity of his humankind, more accountable, more available to others, particularly the neediest and the weakest, and readier to provide and to aid all." [202]
110. As a result, it is vital to know how to examine private applications of AI in particular contexts to determine whether its usage promotes human self-respect, the vocation of the human person, and the common good. As with numerous innovations, the impacts of the different usages of AI may not always be predictable from their beginning. As these applications and their social impacts become clearer, appropriate actions need to be made at all levels of society, following the concept of subsidiarity. Individual users, families, civil society, corporations, institutions, federal governments, and international companies need to work at their appropriate levels to guarantee that AI is used for the good of all.

111. A significant difficulty and opportunity for the common excellent today lies in considering AI within a structure of relational intelligence, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of people and communities and highlights our shared obligation for promoting the important wellness of others. The twentieth-century theorist Nicholas Berdyaev observed that individuals typically blame machines for personal and social issues; however, "this only humiliates male and does not correspond to his dignity," for "it is not worthy to transfer duty from man to a maker." [203] Only the human individual can be morally accountable, and the obstacles of a technological society are eventually spiritual in nature. Therefore, dealing with those challenges "needs an intensification of spirituality." [204]
112. A more indicate consider is the call, triggered by the appearance of AI on the world stage, for a renewed gratitude of all that is human. Years earlier, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos warned that "the danger is not in the multiplication of machines, but in the ever-increasing number of males accustomed from their childhood to desire only what devices can offer." [205] This obstacle is as true today as it was then, as the rapid pace of digitization risks a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable elements of life are reserved and after that forgotten and even considered unimportant due to the fact that they can not be calculated in formal terms. AI ought to be used just as a tool to match human intelligence rather than change its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that go beyond computation is essential for maintaining "a genuine humankind" that "seems to dwell in the middle of our technological culture, practically unnoticed, like a mist permeating gently below a closed door." [207]
113. The vast expanse of the world's understanding is now available in ways that would have filled previous generations with awe. However, to ensure that developments in knowledge do not become humanly or spiritually barren, one must go beyond the simple accumulation of data and aim to attain true wisdom. [208]
114. This wisdom is the present that mankind needs most to deal with the extensive concerns and ethical obstacles posed by AI: "Only by embracing a spiritual method of viewing truth, only by recuperating a wisdom of the heart, can we confront and analyze the newness of our time." [209] Such "wisdom of the heart" is "the virtue that allows us to integrate the entire and its parts, our choices and their consequences." It "can not be looked for from devices," however it "lets itself be discovered by those who seek it and be seen by those who enjoy it; it anticipates those who want it, and it enters search of those who deserve it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]
115. In a world marked by AI, we require the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "allows us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, situations, events and to discover their genuine significance." [211]
116. Since a "individual's excellence is determined not by the details or knowledge they have, however by the depth of their charity," [212] how we include AI "to include the least of our bros and sisters, the vulnerable, and those most in requirement, will be the true measure of our mankind." [213] The "knowledge of the heart" can brighten and assist the human-centered usage of this technology to help promote the common good, care for our "common home," advance the look for the reality, foster integral human advancement, prefer human uniformity and gratisafhalen.be fraternity, and lead humankind to its supreme objective: joy and complete communion with God. [214]
117. From this perspective of knowledge, followers will have the ability to function as ethical representatives capable of utilizing this technology to promote an authentic vision of the human person and society. [215] This ought to be made with the understanding that technological development belongs to God's strategy for creation-an activity that we are called 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, authorized this Note and ordered its publication.

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

Ex audientia die 14 ianuarii 2025 Franciscus

Contents

I. Introduction

II. What is Artificial Intelligence?

III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition

Rationality

Embodiment

Relationality

Relationship with the Truth

Stewardship of the World

An Essential Understanding of Human Intelligence

The Limits of AI

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

Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making

V. Specific Questions

AI and Society

AI and Human Relationships

AI, the Economy, and Labor

AI and Healthcare

AI and Education

AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse

AI, Privacy, and Surveillance

AI and the Protection of Our Common Home

AI and Warfare

AI and Our Relationship with God

VI. Concluding Reflections

True Wisdom

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See also Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. [2] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 307. Cf. Id., Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (21 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020 ), 43. [3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [5] J. McCarthy, et al., "A Proposition for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence" (31 August 1955), http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024). [6] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), pars. 2-3: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [7] Terms in this document explaining the outputs or procedures of AI are used figuratively to explain its operations and are not planned to anthropomorphize the machine. [8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [9] Here, one can see the main positions of the "transhumanists" and the "posthumanists." Transhumanists argue that technological developments will enable people to overcome their biological constraints and enhance both their physical and utahsyardsale.com cognitive capabilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, compete that such advances will eventually alter human identity to the extent that humanity itself may no longer be considered truly "human." Both views rest on an essentially unfavorable perception of human corporality, which deals with the body more as a barrier than as an important part of the individual's identity and contact us to complete awareness. Yet, this negative view of the body is irregular with a correct understanding of human dignity. While the Church supports authentic clinical development, it affirms that human self-respect is rooted in "the person as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "self-respect is likewise inherent in everyone's body, which takes part in its own way in remaining in imago Dei" (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18). [10] This technique reflects a functionalist perspective, which minimizes the human mind to its functions and assumes that its functions can be completely measured in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear genuinely smart, it would still remain practical in nature. [11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460. [12] If "thinking" is credited to makers, it should be clarified that this describes calculative thinking instead of vital thinking. Similarly, if makers are said to run using logical thinking, it must be defined that this is restricted to computational reasoning. On the other hand, by its very nature, human idea is an imaginative procedure that avoids programs and goes beyond constraints. [13] On the foundational role of language in forming understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York City 2010, 141-182). [14] For additional conversation of these anthropological and theological structures, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144. [15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21. [16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [faculty] by which he is superior to the illogical animals. Now, this [faculty] is reason itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it might more suitably be offered"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When thinking about all that they have, human beings discover that they are most differentiated from animals specifically by the fact they possess intelligence." This is likewise restated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who mentions that "guy is the most ideal of all earthly beings enhanced with motion, and his correct and natural operation is intellection," by which male 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, advertisement 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a modern perspective that echoes aspects of the classical and middle ages difference 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 truth of things through reflection, experience and discussion, and pertain to recognize in that reality, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal moral needs." [22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp. [24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "normally thinks about the human person as a being who exists in the body and is unimaginable 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 totally disclosed its significance and value." [26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81. [27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and thus it is joined to the body in order that it might have a presence and an operation ideal to its nature." [29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18. [30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357. [31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54. [32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221. [33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27. [34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls likewise possess factor and with it they circle in discourse around the reality of things. [...] [O] n account of the way in which they can focusing the many into the one, they too, in their own fashion and as far as they can, are worthwhile of conceptions like those of the angels" (en. tr. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York - 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 immediate concerns and understanding certain realities that are unvarying, as real now as in the past. As it peers into humanity, reason discovers universal values obtained from that 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 recognize that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York City 1958, 77). [39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [40] Our semantic capacity allows us to understand messages in any type of interaction in a manner that both takes into consideration and transcends their product or empirical structures (such as computer code). Here, intelligence becomes a knowledge that "enables us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, circumstances, occasions and to discover their real significance" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our imagination allows us to produce new content or ideas, mainly by offering an original viewpoint on truth. Both capacities depend on the presence of an individual subjectivity for their complete realization. [41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. [42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a commitment to the truth, is a lot more than individual sensation [...] Certainly, its close relation to fact fosters its universality and maintains it from being 'restricted to a narrow field lacking relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to fact thus protects it from 'a fideism that deprives it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643. [43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7. [44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. [46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as estimated in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294. [47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure compares deep space to "a book 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 ), par. 57: "human beings inhabit a distinct place in deep space according to the divine strategy: they take pleasure in the benefit of sharing in the divine governance of noticeable creation. [...] Since guy's place as ruler remains in fact an involvement in the divine governance of production, we speak of it here as a type of stewardship." [49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165. [50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This idea is likewise shown 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 greater good by sensing and savoring truths." [61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232). [62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he greatest norm of human life is the magnificent law itself-eternal, objective and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the whole world and the methods of the human neighborhood according to a strategy developed in his wisdom and love. God has made it possible for male to take part in this law of his so that, under the gentle personality of divine providence, lots of may be able to show up at a deeper and much deeper knowledge of unchangeable reality." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. [63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016. [64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042. [66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has actually imprinted his own image and similarity on male (cf. Gen 1:26), providing upon him an unparalleled dignity [...] In result, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not correspond to any work he carries out, however which circulation from his necessary self-respect as an individual." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22. [68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310. [69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is understood as a technical term to show this innovation, remembering that the expression is likewise used to designate the field of research study and not only its applications. [71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857. [72] For instance, see the support of clinical expedition in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the appreciation for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These writers, among a long list of other Catholics took part in scientific research study and technological expedition, illustrate that "faith and science can be unified in charity, supplied that science is put at the service of the men and lady of our time and not misused to harm 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 an ethical subject. When he acts intentionally, man is, so to speak, the daddy of his acts." [82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776. [83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777. [84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father motivated efforts "to make sure that innovation remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed towards the great." [85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the function of human firm in choosing a larger aim (Ziel) that then informs the particular 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 purpose and, in its influence on human society, constantly represents a type of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, thus making it possible for certain people to perform particular actions while preventing others from performing various ones. In a more or less explicit way, this constitutive power-dimension of technology always consists of the worldview of those who developed and developed it." [87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309. [88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Confronted with the marvels of devices, which appear to understand how to select independently, we need to be very clear that decision-making [...] should constantly be delegated the human individual. We would condemn humankind to a future without hope if we took away people's capability to make choices about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend on the choices of makers." [92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [93] The term "bias" 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 predisposition (which will lead to training on a prejudiced data set) and not the "bias vector" in neural networks (which is a parameter used to adjust the output of "nerve cells" to change more precisely 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 agreement "on the need for advancement procedures to respect such worths as inclusion, transparency, security, equity, personal privacy and reliability," and also welcomed "the efforts of global organizations to regulate these innovations so that they promote authentic development, contributing, that is, to a much better world and an integrally higher quality of life." [95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8. [96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571. [98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For additional discussion of the ethical questions raised by AI from a Catholic point of view, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253. [99] On the value of discussion in a pluralist society oriented 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; estimating the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245. [106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050. [107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047. [108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309. [109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027. [112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123. [113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034. [114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149. [115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414. [118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057. [119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985. [120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989). [123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Many individuals] want their interpersonal relationships provided by advanced devices, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel tells us constantly to risk of an in person encounter with others, with their physical existence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their joy which contaminates us in our close and continuous interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from membership in the neighborhood, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045. [124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1. [125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899. [126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107. [128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' teaching about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893. [129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as priced 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 unbiased one." [132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320. [133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502. [135] Ibid. [136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as priced estimate in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8. [137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops' Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: "If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture is manifest, with its painful consequences, it is that of health care. When an ill person is not positioned in the center or their self-respect is ruled out, this triggers attitudes that can lead even to speculation on the misfortune of others. And this is really severe! [...] The application of a service approach to the health care sector, if indiscriminate [...] might risk discarding people." [142] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [143] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729. [144] Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on the 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 contemporary person] does listen to instructors, it is due to the fact that they are witnesses." [147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126. [148] Francis, 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, pricing quote the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592. [150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167. [151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413. [152] In a 2023 policy document about the usage of generative AI in education and research, UNESCO notes: "Among the essential concerns [of making use of generative AI (GenAI) in education and research] is whether people can perhaps deliver fundamental 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 associated with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], humans can now begin with a well-structured outline provided by GenAI. Some experts have actually identified making use of GenAI to generate text in this way as 'writing without believing'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American philosopher Hannah Arendt visualized such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and cautioned: "If it must end up being real that knowledge (in the sense of know-how) and believed have actually parted company for good, then we would certainly end up being the powerless servants, not a lot of our machines as of our knowledge" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3). [153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417. [154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914. [155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479. [156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10. [157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3. [158] For example, it might assist individuals gain access to the "range of resources for generating higher knowledge of truth" contained in the works of approach (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8. [159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62. [160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074. [162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be really indifferent to the concern of whether what they know is true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he writes: 'I have fulfilled lots of who wanted to deceive, but none who wished to be deceived'"; pricing quote Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794. [163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62. [164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8. [165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Network (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149. [166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24. [167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no man might with impunity violate that human dignity which God himself treats with fantastic reverence"; as quoted 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 shielding citizens from intrusive security and enabling them to secure 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 determined a list of "early promises of AI helping to address environment modification" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The document observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can transform information into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools may help develop brand-new techniques and investments to minimize emissions, influence new economic sector investments in net absolutely no, safeguard biodiversity, and construct broad-based social resilience" (ibid.). [174] "The cloud" describes a network of physical servers throughout the world that allows users to shop, procedure, and manage their data remotely. [175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850. [176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890. [177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870. [178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852. [179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640. [180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317. [181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101. [182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310. [184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, clashofcryptos.trade Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105. [185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We require to make sure and protect an area for correct human control over the choices made by artificial intelligence programs: human self-respect itself depends on it." [186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, bybio.co 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 suitable human control would position basic ethical issues, considered that LAWS can never ever be morally responsible topics efficient in abiding by 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 neglect the possibility of advanced weapons winding up in the incorrect hands, helping with, for example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the organizations of genuine systems of federal government. In a word, the world does not require brand-new innovations that add to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and as a result end up promoting the folly of war." [190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565. [191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878. [192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687. [193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39. [194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661. [195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a better understanding today that the simple build-up of goods and services [...] is inadequate for the realization of human joy. Nor, in effect, does the availability of the lots of real benefits supplied in current times by science and innovation, including the computer sciences, bring liberty from every kind of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the significant body of resources and prospective at man's disposal is assisted by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the true good of the human race, it easily turns against man to oppress him." Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564. [196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6. [199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6. [200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. 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 19832, 212-213. [204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210. [205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829. [206] Cf. Francis, Meeting with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023). [207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: "The flood of details at our fingertips does not make for higher knowledge. Wisdom is not born of quick searches on the internet nor is it a mass of unverified data. That is not the method to develop in the encounter with truth." [209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [210] Ibid. [211] Ibid. [212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121. [213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124. [214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.