GitLab

1. With wisdom both ancient and brand-new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to assess the present obstacles and opportunities positioned by clinical and technological developments, particularly by the recent advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian tradition regards the gift of intelligence as a necessary aspect of how humans are created "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Beginning with an essential vision of the human person and the biblical contacting us to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church highlights that this gift of intelligence must be expressed through the responsible use of reason and technical capabilities in the stewardship of the developed world.

2. The Church encourages the advancement of science, technology, the arts, and other types of human endeavor, viewing them as part of the "partnership of male and lady with God in refining the noticeable production." [1] As Sirach affirms, God "provided skill to people, that he may be glorified in his marvelous works" (Sir. 38:6). Human capabilities and creativity come from God and, when utilized rightly, glorify God by reflecting his wisdom and goodness. Because of this, when we ask ourselves what it indicates to "be human," we can not leave out a factor to consider of our clinical and technological abilities.

3. It is within this perspective that today Note addresses the anthropological and ethical obstacles raised by AI-issues that are especially significant, as one of the objectives of this technology is to mimic the human intelligence that developed it. For example, unlike many other human productions, AI can be trained on the results of human creativity and after that generate new "artifacts" with a level of speed and skill that frequently measures up to or surpasses what people can do, such as producing text or images indistinguishable from human compositions. This raises vital concerns about AI's possible role in the growing crisis of truth in the general public forum. Moreover, this innovation is developed to learn and make certain options autonomously, adapting to brand-new circumstances and providing options not foreseen by its developers, and hence, it raises basic concerns about ethical responsibility and human security, with wider ramifications for society as a whole. This brand-new scenario has actually prompted lots of people to review what it suggests to be human and the role of mankind in the world.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad agreement that AI marks a brand-new and considerable phase in humankind's engagement with technology, putting it at the heart of what Pope Francis has actually explained as an "epochal modification." [2] Its impact is felt worldwide and in a large range of areas, consisting of interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, healthcare, law, warfare, and global relations. As AI advances quickly toward even higher achievements, it is critically crucial to consider its anthropological and ethical implications. This includes not only mitigating threats and avoiding harm but likewise making sure that its applications are utilized to promote human progress and the typical good.

5. To contribute favorably to the discernment regarding AI, and in response to Pope Francis' require a restored "wisdom of heart," [3] the Church uses its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active function in the international dialogue on these issues, the Church welcomes those delegated with sending the faith-including parents, teachers, pastors, and bishops-to commit themselves to this crucial subject with care and attention. While this file is intended particularly for them, it is also meant to be available to a wider audience, especially those who share the conviction that clinical and technological advances need to be directed towards serving the human person and the typical good. [4]
6. To this end, the document starts by comparing concepts of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then explores the Christian understanding of human intelligence, offering a framework rooted in the Church's philosophical and theological tradition. Finally, the file uses standards to make sure that the advancement and use of AI maintain human self-respect and promote the integral development of the human individual and society.

7. The principle of "intelligence" in AI has actually developed over time, making use of a variety of concepts from different disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a significant turning point occurred in 1956 when the American computer system researcher John McCarthy organized a summer season workshop at Dartmouth University to check out the issue of "Artificial Intelligence," which he specified as "that of making a device behave in ways that would be called intelligent if a human were so acting." [5] This workshop released a research study program concentrated on designing makers capable of performing tasks generally related to the human intelligence and smart behavior.

8. Ever since, AI research study has advanced rapidly, resulting in the advancement of complex systems capable of performing highly advanced jobs. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are typically developed to handle specific and restricted functions, such as translating languages, anticipating the trajectory of a storm, categorizing images, addressing concerns, or producing visual content at the user's request. While the meaning of "intelligence" in AI research differs, most contemporary AI systems-particularly those using machine learning-rely on analytical inference rather than sensible reduction. By evaluating big datasets to recognize patterns, AI can "predict" [7] outcomes and propose new approaches, imitating some cognitive procedures common of human analytical. Such achievements have been made possible through advances in computing technology (including neural networks, without supervision artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) in addition to hardware innovations (such as specialized processors). Together, these innovations enable AI systems to react to numerous kinds of human input, adapt to new scenarios, and even suggest unique services not prepared for by their original programmers. [8]
9. Due to these rapid improvements, many jobs as soon as handled exclusively by human beings are now turned over to AI. These systems can enhance or perhaps supersede what human beings are able to do in lots of fields, particularly in specialized areas such as information analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is designed for a particular job, numerous researchers aim to develop what is known as "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system capable of running throughout all cognitive domains and carrying out any task within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI could one day attain the state of "superintelligence," surpassing human intellectual capacities, or add 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 welcome this potential transformation. [9]
10. Underlying this and many other perspectives on the subject is the implicit presumption that the term "intelligence" can be used in the exact same method to refer to both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not record the complete scope of the principle. When it comes to humans, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the individual in his or her entirety, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is comprehended functionally, often with the anticipation that the activities attribute of the human mind can be broken down into digitized actions that machines can duplicate. [10]
11. This practical perspective is exemplified by the "Turing Test," which considers a device "smart" if a person can not identify its behavior 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, that includes abstraction, feelings, creativity, and the aesthetic, moral, and spiritual sensibilities. Nor does it encompass the full variety of expressions characteristic of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the "intelligence" of a system is evaluated methodologically, however also reductively, based upon its capability to produce proper responses-in this case, those associated with the human intellect-regardless of how those actions are produced.

12. AI's sophisticated features provide it sophisticated abilities to carry out tasks, however not the capability to believe. [12] This distinction is crucially essential, as the way "intelligence" is defined undoubtedly forms how we comprehend the relationship in between human idea and this technology. [13] To value this, one should remember the richness of the philosophical tradition and Christian faith, which provide a much deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's mentor on the nature, self-respect, and occupation of the human person. [14]
13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has actually played a main function in comprehending what it means to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all people by nature desire to understand." [15] This understanding, with its capacity for abstraction that comprehends the nature and meaning of things, sets humans apart from the animal world. [16] As theorists, theologians, and psychologists have analyzed the exact nature of this intellectual professors, they have actually likewise explored how people understand the world and their distinct location within it. Through this exploration, the Christian custom has pertained to comprehend the human individual as a being consisting of both body and soul-deeply linked to this world and yet transcending it. [17]
14. In the classical custom, the concept of intelligence is often comprehended through the complementary ideas of "factor" (ratio) and "intelligence" (intellectus). These are not different professors however, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are 2 modes in which the same intelligence operates: "The term intelligence is inferred from the inward grasp of the reality, while the name reason is drawn from the inquisitive and discursive process." [18] This succinct description highlights the 2 basic and complementary measurements of human intelligence. Intellectus refers to the intuitive grasp of the truth-that is, nabbing it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and premises argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to reasoning correct: the discursive, analytical process that results in judgment. Together, intelligence and reason form the 2 facets of the act of intelligere, "the correct operation of the human being as such." [19]
15. Explaining the human individual as a "logical" being does not decrease the individual to a specific mode of thought; rather, it acknowledges that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and permeates all elements of human activity. [20] Whether exercised well or improperly, this capacity is an intrinsic element of human nature. In this sense, the "term 'reasonable' incorporates all the capacities of the human individual," consisting of those related to "knowing and comprehending, along with those of ready, loving, picking, and preferring; it likewise consists of all corporeal functions carefully related to these capabilities." [21] This detailed point of view highlights how, in the human individual, produced in the "picture of God," reason is incorporated in such a way that raises, shapes, and transforms both the individual's will and actions. [22]
16. Christian thought considers the intellectual professors of the human individual within the structure of an important sociology that sees the human being as basically embodied. In the human individual, spirit and matter "are not two natures unified, however rather their union forms a single nature." [23] Simply put, the soul is not simply the immaterial "part" of the person contained within the body, nor is the body an outer shell real estate an intangible "core." Rather, the entire human person is at the same time both material and spiritual. This understanding reflects the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which views the human individual as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and therefore, an authentically spiritual measurement) within and through this embodied existence. [24] The profound meaning of this condition is additional lit up by the mystery of the Incarnation, through which God himself took on our flesh and "raised it as much as a sublime dignity." [25]
17. Although deeply rooted in bodily existence, the human individual transcends the material world through the soul, which is "practically on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intelligence's capability for transcendence and the self-possessed freedom of the will belong to the soul, by which the human individual "shares in the light of the magnificent mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of understanding without the body. [28] In this method, the intellectual professors of the human individual are an integral part of an anthropology that acknowledges that the human individual is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further elements of this understanding will be established in what follows.

18. Humans are "purchased by their very nature to interpersonal communion," [30] having the capacity to understand one another, to give themselves in love, and to get in into communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not an isolated faculty but is exercised in relationships, finding its fullest expression in discussion, collaboration, and solidarity. We learn with others, and we find out through others.

19. The relational orientation of the human person is ultimately grounded in the eternal self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is revealed in production and redemption. [31] The human person is "called to share, by understanding and love, in God's own life." [32]
20. This occupation 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 gift (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "like one another, as I have liked you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the divine life of self-giving, go beyond self-interest to react more completely to the human vocation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Much more superb than understanding many things is the commitment to look after one another, for if "I understand all mysteries and all understanding [...] however do not have love, I am nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2).

21. Human intelligence is ultimately "God's gift fashioned for the assimilation of truth." [34] In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it makes it possible for the individual to explore realities that surpass mere sensory experience or utility, since "the desire for reality becomes part of human nature itself. It is a natural home of human factor to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limits of empirical data, human intelligence can "with genuine certitude attain to reality itself as knowable." [36] While truth remains only partially known, the desire for reality "stimulates reason constantly to go further; certainly, it is as if factor were overwhelmed to see that it can always exceed what it has already attained." [37] Although Truth in itself goes beyond the limits of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this tourist attraction, the human individual is caused seek "realities of a greater order." [39]
22. This innate drive toward the pursuit of fact is particularly apparent in the noticeably human capacities for semantic understanding and creativity, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "way that is proper to the social nature and dignity of the human person." [41] Likewise, a steadfast orientation to the reality is necessary for charity to be both genuine and universal. [42]
23. The look for fact discovers its highest expression in openness to truths that transcend the physical and created world. In God, all realities attain their supreme and initial significance. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "basic choice that engages the entire individual." [44] In this method, the human individual becomes fully what he or she is contacted us to be: "the intelligence and the will display their spiritual nature," enabling the person "to act in such a way that recognizes individual flexibility to the complete." [45]
24. The Christian faith comprehends creation as the totally free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, creates "not to increase his glory, but to reveal it forth and to interact it." [46] Since God produces according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), development is imbued with an intrinsic order that reflects God's strategy (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 care for the world. [48]
25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, human beings live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and abilities to look after and establish development in accord with God's strategy. [49] In this, human intelligence reflects the Divine Intelligence that produced all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] continually sustains them, and guides them to their ultimate purpose in him. [51] Moreover, humans are called to develop their abilities in science and innovation, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in a correct relationship with creation, human beings, on the one hand, utilize their intelligence and ability to work together with God in guiding development towards the purpose to which he has actually called it. [52] On the other hand, creation itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, assists the human mind to "ascend gradually to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]
26. In this context, human intelligence becomes more plainly comprehended as a faculty that forms an essential part of how the whole person engages with truth. Authentic engagement needs accepting the full scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with reality unfolds in numerous methods, as each individual, in his/her multifaceted individuality [54], seeks to comprehend the world, connect to others, solve problems, reveal imagination, and pursue essential well-being through the harmonious interplay of the various dimensions of the individual's intelligence. [55] This involves sensible and linguistic capabilities but can likewise encompass other modes of connecting with reality. Consider the work of an artisan, who "must understand how to recognize, in inert matter, a specific kind that others can not recognize" [56] and bring it forth through insight and practical ability. Indigenous peoples who live close to the earth typically possess an extensive sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a buddy who understands the right word to state or an individual skilled at handling human relationships exemplifies an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, discussion and generous encounter in between persons." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of expert system, we can not forget that poetry and love are necessary to save our humankind." [59]
28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the integration of truth into the moral and spiritual life of the person, guiding his/her actions in light of God's goodness and truth. According to God's strategy, intelligence, in its max sense, likewise consists of the capability to appreciate what is real, great, and gorgeous. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel revealed, "intelligence is absolutely nothing without delight." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the highest paradise in Paradiso, testifies that the culmination of this intellectual delight is found in the "light intellectual complete of love, love of real excellent filled with pleasure, joy which goes beyond every sweet taste." [61]
29. An appropriate understanding of human intelligence, therefore, can not be decreased to the simple acquisition of truths or the capability to perform specific jobs. Instead, it includes the person's openness to the supreme concerns of life and reflects an orientation towards the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the magnificent image within the individual, human intelligence has the capability to access the totality of being, contemplating existence in its fullness, which surpasses what is measurable, and comprehending the meaning of what has actually been understood. For followers, this capability consists of, in a particular way, the capability to grow in the knowledge of the mysteries of God by using factor to engage ever more profoundly with revealed truths (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is shaped by magnificent love, which "is put forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence has an essential contemplative measurement, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian purpose.

30. Due to the foregoing conversation, the distinctions between human intelligence and current AI systems end up being apparent. While AI is an amazing technological achievement efficient in mimicing certain outputs connected with human intelligence, it runs by performing jobs, attaining goals, or making decisions based on quantitative information and computational reasoning. For example, with its analytical power, AI excels at integrating information from a range of fields, modeling complex systems, and cultivating interdisciplinary connections. In this method, it can help professionals work together in resolving complicated issues that "can not be dealt with from a single perspective or from a single set of interests." [64]
31. However, even as AI processes and mimics certain expressions of intelligence, it remains basically restricted to a logical-mathematical structure, which enforces fundamental constraints. Human intelligence, on the other hand, develops organically throughout the individual's physical and mental development, formed by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although innovative AI systems can "discover" through procedures such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is basically various from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, including sensory input, psychological responses, social interactions, and the special context of each minute. These components shape and kind individuals within their individual history.In contrast, AI, doing not have a physical body, depends on computational reasoning and knowing based on vast datasets that consist of taped human experiences and understanding.

32. Consequently, although AI can simulate elements of human thinking and perform particular jobs with amazing speed and performance, its computational capabilities represent just a portion of the wider capacities of the human mind. For example, AI can not currently reproduce moral discernment or the capability to develop authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is located within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral development that fundamentally shapes the person's point of view, encompassing the physical, emotional, social, ethical, and spiritual measurements of life. Since AI can not provide this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely entirely on this technology or treat it as the main methods of translating the world can lead to "a loss of gratitude for the entire, for the relationships between things, and for the wider horizon." [65]
33. Human intelligence is not mainly about finishing practical jobs however about understanding and actively engaging with truth in all its dimensions; it is also capable of surprising insights. Since AI lacks the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to reality and goodness, its capacities-though seemingly limitless-are incomparable with the human capability to comprehend truth. A lot can be gained from a disease, a welcome of reconciliation, and even a basic sunset; certainly, numerous experiences we have as people open new horizons and offer the possibility of attaining brand-new knowledge. No gadget, working exclusively with information, can measure up to these and many other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an extremely close equivalence in between human intelligence and AI dangers succumbing to 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 accomplishments, or private success, however on the individual's inherent dignity, grounded in being created in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains intact in all scenarios, including for those unable to exercise their capabilities, whether it be a coming child, an unconscious individual, or an older person who is suffering. [67] It also underpins the custom of human rights (and, in particular, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "an essential point of convergence in the look for commonalities" [68] and can, therefore, serve as a basic ethical guide in discussions 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 dangers overlooking what is most precious in the human individual. In light of this, AI ought to not be viewed as a synthetic kind of human intelligence but as an item of it. [70]
36. Given these considerations, one can ask how AI can be comprehended within God's strategy. To answer this, it is very important 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 imagination. [71]
37. Viewed as a fruit of the prospective inscribed within human intelligence, [72] clinical questions and the advancement of technical abilities become part of the "partnership of man and lady with God in perfecting the noticeable production." [73] At the very same time, all scientific and technological accomplishments are, eventually, presents from God. [74] Therefore, human beings need to constantly use their abilities in view of the higher function for which God has given them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how technology has "treated numerous evils which utilized to hurt and restrict people," [76] a fact for which we should rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological improvements in themselves represent genuine human progress. [77] The Church is particularly opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the self-respect of the human person. [78] Like any human endeavor, technological development needs to be directed to serve the human individual and add to the pursuit of "higher justice, more extensive fraternity, and a more gentle order of social relations," which are "better than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical implications of technological advancement are shared not only within the Church however also among numerous scientists, technologists, and professional associations, who progressively require ethical reflection to assist this development in a responsible way.

39. To attend to these challenges, it is necessary to emphasize the significance of moral responsibility grounded in the self-respect and occupation of the human individual. This guiding principle likewise uses to concerns worrying AI. In this context, the ethical dimension handles main importance due to the fact that it is people who create systems and identify the functions for which they are used. [80] Between a maker and a person, just the latter is truly an ethical agent-a subject of ethical obligation who works out freedom in his/her decisions and accepts their consequences. [81] It is not the device however the human who remains in relationship with fact and goodness, directed by an ethical conscience that calls the individual "to enjoy and to do what is great and to avoid evil," [82] attesting to "the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human individual is drawn." [83] Likewise, in between a device and a human, just the human can be sufficiently self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, critical with prudence, and seeking the great that is possible in every situation. [84] In reality, all of this also comes from the person's workout of intelligence.

40. Like any item of human imagination, AI can be directed towards favorable or negative ends. [85] When utilized in ways that respect human dignity and promote the well-being of people and neighborhoods, it can contribute positively to the human vocation. Yet, as in all areas where people are contacted us to make decisions, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human flexibility allows for the possibility of choosing what is wrong, the moral evaluation of this innovation will need to take into consideration how it is directed and utilized.

41. At the very same time, it is not only completions that are fairly considerable however likewise the means used to attain them. Additionally, the general vision and understanding of the human individual 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 values." [87] On a societal level, some technological developments could also strengthen relationships and power characteristics that are irregular with a correct understanding of the human person and society.

42. Therefore, the ends and the means used in a provided application of AI, in addition to the overall vision it integrates, should all be examined to guarantee they respect human self-respect and promote the typical good. [88] As Pope Francis has actually stated, "the intrinsic dignity of every man and every female" should be "the essential requirement in examining emerging technologies; these will prove fairly sound to the level that they help respect that self-respect and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] consisting of in the social and economic spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays a vital function not just in developing and producing innovation but also in directing its usage in line with the authentic good of the human person. [90] The obligation for handling this carefully pertains to every level of society, directed by the concept of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The commitment to making sure that AI always supports and promotes the supreme value of the self-respect of every human being and the fullness of the human occupation acts as a criterion of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, along with to its users. It remains valid for every single application of the innovation at every level of its usage.

44. An assessment of the ramifications of this directing principle could begin by thinking about the significance of ethical obligation. Since full moral causality belongs just to individual agents, not artificial ones, it is important to be able to determine and specify who bears duty for the processes involved in AI, particularly those efficient in discovering, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up approaches and extremely deep neural networks make it possible for AI to solve complex issues, they make it challenging to comprehend the procedures that lead to the options they adopted. This complicates responsibility because if an AI application produces undesirable outcomes, identifying who is responsible becomes difficult. To resolve this problem, attention requires to be provided to the nature of responsibility 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 supreme duty for choices made utilizing AI rests with the human decision-makers and that there is accountability for the use of AI at each phase of the decision-making process. [91]
45. In addition to determining who is responsible, it is necessary to identify the objectives offered to AI systems. Although these systems may utilize not being watched autonomous learning mechanisms and in some cases follow paths that humans can not reconstruct, they ultimately pursue objectives that people have assigned to them and are governed by procedures developed by their designers and programmers. Yet, this presents an obstacle due to the fact that, as AI designs become progressively capable of independent knowing, the capability to maintain control over them to ensure that such applications serve human functions might successfully decrease. This raises the important concern of how to guarantee that AI systems are ordered 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 likewise shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis noted, the machine "makes a technical option amongst several possibilities based either on well-defined criteria or on statistical reasonings. People, nevertheless, not just pick, however in their hearts can deciding." [92] Those who utilize AI to achieve a task and follow its outcomes create a context in which they are eventually responsible for the power they have actually entrusted. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist people in making choices, the algorithms that govern it should be trustworthy, secure, robust enough to deal with disparities, and transparent in their operation to mitigate predispositions and unintended negative effects. [93] Regulatory structures ought to make sure that all legal entities remain accountable for making use of AI and all its consequences, with proper safeguards for transparency, personal privacy, and responsibility. [94] Moreover, those utilizing AI must beware not to end up being excessively based on it for their decision-making, a pattern that increases modern society's currently high reliance on technology.

47. The Church's ethical and social mentor offers resources to help guarantee that AI is utilized in a way that maintains human company. Considerations about justice, for example, should likewise deal with concerns such as fostering just social characteristics, maintaining worldwide security, and promoting peace. By exercising vigilance, people and neighborhoods can recognize ways to use AI to benefit mankind while avoiding applications that might degrade human dignity or damage the environment. In this context, the concept of duty must be understood not just in its most minimal sense but as a "obligation for the look after others, which is more than simply accounting for outcomes attained." [95]
48. Therefore, AI, like any innovation, can be part of a conscious and accountable answer to mankind's occupation to the good. However, as formerly discussed, AI must be directed by human intelligence to align with this occupation, guaranteeing it respects the self-respect of the human individual. Recognizing this "exalted dignity," the Second Vatican Council affirmed that "the social order and its development need to usually work to the advantage of the human individual." [96] Due to this, the use of AI, as Pope Francis said, must be "accompanied by an ethic influenced by a vision of the common great, a principles of freedom, responsibility, and fraternity, efficient in promoting the complete advancement of individuals in relation to others and to the whole of development." [97]
49. Within this general viewpoint, some observations follow listed below to illustrate how the preceding arguments can help provide an ethical orientation in useful circumstances, in line with the "knowledge of heart" that Pope Francis has actually proposed. [98] While not extensive, this discussion is provided 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 fundamental self-respect of each human and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human household must undergird the advancement of brand-new innovations and work as unassailable criteria for evaluating them before they are used." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI might "present important innovations in farming, education and culture, an improved level of life for whole countries and peoples, and the development of human fraternity and social relationship," and thus be "used to promote important human advancement." [101] AI might also assist companies determine those in need and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other similar applications of this innovation might add to human advancement and the typical good. [102]
52. However, while AI holds numerous possibilities for promoting the good, it can also hinder or perhaps counter human advancement and the common good. Pope Francis has kept in mind that "evidence to date recommends that digital innovations have actually increased inequality in our world. Not just differences in product wealth, which are likewise significant, but likewise distinctions in access to political and social influence." [103] In this sense, AI might be utilized to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, produce new types of poverty, broaden the "digital divide," and get worse existing social inequalities. [104]
53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a few powerful business raises significant ethical concerns. Exacerbating this issue is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single person can work out complete oversight over the large and complicated datasets utilized for calculation. This lack of distinct accountability produces the threat that AI could be manipulated for individual or business gain or to direct public viewpoint for the benefit of a particular industry. Such entities, inspired by their own interests, possess the capacity to exercise "types of control as subtle as they are invasive, developing systems for the adjustment of consciences and of the democratic procedure." [105]
54. Furthermore, there is the threat of AI being utilized to promote what Pope Francis has called the "technocratic paradigm," which views all the world's issues as understandable through technological means alone. [106] In this paradigm, human dignity and fraternity are typically reserved in the name of effectiveness, "as if truth, goodness, and reality instantly stream from technological and economic power as such." [107] Yet, human dignity and the typical excellent must never be broken for the sake of performance, [108] for "technological developments that do not result in an enhancement in the lifestyle of all mankind, however on the contrary, exacerbate inequalities and conflicts, can never count as real progress. " [109] Instead, AI must be put "at the service of another kind of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more important." [110]
55. Attaining this goal needs a much deeper reflection on the relationship between autonomy and obligation. Greater autonomy increases everyone's duty throughout numerous aspects of common life. For Christians, the structure of this responsibility depends on the acknowledgment that all human capacities, including the individual's autonomy, originated from God and are meant to be utilized in the service of others. [111] Therefore, instead of merely pursuing economic or technological objectives, AI needs to serve "the common good of the whole human household," which is "the amount overall of social conditions that allow people, either as groups or as people, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more quickly." [112]
56. The Second Vatican Council observed that "by his innermost nature guy is a social being; and if he does not get in into relations with others, he can neither live nor develop his gifts." [113] This conviction highlights that residing in society is intrinsic to the nature and vocation of the human person. [114] As social beings, we seek relationships that include shared exchange and the pursuit of reality, in the course of which, individuals "share with each other the reality they have actually discovered, or believe they have actually found, in such a method that they assist one another in the look for fact." [115]
57. Such a quest, along with other elements of human communication, presupposes encounters and mutual exchange between individuals formed by their unique histories, ideas, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a varied, multifaceted, and complicated reality: individual and social, logical and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis highlights this dynamic, noting that "together, we can seek the truth in discussion, in unwinded conversation or in enthusiastic argument. To do so requires perseverance; it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently embrace the broader experience of individuals and peoples. [...] The process of building fraternity, be it local or universal, can just be carried out by spirits that are totally free and available to authentic encounters." [116]
58. It remains in this context that a person can think about the difficulties AI positions to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the possible to promote connections within the human family. However, it could also impede a true encounter with reality and, eventually, lead individuals to "a deep and melancholic discontentment with interpersonal relations, or a hazardous sense of isolation." [117] Authentic human relationships require the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their pleasure. [118] Since human intelligence is revealed and improved also in social and embodied methods, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are essential for engaging with truth in its fullness.

59. Because "real wisdom demands an encounter with reality," [119] the rise of AI presents another challenge. Since AI can effectively mimic the items of human intelligence, the capability to know 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 advanced outputs that are normally related to human beings. Yet, it must be understood for what it is: a tool, not a person. [120] This difference is frequently obscured by the language utilized by professionals, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and hence blurs the line in between human and device.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI also positions particular obstacles for the advancement of kids, potentially encouraging them to establish patterns of interaction that deal with human relationships in a transactional manner, as one would relate to a chatbot. Such practices could lead young individuals to see teachers as simple dispensers of details instead of as mentors who direct and nurture their intellectual and ethical development. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and an unfaltering dedication to the good of the other, are vital and irreplaceable in fostering the full advancement of the human individual.

61. In this context, it is essential to clarify that, regardless of using anthropomorphic language, no AI application can genuinely experience compassion. Emotions can not be minimized to facial expressions or expressions created in reaction to triggers; they show the way a person, as an entire, relates to the world and to his or her own life, with the body playing a main function. True empathy requires the ability to listen, acknowledge another's irreducible originality, invite their otherness, and comprehend the meaning behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the world of analytical judgment in which AI excels, real compassion comes from the relational sphere. It includes intuiting and apprehending the lived experiences of another while maintaining the distinction in between self and other. [122] While AI can simulate compassionate responses, it can not duplicate the incomparably personal and relational nature of authentic empathy. [123]
62. In light of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as a person need to always be prevented; doing so for deceptive functions is a grave ethical infraction that might wear down social trust. Similarly, utilizing AI to deceive in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, including the sphere of sexuality-is also to be considered immoral and requires careful oversight to avoid damage, maintain openness, and ensure the dignity of all individuals. [124]
63. In a progressively isolated world, some individuals have turned to AI looking for deep human relationships, easy friendship, or even psychological bonds. However, while people are meant to experience authentic relationships, AI can only simulate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an important part of how an individual grows to become who he or she is meant to be. If AI is utilized to help individuals foster authentic connections between people, it can contribute positively to the complete realization of the individual. Conversely, if we change relationships with God and with others with interactions with innovation, we risk changing authentic relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of pulling away into synthetic worlds, we are contacted us to engage in a dedicated and deliberate method with reality, particularly by determining with the poor and suffering, consoling those in grief, and creating bonds of communion with all.

64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being significantly incorporated into financial and financial systems. Significant investments are currently being made not only in the innovation sector however also in energy, finance, and media, especially in the locations of marketing and sales, logistics, technological development, compliance, and danger management. At the same time, AI's applications in these locations have also highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of significant chances however also profound threats. A very first genuine vital 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 value produced by AI instead of business that use it.

65. Other wider elements of AI's influence on the economic-financial sphere need to also be carefully taken a look at, particularly concerning the interaction in between concrete reality and the digital world. One essential factor to consider in this regard involves the coexistence of varied and alternative types of economic and financial organizations within a given context. This aspect should be motivated, as it can bring benefits in how it supports the real economy by fostering its development 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 specific history, with a common journey identified by shared worths and hopes, however likewise by inescapable disputes and divergences. This diversity is an indisputable possession to a neighborhood's economic life. Turning over the economy and financing completely to digital technology would reduce this range and richness. As an outcome, numerous services to economic problems that can be reached through natural dialogue in between the included parties might no longer be attainable in a world dominated by procedures and only the appearance of nearness.

66. Another area where AI is already having an extensive impact is the world of work. As in lots of other fields, AI is driving fundamental transformations across lots of professions, with a variety of results. On the one hand, it has the possible to enhance competence and efficiency, develop new tasks, make it possible for workers to focus on more ingenious jobs, and open new horizons for creativity and development.

67. However, while AI guarantees to boost performance by taking over ordinary jobs, it often forces workers to adjust to the speed and needs of makers instead of makers being developed to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the marketed benefits of AI, current approaches to the innovation can paradoxically deskill employees, subject them to automated monitoring, and relegate them to rigid and repetitive tasks. The requirement to stay up to date with the speed of technology can deteriorate employees' sense of company and suppress the ingenious capabilities they are anticipated to give their work. [125]
68. AI is currently eliminating the requirement for some jobs that were when performed by humans. If AI is used to change human employees rather than match them, there is a "significant danger of disproportionate benefit for the couple of at the rate of the impoverishment of lots of." [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more powerful, there is an involved threat that human labor might lose its value in the economic world. This is the sensible repercussion of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humanity oppressed to efficiency, where, eventually, the expense of humanity should be cut. Yet, human lives are inherently important, independent of their financial output. Nevertheless, the "current model," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to prefer a financial investment in efforts to assist the sluggish, the weak, or the less skilled to find chances in life." [127] Because of this, "we can not allow a tool as powerful and vital as Artificial Intelligence to enhance such a paradigm, but rather, we need to make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its expansion." [128]
69. It is necessary to keep in mind that "the order of things must be secondary to the order of persons, and not the other method around." [129] Human work must not just be at the service of earnings however at "the service of the entire human person [...] taking into account the individual's material requirements and the requirements of his or her intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and spiritual life." [130] In this context, the Church acknowledges that work is "not just a way of making one's daily bread" but is likewise "an important measurement of social life" and "a method [...] of individual growth, the building of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of gifts. Work provides us a sense of shared responsibility for the development of the world, and eventually, for our life as an individuals." [131]
70. Since work is a "part of the significance of life on this earth, a path to development, human advancement and individual fulfillment," "the goal should not be that technological progress increasingly replaces human work, for this would be damaging to mankind" [132] -rather, it must promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI should help, not change, human judgment. Similarly, it must never ever deteriorate creativity or minimize workers to mere "cogs in a device." Therefore, "respect for the self-respect of workers and the significance of employment for the financial well-being of individuals, families, and societies, for job security and just earnings, should be a high concern for the international neighborhood as these types of technology permeate more deeply into our work environments." [133]
71. As individuals in God's recovery work, healthcare specialists have the occupation and responsibility to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the health care occupation brings an "intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension," recognized by the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges physicians and healthcare specialists to commit themselves to having "absolute regard for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Do-gooder, this commitment is to be performed by men and women "who turn down the development of a society of exemption, and act rather as next-door neighbors, raising up and rehabilitating the succumbed to the sake of the common good." [136]
72. Seen in this light, AI seems to hold immense capacity in a range of applications in the medical field, such as helping the diagnostic work of doctor, assisting in relationships between patients and medical staff, providing brand-new treatments, and expanding access to quality care likewise for those who are isolated or marginalized. In these methods, the technology could improve the "thoughtful and caring closeness" [137] that doctor are contacted us to extend to the sick and suffering.

73. However, if AI is utilized not to boost however to replace the relationship between clients and health care providers-leaving patients to communicate with a machine instead of a human being-it would decrease a most importantly crucial human relational structure to a centralized, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of encouraging uniformity with the sick and suffering, such applications of AI would risk aggravating the loneliness that frequently accompanies disease, especially in the context of a culture where "persons are no longer viewed as a vital worth to be taken care of and respected." [138] This misuse of AI would not line up with regard for the dignity of the human individual and solidarity 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 needs medical experts to exercise all their ability and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options regarding those entrusted to their care, always respecting the inviolable self-respect of the clients and the need for notified permission. As an outcome, choices concerning patient treatment and the weight of responsibility they entail need to always remain with the human person and needs to never be handed over to AI. [139]
75. In addition, using AI to identify who must get treatment based mainly on economic measures or metrics of performance represents an especially troublesome instance of the "technocratic paradigm" that need to be declined. [140] For, "enhancing resources means using them in an ethical and fraternal way, and not punishing the most delicate." [141] Additionally, AI tools in health care are "exposed to forms of bias and discrimination," where "systemic errors can easily multiply, producing not just injustices in private cases however likewise, due to the domino effect, genuine kinds of social inequality." [142]
76. The combination of AI into healthcare also postures the danger of magnifying other existing variations in access to treatment. As healthcare ends up being increasingly oriented toward avoidance and lifestyle-based techniques, AI-driven solutions might accidentally favor more affluent populations who currently take pleasure in better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This trend threats enhancing a "medicine for the abundant" model, where those with monetary methods gain from sophisticated preventative tools and individualized health while others battle to gain access to even basic services. To avoid such injustices, fair structures are needed to make sure that the usage of AI in health care does not get worse existing healthcare inequalities however rather serves the common good.

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

78. This approach includes a dedication to cultivating the mind, but always as a part of the important advancement of the person: "We should break that idea of education which holds that informing methods filling one's head with ideas. That is the way we educate robots, cerebral minds, not people. Educating is taking a danger in the stress in between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]
79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human person is the vital relationship between instructor and trainee. Teachers do more than convey knowledge; they design essential human qualities and inspire the pleasure of discovery. [146] Their existence motivates trainees both through the content they teach and the care they show for their trainees. This bond fosters trust, shared understanding, and the capability to address each individual's unique self-respect and potential. On the part of the trainee, this can generate a genuine desire to grow. The physical presence of an instructor produces a relational dynamic that AI can not reproduce, one that deepens engagement and nurtures the trainee's important development.

80. In this context, AI presents both chances and difficulties. If used in a prudent manner, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and purchased to the authentic objectives of education, AI can become a valuable educational resource by boosting access to education, offering tailored support, and supplying instant feedback to trainees. These benefits could improve the knowing experience, particularly in cases where individualized attention is needed, or academic resources are otherwise limited.

81. Nevertheless, a crucial part of education is forming "the intellect to reason well in all matters, to connect towards reality, and to understand it," [147] while assisting the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is even more vital in an age marked by innovation, in which "it is no longer simply a concern of 'using' instruments of interaction, however of living in an extremely digitalized culture that has had a profound effect on [...] our ability to interact, discover, be informed and participate in relationship with others." [149] However, instead of fostering "a cultivated intellect," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and occupation that it undertakes," [150] the substantial usage of AI in education might result in the trainees' increased dependence on technology, deteriorating their capability to carry out some skills independently and aggravating their dependence on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are designed to assist individuals establish their crucial believing abilities and problem-solving skills, numerous others merely provide answers rather of triggering trainees to reach responses themselves or compose text for themselves. [152] Instead of training young people how to accumulate details and produce quick actions, education needs to motivate "the accountable usage of flexibility to face concerns with common sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in making use of types of expert system must aim above all at promoting important thinking. Users of any ages, however especially the young, require to develop a discerning technique to the use of data and content gathered on the internet or produced by synthetic intelligence systems. Schools, universities, and clinical societies are challenged to help trainees and professionals to grasp the social and ethical aspects of the advancement and uses of technology." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II recalled, "in the world today, characterized by such fast advancements in science and technology, the jobs of a Catholic University presume an ever higher value and urgency." [155] In a specific method, Catholic universities are advised to be present as fantastic labs of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary key, they are advised to engage "with knowledge and imagination" [156] in mindful research study on this phenomenon, assisting to extract the salutary capacity within the various fields of science and truth, and directing them always towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the common good, reaching brand-new frontiers in the discussion in between faith and factor.

84. Moreover, it needs to be kept in mind that existing AI programs have actually been known to provide biased or fabricated details, which can lead trainees to rely on incorrect material. This issue "not only risks of legitimizing fake news and reinforcing a dominant culture's advantage, but, in brief, it likewise weakens the academic process itself." [157] With time, clearer differences might emerge between correct and improper uses of AI in education and research. Yet, a definitive standard is that making use of AI should constantly be transparent and never misrepresented.

85. AI could be utilized as an aid to human self-respect if it assists individuals comprehend intricate ideas or directs them to sound resources that support their search for the reality. [158]
86. However, AI likewise presents a major risk of generating manipulated material and false details, which can easily misinform individuals due to its similarity to the truth. Such false information might occur inadvertently, as in the case of AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine but are not. Since generating content that simulates human artifacts is main to AI's functionality, mitigating these risks proves tough. Yet, the repercussions of such aberrations and false details can be quite grave. For this factor, all those associated with producing and using AI systems need to be committed to the truthfulness and accuracy of the details processed by such systems and distributed to the general public.

87. While AI has a hidden capacity to create incorrect details, a much more uncomfortable issue depends on the intentional misuse of AI for control. This can take place when people or organizations purposefully generate and spread out incorrect content with the aim to deceive or cause harm, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to a false depiction of an individual, modified or created by an AI algorithm. The threat of deepfakes is especially evident when they are utilized to target or hurt others. While the images or videos themselves might be synthetic, the damage they cause is real, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "real injuries in their human self-respect." [159]
88. On a broader scale, by distorting "our relationship with others and with truth," [160] AI-generated fake media can gradually weaken the foundations of society. This issue requires careful policy, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or affected media-can spread unintentionally, sustaining political polarization and social unrest. When society becomes indifferent to the truth, various groups build their own variations of "facts," deteriorating the "reciprocal ties and mutual dependences" [161] that underpin the fabric of social life. As deepfakes trigger people to question everything and AI-generated false material deteriorates trust in what they see and hear, polarization and conflict will just grow. Such extensive deception is no unimportant matter; it strikes at the core of humankind, taking apart the foundational trust on which societies are built. [162]
89. Countering AI-driven frauds is not just the work of industry experts-it needs the efforts of all people of goodwill. "If innovation is to serve human dignity and not hurt it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human community should be proactive in dealing with these trends with regard to human self-respect and the promo of the good." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated content needs to always exercise diligence in confirming the reality of what they disseminate and, in all cases, should "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 vulnerable." [164] This requires the continuous prudence and cautious discernment of all users concerning their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are inherently relational, and the data everyone creates in the digital world can be seen as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data communicates not just details however likewise individual and relational understanding, which, in a significantly digitized context, can total up to power over the person. Moreover, while some types of data may pertain to public aspects of an individual's life, others may discuss the person's interiority, maybe even their conscience. Seen in this way, personal privacy plays an important function in securing the boundaries of a person's inner life, maintaining their freedom to relate to others, express themselves, and make decisions without undue control. This defense is likewise tied to the defense of religious freedom, as monitoring can likewise be misused to exert control over the lives of believers and how they express their faith.

91. It is suitable, for that reason, to resolve the issue of privacy from an issue for the legitimate freedom and inalienable dignity of the human individual "in all situations." [166] The Second Vatican Council included the right "to safeguard personal privacy" amongst the fundamental rights "necessary for living a truly human life," a right that should be encompassed all individuals on account of their "sublime self-respect." [167] Furthermore, the Church has actually also affirmed the right to the legitimate respect for a private life in the context of affirming the individual's right to an excellent reputation, defense of their physical and mental integrity, and flexibility from damage or undue intrusion [168] -necessary elements of the due respect for the intrinsic self-respect of the human person. [169]
92. Advances in AI-powered information processing and analysis now make it possible to infer patterns in an individual's habits and thinking from even a percentage of details, making the function of information privacy a lot more crucial as a secure for the self-respect and relational nature of the human individual. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant attitudes towards others are on the increase, ranges are otherwise diminishing or disappearing to the point that the right to personal privacy scarcely exists. Everything has become a sort of spectacle to be analyzed and inspected, and individuals's lives are now under constant surveillance." [170]
93. While there can be genuine and proper ways to use AI in keeping with human self-respect and the typical good, using it for security aimed at making use of, limiting others' liberty, or benefitting a few at the cost of the lots of is unjustifiable. The risk of surveillance overreach must be monitored by appropriate regulators to make sure openness and public responsibility. Those accountable for monitoring should never ever exceed their authority, which must constantly prefer the dignity and freedom of every person as the important basis of a simply and gentle society.

94. Furthermore, "basic regard for human self-respect demands that we refuse to allow the individuality of the individual to be recognized with a set of data." [171] This specifically uses when AI is used to assess individuals or groups based on their behavior, qualities, or history-a practice called "social scoring": "In social and financial decision-making, we must beware about handing over judgments to algorithms that process data, often collected surreptitiously, on a person's makeup and previous behavior. Such data can be infected by social prejudices and prejudgments. An individual's past behavior need to not be utilized to deny him or her the chance to change, grow, and contribute to society. We can not permit algorithms to restrict or condition regard for human dignity, or to leave out empathy, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that individuals have the ability to alter." [172]
95. AI has many appealing applications for enhancing our relationship with our "common home," such as producing models to anticipate extreme climate events, proposing engineering options to decrease their impact, managing relief operations, and predicting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable farming, enhance energy use, and offer early caution systems for public health emergency situations. These improvements have the prospective to strengthen strength against climate-related difficulties and promote more sustainable development.

96. At the exact same time, existing AI designs and the hardware needed to support them consume huge amounts of energy and water, considerably contributing to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This truth is frequently obscured by the way this innovation exists in the popular creativity, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can offer the impression that information is stored and processed in an intangible world, detached from the physical world. However, "the cloud" is not a heavenly domain separate from the physical world; just like all computing technologies, it relies on physical devices, cables, and energy. The very same holds true of the technology behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, particularly big language designs (LLMs), they require ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and greater storage facilities. Considering the heavy toll these technologies handle the environment, it is vital to develop sustainable services that reduce their influence on our common home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is necessary "that we try to find services not just in innovation but in a change of humanity." [175] A total and genuine understanding of creation acknowledges that the worth of all developed things can not be lowered to their simple energy. Therefore, a totally human method to the stewardship of the earth turns down the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which seeks to "draw out everything possible" from the world, [176] and turns down the "myth of progress," which presumes that "ecological problems will resolve themselves just with the application of new technology and with no need for ethical considerations or deep change." [177] Such a frame of mind must pave the way to a more holistic approach that respects the order of production and promotes the integral good of the human individual while safeguarding our common home. [178]
98. The Second Vatican Council and the constant teaching of the Popes ever since have insisted that peace is not merely the absence of war and is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between enemies. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the serenity of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without safeguarding the goods of individuals, complimentary communication, respect for the dignity of individuals and peoples, 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; instead, it needs to be mainly built through patient diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, uniformity, integral human advancement, and regard for the self-respect of all people. [180] In this method, the tools used to maintain peace must never ever be permitted to justify injustice, violence, or injustice. Instead, they ought to constantly be governed by a "firm decision to regard other individuals and nations, together with their dignity, as well as the purposeful practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical capabilities might assist countries look for peace and make sure security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can likewise be highly troublesome. Pope Francis has observed that "the ability to conduct military operations through remote control systems has led to a minimized perception of the devastation triggered by those weapon systems and the burden of obligation for their usage, leading to a much more cold and detached approach to the tremendous tragedy of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which self-governing weapons make war more practical militates against the concept of war as a last option in genuine self-defense, [183] potentially increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and speeding up a destabilizing arms race, with disastrous effects for human rights. [184]
100. In particular, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which can recognizing and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for severe ethical issue" because they lack the "special human capacity for moral judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this factor, Pope Francis has actually urgently required a reconsideration of the advancement of these weapons and a restriction on their use, beginning with "a reliable and concrete commitment to introduce ever greater and appropriate human control. No maker must ever select to take the life of a person." [186]
101. Since it is a little action from machines that can kill autonomously with accuracy to those capable of large-scale destruction, some AI researchers have actually revealed concerns that such technology positions an "existential danger" by having the potential to act in manner ins which might threaten the survival of whole regions or even of humankind itself. This risk needs severe attention, showing the long-standing concern about innovations that give war "an unmanageable destructive power over multitudes of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing children. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "undertake an assessment of war with a completely new attitude" [188] is more urgent than ever.

102. At the exact same time, while the theoretical risks of AI deserve attention, the more immediate and pushing concern lies in how people with malicious objectives may abuse this technology. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future capabilities are unpredictable, humanity's past actions supply clear warnings. The atrocities dedicated throughout history are sufficient to raise deep issues about the prospective abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that "humankind now has instruments of unprecedented power: we can turn this world into a garden, or minimize it to a pile of debris." [190] Given this fact, the Church advises us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are totally free to apply our intelligence towards things developing positively," or toward "decadence and shared destruction." [191] To avoid humanity from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there need to be a clear stand against all applications of innovation that naturally threaten human life and self-respect. This dedication needs cautious discernment about using AI, particularly in military defense applications, to make sure that it constantly appreciates human self-respect and serves the common good. The development and release of AI in weaponries ought to go through the greatest levels of ethical examination, governed by an issue for human self-respect and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology uses amazing tools to supervise and establish the world's resources. However, sometimes, humankind is significantly ceding control of these resources to devices. Within some circles of researchers and futurists, there is optimism about the potential of synthetic general intelligence (AGI), a theoretical type of AI that would match or surpass human intelligence and cause unimaginable improvements. Some even hypothesize that AGI might attain superhuman capabilities. At the very same time, as society drifts away from a connection with the transcendent, some are tempted to turn to AI in search of meaning or fulfillment-longings that can only be really pleased in communion with God. [194]
105. However, the presumption of substituting God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture explicitly cautions against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI might show even more seductive than traditional idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths however do not speak; eyes, but do not see; ears, but do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or a minimum of offers the impression of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is important to bear in mind that AI is however a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated material, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not possess a lot of the capabilities particular to human life, and it is also fallible. By turning to AI as a viewed "Other" higher than itself, with which to share presence and duties, humanity risks producing an alternative to God. However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, however humankind itself-which, in this way, becomes enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the prospective to serve humanity and contribute to the common excellent, it remains a creation of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and ingenuity" (Acts 17:29). It should never ever be ascribed unnecessary worth. As the Book of Wisdom verifies: "For a male made them, and one whose spirit is obtained formed them; for no man 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, but they never ever have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. On the other hand, humans, "by their interior life, transcend the entire material universe; they experience this deep interiority when they enter into their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they choose their own destiny in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis advises us, that each individual finds the "strange connection between self-knowledge and openness to others, between the encounter with one's individual originality and the determination to provide oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "efficient in setting our other powers and passions, and our whole person, in a position of reverence and loving obedience before the Lord," [198] who "provides to deal with every one people as a 'Thou,' constantly and permanently." [199]
108. Considering the different obstacles positioned by advances in innovation, Pope Francis highlighted the requirement for development in "human obligation, values, and conscience," proportionate to the development in the potential that this technology brings [200] -recognizing that "with an increase in human power comes an expanding of obligation on the part of individuals and neighborhoods." [201]
109. At the very same time, the "vital and essential question" remains "whether in the context of this progress man, as male, is ending up being genuinely much better, that is to state, more fully grown spiritually, more knowledgeable about the dignity of his humankind, more accountable, more available to others, specifically the neediest and the weakest, and readier to give and to aid all." [202]
110. As a result, it is essential to understand how to assess private applications of AI in particular contexts to figure out whether its use promotes human dignity, the vocation of the human individual, and the common good. Similar to lots of innovations, the results of the different usages of AI may not always be foreseeable from their beginning. As these applications and their social impacts become clearer, suitable responses ought to be made at all levels of society, following the principle of subsidiarity. Individual users, households, civil society, corporations, organizations, governments, and international organizations ought to operate at their proper levels to guarantee that AI is used for the good of all.

111. A significant challenge and chance for the common excellent today depends on considering AI within a structure of relational intelligence, which highlights the interconnectedness of people and neighborhoods and highlights our shared obligation for cultivating the important wellness of others. The twentieth-century theorist Nicholas Berdyaev observed that people typically blame machines for individual and social problems; however, "this just embarrasses man and does not correspond to his self-respect," for "it is not worthy to move obligation from guy to a device." [203] Only the human individual can be ethically accountable, and the challenges of a technological society are ultimately spiritual in nature. Therefore, facing those difficulties "needs an increase of spirituality." [204]
112. A more indicate consider is the call, triggered by the appearance of AI on the world stage, for a renewed appreciation of all that is human. Years earlier, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos warned that "the danger is not in the multiplication of devices, but in the ever-increasing number of males accustomed from their youth to desire only what makers can provide." [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 set aside and then forgotten or even deemed irrelevant due to the fact that they can not be calculated in formal terms. AI needs to be used only as a tool to match human intelligence rather than change its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that go beyond calculation is essential for maintaining "a genuine mankind" that "seems to dwell in the middle of our technological culture, almost unnoticed, like a mist seeping gently underneath a closed door." [207]
113. The large area of the world's understanding is now available in ways that would have filled previous generations with awe. However, to guarantee that advancements in knowledge do not become humanly or spiritually barren, one need to exceed the mere accumulation of information and aim to attain real wisdom. [208]
114. This wisdom is the present that mankind needs most to attend to the profound questions and ethical challenges posed by AI: "Only by adopting a spiritual method of seeing reality, only by recuperating a knowledge of the heart, can we confront and interpret the newness of our time." [209] Such "wisdom of the heart" is "the virtue that enables us to integrate the whole and its parts, our choices and their effects." It "can not be sought from makers," but it "lets itself be found by those who seek it and be seen by those who love it; it anticipates those who desire it, and it enters search of those who are deserving of it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]
115. In a world marked by AI, we need the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "allows us to look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, situations, occasions and to reveal their real significance." [211]
116. Since a "person's excellence is determined not by the details or knowledge they possess, but by the depth of their charity," [212] how we integrate AI "to consist of the least of our siblings and sisters, the vulnerable, and those most in need, will be the real measure of our humankind." [213] The "knowledge of the heart" can brighten and assist the human-centered usage of this innovation to help promote the common great, take care of our "common home," advance the look for the fact, foster important human advancement, favor human uniformity and fraternity, and lead humankind to its supreme goal: joy and full communion with God. [214]
117. From this point of view of knowledge, believers will have the ability to act as ethical representatives efficient in using this innovation to promote an authentic vision of the human individual and society. [215] This must be finished 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 search for the True and the Good.

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

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

Ex audientia pass away 14 ianuarii 2025 Franciscus

Contents

I. Introduction

II. What is Artificial Intelligence?

III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition

Rationality

Embodiment

Relationality

Relationship with the Truth

Stewardship of the World

An 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 utilized 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 advancements will enable humans to overcome their biological constraints and improve both their physical and cognitive abilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, compete that such advances will eventually alter human identity to the level that humanity itself might no longer be thought about truly "human." Both views rest on an essentially negative perception of human corporality, which deals with the body more as a challenge than as an integral part of the individual's identity and contact us to complete awareness. Yet, this negative view of the body is irregular with a proper understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports real scientific development, it verifies that human dignity is rooted in "the person as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "self-respect is also intrinsic in each person's body, which takes part in its own method remaining in imago Dei" (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18). [10] This method reflects a functionalist point of view, which decreases the human mind to its functions and presumes that its functions can be completely quantified in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear genuinely intelligent, it would still remain functional in nature. [11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460. [12] If "believing" is associated to makers, it needs to be clarified that this describes calculative thinking instead of vital thinking. Similarly, if devices are said to operate using abstract thought, it must be specified that this is restricted to computational logic. On the other hand, by its very nature, human idea is a creative process that avoids shows and transcends constraints. [13] On the fundamental function of language in forming understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York 2010, 141-182). [14] For more discussion of these anthropological and doctrinal foundations, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144. [15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21. [16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi advertisement litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [professors] by which he transcends to the illogical animals. Now, this [faculty] is factor itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it may more suitably be offered"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When considering all that they have, humans discover that they are most identified from animals specifically by the fact they have intelligence." This is also restated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who mentions that "man is the most best of all earthly beings endowed with movement, and his appropriate and natural operation is intellection," by which man abstracts from things and "receives in his mind things actually intelligible" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 76). [17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, ad 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a contemporary perspective that echoes elements of the classical and medieval difference between these two modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York 2011. [19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp. [20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138. [21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intelligence can examine the reality of things through reflection, experience and discussion, and pertain to recognize in that truth, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal moral demands." [22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp. [24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "normally considers 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, however rather totally revealed its significance and worth." [26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81. [27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and thus it is joined to the body in order that it may have an existence and an operation appropriate to its nature." [29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18. [30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357. [31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54. [32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221. [33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27. [34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor messengerkivu.com (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls also have factor and with it they circle in discourse around the fact of things. [...] [O] n account of the way in which they are capable of concentrating the many into the one, they too, in their own fashion and as far as they can, are worthy of conceptions like those of the angels" (en. tr. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York City - Mahwah 1987, 106-107). [35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 3: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7. [36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 42: AAS 91 (1999 ), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1043: "the human mind can going beyond immediate concerns and grasping certain facts that are changeless, as real now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, factor finds universal values obtained from that very same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034. [38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last proceeding of reason is to recognize that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York 1958, 77). [39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [40] Our semantic capability permits us to understand messages in any type of interaction in a manner that both considers and transcends their product or empirical structures (such as computer code). Here, intelligence becomes a knowledge that "allows us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, situations, occasions and to reveal their genuine meaning" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our creativity allows us to produce brand-new material or concepts, mainly by offering an initial perspective on reality. Both capabilities depend on the existence of a personal subjectivity for their full awareness. [41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. [42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a commitment to the 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 secures it from 'a fideism that deprives it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643. [43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7. [44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. [46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as priced quote in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294. [47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure compares deep space to "a book showing, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who grants 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: "humans inhabit a special place in the universe according to the magnificent plan: they delight in the privilege of sharing in the magnificent governance of visible production. [...] Since man's place as ruler remains in fact an involvement in the magnificent governance of development, we mention it here as a form of stewardship." [49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165. [50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This concept is likewise shown in the creation account, where God brings animals to Adam "to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living creature, that was its name" (Gen. 2:19), an action that shows the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's development. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117. [51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301. [52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302. [53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2. [54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7. [55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8. [57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906. [58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987. [59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: "L'intelligence n'est rien sans la délectation." Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: "The mind and the will are put at the service of the higher good by sensing and relishing realities." [61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232). [62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: timeoftheworld.date 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 entire world and the ways of the human neighborhood according to a strategy developed in his knowledge and love. God has actually allowed man to take part in this law of his so that, under the mild disposition of divine providence, lots of might be able to reach a much deeper and much deeper understanding of unchangeable truth." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. [63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016. [64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042. [66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has imprinted his own image and similarity on male (cf. Gen 1:26), conferring upon him an incomparable dignity [...] In result, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not correspond to any work he performs, but which flow from his vital dignity 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 suggest this innovation, recalling that the expression is also used to designate the discipline and not only its applications. [71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857. [72] For instance, see the support of scientific 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 authors, among a long list of other Catholics engaged in clinical research study and technological exploration, illustrate that "faith and science can be joined in charity, offered that science is put at the service of the guys and lady of our time and not misused to hurt and even destroy 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 man an ethical topic. When he acts intentionally, guy is, so to speak, the dad of his acts." [82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776. [83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777. [84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): clashofcryptos.trade AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father motivated efforts "to guarantee 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 notifies the particular function (Zweck) for which each technological application is developed, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um die Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71. [86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a function and, in its effect on human society, always represents a form of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, therefore making it possible for certain people to perform particular actions while avoiding others from carrying out different ones. In a more or less specific way, this constitutive power-dimension of technology constantly includes the worldview of those who created and developed it." [87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309. [88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Faced with the marvels of devices, which seem to know how to pick separately, we ought to be very clear that decision-making [...] need to constantly be left to the human person. We would condemn mankind to a future without hope if we took away people's ability to make choices about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend upon the options of makers." [92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [93] The term "bias" in this document refers to algorithmic bias (methodical and consistent errors in computer system systems that might disproportionately prejudice certain groups in unintended ways) or finding out bias (which will lead to training on a biased information set) and not the "bias vector" in neural networks (which is a parameter used to change the output of "neurons" to adjust more precisely to the information). [94] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father verified the growth in consensus "on the requirement for development processes to appreciate such values as inclusion, transparency, security, equity, privacy and reliability," and also invited "the efforts of global companies to manage these innovations so that they promote genuine development, contributing, that is, to a much better world and an integrally higher quality of life." [95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8. [96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571. [98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For more discussion of the ethical concerns 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 significance of discussion in a pluralist society oriented toward a "robust and strong social principles," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. [104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10. [105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; quoting the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245. [106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050. [107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047. [108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309. [109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027. [112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123. [113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034. [114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149. [115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414. [118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057. [119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985. [120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989). [123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Lots of people] want their social relationships supplied by sophisticated equipment, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel informs us constantly to risk of a face-to-face encounter with others, with their physical presence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their pleasure which contaminates us in our close and constant interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from subscription in the community, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045. [124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1. [125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899. [126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107. [128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' mentor about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893. [129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as priced estimate in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453. [130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: "work is 'for man' and not man 'for work.' Through this conclusion one appropriately pertains to recognize the pre-eminence of the subjective significance of work over the objective one." [132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320. [133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502. [135] Ibid. [136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as 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 a sick person is not placed in the center or their self-respect is not thought about, this generates mindsets that can lead even to speculation on the misfortune of others. And this is very severe! [...] The application of a business approach to the health care sector, if indiscriminate [...] may 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 quote Id., Address to the Members of the "Consilium de Laicis" (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: "if [the contemporary individual] does listen to instructors, it is because they are witnesses." [147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126. [148] Francis, Meeting with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, quoting the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592. [150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167. [151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413. [152] In a 2023 policy document about using generative AI in education and research study, UNESCO notes: "Among the essential questions [of making use of generative AI (GenAI) in education and research] is whether humans can perhaps deliver basic levels of thinking and skill-acquisition procedures to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking abilities based upon the outputs offered by AI. Writing, for example, is frequently associated with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], humans can now begin with a well-structured overview provided by GenAI. Some professionals have actually characterized making use of GenAI to produce text in this method as 'composing without believing'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American thinker Hannah Arendt foresaw such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and warned: "If it needs to turn out to be true that understanding (in the sense of knowledge) and believed have parted business for good, then we would certainly become the helpless servants, not a lot of our devices since our knowledge" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3). [153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417. [154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914. [155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479. [156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10. [157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3. [158] For example, it might assist people gain access to the "range of resources for producing greater understanding of fact" contained in the works of viewpoint (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8. [159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62. [160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074. [162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be really indifferent to the question of whether what they understand is real or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he composes: 'I have fulfilled numerous who wanted to deceive, however none who desired to be deceived'"; pricing estimate Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794. [163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62. [164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8. [165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social 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 may with impunity violate that human self-respect which God himself treats with great reverence"; as priced quote in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804. [168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203. [169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human self-respect in cyberspace obliges States to likewise appreciate the right to privacy, by protecting people from intrusive monitoring and enabling them to secure their individual details from unapproved gain access to." [170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984. [171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body determined a list of "early guarantees of AI helping to resolve environment change" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The document observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can transform information into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools may assist develop brand-new techniques and investments to reduce emissions, influence new economic sector investments in net zero, secure biodiversity, and construct broad-based social durability" (ibid.). [174] "The cloud" describes a network of physical servers throughout the world that makes it possible for 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, 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 secure a space for appropriate human control over the options made by artificial intelligence programs: human dignity itself depends on it." [186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The advancement and use of deadly autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) that lack the suitable human control would pose fundamental ethical issues, provided that LAWS can never ever be morally responsible topics capable of adhering to global humanitarian law." [187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: "Nor can we disregard the possibility of advanced weapons ending up in the incorrect hands, facilitating, for example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the institutions of genuine systems of government. In a word, the world does not require new innovations that contribute to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and subsequently 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 mere accumulation of items and services [...] is not enough for the awareness of human joy. Nor, in repercussion, does the availability of the numerous real advantages offered in current times by science and technology, including the computer technology, bring flexibility from every kind of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the substantial body of resources and possible at guy's disposal is assisted by an ethical understanding and by an orientation towards the true good of the mankind, it quickly turns against male 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 greater knowledge. Wisdom is not born of quick searches on the web nor is it a mass of unproven information. That is not the method to mature in the encounter with truth." [209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [210] Ibid. [211] Ibid. [212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121. [213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124. [214] Cf. Francis, higgledy-piggledy.xyz 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.