GitLab

1. With wisdom both ancient and brand-new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are contacted us to assess the present challenges and chances postured by clinical and technological improvements, especially by the current advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian custom relates to the present of intelligence as a necessary element of how human beings are created "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Starting from an integral vision of the human individual and the biblical calling to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church stresses that this gift of intelligence ought to be expressed through the accountable use of reason and technical abilities in the stewardship of the created world.

2. The Church motivates the improvement of science, technology, the arts, and other forms of human venture, seeing them as part of the "cooperation of male and lady with God in improving the noticeable creation." [1] As Sirach affirms, God "gave ability to human beings, that he might be glorified in his magnificent works" (Sir. 38:6). Human capabilities and creativity originate from God and, when utilized rightly, glorify God by reflecting his knowledge and goodness. In light of this, when we ask ourselves what it implies to "be human," we can not exclude a consideration of our clinical and technological abilities.

3. It is within this viewpoint that today Note addresses the anthropological and ethical difficulties raised by AI-issues that are especially considerable, as one of the goals of this technology is to mimic the human intelligence that created it. For instance, unlike numerous other human developments, AI can be trained on the outcomes of human imagination and then generate new "artifacts" with a level of speed and ability that typically equals or exceeds what humans can do, such as producing text or images identical from human structures. This raises important concerns about AI's prospective function in the growing crisis of fact in the public online forum. Moreover, this technology is developed to discover and make certain choices autonomously, adapting to brand-new situations and supplying services not visualized by its developers, and hence, it raises fundamental concerns about ethical responsibility and human safety, with wider implications for society as a whole. This brand-new situation has actually triggered many individuals to assess what it implies to be human and the function of humankind on the planet.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad consensus that AI marks a new and substantial stage in humanity's engagement with technology, putting it at the heart of what Pope Francis has explained as an "epochal modification." [2] Its impact is felt internationally and in a wide variety of locations, consisting of social relationships, education, work, art, healthcare, law, warfare, and worldwide relations. As AI advances rapidly toward even higher accomplishments, it is critically important to consider its anthropological and ethical ramifications. This includes not only mitigating risks and avoiding damage however likewise ensuring that its applications are used to promote human progress and the typical good.

5. To contribute favorably to the discernment concerning AI, and in action to Pope Francis' call for a renewed "wisdom of heart," [3] the Church offers its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active role in the international dialogue on these concerns, the Church welcomes those delegated with transferring the faith-including moms and dads, instructors, pastors, and bishops-to devote themselves to this crucial subject with care and attention. While this file is planned particularly for them, it is also suggested to be available to a broader audience, particularly those who share the conviction that scientific and technological advances must be directed towards serving the human individual and the common good. [4]
6. To this end, the document begins by differentiating in between concepts of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then checks out the Christian understanding of human intelligence, offering a structure rooted in the Church's philosophical and doctrinal custom. Finally, the file uses standards to make sure that the development and use of AI maintain human self-respect and promote the integral development of the human person and society.

7. The idea of "intelligence" in AI has actually progressed over time, drawing on a variety of concepts from different disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a considerable milestone happened in 1956 when the American computer system scientist John McCarthy organized a summertime 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 behaving." [5] This workshop launched a research program concentrated on creating makers capable of performing tasks normally connected with the human intellect and smart behavior.

8. Since then, AI research has actually advanced quickly, resulting in the development of complex systems efficient in performing extremely sophisticated tasks. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are generally developed to deal with specific and minimal functions, such as equating languages, anticipating the trajectory of a storm, categorizing images, addressing questions, or producing visual content at the user's request. While the meaning of "intelligence" in AI research study differs, many contemporary AI systems-particularly those using machine learning-rely on statistical inference rather than sensible deduction. By analyzing large datasets to identify patterns, AI can "forecast" [7] results and propose new techniques, simulating some cognitive procedures normal of human problem-solving. Such achievements have been enabled through advances in computing innovation (consisting of neural networks, unsupervised artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) as well as hardware innovations (such as specialized processors). Together, these innovations enable AI systems to react to different types of human input, adjust to brand-new situations, and even recommend unique options not prepared for by their original developers. [8]
9. Due to these fast advancements, lots of tasks as soon as handled exclusively by human beings are now delegated to AI. These systems can augment and even supersede what humans have the ability to do in many fields, especially in specialized locations such as information analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is developed for a particular task, numerous researchers aim to establish what is called "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system efficient in running throughout all cognitive domains and carrying out any job within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI might one day attain the state of "superintelligence," surpassing human intellectual capabilities, or add to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, however, fear that these possibilities, even if hypothetical, could one day eclipse the human person, while still others welcome this possible transformation. [9]
10. Underlying this and numerous other viewpoints on the topic is the implicit assumption that the term "intelligence" can be utilized in the very same way to refer to both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not capture the full scope of the concept. When it comes to people, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the individual in his/her whole, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is understood functionally, frequently with the presumption that the activities attribute of the human mind can be broken down into digitized steps that machines can replicate. [10]
11. This functional point of view is exhibited by the "Turing Test," which thinks about a device "intelligent" if a person can not identify its behavior from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "habits" refers only to the performance of particular intellectual tasks; it does not account for the full breadth of human experience, that includes abstraction, feelings, imagination, and the aesthetic, ethical, and spiritual sensibilities. Nor does it include the full series of expressions characteristic of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the "intelligence" of a system is evaluated methodologically, but likewise reductively, based on its ability to produce proper responses-in this case, those connected with the human intellect-regardless of how those reactions are created.

12. AI's innovative functions give it advanced capabilities to carry out tasks, however not the capability to believe. [12] This distinction is most importantly important, as the way "intelligence" is specified undoubtedly forms how we understand the relationship in between human idea and this technology. [13] To value this, one must remember the richness of the philosophical custom and Christian faith, which provide a deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's mentor on the nature, dignity, and vocation of the human individual. [14]
13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has actually played a main function in comprehending what it suggests to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all people by nature desire to understand." [15] This knowledge, with its capability for abstraction that understands the nature and significance of things, sets human beings apart from the animal world. [16] As philosophers, theologians, and psychologists have analyzed the precise nature of this intellectual faculty, they have likewise checked out how humans understand the world and their distinct location within it. Through this exploration, the Christian tradition has pertained to understand the human individual as a being including both body and soul-deeply connected to this world and yet transcending it. [17]
14. In the classical custom, the idea of intelligence is frequently comprehended through the complementary ideas of "reason" (ratio) and "intelligence" (intellectus). These are not separate faculties however, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are 2 modes in which the very same intelligence runs: "The term intelligence is presumed from the inward grasp of the truth, while the name factor is drawn from the curious and discursive procedure." [18] This succinct description highlights the 2 fundamental and complementary dimensions of human intelligence. Intellectus describes the instinctive grasp of the truth-that is, nabbing it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and grounds argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to reasoning correct: the discursive, analytical process that leads to judgment. Together, intellect and factor form the two aspects of the act of intelligere, "the proper operation of the human being as such." [19]
15. Explaining the human person as a "logical" being does not decrease the person to a particular mode of idea; rather, it recognizes that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and penetrates all elements of human activity. [20] Whether exercised well or poorly, this capacity is an intrinsic aspect of humanity. In this sense, the "term 'rational' encompasses all the capacities of the human individual," consisting of those associated to "understanding and comprehending, along with those of ready, caring, picking, and wanting; it likewise consists of all corporeal functions carefully related to these capabilities." [21] This detailed viewpoint underscores how, in the human individual, produced in the "image of God," factor is integrated in such a way that raises, shapes, and changes both the person's will and actions. [22]
16. Christian thought considers the intellectual faculties of the human person within the framework of an important sociology that views the human being as basically embodied. In the human individual, spirit and matter "are not 2 natures joined, however rather their union forms a single nature." [23] Simply put, the soul is not merely the immaterial "part" of the person contained within the body, nor is the body an outer shell housing an intangible "core." Rather, the whole human person is concurrently both product and spiritual. This understanding shows the teaching of Sacred Scripture, which views the human person as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and therefore, an authentically spiritual dimension) within and through this embodied existence. [24] The extensive meaning of this condition is further illuminated by the mystery of the Incarnation, through which God himself handled our flesh and "raised it approximately a superb dignity." [25]
17. Although deeply rooted in physical existence, the human individual goes beyond the material world through the soul, which is "practically on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intellect's capacity for transcendence and the self-possessed liberty of the will belong to the soul, by which the human person "shares in the light of the divine mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its typical mode of knowledge without the body. [28] In this way, the intellectual faculties of the human individual are an essential part of a sociology 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 social communion," [30] possessing the capability to know one another, to provide themselves in love, and to enter into communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not an isolated faculty but is worked out in relationships, discovering its max expression in discussion, cooperation, and uniformity. We find out with others, and we find out through others.

19. The relational orientation of the human individual is eventually grounded in the eternal self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is exposed in development and redemption. [31] The human individual is "contacted us to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life." [32]
20. This occupation to communion with God is necessarily tied to the call to communion with others. Love of God can not be separated from love for one's next-door neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20; Mt. 22:37 -39). By the grace of sharing God's life, Christians are likewise contacted us to mimic Christ's outpouring present (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "love one another, as I have loved you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the magnificent life of self-giving, transcend self-interest to respond more fully to the human occupation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Even more superb than understanding many things is the dedication to take care of one another, for if "I comprehend all secrets and all understanding [...] however do not have love, I am absolutely nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2).

21. Human intelligence is eventually "God's present made for the assimilation of fact." [34] In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it enables the person to check out realities that go beyond simple sensory experience or utility, because "the desire for truth becomes part of human nature itself. It is an innate residential or commercial property of human reason to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limits of empirical information, human intelligence can "with real certitude attain to reality itself as knowable." [36] While truth remains just partly understood, the desire for fact "stimulates reason always to go even more; certainly, it is as if reason were overwhelmed to see that it can always go beyond what it has already attained." [37] Although Truth in itself transcends the boundaries of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this tourist attraction, the human individual is led to seek "realities of a greater order." [39]
22. This natural drive toward the pursuit of truth is specifically apparent in the distinctly human capacities for semantic understanding and creativity, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "manner that is appropriate to the social nature and dignity of the human person." [41] Likewise, a steadfast orientation to the reality is vital for charity to be both genuine and universal. [42]
23. The search for fact finds its greatest expression in openness to realities that transcend the physical and created world. In God, all facts attain their supreme and original meaning. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "essential decision that engages the entire person." [44] In this way, the human person ends up being completely what she or he is called to be: "the intellect and the will display their spiritual nature," enabling the person "to act in such a way that realizes individual freedom to the full." [45]
24. The Christian faith understands production as the free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, develops "not to increase his splendor, however to reveal it forth and to interact it." [46] Since God 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 human beings to assume an unique role: to cultivate and take care of the world. [48]
25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, humans live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and abilities to take care of and establish development in accord with God's strategy. [49] In this, human intelligence shows the Divine Intelligence that created all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] constantly sustains them, and guides them to their ultimate purpose in him. [51] Moreover, humans are contacted us to establish their capabilities 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, use their intelligence and skill to work together with God in assisting creation toward the function to which he has actually called it. [52] On the other hand, production itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, assists the human mind to "ascend gradually to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]
26. In this context, human intelligence ends up being more plainly understood as a faculty that forms an essential part of how the entire individual engages with reality. Authentic engagement needs embracing the full scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with reality unfolds in various ways, as everyone, in his or her diverse individuality [54], looks for to understand the world, associate with others, solve issues, reveal creativity, and pursue integral wellness through the unified interplay of the different dimensions of the person's intelligence. [55] This involves rational and linguistic capabilities but can also incorporate other modes of interacting with truth. Consider the work of an artisan, who "need to know how to determine, in inert matter, a particular form that others can not acknowledge" [56] and bring it forth through insight and practical skill. Indigenous individuals who live near the earth often possess an extensive sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a good friend who understands the best word to say or an individual adept at managing human relationships exemplifies an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, dialogue and generous encounter between individuals." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of expert system, we can not forget that poetry and love are necessary to save our humanity." [59]
28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the integration of reality into the ethical and spiritual life of the person, directing his or her actions in light of God's goodness and reality. According to God's strategy, intelligence, in its fullest sense, also consists of the ability to enjoy what holds true, excellent, and beautiful. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel expressed, "intelligence is absolutely nothing without delight." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the greatest heaven in Paradiso, testifies that the conclusion of this intellectual delight is discovered in the "light intellectual full of love, love of real excellent filled with joy, pleasure which goes beyond every sweetness." [61]
29. A correct understanding of human intelligence, therefore, can not be lowered to the mere acquisition of facts or the capability to carry out specific jobs. Instead, it includes the individual's openness to the ultimate concerns of life and reflects an orientation towards the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the divine image within the individual, human intelligence has the capability to access the totality of being, contemplating existence in its fullness, which exceeds what is quantifiable, and comprehending the meaning of what has been understood. For followers, this capability includes, in a specific method, the capability to grow in the knowledge of the mysteries of God by utilizing reason to engage ever more exceptionally with revealed facts (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is formed by divine love, which "is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence has a necessary contemplative dimension, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian function.

30. Due to the foregoing conversation, the distinctions in between human intelligence and current AI systems become apparent. While AI is an extraordinary technological achievement capable of imitating certain outputs associated with human intelligence, it runs by performing tasks, attaining goals, or making choices based upon quantitative data and computational logic. For instance, with its analytical power, AI excels at integrating information from a variety of fields, modeling complex systems, and promoting interdisciplinary connections. In this method, it can assist specialists work together in fixing complicated problems that "can not be handled from a single viewpoint or from a single set of interests." [64]
31. However, even as AI processes and imitates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains essentially restricted to a logical-mathematical framework, which imposes inherent constraints. Human intelligence, on the other hand, develops organically throughout the individual's physical and mental development, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although sophisticated AI systems can "learn" through procedures such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is essentially various from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, consisting of sensory input, psychological responses, social interactions, and the special context of each minute. These elements shape and type individuals within their individual history.In contrast, AI, lacking a physical body, depends on computational thinking and learning based on huge datasets that consist of recorded human experiences and knowledge.

32. Consequently, although AI can imitate aspects of human thinking and carry out particular jobs with amazing speed and efficiency, its computational abilities represent only a fraction of the broader capabilities of the human mind. For circumstances, AI can not currently reproduce moral discernment or the ability to establish genuine relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is located within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral development that essentially forms the individual's viewpoint, including the physical, emotional, social, ethical, and spiritual dimensions of life. Since AI can not use this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely solely on this innovation or treat it as the main ways of translating the world can result in "a loss of gratitude for the entire, for the relationships between things, and for the wider horizon." [65]
33. Human intelligence is not mainly about completing functional jobs however about understanding and actively engaging with reality in all its dimensions; it is likewise efficient in surprising insights. Since AI does not have the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to fact and goodness, its capacities-though seemingly limitless-are incomparable with the human capability to comprehend reality. So much can be gained from a health problem, an embrace of reconciliation, and even a simple sundown; certainly, many experiences we have as human beings open new horizons and provide the possibility of attaining brand-new knowledge. No device, working exclusively with data, can measure up to these and countless other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an overly close equivalence in between human intelligence and AI risks catching a functionalist viewpoint, where people are valued based upon the work they can carry out. However, an individual's worth does not depend on possessing specific skills, cognitive and technological achievements, or specific success, however on the individual's intrinsic self-respect, grounded in being developed in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains undamaged in all circumstances, including for those not able to exercise their capabilities, whether it be an unborn child, an unconscious individual, or an older individual who is suffering. [67] It also underpins the custom of human rights (and, in specific, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "a crucial point of merging in the look for typical ground" [68] and can, hence, act as a basic ethical guide in discussions on the accountable development 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 risks ignoring what is most valuable in the human person. In light of this, AI should not be viewed as a synthetic type of human intelligence however as an item of it. [70]
36. Given these factors to consider, one can ask how AI can be understood within God's plan. To answer this, it is very important to recall that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character however is a human undertaking that engages the humanistic and cultural measurements of human imagination. [71]
37. Seen as a fruit of the prospective engraved within human intelligence, [72] scientific questions and the advancement of technical skills belong to the "partnership of males and female with God in perfecting the visible creation." [73] At the same time, all scientific and technological accomplishments are, ultimately, gifts from God. [74] Therefore, people must constantly use their abilities in view of the higher purpose for which God has approved them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has actually "fixed numerous evils which utilized to damage and limit people," [76] a fact for which we ought to rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological developments in themselves represent genuine human development. [77] The Church is particularly opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human person. [78] Like any human venture, technological development must be directed to serve the human person and contribute to the pursuit of "higher justice, more comprehensive fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations," which are "more important than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical ramifications of technological development are shared not only within the Church but also among lots of scientists, technologists, and professional associations, who significantly require ethical reflection to assist this advancement in a responsible way.

39. To attend to these difficulties, it is vital to emphasize the value of ethical obligation grounded in the self-respect and occupation of the human individual. This guiding principle likewise applies to questions concerning AI. In this context, the ethical measurement handles main value since it is people who develop systems and identify the functions for which they are utilized. [80] Between a device and a human, just the latter is genuinely a moral agent-a topic of ethical responsibility who exercises freedom in his/her choices and accepts their effects. [81] It is not the maker but the human who remains in relationship with reality and goodness, guided by an ethical conscience that calls the person "to enjoy and to do what is excellent and to avoid evil," [82] attesting to "the authority of fact in reference to the supreme Good to which the human individual is drawn." [83] Likewise, in between a machine and a human, just the human can be adequately self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, discerning with prudence, and looking for the good that is possible in every scenario. [84] In truth, all of this also comes from the person's exercise of intelligence.

40. Like any item of human imagination, AI can be directed toward positive or unfavorable ends. [85] When used in ways that respect human dignity and promote the well-being of individuals and neighborhoods, it can contribute favorably to the human occupation. Yet, as in all areas where human beings are contacted us to make choices, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human liberty permits the possibility of choosing what is wrong, the moral examination of this technology will need to take into consideration how it is directed and utilized.

41. At the exact same time, it is not only completions that are fairly considerable but also the ways utilized to attain them. Additionally, the total vision and understanding of the human person ingrained within these systems are necessary to think about too. Technological items reflect the worldview of their developers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to "shape the world and engage consciences on the level of values." [87] On a societal level, some technological developments might likewise strengthen relationships and power dynamics that are inconsistent with an appropriate understanding of the human individual and society.

42. Therefore, the ends and the means utilized in a provided application of AI, in addition to the general vision it includes, need to all be assessed to ensure they appreciate human self-respect and promote the common good. [88] As Pope Francis has actually specified, "the intrinsic dignity of every male and every woman" must be "the key criterion in examining emerging innovations; these will prove fairly sound to the degree that they assist respect that dignity and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] consisting of in the social and financial spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays an important role not just in designing and producing innovation however likewise in directing its use in line with the genuine good of the human person. [90] The responsibility for managing this wisely pertains to every level of society, directed by the concept of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The commitment to guaranteeing that AI constantly supports and promotes the supreme worth of the dignity of every person and the fullness of the human vocation functions as a requirement of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, as well as to its users. It remains legitimate for each application of the technology at every level of its usage.

44. An evaluation of the implications of this assisting principle might begin by considering the importance of ethical obligation. Since complete ethical causality belongs only to individual agents, not synthetic ones, it is crucial to be able to recognize and specify who bears responsibility for the processes associated with AI, particularly those efficient in learning, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up techniques and extremely deep neural networks enable AI to resolve complex problems, they make it hard to understand the procedures that result in the solutions they adopted. This makes complex accountability because if an AI application produces undesired results, determining who is responsible becomes tough. To address this issue, attention requires to be offered to the nature of accountability processes in complex, highly automated settings, where results might just become obvious in the medium to long term. For this, it is essential that ultimate duty for decisions used AI rests with the human decision-makers and that there is responsibility for using AI at each phase of the decision-making procedure. [91]
45. In addition to determining who is accountable, it is necessary to recognize the objectives provided to AI systems. Although these systems might use unsupervised self-governing learning mechanisms and sometimes follow courses that people can not reconstruct, they eventually pursue goals that people have actually appointed to them and are governed by procedures established by their designers and developers. Yet, this presents a challenge due to the fact that, as AI designs end up being significantly capable of independent learning, the ability to maintain control over them to make sure that such applications serve human functions might efficiently decrease. This raises the vital question of how to guarantee that AI systems are bought for the good of people and not against them.

46. While obligation for the ethical usage of AI systems starts with those who establish, produce, manage, and supervise such systems, it is likewise shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis noted, the machine "makes a technical option among several possibilities based either on distinct requirements or on statistical reasonings. Humans, however, not just select, however in their hearts are capable of choosing." [92] Those who use AI to accomplish a task and follow its results develop a context in which they are ultimately accountable for the power they have delegated. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist human beings in making choices, the algorithms that govern it must be trustworthy, safe, robust enough to deal with inconsistencies, and transparent in their operation to reduce biases and unintended side impacts. [93] Regulatory frameworks should make sure that all legal entities remain accountable for the usage of AI and all its consequences, with suitable safeguards for openness, personal privacy, and accountability. [94] Moreover, those utilizing AI must beware not to become extremely dependent on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases contemporary society's already high reliance on technology.

47. The Church's ethical and social teaching offers resources to assist make sure that AI is utilized in a manner that maintains human agency. Considerations about justice, for example, must likewise deal with issues such as cultivating just social dynamics, maintaining global security, and promoting peace. By exercising vigilance, people and neighborhoods can determine ways to utilize AI to benefit humankind while avoiding applications that could deteriorate human dignity or damage the environment. In this context, the idea of obligation should be comprehended not only in its most restricted sense however as a "duty for the look after others, which is more than just accounting for results attained." [95]
48. Therefore, AI, like any innovation, can be part of a conscious and accountable response to humanity's vocation to the good. However, as previously talked about, AI should be directed by human intelligence to line up with this occupation, ensuring it appreciates the dignity of the human individual. Recognizing this "exalted self-respect," the Second Vatican Council affirmed that "the social order and its development need to usually work to the benefit of the human person." [96] In light of this, the usage of AI, as Pope Francis said, must be "accompanied by an ethic motivated by a vision of the common great, a principles of flexibility, obligation, and fraternity, capable of promoting the complete development of people in relation to others and to the entire of production." [97]
49. Within this general viewpoint, some observations follow listed below to show how the preceding arguments can help supply an ethical orientation in practical circumstances, in line with the "knowledge of heart" that Pope Francis has actually proposed. [98] While not extensive, this conversation is provided in service of the dialogue that thinks about how AI can be used to maintain the self-respect of the human person and promote the common good. [99]
50. As Pope Francis observed, "the intrinsic self-respect of each human being and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human family should support the development of new technologies and serve as unassailable requirements for evaluating them before they are utilized." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI could "introduce essential developments in agriculture, education and culture, an enhanced level of life for entire nations and peoples, and the growth of human fraternity and social friendship," and hence be "utilized to promote integral human advancement." [101] AI might also help companies identify those in need and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other comparable applications of this innovation could add to human development and the typical good. [102]
52. However, while AI holds lots of possibilities for promoting the excellent, it can also prevent or perhaps counter human development and the common good. Pope Francis has kept in mind that "evidence to date recommends that digital technologies have increased inequality in our world. Not just distinctions in material wealth, which are likewise significant, however likewise distinctions in access to political and social impact." [103] In this sense, AI could be utilized to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, produce new types of hardship, widen the "digital divide," and aggravate existing social inequalities. [104]
53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a couple of powerful companies raises considerable ethical issues. Exacerbating this problem is the fundamental nature of AI systems, where no single individual can exercise total oversight over the vast and complicated datasets used for computation. This lack of well-defined accountability produces the danger that AI might be controlled for personal or corporate gain or to direct public viewpoint for the benefit of a particular market. Such entities, encouraged by their own interests, possess the capability to work out "kinds of control as subtle as they are intrusive, developing systems for the control of consciences and of the democratic procedure." [105]
54. Furthermore, there is the threat of AI being utilized to promote what Pope Francis has actually called the "technocratic paradigm," which perceives all the world's problems as understandable through technological methods alone. [106] In this paradigm, human dignity and fraternity are typically set aside in the name of efficiency, "as if reality, goodness, and fact immediately flow from technological and economic power as such." [107] Yet, human self-respect and the common excellent must never be broken for the sake of efficiency, [108] for "technological developments that do not cause an enhancement in the quality of life of all mankind, however on the contrary, worsen inequalities and conflicts, can never count as true progress. " [109] Instead, AI must be put "at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more important." [110]
55. Attaining this objective requires a deeper reflection on the relationship in between autonomy and responsibility. Greater autonomy heightens everyone's obligation across numerous aspects of common life. For Christians, the foundation of this duty depends on the acknowledgment that all human capabilities, consisting of the person's autonomy, originated from God and are suggested to be utilized in the service of others. [111] Therefore, rather than simply pursuing economic or technological objectives, AI must serve "the common good of the entire human household," which is "the amount total of social conditions that permit individuals, either as groups or as individuals, 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 enter into relations with others, he can neither live nor develop his presents." [113] This conviction highlights that living in society is intrinsic to the nature and vocation of the human person. [114] As social beings, we look for relationships that include mutual exchange and the pursuit of fact, in the course of which, people "show each other the fact they have found, or believe they have actually discovered, in such a method that they assist one another in the search for truth." [115]
57. Such a quest, along with other aspects of human communication, presupposes encounters and mutual exchange in between people shaped by their distinct histories, thoughts, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a diverse, complex, and intricate truth: private and social, rational and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis highlights this dynamic, noting that "together, we can seek the fact in discussion, in unwinded conversation or in enthusiastic debate. To do so requires perseverance; it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently embrace the wider experience of people and peoples. [...] The procedure of structure fraternity, be it local or universal, can just be undertaken by spirits that are complimentary and available to genuine encounters." [116]
58. It remains in this context that one can consider the difficulties AI presents to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the prospective to promote connections within the human family. However, it could also impede a real encounter with truth and, eventually, lead people to "a deep and melancholic frustration with social relations, or a harmful sense of seclusion." [117] Authentic human relationships require the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their happiness. [118] Since human intelligence is expressed and enriched also in interpersonal and embodied methods, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are important for engaging with reality in its fullness.

59. Because "real wisdom requires an encounter with truth," [119] the increase of AI introduces another obstacle. Since AI can effectively imitate the products of human intelligence, the capability to know when one is interacting with a human or a device can no longer be considered given. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other sophisticated outputs that are generally related to human beings. Yet, it must be understood for what it is: a tool, not an individual. [120] This distinction is often obscured by the language utilized by practitioners, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and therefore blurs the line between human and machine.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI also postures particular obstacles for the development of kids, possibly motivating them to develop patterns of interaction that deal with human relationships in a transactional way, as one would associate with a chatbot. Such habits could lead youths to see teachers as mere dispensers of details rather than as mentors who guide and support their intellectual and ethical development. Genuine relationships, rooted in empathy and a steadfast commitment to the good of the other, are important and irreplaceable in fostering the complete development of the human person.

61. In this context, it is essential to clarify that, in spite of using anthropomorphic language, no AI application can really experience compassion. Emotions can not be reduced to facial expressions or expressions produced in reaction to prompts; they show the method an individual, as an entire, associates with the world and to his/her own life, with the body playing a main role. True empathy needs the ability to listen, acknowledge another's irreducible originality, welcome their otherness, and understand the significance behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the world of analytical judgment in which AI stands out, real compassion comes from the relational sphere. It involves intuiting and nabbing the lived experiences of another while maintaining the difference in between self and other. [122] While AI can simulate empathetic actions, it can not reproduce the incomparably personal and relational nature of genuine empathy. [123]
62. Due to the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as a person should always be avoided; doing so for deceitful functions is a grave ethical violation that might deteriorate social trust. Similarly, using AI to trick in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, consisting of the sphere of sexuality-is likewise to be thought about immoral and requires mindful oversight to avoid harm, maintain openness, and make sure the self-respect of all individuals. [124]
63. In a significantly separated world, some individuals have turned to AI looking for deep human relationships, easy friendship, and even emotional bonds. However, while people are implied to experience authentic relationships, AI can only imitate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an integral part of how an individual grows to become who she or he is implied to be. If AI is utilized to assist people foster authentic connections between individuals, it can contribute favorably to the complete awareness of the person. Conversely, if we change relationships with God and with others with interactions with innovation, we risk replacing authentic relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of pulling back into artificial worlds, we are contacted us to participate in a dedicated and deliberate way with truth, specifically by relating to the poor and suffering, consoling those in sadness, and forging bonds of communion with all.

64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being significantly integrated into economic and monetary systems. Significant financial investments are currently being made not just in the technology sector but also in energy, financing, and media, especially in the areas of marketing and sales, logistics, technological development, compliance, and risk management. At the very same time, AI's applications in these locations have actually also highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of tremendous chances however also extensive threats. A first genuine crucial point in this area worries the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a couple of corporations-only those big business would gain from the worth produced by AI instead of business that use it.

65. Other more comprehensive elements of AI's influence on the economic-financial sphere must also be thoroughly examined, particularly worrying the interaction between concrete reality and the digital world. One essential factor to consider in this regard involves the coexistence of diverse and alternative forms of economic and financial institutions within a given context. This aspect ought to be motivated, as it can bring advantages in how it supports the genuine economy by promoting its development and stability, particularly during times of crisis. Nevertheless, it needs to be stressed that digital truths, not limited by any spatial bonds, tend to be more uniform and impersonal than neighborhoods rooted in a specific location and a specific history, with a typical journey identified by shared values and hopes, but likewise by inevitable disagreements and divergences. This diversity is an indisputable asset to a neighborhood's financial life. Turning over the economy and finance entirely to digital technology would lower this range and richness. As an outcome, many services to economic issues that can be reached through natural dialogue between the included celebrations may no longer be attainable in a world dominated by procedures and only the look of nearness.

66. Another location where AI is already having an extensive effect is the world of work. As in many other fields, AI is driving fundamental improvements throughout lots of professions, with a variety of impacts. On the one hand, it has the prospective to boost expertise and performance, produce new jobs, enable workers to concentrate on more innovative jobs, and open new horizons for imagination and development.

67. However, while AI assures to increase productivity by taking over ordinary tasks, it regularly forces employees to adapt to the speed and demands of machines rather than machines being developed to support those who work. As an outcome, contrary to the advertised advantages of AI, existing methods to the innovation can paradoxically deskill workers, subject them to automated surveillance, and relegate them to stiff and repeated jobs. The need to keep up with the pace of technology can deteriorate employees' sense of firm and stifle the ingenious abilities they are anticipated to give their work. [125]
68. AI is presently eliminating the requirement for some jobs that were as soon as carried out by people. If AI is utilized to change human employees rather than match them, there is a "significant risk of disproportionate advantage for the couple of at the rate of the impoverishment of numerous." [126] Additionally, as AI becomes more powerful, there is an associated threat that human labor might lose its value in the economic world. This is the sensible effect of the technocratic paradigm: a world of mankind oppressed to performance, where, ultimately, the cost of humanity need to be cut. Yet, human lives are intrinsically valuable, independent of their economic output. Nevertheless, the "existing model," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to prefer a financial investment in efforts to assist the sluggish, the weak, or the less gifted to discover chances in life." [127] Due to this, "we can not enable a tool as powerful and important as Artificial Intelligence to strengthen such a paradigm, but rather, we need to make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its growth." [128]
69. It is crucial to remember that "the order of things need to be secondary to the order of individuals, and not the other way around." [129] Human work needs to not just be at the service of profit however at "the service of the whole human individual [...] taking into consideration the individual's product needs and the requirements of his/her intellectual, moral, spiritual, and spiritual life." [130] In this context, the Church acknowledges that work is "not just a way of earning one's daily bread" however is likewise "an important measurement of social life" and "a way [...] of individual growth, the building of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of presents. Work provides us a sense of shared duty 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 course to growth, human development and personal fulfillment," "the goal ought to not be that technological development progressively changes human work, for this would be damaging to mankind" [132] -rather, it should promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI should help, not replace, human judgment. Similarly, it should never deteriorate imagination or minimize workers to simple "cogs in a device." Therefore, "regard for the dignity of laborers and the significance of employment for the economic well-being of people, households, and societies, for job security and simply incomes, ought to be a high priority for the global community as these kinds of technology permeate more deeply into our work environments." [133]
71. As individuals in God's healing work, health care professionals have the vocation and duty to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the health care profession brings an "intrinsic and indisputable ethical measurement," acknowledged by the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges doctors and health care specialists to dedicate themselves to having "outright respect for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Good Samaritan, this commitment is to be performed by men and females "who turn down the development of a society of exemption, and act instead as neighbors, raising up and rehabilitating the fallen for the sake of the typical good." [136]
72. Seen in this light, AI seems to hold enormous capacity in a variety of applications in the medical field, such as helping the diagnostic work of doctor, facilitating relationships between patients and medical personnel, offering brand-new treatments, and expanding access to quality care likewise for those who are separated or marginalized. In these ways, the innovation could boost the "compassionate and loving nearness" [137] that healthcare service providers are contacted us to encompass the sick and suffering.

73. However, if AI is utilized not to enhance however to replace the relationship in between patients and healthcare providers-leaving clients to engage with a maker instead of a human being-it would reduce a most importantly essential human relational structure to a central, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of encouraging solidarity with the ill and suffering, such applications of AI would risk worsening the isolation that typically accompanies illness, specifically in the context of a culture where "individuals are no longer seen as a paramount value to be looked after and respected." [138] This abuse of AI would not line up with regard for the self-respect of the human individual and solidarity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the well-being of clients and the choices that discuss their lives are at the heart of the healthcare occupation. This responsibility requires physician to exercise all their ability and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded choices concerning those turned over to their care, constantly respecting the inviolable self-respect of the clients and the requirement for informed approval. As an outcome, choices concerning patient treatment and the weight of obligation they entail should always remain with the human individual and should never ever be handed over to AI. [139]
75. In addition, using AI to determine who must receive treatment based mainly on financial steps or metrics of effectiveness represents a particularly bothersome instance of the "technocratic paradigm" that need to be turned down. [140] For, "enhancing resources suggests using them in an ethical and fraternal way, and not penalizing the most delicate." [141] Additionally, AI tools in healthcare are "exposed to forms of predisposition and discrimination," where "systemic errors can easily increase, producing not only injustices in private cases but also, due to the domino result, genuine kinds of social inequality." [142]
76. The combination of AI into healthcare also positions the danger of enhancing other existing variations in access to healthcare. As health care ends up being progressively oriented toward avoidance and lifestyle-based methods, AI-driven services might accidentally prefer more wealthy populations who currently take pleasure in much better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This trend threats reinforcing a "medicine for the rich" design, where those with monetary ways gain from innovative preventative tools and personalized health details while others struggle to gain access to even standard services. To avoid such inequities, fair structures are required to make sure that using AI in healthcare does not get worse existing healthcare inequalities however rather serves the common good.

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

78. This method involves a dedication to cultivating the mind, however constantly as a part of the important development of the person: "We should break that concept of education which holds that educating methods filling one's head with concepts. That is the way we inform automatons, cerebral minds, not people. Educating is taking a risk in the tension in between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]
79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human individual is the essential relationship in between teacher and trainee. Teachers do more than convey knowledge; they design essential human qualities and inspire the delight of discovery. [146] Their existence motivates trainees both through the material they teach and the care they demonstrate for their trainees. This bond fosters trust, mutual understanding, and the capacity to address everyone's distinct dignity and capacity. On the part of the trainee, this can create a real desire to grow. The physical existence of a teacher creates a relational dynamic that AI can not reproduce, one that deepens engagement and nurtures the trainee's essential advancement.

80. In this context, AI presents both opportunities and obstacles. If utilized in a prudent manner, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and purchased to the genuine objectives of education, AI can become a valuable academic resource by improving access to education, using tailored support, and providing instant feedback to trainees. These advantages could enhance the knowing experience, specifically in cases where personalized attention is needed, or instructional resources are otherwise scarce.

81. Nevertheless, an important part of education is forming "the intellect to reason well in all matters, to reach out towards fact, and to grasp it," [147] while assisting the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is all the more vital in an age marked by innovation, in which "it is no longer simply a question of 'using' instruments of interaction, however of living in an extremely digitalized culture that has actually had an extensive influence on [...] our ability to interact, find out, be notified and participate in relationship with others." [149] However, instead of promoting "a cultivated intelligence," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and occupation that it carries out," [150] the substantial usage of AI in education could lead to the trainees' increased reliance on innovation, eroding their capability to carry out some abilities separately and aggravating their dependence on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are created to assist individuals establish their crucial believing capabilities and problem-solving skills, lots of others merely provide responses instead of triggering trainees to reach responses themselves or compose text on their own. [152] Instead of training young people how to amass details and generate fast responses, education must motivate "the accountable use of freedom to face problems with great sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in making use of forms of expert system ought to aim above all at promoting important thinking. Users of all ages, but particularly the young, need to establish a discerning approach to using information and content collected online or produced by synthetic intelligence systems. Schools, universities, and scientific societies are challenged to help trainees and specialists to comprehend the social and ethical elements of the development and usages of innovation." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II remembered, "on the planet today, defined by such rapid advancements in science and innovation, the tasks of a Catholic University assume an ever higher significance and seriousness." [155] In a particular way, Catholic universities are urged to be present as terrific laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary key, they are advised to engage "with wisdom and creativity" [156] in mindful research on this phenomenon, assisting to draw out the salutary potential within the various fields of science and truth, and assisting them constantly towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the common great, reaching new frontiers in the discussion in between faith and reason.

84. Moreover, it must be noted that existing AI programs have actually been understood to provide prejudiced or made details, which can lead trainees to rely on inaccurate content. This issue "not just runs the threat of legitimizing fake news and enhancing a dominant culture's advantage, however, simply put, it also undermines the educational process itself." [157] With time, clearer distinctions might emerge in between appropriate and incorrect uses of AI in education and research. Yet, a decisive guideline is that the use of AI should always be transparent and never misrepresented.

85. AI could be utilized as an aid to human self-respect if it helps individuals understand complex ideas or directs them to sound resources that support their look for the truth. [158]
86. However, AI likewise presents a severe risk of creating controlled content and false details, which can quickly mislead people due to its resemblance to the fact. Such false information may take place accidentally, as in the case of AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear real but are not. Since producing material that imitates human artifacts is main to AI's performance, reducing these dangers proves difficult. Yet, the consequences of such aberrations and false details can be rather grave. For this reason, all those involved in producing and using AI systems need to be devoted to the truthfulness and accuracy of the details processed by such systems and disseminated to the public.

87. While AI has a latent capacity to generate incorrect details, a a lot more unpleasant issue depends on the deliberate abuse of AI for control. This can take place when individuals or companies purposefully generate and spread false material with the aim to deceive or trigger damage, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to a false depiction of an individual, edited or produced by an AI algorithm. The threat of deepfakes is particularly evident when they are utilized to target or hurt others. While the images or videos themselves may be artificial, the damage they cause is genuine, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "real wounds in their human dignity." [159]
88. On a wider scale, by distorting "our relationship with others and with reality," [160] AI-generated phony media can gradually weaken the foundations of society. This concern requires mindful policy, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or affected media-can spread inadvertently, sustaining political polarization and social unrest. When society ends up being indifferent to the reality, different groups construct their own versions of "truths," damaging the "reciprocal ties and mutual dependencies" [161] that underpin the fabric of social life. As deepfakes trigger individuals to question everything and AI-generated false content erodes rely on what they see and hear, polarization and conflict will just grow. Such extensive deception is no trivial matter; it strikes at the core of humankind, dismantling the foundational trust on which societies are constructed. [162]
89. Countering AI-driven frauds is not just the work of market experts-it requires the efforts of all people of goodwill. "If technology is to serve human self-respect and not damage it, and if it is to promote peace instead of violence, then the human community needs to be proactive in attending to these trends with respect to human dignity and the promo of the good." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated content needs to always work out diligence in confirming the truth of what they distribute and, in all cases, need to "avoid the sharing of words and images that are degrading of humans, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that exploit the weak and susceptible." [164] This requires the ongoing vigilance and cautious discernment of all users regarding their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are inherently relational, and the information everyone produces in the digital world can be seen as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data conveys not only details but likewise individual and relational understanding, which, in a significantly digitized context, can amount to power over the person. Moreover, while some types of information might pertain to public elements of a person's life, others might discuss the person's interiority, maybe even their conscience. Seen in this method, personal privacy plays a vital role in protecting the borders of a person's inner life, maintaining their flexibility to connect to others, reveal themselves, and make decisions without excessive control. This defense is likewise tied to the defense of religious flexibility, as surveillance can also be misused to apply control over the lives of followers and how they reveal their faith.

91. It is proper, therefore, to address the problem of privacy from a concern for the legitimate freedom and inalienable dignity of the human person "in all scenarios." [166] The Second Vatican Council consisted of the right "to safeguard privacy" among the fundamental rights "essential for living a genuinely human life," a right that needs to be extended to all individuals on account of their "sublime self-respect." [167] Furthermore, the Church has likewise verified the right to the genuine respect for a private life in the context of affirming the individual's right to a great track record, defense of their physical and psychological stability, and liberty from damage or excessive invasion [168] -necessary parts of the due respect for the intrinsic self-respect of the human individual. [169]
92. Advances in AI-powered data processing and analysis now make it possible to presume patterns in a person's behavior and believing from even a small quantity of details, making the role of information personal privacy even more crucial as a protect for the self-respect and relational nature of the human person. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant attitudes towards others are on the increase, ranges are otherwise shrinking or disappearing to the point that the right to privacy rarely exists. Everything has become a kind of phenomenon to be examined and examined, and people's lives are now under continuous surveillance." [170]
93. While there can be legitimate and proper ways to use AI in keeping with human dignity and the typical excellent, utilizing it for surveillance aimed at making use of, restricting others' liberty, or benefitting a few at the expense of the many is unjustifiable. The risk of security overreach need to be monitored by appropriate regulators to ensure openness and public responsibility. Those accountable for monitoring should never surpass their authority, which need to constantly prefer the dignity and flexibility of every person as the necessary basis of a simply and humane society.

94. Furthermore, "fundamental respect for human dignity needs that we refuse to permit the originality of the individual to be related to a set of information." [171] This particularly applies when AI is utilized to examine individuals or groups based upon their behavior, characteristics, or history-a practice understood as "social scoring": "In social and economic decision-making, we must beware about handing over judgments to algorithms that process information, typically collected surreptitiously, on a person's makeup and previous behavior. Such data can be contaminated by societal bias and preconceptions. A person's past behavior should not be utilized to reject him or her the opportunity to change, grow, and add to society. We can not permit algorithms to restrict or condition regard for human self-respect, or to leave out empathy, grace, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able to alter." [172]
95. AI has many promising applications for improving our relationship with our "typical home," such as creating designs to anticipate severe climate events, proposing engineering services to lower their effect, managing relief operations, and anticipating population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable agriculture, optimize energy usage, and offer early warning systems for public health emergency situations. These improvements have the prospective to reinforce resilience against climate-related difficulties and promote more sustainable advancement.

96. At the exact same time, current AI models and the hardware required to support them consume huge amounts of energy and water, considerably adding to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This reality is typically obscured by the way this technology is presented in the popular imagination, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can give the impression that data is saved and processed in an intangible realm, detached from the real world. However, "the cloud" is not a heavenly domain different from the physical world; just like all computing technologies, it depends on physical machines, cable televisions, and energy. The same holds true of the innovation behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, especially large language models (LLMs), they need ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and greater storage facilities. Considering the heavy toll these innovations take on the environment, it is vital to establish sustainable services that reduce their influence on our typical home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is essential "that we try to find services not only in technology but in a change of humankind." [175] A total and authentic understanding of production acknowledges that the worth of all produced things can not be decreased to their simple energy. Therefore, a fully human technique to the stewardship of the earth rejects the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which looks for to "extract whatever possible" from the world, [176] and turns down the "misconception of progress," which assumes that "eco-friendly issues will fix themselves simply with the application of brand-new technology and with no need for ethical considerations or deep modification." [177] Such a frame of mind must offer method to a more holistic method that respects the order of production and promotes the important good of the human person while safeguarding our typical home. [178]
98. The Second Vatican Council and the consistent teaching of the Popes ever since have insisted that peace is not merely the lack of war and is not restricted to maintaining a balance of powers in between adversaries. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the harmony of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without safeguarding the items of persons, complimentary communication, respect for the self-respect of individuals and individuals, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity and can not be attained through force alone; rather, it should be mainly built through client diplomacy, the active promo of justice, solidarity, integral human advancement, and regard for the self-respect of all individuals. [180] In this way, the tools used to maintain peace must never be enabled to justify oppression, violence, or injustice. Instead, they should constantly be governed by a "firm decision to respect other individuals and nations, together with their self-respect, along with the deliberate practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical capabilities could assist nations look for peace and guarantee security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can likewise be highly problematic. Pope Francis has observed that "the ability to perform military operations through push-button control systems has resulted in a lessened understanding of the destruction caused by those weapon systems and the burden of responsibility for their use, resulting in an even more cold and separated method to the immense catastrophe of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which autonomous weapons make war more feasible 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 precipitating a destabilizing arms race, with devastating repercussions for human rights. [184]
100. In particular, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which are capable of determining and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for serious ethical concern" since they do not have the "special human capability for ethical judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this factor, Pope Francis has actually urgently required a reconsideration of the development of these weapons and a restriction on their use, beginning with "an effective and concrete dedication to present ever higher and correct human control. No maker ought to ever select to take the life of a human being." [186]
101. Since it is a small action from devices that can kill autonomously with precision to those capable of large-scale damage, some AI scientists have actually expressed concerns that such innovation positions an "existential threat" by having the prospective to act in ways that could threaten the survival of entire regions and even of humanity itself. This danger needs severe attention, reflecting the enduring issue about technologies that grant war "an unmanageable damaging power over multitudes of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing kids. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "undertake an evaluation of war with a completely brand-new attitude" [188] is more immediate than ever.

102. At the very same time, while the theoretical dangers of AI should have attention, the more instant and pressing concern depends on how people with destructive intents might abuse this technology. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future capabilities are unpredictable, humankind's previous actions offer clear cautions. The atrocities devoted throughout history suffice to raise deep issues about the potential abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that "mankind now has instruments of extraordinary power: we can turn this world into a garden, or minimize it to a pile of rubble." [190] Given this reality, the Church advises us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are totally free to apply our intelligence towards things progressing favorably," or towards "decadence and mutual destruction." [191] To avoid mankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there must be a clear stand against all applications of technology that inherently threaten human life and dignity. This commitment needs mindful discernment about using AI, particularly in military defense applications, to guarantee that it always appreciates human dignity and serves the common good. The advancement and release of AI in weaponries should go through the highest levels of ethical examination, governed by a concern for human dignity and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology offers remarkable tools to oversee and develop the world's resources. However, in some cases, humankind is increasingly ceding control of these resources to makers. Within some circles of researchers and futurists, there is optimism about the capacity of artificial general intelligence (AGI), a theoretical type of AI that would match or exceed human intelligence and cause inconceivable developments. Some even speculate that AGI might attain superhuman capabilities. At the exact same time, as society wanders away from a connection with the transcendent, some are lured to turn to AI looking for meaning or fulfillment-longings that can just be genuinely satisfied in communion with God. [194]
105. However, the anticipation of replacing God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture clearly warns against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI may show even more seductive than conventional idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths however do not speak; eyes, however do not see; ears, but do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or at least provides the impression of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is crucial to bear in mind that AI is but a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated product, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not possess a number of the capabilities specific to human life, and it is also fallible. By turning to AI as a viewed "Other" greater than itself, with which to share presence and responsibilities, mankind dangers creating a replacement for God. However, it is not AI that is eventually deified and worshipped, but humanity itself-which, in this way, ends up being enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the potential to serve humankind and contribute to the typical excellent, it remains a production of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and ingenuity" (Acts 17:29). It needs to never ever be ascribed excessive worth. As the Book of Wisdom affirms: "For a man made them, and one whose spirit is obtained formed them; for no man can form a god which resembles himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is much better than the items he worships since he has life, however they never ever have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. On the other hand, human beings, "by their interior life, go beyond the entire material universe; they experience this deep interiority when they participate in their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they choose their own fate in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis reminds us, that each individual discovers the "strange connection between self-knowledge and openness to others, in between the encounter with one's individual individuality and the desire to provide oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "capable of setting our other powers and enthusiasms, and our whole person, in a position of reverence and caring obedience before the Lord," [198] who "offers to treat every one people as a 'Thou,' always and forever." [199]
108. Considering the different difficulties presented by advances in innovation, Pope Francis emphasized the requirement for development in "human responsibility, worths, and conscience," proportionate to the growth in the capacity that this innovation brings [200] -recognizing that "with a boost in human power comes an expanding of responsibility on the part of people and communities." [201]
109. At the same time, the "important and essential question" remains "whether in the context of this development guy, as guy, is becoming genuinely much better, that is to state, more mature spiritually, more conscious of the self-respect of his mankind, more accountable, more available to others, especially the neediest and the weakest, and readier to offer and to aid all." [202]
110. As a result, it is important to know how to examine private applications of AI in specific contexts to identify whether its use promotes human self-respect, the occupation of the human person, and the common good. Similar to many innovations, the effects of the different uses of AI may not always be foreseeable from their creation. As these applications and their social impacts become clearer, appropriate reactions must be made at all levels of society, following the concept of subsidiarity. Individual users, families, civil society, corporations, organizations, governments, and global organizations should work at their proper levels to guarantee that AI is utilized for the good of all.

111. A considerable challenge and opportunity for the typical good today lies in considering AI within a structure of relational intelligence, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of individuals and communities and highlights our shared duty for fostering the integral wellness of others. The twentieth-century theorist Nicholas Berdyaev observed that people often blame machines for personal and social problems; however, "this only humiliates man and does not represent his self-respect," for "it is not worthy to transfer responsibility from male to a machine." [203] Only the human individual can be morally responsible, and the challenges of a technological society are ultimately spiritual in nature. Therefore, facing those challenges "needs a climax of spirituality." [204]
112. An additional indicate consider is the call, prompted by the look of AI on the world phase, for a restored gratitude of all that is human. Years ago, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos warned that "the danger is not in the multiplication of machines, but in the ever-increasing variety of males accustomed from their youth to desire just what machines can provide." [205] This difficulty is as true today as it was then, as the quick pace of digitization risks a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable aspects of life are set aside and after that forgotten or perhaps deemed irrelevant since they can not be calculated in official terms. AI ought to be utilized just as a tool to complement human intelligence instead of change its richness. [206] Cultivating those elements of human life that go beyond computation is essential for maintaining "an authentic mankind" that "appears to dwell in the middle of our technological culture, practically undetected, like a mist permeating gently beneath a closed door." [207]
113. The vast area of the world's knowledge is now available in manner ins which would have filled past generations with awe. However, to make sure that advancements in knowledge do not become humanly or spiritually barren, one must exceed the mere accumulation of data and aim to attain real knowledge. [208]
114. This wisdom is the present that humanity needs most to resolve the profound questions and ethical difficulties posed by AI: "Only by adopting a spiritual method of seeing reality, only by recuperating a wisdom of the heart, can we face and interpret the newness of our time." [209] Such "knowledge of the heart" is "the virtue that allows us to incorporate the entire and its parts, our choices and their consequences." It "can not be sought from makers," but it "lets itself be discovered by those who seek it and be seen by those who love it; it prepares for those who desire it, and it enters search of those who are worthwhile of it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]
115. In a world marked by AI, we require the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "allows us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, situations, occasions and to reveal their genuine significance." [211]
116. Since a "person's perfection is determined not by the details or knowledge they have, however by the depth of their charity," [212] how we incorporate AI "to consist of the least of our brothers and siblings, the susceptible, and those most in requirement, will be the true step of our humanity." [213] The "knowledge of the heart" can light up and assist the human-centered use of this innovation to help promote the common good, look after our "common home," advance the look for the reality, foster important human advancement, prefer human uniformity and fraternity, and lead mankind to its ultimate objective: happiness and complete communion with God. [214]
117. From this point of view of knowledge, followers will be able to function as moral representatives efficient in using this technology to promote a genuine vision of the human person and society. [215] This must be made with the understanding that technological progress belongs to God's prepare for creation-an activity that we are called to purchase toward the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the consistent look for the True and the Good.

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

Contents

I. Introduction

II. What is Artificial Intelligence?

III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition

Rationality

Embodiment

Relationality

Relationship with the Truth

Stewardship of the World

An Essential Understanding of Human Intelligence

The Limits of AI

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

Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making

V. Specific Questions

AI and Society

AI and Human Relationships

AI, the Economy, and Labor

AI and Healthcare

AI and Education

AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse

AI, Privacy, and Surveillance

AI and the Protection of Our Common Home

AI and Warfare

AI and Our Relationship with God

VI. Concluding Reflections

True Wisdom

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See likewise Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. [2] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 307. Cf. Id., Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (21 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020 ), 43. [3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [5] J. McCarthy, et al., "A 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 file explaining the outputs or processes of AI are used figuratively to explain its operations and are not planned to anthropomorphize the maker. [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 make it possible for human beings to overcome their biological constraints and enhance both their physical and cognitive abilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, contend that such advances will ultimately modify human identity to the extent that mankind itself may no longer be considered truly "human." Both views rest on an essentially unfavorable perception of human corporality, which deals with the body more as a challenge than as an integral part of the individual's identity and call to full realization. Yet, this negative view of the body is irregular with a correct understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports authentic scientific progress, it affirms that human self-respect is rooted in "the individual as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "self-respect is also fundamental in everyone's body, which takes part in its own method remaining in imago Dei" (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18). [10] This approach reflects a functionalist point of view, which lowers the human mind to its functions and presumes that its functions can be completely quantified in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear really intelligent, it would still remain functional in nature. [11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460. [12] If "thinking" is attributed to makers, it should be clarified that this refers to calculative thinking instead of critical thinking. Similarly, if makers are said to operate utilizing sensible thinking, it needs to be specified that this is restricted to computational reasoning. On the other hand, by its very nature, human idea is an innovative procedure that avoids programs and goes beyond 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 City 2010, 141-182). [14] For further conversation 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 is superior to the illogical animals. Now, this [professors] is reason itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it might more appropriately be given"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When considering all that they have, humans discover that they are most distinguished from animals precisely by the reality they have intelligence." This is also repeated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who specifies that "guy is the most best of all earthly beings enhanced with motion, and his proper and natural operation is intellection," by which guy abstracts from things and "gets in his mind things really intelligible" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 76). [17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, ad 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a modern point of view that echoes aspects of the classical and medieval distinction in between these two modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York City 2011. [19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp. [20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138. [21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intellect can investigate the reality of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and pertain to recognize in that reality, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal ethical demands." [22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp. [24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "generally thinks about the human person as a being who exists in the body and is unthinkable outside of it" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Che cosa è l'uomo?" (Sal 8,5): Un itinerario di antropologia biblica [30 September 2019], par. 19). Cf. ibid., pars. 20-21, 43-44, 48. [25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100 (2008 ), 863: "Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, however instead completely revealed its meaning and value." [26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81. [27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and for this reason it is joined to the body in order that it might 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 (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls also have reason and with it they circle in discourse around the truth of things. [...] [O] n account of the manner in which they can concentrating the lots of into the one, they too, in their own style and as far as they can, are deserving of conceptions like those of the angels" (en. tr. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York - Mahwah 1987, 106-107). [35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 3: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7. [36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 42: AAS 91 (1999 ), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1043: "the human mind is capable of going beyond instant concerns and comprehending certain facts that are changeless, as real now as in the past. As it peers into humanity, factor discovers universal worths obtained from that exact same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034. [38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last case of factor is to recognize that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York City 1958, 77). [39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [40] Our semantic capacity permits us to comprehend messages in any form of interaction in a manner that both takes into account and transcends their material or empirical structures (such as computer system code). Here, intelligence becomes a wisdom that "allows us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, scenarios, events and to discover their real meaning" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our imagination enables us to generate new material or ideas, mainly by using an initial perspective on reality. Both capacities depend on the presence of an individual 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 reality, is far more than individual feeling [...] Certainly, its close relation to reality promotes its universality and maintains it from being 'restricted to a narrow field without relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to reality therefore secures it from 'a fideism that deprives it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643. [43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7. [44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. [46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as estimated in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294. [47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure likens deep space to "a book showing, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who gives presence to all things (Breviloquium 2.12.1). Cf. Alain de Lille, De Incarnatione Christi, PL 210, 579a: "Omnis mundi creatura quasi liber et pictura nobis est et speculum." [48] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 67: AAS 107 (2015 ), 874; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589-592; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 57: "human beings occupy a special location in deep space according to the magnificent strategy: they take pleasure in the opportunity of sharing in the divine governance of visible creation. [...] Since guy's place as ruler remains in truth a participation in the divine governance of creation, we speak of it here as a kind of stewardship." [49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165. [50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This concept is also shown in the production account, where God brings animals to Adam "to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living animal, that was its name" (Gen. 2:19), an action that demonstrates the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's creation. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117. [51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301. [52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302. [53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2. [54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7. [55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8. [57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906. [58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987. [59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: "L'intelligence n'est rien sans la délectation." Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: "The mind and the will are put at the service of the greater excellent by sensing and relishing facts." [61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232). [62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he greatest norm of human life is the divine law itself-eternal, unbiased and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the whole world and the methods of the human neighborhood according to a strategy conceived in his knowledge and love. God has actually allowed man to participate in this law of his so that, under the mild disposition of divine providence, numerous may have the ability to get to a deeper and much deeper knowledge of unchangeable fact." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. [63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016. [64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042. [66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has inscribed his own image and likeness on guy (cf. Gen 1:26), giving upon him an unparalleled dignity [...] In effect, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not represent any work he performs, however which flow from his important dignity as 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 technology, remembering that the expression is also utilized to designate the discipline and not just its applications. [71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857. [72] For instance, see the encouragement of scientific expedition in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the appreciation for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These writers, amongst a long list of other Catholics participated in scientific research and technological exploration, highlight that "faith and science can be joined in charity, provided that science is put at the service of the males and female of our time and not misused to hurt or perhaps 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 a moral topic. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts." [82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776. [83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777. [84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father motivated efforts "to make sure that innovation remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed toward the great." [85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the function of human company in selecting a broader aim (Ziel) that then informs the particular function (Zweck) for which each technological application is created, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um pass away Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71. [86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a function and, in its impact on human society, constantly represents a kind of order in social relations and a plan of power, thus allowing certain people to carry out particular actions while preventing others from performing various ones. In a basically explicit method, this constitutive power-dimension of innovation always includes the worldview of those who created and established it." [87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309. [88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Faced with the marvels of machines, which seem to understand how to pick individually, we should be very clear that decision-making [...] need to always be delegated the human person. We would condemn humankind to a future without hope if we removed people's ability to make choices about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend upon the options of machines." [92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [93] The term "bias" in this document describes algorithmic bias (methodical and consistent mistakes in computer system systems that might disproportionately prejudice certain groups in unexpected methods) or discovering predisposition (which will lead to training on a biased data set) and not the "predisposition vector" in neural networks (which is a parameter used to adjust the output of "nerve cells" to change more properly to the information). [94] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father affirmed the development in agreement "on the requirement for development procedures to appreciate such worths as addition, openness, security, equity, personal privacy and dependability," and likewise welcomed "the efforts of global organizations to regulate these technologies so that they promote authentic development, contributing, that is, to a better world and an integrally higher quality of life." [95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8. [96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571. [98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For additional conversation of the ethical concerns raised by AI from a Catholic viewpoint, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253. [99] On the importance of discussion in a pluralist society oriented toward a "robust and strong social ethics," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. [104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10. [105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; pricing estimate the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245. [106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050. [107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047. [108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309. [109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027. [112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123. [113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034. [114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149. [115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414. [118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057. [119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985. [120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989). [123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Many individuals] want their social relationships offered by sophisticated devices, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel tells us continuously to risk of an in person encounter with others, with their physical presence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their happiness which contaminates us in our close and continuous interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from membership in the neighborhood, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), king-wifi.win 1044-1045. [124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1. [125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899. [126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107. [128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' teaching about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893. [129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453. [130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: "work is 'for man' and not male 'for work.' Through this conclusion one appropriately pertains to acknowledge the pre-eminence of the subjective meaning of work over the unbiased one." [132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320. [133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502. [135] Ibid. [136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as estimated in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8. [137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops' Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: "If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture is manifest, with its painful consequences, it is that of healthcare. When a sick person is not placed in the center or their dignity is ruled out, this generates attitudes that can lead even to speculation on the misery of others. And this is extremely serious! [...] The application of an organization method to the healthcare sector, if indiscriminate [...] might run the risk of discarding humans." [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, quoting 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 since they are witnesses." [147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126. [148] Francis, Consulting With the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, pricing quote the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592. [150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167. [151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413. [152] In a 2023 policy document about making use of generative AI in education and research study, UNESCO notes: "One of the essential questions [of using generative AI (GenAI) in education and research] is whether human beings can perhaps deliver fundamental levels of thinking and skill-acquisition processes to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking abilities based upon the outputs supplied by AI. Writing, for example, is typically associated with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], humans can now begin with a well-structured outline provided by GenAI. Some experts have characterized the usage of GenAI to produce text in this way as 'writing without believing'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American philosopher Hannah Arendt visualized such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and warned: "If it must turn out to be true that knowledge (in the sense of knowledge) and thought have actually parted business for excellent, then we would certainly become the powerless 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 may assist individuals gain access to the "selection of resources for creating greater knowledge of truth" contained in the works of viewpoint (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8. [159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62. [160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074. [162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be genuinely indifferent to the concern of whether what they understand is true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he composes: 'I have actually satisfied numerous who desired to trick, but none who wanted 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 guy may with impunity violate that human dignity which God himself treats with great reverence"; as priced estimate in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804. [168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203. [169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human self-respect in cyberspace obliges States to likewise appreciate the right to privacy, by shielding people from intrusive security and allowing them to protect their personal details from unauthorized gain access to." [170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984. [171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body determined a list of "early pledges of AI assisting to address climate modification" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The file observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can change information into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools might help establish new techniques and financial investments to reduce emissions, affect brand-new economic sector financial investments in net zero, protect biodiversity, and construct broad-based social strength" (ibid.). [174] "The cloud" refers to a network of physical servers throughout the world that allows users to store, process, and handle their data from another location. [175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850. [176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890. [177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870. [178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852. [179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640. [180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317. [181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101. [182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310. [184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105. [185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We require to make sure and protect an area for appropriate human control over the options made by expert system programs: human self-respect itself depends on it." [186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The development and usage of deadly autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) that lack the proper human control would present essential ethical issues, considered that LAWS can never be ethically responsible topics capable of complying with international humanitarian law." [187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: "Nor can we neglect the possibility of sophisticated weapons ending up in the incorrect hands, assisting in, for circumstances, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the institutions of genuine systems of federal government. In a word, the world does not need new technologies that contribute to the unfair advancement of commerce and the weapons trade and consequently wind up promoting the recklessness of war." [190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565. [191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878. [192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687. [193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39. [194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661. [195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a better understanding today that the mere build-up of items and services [...] is not enough for the realization of human happiness. Nor, in repercussion, does the availability of the lots of genuine benefits offered in current times by science and innovation, consisting of the computer sciences, bring freedom from every kind of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the substantial body of resources and potential at man's disposal is guided by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the real good of the mankind, it easily turns against man to oppress him." Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564. [196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6. [199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6. [200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. Completion of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83). [201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288. [203] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," in C. Mitcham - R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York City 19832, 212-213. [204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210. [205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829. [206] Cf. Francis, Meeting with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023). [207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: "The flood of details at our fingertips does not produce higher wisdom. Wisdom is not born of fast searches on the web nor is it a mass of unverified information. That is not the method to mature in the encounter with fact." [209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [210] Ibid. [211] Ibid. [212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121. [213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124. [214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.