GitLab

1. With knowledge both ancient and new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to assess the existing obstacles and chances positioned by scientific and technological improvements, especially by the current development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian tradition regards the gift of intelligence as a vital element of how humans are developed "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Beginning with an important vision of the human individual and the scriptural calling to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church emphasizes that this present of intelligence should be expressed through the responsible usage of factor and technical abilities in the stewardship of the developed world.

2. The Church motivates the development of science, technology, the arts, and other forms of human undertaking, seeing them as part of the "cooperation of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible production." [1] As Sirach verifies, God "offered ability to human beings, that he might be glorified in his splendid works" (Sir. 38:6). Human abilities and imagination come from God and, when utilized appropriately, glorify God by reflecting his wisdom and goodness. In light of this, when we ask ourselves what it implies to "be human," we can not omit 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 significant, as one of the goals of this innovation is to mimic the human intelligence that designed it. For example, unlike many other human creations, AI can be trained on the outcomes of human creativity and after that produce new "artifacts" with a level of speed and skill that often rivals or exceeds what human beings can do, such as producing text or images identical from human compositions. This raises vital concerns about AI's prospective role in the growing crisis of reality in the public online forum. Moreover, this innovation is created to learn and make certain choices autonomously, adjusting to brand-new circumstances and offering services not foreseen by its developers, and therefore, it raises basic concerns about ethical responsibility and human safety, with broader ramifications for society as a whole. This new situation has actually prompted many individuals to assess what it indicates to be human and the role of humanity worldwide.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad agreement that AI marks a new and substantial phase in mankind's engagement with technology, placing it at the heart of what Pope Francis has actually explained as an "epochal modification." [2] Its effect is felt globally and in a wide range of areas, including interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, health care, law, warfare, and worldwide relations. As AI advances quickly toward even higher accomplishments, it is critically crucial to consider its anthropological and ethical implications. This includes not only mitigating dangers and preventing harm but likewise ensuring that its applications are used to promote human development and the typical good.

5. To contribute positively to the discernment regarding AI, and in response to Pope Francis' require a renewed "knowledge of heart," [3] the Church uses its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active role in the international discussion on these concerns, the Church welcomes those delegated with transferring the faith-including moms and dads, teachers, pastors, and bishops-to commit themselves to this critical subject with care and attention. While this document is meant specifically for them, it is also indicated to be available to a wider audience, particularly those who share the conviction that clinical and technological advances should be directed toward serving the human individual and the common good. [4]
6. To this end, the file starts by comparing concepts of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then checks out the Christian understanding of human intelligence, supplying a framework rooted in the Church's philosophical and theological tradition. Finally, the document uses standards to ensure that the advancement and usage of AI maintain human dignity and promote the important advancement of the human person and society.

7. The idea of "intelligence" in AI has progressed in time, making use of a variety of concepts from various disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a considerable milestone took place 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 machine behave in ways that would be called smart if a human were so behaving." [5] This workshop released a research study program focused on developing devices efficient in carrying out tasks normally connected with the human intelligence and smart behavior.

8. Since then, AI research study has advanced rapidly, leading to the development of complex systems efficient in carrying out extremely sophisticated tasks. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are normally developed to manage specific and limited functions, such as equating languages, forecasting the trajectory of a storm, categorizing images, answering concerns, or producing visual material at the user's request. While the definition of "intelligence" in AI research varies, many contemporary AI systems-particularly those utilizing maker learning-rely on analytical reasoning rather than logical deduction. By examining big datasets to identify patterns, AI can "anticipate" [7] outcomes and propose brand-new approaches, imitating some cognitive procedures typical of human problem-solving. Such achievements have been made possible through advances in calculating technology (including neural networks, not being watched artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) along with hardware developments (such as specialized processors). Together, these technologies allow AI systems to respond to various kinds of human input, adjust to brand-new circumstances, and even suggest unique services not anticipated by their original programmers. [8]
9. Due to these rapid improvements, many tasks when managed specifically by humans are now delegated to AI. These systems can augment and even supersede what human beings are able to do in numerous fields, particularly in specialized areas such as information analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is designed for a specific job, lots of researchers aim to develop what is known as "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system capable of running throughout all cognitive domains and performing any job within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI could one day attain the state of "superintelligence," going beyond human intellectual capabilities, or add to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, nevertheless, fear that these possibilities, even if theoretical, might one day eclipse the human individual, while still others invite this possible improvement. [9]
10. Underlying this and lots of other viewpoints on the subject is the implicit presumption that the term "intelligence" can be used in the exact same way to refer to both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not catch the full scope of the idea. When it comes to humans, intelligence is a professors that pertains to the person in his or her totality, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is comprehended functionally, frequently with the presumption that the activities attribute of the human mind can be broken down into digitized actions that makers can replicate. [10]
11. This practical perspective is exhibited by the "Turing Test," which considers a machine "intelligent" if an individual can not distinguish its habits from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "behavior" refers only to the performance of particular intellectual jobs; it does not represent the complete breadth of human experience, that includes abstraction, emotions, imagination, and the aesthetic, moral, and spiritual sensibilities. Nor does it encompass the complete variety of expressions particular of the human mind. Instead, when it comes to AI, the "intelligence" of a system is evaluated methodologically, but likewise reductively, based on its capability to produce proper responses-in this case, those related to the human intellect-regardless of how those actions are created.

12. AI's sophisticated functions provide it sophisticated abilities to carry out jobs, but not the capability to think. [12] This difference is most importantly crucial, as the method "intelligence" is specified undoubtedly forms how we comprehend the relationship between human idea and this innovation. [13] To appreciate this, one must remember the richness of the philosophical custom and Christian faith, which offer a much deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's mentor on the nature, self-respect, and vocation of the human individual. [14]
13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has played a main function in understanding what it implies to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all individuals by nature desire to know." [15] This knowledge, with its capacity for abstraction that understands the nature and significance of things, sets human beings apart from the animal world. [16] As thinkers, theologians, and psychologists have actually taken a look at the exact nature of this intellectual faculty, they have likewise explored how people understand the world and their unique location within it. Through this exploration, the Christian custom has pertained to comprehend 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 often understood through the complementary principles of "factor" (ratio) and "intellect" (intellectus). These are not separate professors but, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are 2 modes in which the same intelligence runs: "The term intelligence is inferred from the inward grasp of the reality, while the name factor is drawn from the inquisitive and discursive procedure." [18] This concise description highlights the 2 essential and complementary measurements of human intelligence. Intellectus refers to the user-friendly grasp of the truth-that is, nabbing it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and grounds argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to thinking appropriate: the discursive, analytical procedure that causes judgment. Together, intellect and factor form the 2 aspects of the act of intelligere, "the correct operation of the human being as such." [19]
15. Explaining the human individual as a "reasonable" being does not minimize the individual to a specific mode of thought; rather, it recognizes that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and permeates all elements of human activity. [20] Whether worked out well or inadequately, this capacity is an intrinsic aspect of human nature. In this sense, the "term 'logical' encompasses all the capacities of the human individual," consisting of those associated to "understanding and understanding, as well as those of prepared, loving, selecting, and wanting; it likewise consists of all corporeal functions closely associated to these abilities." [21] This detailed perspective underscores how, in the human individual, developed in the "image of God," reason is integrated in a way that raises, shapes, and transforms both the individual's will and actions. [22]
16. Christian thought thinks about the intellectual faculties of the human person within the structure of an essential anthropology that views the human being as essentially embodied. In the human person, spirit and matter "are not 2 natures united, however rather their union forms a single nature." [23] In other words, the soul is not simply the immaterial "part" of the person contained within the body, nor is the body an outer shell real estate an intangible "core." Rather, the entire human individual is all at once both material and spiritual. This understanding shows the teaching of Sacred Scripture, which views the human individual as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and hence, an authentically spiritual dimension) within and through this embodied existence. [24] The extensive meaning of this condition is more lit up by the secret of the Incarnation, through which God himself took on our flesh and "raised it as much as a sublime self-respect." [25]
17. Although deeply rooted in physical existence, the human individual transcends the material world through the soul, which is "nearly on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intelligence's capacity for transcendence and the self-possessed freedom of the will come from the soul, by which the human individual "shares in the light of the magnificent mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of understanding without the body. [28] In this way, the intellectual faculties of the human person are an essential part of a sociology that recognizes that the human individual is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further aspects of this understanding will be established in what follows.

18. Human beings are "purchased by their very nature to social communion," [30] having the capability to know one another, to give themselves in love, and to participate in communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not an isolated faculty however is exercised in relationships, finding its maximum expression in discussion, collaboration, and uniformity. We find out with others, and we learn through others.

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

21. Human intelligence is eventually "God's gift fashioned for the assimilation of fact." [34] In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it makes it possible for the individual to explore realities that go beyond simple sensory experience or utility, because "the desire for fact is part of humanity itself. It is an inherent home of human reason to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limits of empirical data, human intelligence can "with authentic certitude attain to truth itself as knowable." [36] While reality remains only partially understood, the desire for truth "spurs factor always to go even more; certainly, it is as if reason were overwhelmed to see that it can constantly surpass what it has currently attained." [37] Although Truth in itself transcends the limits of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this attraction, the human individual is led to seek "facts of a greater order." [39]
22. This innate drive towards the pursuit of truth is particularly evident in the noticeably human capacities for semantic understanding and imagination, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "manner that is suitable to the social nature and self-respect of the human individual." [41] Likewise, a steadfast orientation to the fact is necessary for charity to be both genuine and universal. [42]
23. The search for reality discovers its highest expression in openness to truths that go beyond the physical and developed world. In God, all truths attain their ultimate and original significance. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "fundamental decision that engages the whole individual." [44] In this way, the human individual becomes completely what she or he is called to be: "the intelligence and the will show their spiritual nature," enabling the person "to act in such a way that recognizes individual liberty to the complete." [45]
24. The Christian faith comprehends development as the complimentary act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, creates "not to increase his splendor, but to reveal it forth and to interact it." [46] Since God creates according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), production 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 people to presume an unique role: to cultivate and look after the world. [48]
25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, human beings live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and abilities to take care of and develop production in accord with God's plan. [49] In this, human intelligence reflects the Divine Intelligence that produced all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] constantly sustains them, and guides them to their supreme purpose in him. [51] Moreover, humans are called to develop their capabilities in science and innovation, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in an appropriate relationship with production, human beings, on the one hand, utilize their intelligence and skill to comply with God in directing creation towards the purpose to which he has called it. [52] On the other hand, production itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, helps the human mind to "rise slowly to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]
26. In this context, human intelligence becomes more plainly comprehended as a faculty that forms an important part of how the entire individual engages with reality. Authentic engagement needs welcoming the complete scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with truth unfolds in various methods, as each person, in his/her diverse individuality [54], looks for to understand the world, connect to others, fix issues, express imagination, and pursue integral wellness through the unified interaction of the various dimensions of the person's intelligence. [55] This includes logical and linguistic abilities however can likewise include other modes of connecting with truth. Consider the work of a craftsmen, who "should know how to discern, in inert matter, a specific form that others can not acknowledge" [56] and bring it forth through insight and useful skill. Indigenous peoples who live near to the earth typically possess a profound sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a buddy who understands the best word to say or a person proficient at handling human relationships exhibits an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, dialogue and generous encounter between persons." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of artificial intelligence, we can not forget that poetry and love are required to conserve our humankind." [59]
28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the integration of reality into the ethical and spiritual life of the person, directing his/her actions because of God's goodness and reality. According to God's plan, intelligence, in its max sense, likewise includes the capability to relish what is real, great, and lovely. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel expressed, "intelligence is nothing without delight." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the greatest heaven in Paradiso, testifies that the culmination of this intellectual pleasure is found in the "light intellectual complete of love, love of true good filled with joy, joy which goes beyond every sweet taste." [61]
29. An appropriate understanding of human intelligence, for that reason, can not be minimized to the simple acquisition of facts or the ability to perform specific jobs. Instead, it involves the person's openness to the supreme concerns of life and reflects an orientation toward the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the divine image within the individual, human intelligence has the capability to access the totality of being, considering existence in its fullness, which exceeds what is quantifiable, and grasping the significance of what has been comprehended. For followers, this capacity consists of, in a specific way, the ability to grow in the knowledge of the secrets of God by using factor to engage ever more exceptionally with revealed truths (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is shaped by divine love, which "is put forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence has an important contemplative dimension, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian function.

30. Because of the foregoing discussion, the differences between human intelligence and current AI systems become apparent. While AI is a remarkable technological achievement capable of mimicing certain outputs related to human intelligence, it runs by performing tasks, attaining goals, or making choices based on quantitative information and computational reasoning. For example, with its analytical power, AI excels at incorporating data from a variety of fields, modeling complex systems, and cultivating interdisciplinary connections. In this method, it can assist professionals collaborate in solving complicated issues that "can not be handled from a single point of view or from a single set of interests." [64]
31. However, even as AI processes and imitates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains basically confined to a logical-mathematical structure, which imposes intrinsic constraints. Human intelligence, in contrast, establishes organically throughout the individual's physical and psychological development, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although innovative AI systems can "learn" through processes such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is fundamentally different from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, consisting of sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each minute. These elements shape and form people within their personal history.In contrast, AI, lacking a physical body, depends on computational reasoning and learning based upon large datasets that consist of taped human experiences and understanding.

32. Consequently, although AI can replicate elements of human reasoning and perform specific tasks with amazing speed and performance, its computational capabilities represent only a fraction of the more comprehensive capacities of the human mind. For example, AI can not currently replicate moral discernment or the capability to establish authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is situated within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral development that basically forms the person's perspective, incorporating the physical, psychological, social, ethical, and spiritual dimensions of life. Since AI can not offer this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely solely on this innovation or treat it as the main methods of interpreting the world can lead to "a loss of gratitude for the entire, for the relationships in between things, and for the more comprehensive horizon." [65]
33. Human intelligence is not mainly about finishing functional tasks but about understanding and actively engaging with reality in all its dimensions; it is also capable of surprising insights. Since AI lacks the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to fact and goodness, its capacities-though seemingly limitless-are incomparable with the human capability to understand truth. A lot can be gained from an illness, an accept of reconciliation, and even a basic sundown; certainly, numerous experiences we have as human beings open brand-new horizons and use the possibility of attaining brand-new wisdom. No device, working entirely with data, can measure up to these and countless other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an overly close equivalence between human intelligence and AI risks surrendering to a functionalist viewpoint, where individuals are valued based on the work they can perform. However, an individual's worth does not depend upon having particular skills, cognitive and technological accomplishments, or individual success, but on the individual's intrinsic self-respect, grounded in being developed in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains undamaged in all situations, consisting of for those unable to exercise their abilities, whether it be an unborn child, an unconscious person, or an older individual who is suffering. [67] It likewise underpins the tradition of human rights (and, in particular, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "an important point of merging in the look for typical ground" [68] and can, hence, serve as a fundamental ethical guide in discussions on the responsible advancement and use of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the extremely use of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can prove deceptive" [69] and threats overlooking what is most precious in the human person. In light of this, AI ought to not be seen as an artificial form of human intelligence but as an item of it. [70]
36. Given these factors to consider, one can ask how AI can be comprehended within God's plan. To answer this, it is crucial to remember that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character however is a human venture that engages the humanistic and cultural dimensions of human imagination. [71]
37. Seen as a fruit of the prospective inscribed within human intelligence, [72] scientific questions and the advancement of technical skills become part of the "collaboration of guy and female with God in refining the visible creation." [73] At the exact same time, all clinical and technological achievements are, eventually, presents from God. [74] Therefore, people should always use their capabilities in view of the higher function for which God has given them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has "fixed many evils which utilized to harm and restrict humans," [76] a reality for which we ought to rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological improvements in themselves represent genuine human development. [77] The Church is especially opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human individual. [78] Like any human undertaking, technological advancement needs to be directed to serve the human individual and contribute to the pursuit of "greater justice, more substantial fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations," which are "more important than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical implications of technological development are shared not just within the Church but also amongst many researchers, technologists, and expert associations, who progressively call for ethical reflection to assist this advancement in a responsible method.

39. To address these obstacles, it is important to highlight the importance of ethical obligation grounded in the self-respect and occupation of the human person. This assisting principle also applies to concerns worrying AI. In this context, the ethical dimension takes on main value because it is people who create systems and identify the purposes for which they are used. [80] Between a device and a human being, only the latter is truly a moral agent-a subject of moral duty who works out liberty in his/her choices and higgledy-piggledy.xyz accepts their repercussions. [81] It is not the device however the human who remains in relationship with reality and goodness, assisted by an ethical conscience that calls the person "to like and to do what is excellent and to avoid wicked," [82] attesting to "the authority of truth in recommendation to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn." [83] Likewise, between a maker and a human, only the human can be adequately self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, critical with prudence, and seeking the great that is possible in every situation. [84] In truth, all of this also comes from the individual's workout of intelligence.

40. Like any item of human creativity, AI can be directed towards positive or negative ends. [85] When utilized in manner ins which appreciate human dignity and promote the well-being of people and communities, it can contribute favorably to the human vocation. Yet, as in all areas where people are called to make choices, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human flexibility permits the possibility of selecting what is wrong, the moral evaluation of this technology will need to take into account how it is directed and used.

41. At the same time, it is not only completions that are fairly substantial however likewise the ways utilized to attain them. Additionally, the overall vision and understanding of the human individual ingrained within these systems are essential to think about too. Technological products 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 worths." [87] On a social level, some technological advancements might likewise strengthen relationships and power dynamics that are irregular with a correct understanding of the human individual and society.

42. Therefore, the ends and the methods used in an offered application of AI, as well as the total vision it includes, must all be examined to guarantee they respect human self-respect and promote the typical good. [88] As Pope Francis has mentioned, "the intrinsic dignity of every man and every lady" need to be "the crucial requirement in examining emerging technologies; these will prove fairly sound to the degree that they assist respect that self-respect and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] including in the social and financial spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays an important role not only in designing and producing technology but also in directing its use in line with the authentic good of the human individual. [90] The responsibility for handling this wisely pertains to every level of society, guided by the concept of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The commitment to guaranteeing that AI always supports and promotes the supreme worth of the dignity of every person and the fullness of the human vocation works as a criterion of discernment for designers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, in addition to to its users. It remains valid for every application of the technology at every level of its use.

44. An assessment of the ramifications of this guiding principle might begin by considering the significance of moral responsibility. Since complete ethical causality belongs just to personal agents, not artificial ones, it is vital to be able to identify and specify who bears responsibility for the processes associated with AI, especially those efficient in learning, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up techniques and very deep neural networks make it possible for AI to fix complex issues, they make it hard to understand the processes that lead to the services they adopted. This makes complex accountability because if an AI application produces unwanted outcomes, determining who is responsible ends up being difficult. To resolve this issue, attention needs to be offered to the nature of accountability procedures in complex, highly automated settings, where outcomes might just become obvious in the medium to long term. For this, it is essential that ultimate obligation for choices used AI rests with the human decision-makers and that there is responsibility for using AI at each stage of the decision-making process. [91]
45. In addition to identifying who is responsible, it is necessary to recognize the goals offered to AI systems. Although these systems may use without supervision self-governing knowing systems and in some cases follow courses that people can not rebuild, they ultimately pursue objectives that humans have actually assigned to them and are governed by processes established by their designers and developers. Yet, this provides an obstacle because, as AI designs end up being increasingly efficient in independent learning, the ability to maintain control over them to make sure that such applications serve human purposes may successfully lessen. This raises the important concern of how to ensure that AI systems are bought for the good of individuals and not against them.

46. While responsibility for the ethical use of AI systems begins with those who develop, produce, manage, and oversee such systems, it is also shared by those who utilize them. As Pope Francis noted, the device "makes a technical option among several possibilities based either on well-defined criteria or on statistical inferences. Human beings, nevertheless, not only pick, however in their hearts are capable of choosing." [92] Those who utilize AI to achieve a task and follow its results develop a context in which they are eventually responsible for the power they have entrusted. Therefore, insofar as AI can help human beings in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it should be credible, safe, robust enough to manage disparities, and transparent in their operation to reduce biases and unintentional negative effects. [93] Regulatory frameworks must guarantee that all legal entities remain responsible for the usage of AI and all its repercussions, with proper safeguards for openness, privacy, and accountability. [94] Moreover, those utilizing AI must beware not to end up being extremely based on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases modern society's currently high reliance on technology.

47. The Church's ethical and social mentor supplies resources to assist make sure that AI is utilized in a method that maintains human agency. Considerations about justice, for example, must also resolve issues such as promoting simply social characteristics, maintaining worldwide security, and promoting peace. By working out vigilance, individuals and communities can determine ways to utilize AI to benefit humanity while preventing applications that might deteriorate human self-respect or harm the environment. In this context, the idea of duty ought to be comprehended not only in its most restricted sense however as a "responsibility for the take care of others, which is more than just representing results attained." [95]
48. Therefore, AI, like any technology, can be part of a conscious and accountable answer to mankind's occupation to the good. However, as formerly talked about, AI should be directed by human intelligence to align with this vocation, guaranteeing it appreciates the dignity of the human person. Recognizing this "exalted self-respect," the Second Vatican Council affirmed that "the social order and its advancement should usually work to the benefit of the human individual." [96] Because of this, making use of AI, as Pope Francis said, need to be "accompanied by an ethic inspired by a vision of the common excellent, an ethic of freedom, duty, and fraternity, capable of cultivating the complete advancement of people in relation to others and to the whole of production." [97]
49. Within this basic point of view, some observations follow listed below to illustrate how the preceding arguments can assist supply an ethical orientation in practical situations, in line with the "knowledge of heart" that Pope Francis has proposed. [98] While not extensive, this discussion is used in service of the dialogue that considers how AI can be used to maintain the dignity of the human person and promote the typical good. [99]
50. As Pope Francis observed, "the fundamental dignity of each human and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human household must undergird the advancement of new technologies and serve as unassailable criteria for evaluating them before they are utilized." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI could "present important developments in agriculture, education and culture, an enhanced level of life for whole nations and peoples, and the growth of human fraternity and social friendship," and thus be "used to promote essential human advancement." [101] AI might likewise assist companies determine those in requirement and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other comparable applications of this innovation could add to human advancement and the common good. [102]
52. However, while AI holds lots of possibilities for promoting the great, it can likewise prevent or even counter human advancement 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 simply differences in product wealth, which are also significant, however also differences in access to political and social influence." [103] In this sense, AI could be utilized to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, develop new forms of hardship, widen the "digital divide," and get worse existing social inequalities. [104]
53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a few powerful companies raises significant ethical concerns. Exacerbating this problem is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single person can exercise complete oversight over the vast and intricate datasets used for computation. This absence of well-defined accountability develops the threat that AI might be controlled for personal or business gain or to direct public opinion for the advantage of a specific market. Such entities, motivated by their own interests, possess the capability to exercise "kinds of control as subtle as they are invasive, creating systems for the control of consciences and of the democratic process." [105]
54. Furthermore, there is the danger of AI being used to promote what Pope Francis has called the "technocratic paradigm," which views all the world's problems as understandable through technological ways alone. [106] In this paradigm, human self-respect and fraternity are often reserved in the name of effectiveness, "as if truth, goodness, and fact instantly flow from technological and economic power as such." [107] Yet, human dignity and the typical excellent needs to never ever be violated for the sake of efficiency, [108] for "technological advancements that do not lead to an enhancement in the quality of life of all humanity, however on the contrary, worsen inequalities and disputes, can never count as true development. " [109] Instead, AI needs to be put "at the service of another kind of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more essential." [110]
55. Attaining this objective needs a much deeper reflection on the relationship in between autonomy and responsibility. Greater autonomy heightens everyone's obligation throughout different aspects of common life. For Christians, the foundation of this responsibility depends on the recognition that all human capabilities, consisting of the person's autonomy, come from God and are meant to be used in the service of others. [111] Therefore, instead of merely pursuing economic or technological goals, AI must serve "the typical good of the entire human family," which is "the amount overall of social conditions that permit individuals, either as groups or as people, to reach their satisfaction more fully and more quickly." [112]
56. The Second Vatican Council observed that "by his inner nature man is a social being; and if he does not enter into relations with others, he can neither live nor develop his gifts." [113] This conviction underscores that living in society is intrinsic to the nature and vocation of the human person. [114] As social beings, we look for relationships that involve mutual exchange and the pursuit of fact, in the course of which, individuals "share with each other the truth they have actually discovered, or believe they have discovered, in such a way that they help one another in the look for fact." [115]
57. Such a mission, along with other aspects of human communication, presupposes encounters and mutual exchange between individuals formed by their special histories, thoughts, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a varied, multifaceted, and complex truth: private and social, rational and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis highlights this dynamic, keeping in mind that "together, we can look for the truth in discussion, in unwinded discussion or in enthusiastic debate. To do so calls for determination; it entails minutes of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently accept the more comprehensive experience of individuals and peoples. [...] The procedure of building fraternity, be it local or universal, can only be undertaken by spirits that are complimentary and available to authentic encounters." [116]
58. It remains in this context that one can think about the challenges AI poses to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the prospective to promote connections within the human family. However, it might likewise impede a true encounter with reality and, eventually, lead individuals to "a deep and melancholic discontentment with interpersonal relations, or a hazardous sense of isolation." [117] Authentic human relationships require the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their pleasure. [118] Since human intelligence is revealed and enriched likewise in social and embodied ways, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are indispensable for engaging with reality in its fullness.

59. Because "real knowledge requires an encounter with truth," [119] the rise of AI introduces another obstacle. Since AI can effectively imitate the products of human intelligence, the capability to understand when one is interacting with a human or a device can no longer be considered granted. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other advanced outputs that are typically associated with humans. Yet, it should be understood for what it is: a tool, not a person. [120] This difference is frequently obscured by the language used by practitioners, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and hence blurs the line between human and machine.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI likewise presents specific challenges for the advancement of children, potentially encouraging them to establish patterns of interaction that treat human relationships in a transactional way, as one would connect to a chatbot. Such practices could lead young individuals to see teachers as simple dispensers of details instead of as mentors who assist and nurture their intellectual and moral growth. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and an unfaltering dedication to the good of the other, are vital and irreplaceable in promoting the full advancement of the human person.

61. In this context, it is very important to clarify that, despite the usage of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can genuinely experience empathy. Emotions can not be reduced to facial expressions or phrases created in reaction to triggers; they show the method an individual, as an entire, associates with the world and to his or her own life, with the body playing a main function. True empathy needs the capability to listen, recognize another's irreducible individuality, welcome their otherness, and understand the significance behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the world of analytical judgment in which AI excels, real compassion comes from the relational sphere. It involves intuiting and collaring the lived experiences of another while maintaining the difference in between self and other. [122] While AI can simulate understanding responses, it can not replicate the eminently individual and relational nature of authentic compassion. [123]
62. Because of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as an individual should always be prevented; doing so for deceptive functions is a serious ethical infraction that could wear down social trust. Similarly, using AI to deceive in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, consisting of the sphere of sexuality-is likewise to be thought about unethical and requires mindful oversight to prevent harm, maintain openness, and ensure the dignity of all individuals. [124]
63. In a significantly separated world, some individuals have actually turned to AI in search of deep human relationships, basic companionship, or perhaps psychological bonds. However, while humans are meant to experience genuine relationships, AI can just simulate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an important part of how an individual grows to become who he or she is implied to be. If AI is used to help individuals foster authentic connections in between individuals, it can contribute positively to the complete realization of the individual. Conversely, if we change relationships with God and with others with interactions with innovation, we risk changing authentic relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of pulling away into artificial worlds, we are contacted us to participate in a dedicated and intentional way with reality, specifically by identifying with the poor and suffering, consoling those in sadness, and creating bonds of communion with all.

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

65. Other broader elements of AI's impact on the economic-financial sphere should also be thoroughly taken a look at, particularly concerning the interaction in between concrete truth and the digital world. One crucial consideration in this regard includes the coexistence of varied and alternative forms of economic and monetary institutions within an offered context. This element ought to be encouraged, as it can bring benefits in how it supports the genuine economy by promoting its advancement and stability, especially during times of crisis. Nevertheless, it must be worried that digital truths, not limited by any spatial bonds, tend to be more uniform and impersonal than communities rooted in a specific location and a specific history, with a typical journey defined by shared values and hopes, but also by inescapable arguments and divergences. This diversity is an indisputable possession to a community's economic life. Turning over the economy and financing entirely to digital technology would minimize this variety and richness. As a result, numerous solutions to financial problems that can be reached through natural dialogue in between the involved celebrations might no longer be attainable in a world dominated by procedures and only the appearance of nearness.

66. Another area where AI is currently having an extensive impact is the world of work. As in lots of other fields, AI is driving basic transformations throughout numerous professions, with a series of effects. On the one hand, it has the possible to boost competence and efficiency, create brand-new tasks, allow employees to concentrate on more ingenious tasks, and open new horizons for imagination and innovation.

67. However, while AI promises to increase efficiency by taking control of ordinary tasks, it frequently requires workers to adjust to the speed and needs of machines instead of devices being designed to support those who work. As an outcome, contrary to the advertised advantages of AI, present methods to the innovation can paradoxically deskill workers, subject them to automated security, and relegate them to stiff and repetitive jobs. The need to keep up with the rate of technology can wear down workers' sense of firm and stifle the ingenious capabilities they are anticipated to bring to their work. [125]
68. AI is currently eliminating the requirement for some jobs that were when performed by human beings. If AI is utilized to replace human workers instead of match them, there is a "substantial risk of out of proportion benefit for the couple of at the cost of the impoverishment of many." [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more effective, there is an involved danger that human labor may lose its value in the financial realm. This is the rational repercussion of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humankind shackled to performance, where, ultimately, the cost of mankind must be cut. Yet, human lives are fundamentally important, independent of their financial output. Nevertheless, the "present design," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to prefer an investment in efforts to help the slow, the weak, or the less gifted to discover chances in life." [127] In light of this, "we can not permit a tool as effective and indispensable as Artificial Intelligence to enhance such a paradigm, however rather, we must make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its growth." [128]
69. It is very important to bear in mind that "the order of things need to be secondary to the order of persons, and not the other method around." [129] Human work should not only be at the service of profit but at "the service of the entire human person [...] taking into consideration the person's product requirements and the requirements of his/her intellectual, moral, spiritual, and religious life." [130] In this context, the Church recognizes that work is "not just a way of making one's daily bread" however is likewise "a vital dimension of social life" and "a way [...] of personal growth, the building of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of presents. Work offers us a sense of shared obligation for the development of the world, and eventually, for our life as a people." [131]
70. Since work is a "part of the significance of life on this earth, a course to growth, human advancement and personal satisfaction," "the goal should not be that technological progress increasingly replaces human work, for this would be damaging to humanity" [132] -rather, it should promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI ought to help, not change, human judgment. Similarly, it should never break down imagination or decrease workers to mere "cogs in a machine." Therefore, "regard for the dignity of workers and the value of employment for the financial well-being of individuals, families, and societies, for job security and simply wages, ought to be a high concern for the international community as these kinds of technology permeate more deeply into our workplaces." [133]
71. As participants in God's recovery work, health care professionals have the occupation and obligation to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the health care occupation brings an "intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension," recognized by the Hippocratic Oath, which requires physicians and healthcare professionals to commit themselves to having "outright regard for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Good Samaritan, this dedication is to be carried out by males and females "who turn down the production of a society of exemption, and act instead as neighbors, raising up and fixing up the fallen for the sake of the typical good." [136]
72. Seen in this light, AI seems to hold immense potential in a variety of applications in the medical field, such as assisting the diagnostic work of health care service providers, helping with relationships in between patients and medical personnel, offering new treatments, and broadening access to quality care also for those who are isolated or marginalized. In these ways, the innovation could improve the "caring and caring nearness" [137] that health care suppliers are contacted us to extend to the ill and suffering.

73. However, if AI is utilized not to enhance however to replace the relationship between patients and healthcare providers-leaving clients to connect with a maker rather than a human being-it would decrease a most importantly essential human relational structure to a central, impersonal, and unequal structure. Instead of encouraging uniformity with the ill and suffering, such applications of AI would risk intensifying the solitude that frequently accompanies health problem, particularly in the context of a culture where "individuals are no longer viewed as a paramount value to be cared for and appreciated." [138] This misuse of AI would not line up with regard for the self-respect of the human person and solidarity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the wellness of clients and the decisions that discuss their lives are at the heart of the health care occupation. This accountability requires doctor to work out all their skill and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options concerning those entrusted to their care, always respecting the inviolable self-respect of the clients and the requirement for notified authorization. As a result, choices concerning client treatment and the weight of obligation they entail should always remain with the human individual and should never be handed over to AI. [139]
75. In addition, utilizing AI to determine who need to get treatment based mainly on financial procedures or metrics of efficiency represents an especially troublesome circumstances of the "technocratic paradigm" that must be turned down. [140] For, "enhancing resources implies utilizing them in an ethical and fraternal way, and not penalizing the most fragile." [141] Additionally, AI tools in healthcare are "exposed to types of predisposition and discrimination," where "systemic errors can easily multiply, producing not just injustices in individual cases however likewise, due to the domino effect, genuine types of social inequality." [142]
76. The combination of AI into healthcare also positions the danger of amplifying other existing disparities in access to treatment. As health care becomes increasingly oriented toward avoidance and lifestyle-based approaches, AI-driven options might unintentionally prefer more upscale populations who already enjoy much better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This pattern threats enhancing a "medicine for the rich" design, where those with financial means gain from sophisticated preventative tools and individualized health details while others struggle to gain access to even standard services. To avoid such inequities, fair structures are required to ensure that using AI in healthcare does not intensify existing health care inequalities but rather serves the typical good.

77. The words of the Second Vatican Council remain completely pertinent today: "True education aims to form people 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 simple process of handing down facts and intellectual abilities: rather, its aim is to contribute to the individual's holistic development in its numerous aspects (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, and so on), consisting of, for instance, neighborhood life and relations within the academic neighborhood," [144] in keeping with the nature and dignity of the human individual.

78. This approach involves a dedication to cultivating the mind, but constantly as a part of the integral development of the person: "We must break that concept of education which holds that educating methods filling one's head with ideas. That is the way we educate robots, cerebral minds, not people. Educating is taking a threat in the stress in between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]
79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human individual is the important relationship between instructor and trainee. Teachers do more than convey understanding; they design important human qualities and motivate the happiness of discovery. [146] Their existence inspires trainees both through the content they teach and the care they show for their trainees. This bond cultivates trust, shared understanding, and the capability to attend to each person's distinct dignity and potential. On the part of the trainee, this can generate a real desire to grow. The physical presence of a teacher creates a relational dynamic that AI can not reproduce, one that deepens engagement and supports the trainee's essential development.

80. In this context, AI presents both chances and challenges. If used in a sensible way, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and purchased to the genuine objectives of education, AI can end up being an important instructional resource by enhancing access to education, using tailored assistance, and providing instant feedback to trainees. These benefits might enhance the knowing experience, particularly in cases where customized attention is required, or academic resources are otherwise limited.

81. Nevertheless, an important part of education is forming "the intelligence to factor well in all matters, to reach out towards reality, and to comprehend it," [147] while helping the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is even more crucial in an age marked by innovation, in which "it is no longer merely a question of 'using' instruments of communication, however of living in a highly digitalized culture that has actually had a profound influence on [...] our capability to communicate, find out, be informed and participate in relationship with others." [149] However, instead of promoting "a cultivated intellect," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and occupation that it undertakes," [150] the extensive use of AI in education could lead to the trainees' increased reliance on innovation, eroding their ability to carry out some abilities individually and aggravating their dependence on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are designed to help individuals develop their critical believing capabilities and analytical abilities, lots of others simply provide answers rather of prompting trainees to come to responses themselves or write text for themselves. [152] Instead of training young individuals how to collect details and produce quick responses, education needs to encourage "the accountable use of flexibility to face problems with common sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in the usage of forms of synthetic intelligence need to aim above all at promoting crucial thinking. Users of any ages, but especially the young, require to develop a critical approach to making use of data and content collected on the internet or produced by expert system systems. Schools, universities, and clinical societies are challenged to assist trainees and experts to understand the social and ethical aspects of the development and usages of innovation." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II recalled, "worldwide today, characterized by such fast advancements in science and innovation, the tasks of a Catholic University assume an ever greater importance and urgency." [155] In a specific way, Catholic universities are advised to be present as terrific laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary secret, they are urged to engage "with wisdom and imagination" [156] in cautious research study on this phenomenon, helping to draw out the salutary capacity within the numerous fields of science and truth, and assisting them always towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the common excellent, reaching brand-new frontiers in the discussion between faith and factor.

84. Moreover, it needs to be kept in mind that present AI programs have actually been known to offer prejudiced or produced details, which can lead trainees to rely on unreliable content. This issue "not only risks of legitimizing fake news and strengthening a dominant culture's benefit, but, in short, it likewise weakens the instructional process itself." [157] With time, clearer differences might emerge in between correct and improper usages of AI in education and research. Yet, a definitive guideline is that using AI should constantly be transparent and never misrepresented.

85. AI might be used as an aid to human self-respect if it assists people comprehend complicated principles or directs them to sound resources that support their search for the reality. [158]
86. However, AI also provides a serious risk of generating manipulated content and false details, which can quickly misguide individuals due to its similarity to the reality. Such misinformation may occur unintentionally, as when it comes to AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine however are not. Since creating content that mimics human artifacts is main to AI's functionality, mitigating these risks proves tough. Yet, the consequences of such aberrations and false details can be quite serious. For this reason, all those involved in producing and utilizing AI systems should be devoted to the truthfulness and precision of the details processed by such systems and disseminated to the general public.

87. While AI has a hidden capacity to create incorrect details, an even more troubling issue lies in the purposeful misuse of AI for adjustment. This can take place when individuals or organizations deliberately produce and spread out false material with the aim to trick or trigger damage, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to an incorrect representation of a person, modified or produced by an AI algorithm. The threat of deepfakes is particularly evident when they are utilized to target or harm others. While the images or videos themselves might be artificial, the damage they trigger is genuine, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "real wounds in their human self-respect." [159]
88. On a broader scale, by distorting "our relationship with others and with reality," [160] AI-generated fake media can slowly undermine the foundations of society. This concern requires cautious policy, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or influenced media-can spread accidentally, sustaining political polarization and social discontent. When society ends up being indifferent to the truth, various groups build their own versions of "realities," deteriorating the "reciprocal ties and mutual reliances" [161] that underpin the fabric of social life. As deepfakes cause people to question everything and AI-generated false content wears down rely on what they see and hear, polarization and dispute will just grow. Such extensive deceptiveness is no unimportant matter; it strikes at the core of mankind, taking apart the fundamental trust on which societies are constructed. [162]
89. Countering AI-driven fallacies is not just the work of market experts-it requires the efforts of all individuals of goodwill. "If innovation is to serve human dignity and not harm it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human community should be proactive in resolving these trends with respect to human dignity and the promo of the excellent." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated material must constantly work out diligence in validating the reality of what they disseminate and, in all cases, must "prevent the sharing of words and images that are breaking down of people, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that exploit the weak and susceptible." [164] This requires the continuous prudence and mindful discernment of all users concerning their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are inherently relational, and the information everyone creates in the digital world can be viewed as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data conveys not only details but likewise personal and relational understanding, which, in a significantly digitized context, can total up to power over the person. Moreover, while some types of data may pertain to public aspects of a person's life, others may touch upon the person's interiority, possibly even their conscience. Seen in this way, personal privacy plays a vital function in safeguarding the boundaries of a person's inner life, maintaining their flexibility to relate to others, reveal themselves, and make decisions without undue control. This defense is likewise connected to the defense of spiritual flexibility, as security can likewise be misused to exert control over the lives of believers and how they express their faith.

91. It is suitable, therefore, to address the problem of personal privacy from an issue for the legitimate freedom and inalienable self-respect of the human individual "in all situations." [166] The Second Vatican Council included the right "to secure privacy" amongst the fundamental rights "necessary for living a really human life," a right that ought to be extended to all people on account of their "sublime self-respect." [167] Furthermore, the Church has actually also verified the right to the legitimate respect for a personal life in the context of affirming the person's right to an excellent reputation, defense of their physical and mental stability, and freedom from harm or unnecessary intrusion [168] -vital parts of the due regard for the intrinsic dignity of the human person. [169]
92. Advances in AI-powered data processing and analysis now make it possible to infer patterns in an individual's behavior and thinking from even a small amount of details, making the function of data privacy much more vital as a protect for the dignity and relational nature of the human person. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant attitudes towards others are on the rise, distances are otherwise diminishing or disappearing to the point that the right to privacy hardly exists. Everything has become a sort of spectacle to be analyzed and checked, and individuals's lives are now under constant security." [170]
93. While there can be legitimate and appropriate methods to utilize AI in keeping with human dignity and the common excellent, using it for security aimed at making use of, limiting others' freedom, or benefitting a couple of at the expenditure of the many is unjustifiable. The danger of surveillance overreach need to be monitored by proper regulators to make sure transparency and public responsibility. Those accountable for security needs to never exceed their authority, which should constantly prefer the dignity and flexibility of every individual as the necessary basis of a simply and humane society.

94. Furthermore, "essential regard for human self-respect needs that we decline to permit the individuality of the person to be determined with a set of data." [171] This specifically uses when AI is used to evaluate individuals or groups based on their habits, attributes, or history-a practice called "social scoring": "In social and economic decision-making, we ought to beware about handing over judgments to algorithms that process information, often gathered surreptitiously, on an individual's makeup and prior habits. Such information can be contaminated by societal bias and preconceptions. An individual's past habits ought to not be used to reject him or her the chance to change, grow, and add to society. We can not allow algorithms to limit or condition respect for human dignity, or to leave out compassion, grace, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that individuals have the ability to alter." [172]
95. AI has numerous promising applications for enhancing our relationship with our "common home," such as producing designs to forecast extreme climate events, proposing engineering services to reduce their impact, managing relief operations, and predicting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable agriculture, optimize energy usage, and offer early caution systems for public health emergency situations. These developments have the potential to strengthen resilience against climate-related challenges and promote more sustainable advancement.

96. At the exact same time, existing AI designs and the hardware required to support them consume huge quantities of energy and water, significantly adding to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This reality is often obscured by the method this innovation exists in the popular creativity, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can provide the impression that information is saved and processed in an intangible realm, detached from the physical 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 is true of the technology behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, especially big language models (LLMs), they require ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and greater storage facilities. Considering the heavy toll these technologies handle the environment, it is crucial to establish sustainable solutions that reduce their effect on our typical home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is essential "that we try to find options not only in technology but in a change of humanity." [175] A complete and authentic understanding of development acknowledges that the value of all produced things can not be minimized to their mere energy. Therefore, a totally human approach to the stewardship of the earth turns down the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which seeks to "extract whatever possible" from the world, [176] and turns down the "myth of progress," which assumes that "eco-friendly problems will fix themselves just with the application of brand-new innovation and without any need for ethical factors to consider or deep change." [177] Such a frame of mind should pave the way to a more holistic method that appreciates the order of production and promotes the essential good of the human individual while securing our common home. [178]
98. The Second Vatican Council and the constant teaching of the Popes ever since have actually firmly insisted that peace is not simply the absence of war and is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the serenity of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without safeguarding the products of individuals, complimentary interaction, regard for the self-respect of individuals and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the impact of charity and can not be attained through force alone; instead, it must be mainly constructed through patient diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, solidarity, essential human advancement, and regard for the dignity of all people. [180] In this method, the tools used to maintain peace must never be enabled to justify injustice, violence, or injustice. Instead, they ought to always be governed by a "firm determination to regard other individuals and nations, in addition to their dignity, as well as the purposeful practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical capabilities might assist countries seek peace and ensure security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can likewise be highly problematic. Pope Francis has observed that "the capability to perform military operations through push-button control systems has actually resulted in a decreased perception of the devastation caused by those weapon systems and the concern of obligation for their usage, leading to an even more cold and detached technique to the enormous tragedy of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which self-governing weapons make war more feasible militates against the principle of war as a last option in legitimate self-defense, [183] potentially increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and precipitating a destabilizing arms race, with disastrous repercussions for human rights. [184]
100. In specific, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which are capable of recognizing and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for serious ethical issue" since they lack the "distinct human capacity for ethical judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this factor, Pope Francis has actually urgently required a reconsideration of the development of these weapons and a prohibition on their use, beginning with "a reliable and concrete commitment to present ever greater and appropriate human control. No device ought to ever choose to take the life of a person." [186]
101. Since it is a little action from makers that can eliminate autonomously with precision to those capable of large-scale destruction, some AI scientists have actually revealed concerns that such innovation positions an "existential risk" by having the potential to act in manner ins which might threaten the survival of whole regions or even of humanity itself. This threat needs severe attention, showing the long-standing issue about technologies that give war "an uncontrollable harmful power over excellent numbers of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing children. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "undertake an assessment of war with a totally new attitude" [188] is more immediate than ever.

102. At the exact same time, while the theoretical risks of AI should have attention, the more instant and pressing concern depends on how people with malicious intentions might misuse this innovation. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future capabilities are unforeseeable, mankind's past actions offer clear warnings. The atrocities devoted throughout history are adequate to raise deep concerns about the potential abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that "humankind now has instruments of extraordinary power: we can turn this world into a garden, or decrease it to a stack of rubble." [190] Given this truth, the Church advises us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are complimentary to apply our intelligence towards things progressing favorably," or toward "decadence and shared damage." [191] To avoid humanity from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there should be a clear stand against all applications of innovation that naturally threaten human life and dignity. This commitment needs cautious discernment about the usage of AI, particularly in military defense applications, to guarantee that it constantly appreciates human dignity and serves the common good. The advancement and deployment of AI in weaponries must go through the highest levels of ethical scrutiny, governed by a concern for human dignity and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology offers impressive tools to oversee and establish the world's resources. However, sometimes, humanity is progressively delivering control of these resources to devices. Within some circles of scientists 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 produce unimaginable developments. Some even speculate that AGI might attain superhuman abilities. At the exact same time, as society drifts away from a connection with the transcendent, some are tempted to turn to AI searching for significance or fulfillment-longings that can only be really pleased in communion with God. [194]
105. However, the anticipation of replacing God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture clearly alerts against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI may show even more sexy than standard idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths however do not speak; eyes, however do not see; ears, however do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or at least gives the illusion of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is crucial to keep 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 have many of the capabilities specific to human life, and it is likewise imperfect. By turning to AI as a perceived "Other" higher than itself, with which to share presence and responsibilities, humanity threats producing an alternative to God. However, it is not AI that is eventually deified and worshipped, but mankind itself-which, in this method, ends up being enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the possible to serve humanity and contribute to the typical good, it remains a creation of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and ingenuity" (Acts 17:29). It needs to never ever be ascribed unnecessary worth. As the Book of Wisdom verifies: "For a male made them, and one whose spirit is obtained formed them; for no man can form a god which resembles himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is better than the items he worships given that he has life, but they never have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. On the other hand, humans, "by their interior life, go beyond the entire material universe; they experience this deep interiority when they enter into their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they choose their own fate in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis reminds us, that each specific discovers the "mystical connection in between self-knowledge and openness to others, between the encounter with one's personal individuality and the willingness to give 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 loving obedience before the Lord," [198] who "provides to deal with each one people as a 'Thou,' always and permanently." [199]
108. Considering the different challenges posed by advances in technology, Pope Francis stressed the requirement for development in "human responsibility, values, and conscience," proportionate to the growth in the potential that this innovation brings [200] -recognizing that "with a boost in human power comes a widening of duty on the part of individuals and neighborhoods." [201]
109. At the same time, the "essential and essential concern" remains "whether in the context of this development male, as man, is becoming genuinely better, that is to say, more mature spiritually, more mindful of the dignity of his mankind, more responsible, more available to others, specifically the neediest and the weakest, and readier to give and to aid all." [202]
110. As an outcome, it is essential to know how to examine individual applications of AI in specific contexts to determine whether its use promotes human self-respect, the vocation of the human person, and the typical good. As with lots of innovations, the results of the numerous uses of AI might not always be predictable from their creation. As these applications and their social impacts end up being clearer, suitable actions should be made at all levels of society, following the principle of subsidiarity. Individual users, families, civil society, corporations, institutions, governments, and international organizations ought to operate at their correct levels to guarantee that AI is utilized for the good of all.

111. A substantial obstacle and opportunity for the typical excellent today depends on thinking about AI within a structure of relational intelligence, which stresses the interconnectedness of people and neighborhoods and highlights our shared duty for fostering the important well-being of others. The twentieth-century philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev observed that individuals frequently blame devices for individual and social problems; nevertheless, "this just humiliates man and does not correspond to his self-respect," for "it is unworthy to move duty from male to a machine." [203] Only the human person can be ethically responsible, and the obstacles of a technological society are eventually spiritual in nature. Therefore, dealing with those obstacles "needs an increase of spirituality." [204]
112. An additional point to consider is the call, prompted by the appearance of AI on the world stage, for a restored appreciation of all that is human. Years earlier, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos alerted that "the risk is not in the multiplication of machines, but in the ever-increasing number of guys accustomed from their youth to desire just what makers can give." [205] This challenge is as true today as it was then, as the quick pace of digitization risks a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable elements of life are reserved and after that forgotten and even considered unimportant since they can not be computed in formal terms. AI must be used just as a tool to match human intelligence rather than change its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that transcend computation is crucial for maintaining "a genuine humankind" that "seems to stay in the midst of our technological culture, nearly unnoticed, like a mist leaking carefully beneath a closed door." [207]
113. The huge stretch of the world's understanding is now available in manner ins which would have filled past generations with wonder. However, to make sure that advancements in understanding do not become humanly or spiritually barren, one should go beyond the simple accumulation of data and aim to attain true wisdom. [208]
114. This knowledge is the gift that humankind requires most to address the extensive concerns and ethical obstacles postured by AI: "Only by adopting a spiritual way of viewing reality, just by recuperating a wisdom of the heart, can we challenge and analyze the newness of our time." [209] Such "wisdom of the heart" is "the virtue that allows us to incorporate the entire and its parts, our decisions and their effects." It "can not be looked for from makers," however it "lets itself be discovered by those who seek it and be seen by those who enjoy it; it anticipates those who desire it, and it goes in search of those who deserve it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]
115. In a world marked by AI, we need the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "enables us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, situations, events and to uncover their real significance." [211]
116. Since a "person's perfection is determined not by the details or knowledge they possess, however by the depth of their charity," [212] how we integrate AI "to include the least of our bros and sis, the vulnerable, and those most in need, will be the real procedure of our humankind." [213] The "knowledge of the heart" can brighten and direct the human-centered use of this innovation to assist promote the common great, look after our "common home," advance the search for the fact, foster important human development, favor human solidarity and fraternity, and lead mankind to its supreme objective: happiness and full with God. [214]
117. From this perspective of wisdom, followers will be able to act as moral agents capable of using this innovation to promote an authentic vision of the human person and society. [215] This ought to be finished with the understanding that technological progress is part of God's prepare for creation-an activity that we are called to purchase towards the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the continual look for the True and the Good.

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

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

Ex audientia pass away 14 ianuarii 2025 Franciscus

Contents

I. Introduction

II. What is Artificial Intelligence?

III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition

Rationality

Embodiment

Relationality

Relationship with the Truth

Stewardship of the World

An Important Understanding of Human Intelligence

The Limits of AI

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

Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making

V. Specific Questions

AI and Society

AI and Human Relationships

AI, the Economy, and Labor

AI and Healthcare

AI and Education

AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse

AI, Privacy, and Surveillance

AI and the Protection of Our Common Home

AI and Warfare

AI and Our Relationship with God

VI. Concluding Reflections

True Wisdom

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See likewise Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. [2] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 307. Cf. Id., Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (21 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020 ), 43. [3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [5] J. McCarthy, et al., "A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence" (31 August 1955), http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024). [6] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), pars. 2-3: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [7] Terms in this document explaining the outputs or processes of AI are utilized figuratively to explain its operations and are not planned to anthropomorphize the device. [8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [9] Here, one can see the main positions of the "transhumanists" and the "posthumanists." Transhumanists argue that technological improvements will allow human beings to conquer their biological constraints and enhance both their physical and cognitive capabilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, contend that such advances will eventually change human identity to the degree that mankind itself might no longer be considered genuinely "human." Both views rest on a basically negative understanding of human corporality, which deals with the body more as an obstacle than as an integral part of the individual's identity and call to complete realization. Yet, this negative view of the body is irregular with a proper understanding of human dignity. While the Church supports authentic clinical development, it affirms that human self-respect is rooted in "the person as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "dignity is also fundamental in each individual's body, which takes part in its own way in remaining in imago Dei" (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18). [10] This approach reflects a functionalist perspective, which minimizes the human mind to its functions and assumes that its functions can be completely measured in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear genuinely intelligent, it would still remain practical in nature. [11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460. [12] If "thinking" is attributed to machines, it must be clarified that this refers to calculative thinking rather than vital thinking. Similarly, if devices are said to run utilizing abstract thought, it needs to be defined that this is limited to computational reasoning. On the other hand, by its very nature, human thought is an innovative procedure that avoids programming and goes beyond constraints. [13] On the foundational role of language in forming understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York 2010, 141-182). [14] For more conversation of these anthropological and theological foundations, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144. [15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21. [16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi advertisement litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [faculty] by which he transcends to the irrational animals. Now, this [faculty] is reason itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it may more suitably be provided"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When considering all that they have, humans discover that they are most differentiated from animals exactly by the fact they have intelligence." This is likewise restated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who specifies that "guy is the most perfect of all earthly beings enhanced with movement, and his proper and natural operation is intellection," by which man abstracts from things and "receives in his mind things in fact intelligible" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 76). [17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, ad 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a contemporary perspective that echoes elements of the classical and medieval difference between these two modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York City 2011. [19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp. [20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138. [21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intelligence can investigate the reality of things through reflection, experience and discussion, and pertain to recognize in that reality, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal moral demands." [22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp. [24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "normally considers the human individual as a being who exists in the body and is unimaginable outside of it" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Che cosa è l'uomo?" (Sal 8,5): Un itinerario di antropologia biblica [30 September 2019], par. 19). Cf. ibid., pars. 20-21, 43-44, 48. [25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100 (2008 ), 863: "Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, but rather fully disclosed its meaning and worth." [26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81. [27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and for this reason it is joined to the body in order that it may have an existence and an operation suitable 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 ), asteroidsathome.net 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls likewise have factor and with it they circle in discourse around the reality of things. [...] [O] n account of the manner in which they are capable of focusing the lots of into the one, they too, in their own fashion and as far as they can, are worthy of conceptions like those of the angels" (en. tr. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York - 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 immediate issues and grasping certain realities that are imperishable, as real now as in the past. As it peers into humanity, factor discovers universal values obtained from that very same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034. [38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last proceeding of reason is to acknowledge that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York City 1958, 77). [39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [40] Our semantic capacity allows us to comprehend messages in any type of communication in a manner that both takes into account and transcends their product or empirical structures (such as computer code). Here, intelligence becomes a wisdom that "enables us to look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, circumstances, events and to uncover their real meaning" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our creativity allows us to create brand-new material or concepts, mainly by offering an original viewpoint on truth. Both capabilities depend on the presence of a personal subjectivity for their full realization. [41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. [42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a commitment to the reality, is a lot more than individual sensation [...] Certainly, its close relation to truth promotes its universality and maintains it from being 'confined to a narrow field without relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to truth hence secures it from 'a fideism that denies it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643. [43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7. [44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. [46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as estimated in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294. [47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure compares the universe to "a book reflecting, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who gives existence to all things (Breviloquium 2.12.1). Cf. Alain de Lille, De Incarnatione Christi, PL 210, 579a: "Omnis mundi creatura quasi liber et pictura nobis est et speculum." [48] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 67: AAS 107 (2015 ), 874; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589-592; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 57: "human beings occupy a distinct location in the universe according to the divine strategy: they take pleasure in the privilege of sharing in the divine governance of visible creation. [...] Since male's place as ruler remains in fact an involvement in the divine governance of development, we speak of it here as a type of stewardship." [49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165. [50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This idea is also reflected in the development account, where God brings animals to Adam "to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living creature, that was its name" (Gen. 2:19), an action that shows the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's production. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117. [51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301. [52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302. [53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2. [54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7. [55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8. [57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906. [58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987. [59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: "L'intelligence n'est rien sans la délectation." Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: "The mind and the will are put at the service of the higher good by sensing and savoring 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 highest standard of human life is the magnificent law itself-eternal, unbiased and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the whole world and the ways of the human neighborhood according to a plan conceived in his knowledge and love. God has made it possible for male to get involved in this law of his so that, under the gentle personality of divine providence, many might have the ability to come to a deeper and much deeper understanding of unchangeable reality." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. [63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016. [64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042. [66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has actually imprinted his own image and likeness on male (cf. Gen 1:26), conferring upon him an incomparable self-respect [...] In result, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not correspond to any work he performs, but which flow from his necessary self-respect as an individual." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22. [68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310. [69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is comprehended as a technical term to suggest this technology, remembering that the expression is also used to designate the discipline and not just its applications. [71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, wiki-tb-service.com Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857. [72] For instance, see the support of scientific expedition in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the appreciation for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These authors, amongst a long list of other Catholics took part in scientific research and technological exploration, illustrate that "faith and science can be joined in charity, provided that science is put at the service of the men and female of our time and not misused to harm and even damage them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87. [73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. [74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888. [77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658. [78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim. [79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293. [80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4. [81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes guy a moral topic. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the daddy of his acts." [82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776. [83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777. [84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father motivated efforts "to guarantee that innovation remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed towards the great." [85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the function of human agency in picking a larger aim (Ziel) that then informs the specific function (Zweck) for which each technological application is developed, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um pass away Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71. [86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a function and, in its effect on human society, constantly represents a form of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, hence making it possible for certain individuals to perform specific actions while avoiding others from performing various ones. In a more or less explicit way, this constitutive power-dimension of technology constantly consists of the worldview of those who created and developed it." [87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309. [88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Faced with the marvels of devices, which seem to know how to choose separately, we need to be really clear that decision-making [...] need to constantly be left to the human individual. We would condemn humanity to a future without hope if we removed individuals's capability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend on the options of devices." [92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [93] The term "bias" in this file refers to algorithmic bias (organized and consistent mistakes in computer system systems that might disproportionately bias certain groups in unintended methods) or discovering bias (which will lead to training on a biased data set) and not the "predisposition vector" in neural networks (which is a criterion used to adjust the output of "nerve cells" to adjust 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 verified the development in agreement "on the requirement for advancement processes to respect such worths as inclusion, openness, security, equity, personal privacy and reliability," and likewise invited "the efforts of international organizations to control these technologies so that they promote real development, contributing, that is, to a better world and an integrally greater quality of life." [95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8. [96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571. [98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For more discussion of the ethical questions raised by AI from a Catholic perspective, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253. [99] On the value of dialogue in a pluralist society oriented towards a "robust and solid social principles," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. [104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10. [105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; pricing quote the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, dokuwiki.stream Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245. [106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050. [107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047. [108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309. [109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027. [112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123. [113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034. [114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149. [115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414. [118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057. [119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985. [120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989). [123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Lots of people] desire their interpersonal relationships provided by advanced equipment, by screens and systems which can be turned on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel informs us constantly to run the danger of an in person encounter with others, with their physical existence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their joy which contaminates us in our close and constant interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from membership in the community, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045. [124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1. [125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899. [126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107. [128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' mentor about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893. [129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as priced estimate in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453. [130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: "work is 'for guy' 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 quoted in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8. [137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops' Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: "If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture is manifest, with its painful effects, it is that of healthcare. When a sick person is not placed in the center or their self-respect is not considered, this triggers attitudes that can lead even to speculation on the bad luck of others. And this is very grave! [...] The application of a company technique to the healthcare sector, if indiscriminate [...] might run the risk of disposing of 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 making use of Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729; Francis, Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016), 6: AAS 108 (2016 ), 57-58. [145] Francis, Address to Members of the Global Researchers Advancing Catholic Education Project (20 April 2022): AAS 114 (2022 ), 580. [146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), par. 41: AAS 68 (1976 ), 31, estimating Id., Address to the Members of the "Consilium de Laicis" (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: "if [the contemporary person] does listen to teachers, it is because they are witnesses." [147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126. [148] Francis, Meeting 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 using generative AI in education and research, UNESCO notes: "One of the key concerns [of using generative AI (GenAI) in education and research] is whether humans can potentially deliver fundamental levels of thinking and skill-acquisition procedures to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking abilities based on the outputs provided by AI. Writing, for example, is typically connected with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], human beings can now begin with a well-structured summary provided by GenAI. Some professionals have actually characterized using GenAI to create text in this method as 'writing without believing'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American theorist Hannah Arendt predicted such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and cautioned: "If it needs to end up being real that understanding (in the sense of knowledge) and thought have parted business for good, then we would certainly end up being the powerless slaves, not so much of our devices since our know-how" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3). [153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417. [154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914. [155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479. [156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10. [157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3. [158] For example, it may help individuals gain access to the "array of resources for generating greater knowledge of fact" contained in the works of philosophy (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 truly indifferent to the question of whether what they understand holds true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he writes: 'I have met many who desired to deceive, but none who wished 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 Media (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149. [166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24. [167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no male might with impunity violate that human self-respect which God himself treats with fantastic reverence"; as quoted in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804. [168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: visualchemy.gallery 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 dignity in the online world requires States to also respect the right to personal privacy, by protecting citizens from intrusive monitoring and allowing them to protect their individual details from unapproved gain access to." [170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984. [171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body identified a list of "early guarantees of AI assisting to deal with climate modification" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The document observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can change data into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools may assist develop new techniques and investments to decrease emissions, influence new personal sector financial investments in net absolutely no, safeguard biodiversity, and develop broad-based social resilience" (ibid.). [174] "The cloud" refers to a network of physical servers throughout the world that allows users to store, procedure, and handle their data remotely. [175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850. [176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890. [177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870. [178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852. [179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640. [180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317. [181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101. [182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310. [184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105. [185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We need to ensure and secure an area for correct human control over the choices made by artificial intelligence programs: human dignity itself depends on it." [186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The advancement and usage of lethal self-governing weapons systems (LAWS) that lack the suitable human control would present essential ethical concerns, considered that LAWS can never be ethically accountable topics efficient in abiding by global humanitarian law." [187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: "Nor can we overlook the possibility of sophisticated weapons winding up in the incorrect hands, facilitating, for instance, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the organizations of legitimate systems of federal government. In a word, the world does not need new innovations that contribute to the unfair advancement of commerce and the weapons trade and as a result wind up promoting the folly of war." [190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565. [191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878. [192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687. [193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39. [194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661. [195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a much better understanding today that the simple accumulation of goods and services [...] is not enough for the realization of human happiness. Nor, in consequence, does the availability of the many real advantages provided in recent times by science and technology, including the computer technology, bring freedom from every kind of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the considerable body of resources and potential at male's disposal is guided by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the true good of the mankind, it easily turns against male to oppress him." Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564. [196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6. [199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6. [200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. The End of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83). [201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288. [203] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," in C. Mitcham - R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York 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 the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023). [207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: "The flood of details at our fingertips does not make for greater knowledge. Wisdom is not born of fast searches on the internet nor is it a mass of unverified data. That is not the way 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.