GitLab

1. With wisdom both ancient and brand-new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to review the present obstacles and opportunities postured by clinical and technological advancements, particularly by the current advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian tradition relates to the present of intelligence as a necessary element of how human beings are developed "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Starting from an important vision of the human person and the scriptural contacting us to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church highlights that this gift of intelligence need to be expressed through the accountable usage of reason and technical abilities in the stewardship of the developed world.

2. The Church encourages the improvement of science, innovation, the arts, and other types of human endeavor, viewing them as part of the "cooperation of man and woman with God in perfecting the noticeable creation." [1] As Sirach affirms, God "provided skill to human beings, that he might be glorified in his magnificent works" (Sir. 38:6). Human capabilities and imagination come from God and, when used appropriately, glorify God by reflecting his knowledge and goodness. Because of this, when we ask ourselves what it implies to "be human," we can not exclude a factor to consider of our scientific and technological abilities.

3. It is within this viewpoint that today Note addresses the anthropological and ethical obstacles raised by AI-issues that are especially significant, as one of the goals of this technology is to mimic the human intelligence that developed it. For example, unlike numerous other human developments, AI can be trained on the results of human creativity and after that generate new "artifacts" with a level of speed and ability that typically rivals or exceeds what people can do, such as producing text or images identical from human structures. This raises crucial concerns about AI's potential role in the growing crisis of reality in the public forum. Moreover, this technology is designed to find out and make certain options autonomously, adjusting to new scenarios and supplying solutions not anticipated by its developers, and therefore, it raises fundamental questions about ethical responsibility and human safety, with wider implications for society as a whole. This new circumstance has prompted lots of people to assess what it indicates to be human and the role of humanity worldwide.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad consensus that AI marks a brand-new and substantial phase in humankind's engagement with technology, placing it at the heart of what Pope Francis has explained as an "epochal modification." [2] Its effect is felt worldwide and in a large variety of areas, consisting of interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, health care, law, warfare, and worldwide relations. As AI advances quickly towards even greater achievements, it is critically essential to consider its anthropological and ethical ramifications. This includes not just mitigating threats and avoiding damage but likewise guaranteeing that its applications are used to promote human progress and the typical good.

5. To contribute positively to the discernment relating to AI, and in reaction to Pope Francis' call for a restored "knowledge of heart," [3] the Church offers its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active function in the worldwide discussion on these problems, the Church welcomes those turned over with sending the faith-including moms and dads, teachers, pastors, and bishops-to dedicate themselves to this important subject with care and attention. While this file is intended specifically for them, it is likewise indicated to be available to a wider audience, particularly those who share the conviction that scientific and technological advances must be directed towards serving the human individual and the typical good. [4]
6. To this end, the file starts by distinguishing in between principles of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then checks out the Christian understanding of human intelligence, providing a framework rooted in the Church's philosophical and doctrinal custom. Finally, the document uses standards to guarantee that the development and usage of AI maintain human self-respect and promote the integral advancement of the human individual and society.

7. The concept of "intelligence" in AI has actually progressed in time, drawing on a range of ideas from different disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a significant milestone happened in 1956 when the American computer researcher John McCarthy organized a summer season workshop at Dartmouth University to explore the issue of "Artificial Intelligence," which he specified as "that of making a maker behave in manner ins which would be called intelligent if a human were so behaving." [5] This workshop introduced a research study program concentrated on developing machines efficient in carrying out tasks generally related to the human intellect and smart behavior.

8. Since then, AI research study has advanced rapidly, causing the development of complex systems capable of performing extremely sophisticated jobs. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are typically developed to deal with specific and minimal functions, such as equating languages, predicting the trajectory of a storm, categorizing images, responding to questions, or generating visual material at the user's request. While the definition of "intelligence" in AI research varies, most contemporary AI systems-particularly those using machine learning-rely on statistical inference instead of logical deduction. By analyzing large datasets to determine patterns, AI can "anticipate" [7] outcomes and propose brand-new techniques, mimicking some cognitive processes typical of human analytical. Such accomplishments have actually been enabled through advances in computing innovation (including neural networks, without supervision artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) along with hardware innovations (such as specialized processors). Together, these innovations allow AI systems to react to various types of human input, adjust to new circumstances, and even suggest unique solutions not expected by their initial programmers. [8]
9. Due to these rapid advancements, numerous tasks as soon as handled solely by human beings are now turned over to AI. These systems can augment and even supersede what human beings have the ability to do in many fields, particularly in specialized areas such as data analysis, image acknowledgment, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is created for a particular job, many researchers aim to establish what is called "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," surpassing human intellectual capabilities, or contribute 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 welcome this prospective change. [9]
10. Underlying this and numerous other perspectives on the subject is the implicit assumption that the term "intelligence" can be used in the very same method to refer to both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not record the complete scope of the principle. In the case of humans, intelligence is a professors that pertains to the person in his/her whole, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is understood functionally, frequently with the presumption that the activities characteristic of the human mind can be broken down into digitized actions that makers can replicate. [10]
11. This practical viewpoint is exhibited by the "Turing Test," which considers a maker "intelligent" if a person can not identify its habits from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "behavior" refers just to the efficiency of specific intellectual tasks; it does not account for the complete breadth of human experience, which consists of abstraction, feelings, imagination, and the aesthetic, ethical, and religious perceptiveness. Nor does it encompass the full range of expressions particular of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the "intelligence" of a system is evaluated methodologically, but also reductively, based upon its ability to produce appropriate responses-in this case, those associated with the human intellect-regardless of how those reactions are created.

12. AI's sophisticated features give it sophisticated capabilities to carry out jobs, but not the ability to believe. [12] This distinction is most importantly crucial, as the method "intelligence" is defined undoubtedly shapes how we understand the relationship in between human thought and this technology. [13] To value this, one should remember the richness of the philosophical custom and Christian faith, which use a deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's mentor on the nature, dignity, and occupation of the human person. [14]
13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has played a main role in understanding what it indicates to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all people by nature desire to understand." [15] This understanding, with its capability for abstraction that grasps the nature and significance of things, sets people apart from the animal world. [16] As theorists, theologians, and psychologists have taken a look at the exact nature of this intellectual faculty, they have also explored how human beings comprehend the world and their special place within it. Through this expedition, the Christian tradition has actually pertained to comprehend the human person as a being including both body and soul-deeply connected to this world and yet transcending it. [17]
14. In the classical tradition, the principle of intelligence is typically understood through the complementary principles of "reason" (ratio) and "intellect" (intellectus). These are not different professors but, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are 2 modes in which the very same intelligence runs: "The term intelligence is presumed from the inward grasp of the reality, while the name reason is taken from the inquisitive and discursive procedure." [18] This concise description highlights the two basic and complementary measurements of human intelligence. Intellectus refers to the user-friendly grasp of the truth-that is, apprehending it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and premises argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to reasoning appropriate: the discursive, analytical procedure that leads to judgment. Together, intellect and factor form the two aspects of the act of intelligere, "the proper operation of the human being as such." [19]
15. Explaining the human person as a "rational" being does not reduce the person to a particular mode of idea; rather, it recognizes that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and penetrates all elements of human activity. [20] Whether worked out well or badly, this capability is an intrinsic aspect of humanity. In this sense, the "term 'logical' encompasses all the capacities of the human person," consisting of those related to "knowing and understanding, in addition to those of prepared, caring, picking, and preferring; it likewise consists of all corporeal functions closely associated to these abilities." [21] This detailed perspective highlights how, in the human individual, developed in the "picture of God," factor is incorporated in such a way that raises, shapes, and changes both the individual's will and actions. [22]
16. Christian believed thinks about the intellectual professors of the human individual within the structure of an important anthropology that views the human being as basically embodied. In the human person, spirit and matter "are not two natures united, however rather their union forms a single nature." [23] In other words, the soul is not merely the immaterial "part" of the individual contained within the body, nor is the body an outer shell housing an intangible "core." Rather, the entire human individual is all at once both product and spiritual. This understanding reflects the teaching of Sacred Scripture, which sees the human person as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and thus, an authentically spiritual measurement) within and through this embodied existence. [24] The extensive significance of this condition is additional illuminated by the mystery of the Incarnation, through which God himself handled our flesh and "raised it approximately a sublime self-respect." [25]
17. Although deeply rooted in physical existence, the human individual goes beyond 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 flexibility of the will belong to the soul, by which the human individual "shares in the light of the divine mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of understanding without the body. [28] In this method, the intellectual professors of the human person are an important part of an anthropology that acknowledges that the human individual is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further aspects of this understanding will be developed in what follows.

18. Human beings are "bought by their very nature to social communion," [30] possessing the capacity to know one another, to offer themselves in love, and to get in into communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not a separated professors however is exercised in relationships, finding its max expression in discussion, cooperation, and solidarity. We learn with others, and we learn through others.

19. The relational orientation of the human person is ultimately grounded in the everlasting self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is exposed in creation and redemption. [31] The human individual is "called to share, by understanding and love, in God's own life." [32]
20. This vocation to communion with God is always connected 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 also called to imitate Christ's outpouring gift (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "like one another, as I have actually liked you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the magnificent life of self-giving, transcend self-interest to respond more totally to the human occupation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). A lot more sublime than knowing many things is the dedication to care for one another, for if "I understand all secrets and all knowledge [...] but do not have love, I am nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2).

21. Human intelligence is eventually "God's gift fashioned for the assimilation of fact." [34] In the double sense of intellectus-ratio, it makes it possible for the individual to explore realities that exceed mere sensory experience or energy, considering that "the desire for truth belongs to human nature itself. It is a natural property of human factor to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limits of empirical data, human intelligence can "with genuine certitude attain to reality itself as knowable." [36] While reality remains just partially known, the desire for fact "stimulates factor constantly to go further; certainly, it is as if reason were overwhelmed to see that it can constantly surpass what it has already attained." [37] Although Truth in itself goes beyond the boundaries of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this tourist attraction, the human individual is led to look for "facts of a higher order." [39]
22. This inherent drive towards the pursuit of fact is especially obvious in the definitely human capacities for semantic understanding and creativity, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "way that is suitable to the social nature and self-respect of the human individual." [41] Likewise, a steadfast orientation to the reality is necessary for charity to be both genuine and universal. [42]
23. The look for truth discovers its greatest expression in openness to realities that go beyond the physical and produced world. In God, all realities attain their ultimate and original significance. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "basic decision that engages the entire person." [44] In this way, the human individual becomes completely what he or she is contacted us to be: "the intellect and the will display their spiritual nature," making it possible for the individual "to act in a manner that understands personal flexibility to the full." [45]
24. The Christian faith comprehends development as the totally free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, develops "not to increase his splendor, however to show it forth and to interact it." [46] Since God creates according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), creation is imbued with an intrinsic order that reflects God's plan (cf. Gen. 1; Dan. 2:21 -22; Is. 45:18; Ps. 74:12 -17; 104), [47] within which God has actually called people to presume a distinct function: to cultivate and look after the world. [48]
25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, humans live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and skills to care for and develop production in accord with God's strategy. [49] In this, human intelligence shows the Divine Intelligence that created all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] continuously sustains them, and guides them to their ultimate purpose in him. [51] Moreover, humans are called to establish their capabilities in science and innovation, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in an appropriate relationship with creation, human beings, on the one hand, utilize their intelligence and skill to work together with God in assisting development towards the function to which he has called it. [52] On the other hand, creation itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, assists the human mind to "rise slowly to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]
26. In this context, human intelligence becomes more plainly understood as a professors that forms an integral part of how the entire person engages with reality. Authentic engagement requires embracing the complete scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with truth unfolds in different ways, as everyone, in his or her diverse uniqueness [54], seeks to understand the world, connect to others, solve problems, express creativity, and pursue important well-being through the harmonious interplay of the numerous dimensions of the person's intelligence. [55] This includes rational and linguistic capabilities however can likewise encompass other modes of interacting with reality. Consider the work of an artisan, who "should know how to discern, in inert matter, a specific form that others can not recognize" [56] and bring it forth through insight and practical ability. Indigenous peoples who live close to the earth frequently possess a profound sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a pal who knows 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 in between persons." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of artificial intelligence, we can not forget that poetry and love are necessary to save our humanity." [59]
28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the combination of reality into the ethical and spiritual life of the person, directing his or her actions because of God's goodness and fact. According to God's plan, intelligence, in its maximum sense, also consists of the ability to savor what is real, excellent, and beautiful. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel revealed, "intelligence is nothing without pleasure." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the highest heaven in Paradiso, affirms that the conclusion of this intellectual pleasure is discovered in the "light intellectual filled with love, love of true great filled with pleasure, joy which transcends every sweet taste." [61]
29. An appropriate understanding of human intelligence, for that reason, can not be lowered to the simple acquisition of truths or the ability to perform specific tasks. Instead, it involves the person's openness to the ultimate questions of life and shows an orientation towards the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the divine image within the individual, human intelligence has the capability to access the totality of being, pondering presence in its fullness, which exceeds what is quantifiable, and comprehending the significance of what has been understood. For believers, this capacity consists of, in a specific way, the capability to grow in the knowledge of the mysteries of God by using factor to engage ever more profoundly with exposed realities (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is shaped by divine love, which "is put forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence has an important reflective measurement, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any practical function.

30. In light of the foregoing discussion, the distinctions in between human intelligence and current AI systems end up being apparent. While AI is a remarkable technological achievement efficient in mimicing certain outputs related to human intelligence, it operates by performing tasks, attaining objectives, or making choices based on data and computational logic. For instance, with its analytical power, AI stands out at incorporating data from a range of fields, modeling complex systems, and promoting interdisciplinary connections. In this method, it can assist specialists team up in solving intricate problems that "can not be handled from a single perspective or from a single set of interests." [64]
31. However, even as AI processes and imitates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains fundamentally confined to a logical-mathematical structure, which enforces intrinsic constraints. Human intelligence, on the other hand, develops naturally throughout the person's physical and psychological development, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although sophisticated AI systems can "find out" through procedures such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is fundamentally different from the developmental development of human intelligence, which is formed by embodied experiences, including sensory input, psychological responses, social interactions, and the special context of each moment. These elements shape and form people within their individual history.In contrast, AI, doing not have a physical body, counts on computational thinking and knowing based upon huge datasets that include recorded human experiences and understanding.

32. Consequently, although AI can simulate aspects of human thinking and carry out specific jobs with extraordinary speed and effectiveness, its computational capabilities represent just a fraction of the wider capacities of the human mind. For circumstances, AI can not currently replicate ethical discernment or the ability to establish genuine relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is located within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral development that essentially shapes the individual's viewpoint, encompassing the physical, psychological, social, moral, and spiritual measurements of life. Since AI can not use this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely exclusively on this technology or treat it as the main means of analyzing the world can lead to "a loss of gratitude for the whole, for the relationships in between things, and for the more comprehensive horizon." [65]
33. Human intelligence is not mainly about completing practical tasks however about understanding and actively engaging with reality in all its measurements; it is also capable of surprising insights. Since AI does not have the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to truth and goodness, its capacities-though apparently limitless-are incomparable with the human ability to understand reality. So much can be gained from an illness, an accept of reconciliation, and even an easy sunset; certainly, lots of experiences we have as people open new horizons and offer the possibility of attaining new knowledge. No device, working solely with information, can determine up to these and countless other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an excessively close equivalence in between human intelligence and AI dangers yielding to a functionalist viewpoint, where people are valued based on the work they can perform. However, an individual's worth does not depend upon possessing particular skills, cognitive and technological accomplishments, or private success, but on the person's inherent self-respect, grounded in being developed in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains undamaged in all scenarios, including for those not able to exercise their abilities, whether it be a coming child, an unconscious person, or an older individual who is suffering. [67] It likewise underpins the custom of human rights (and, in specific, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "a crucial point of merging in the look for commonalities" [68] and can, therefore, act as an essential ethical guide in discussions on the accountable development and use of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the very usage of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can prove misleading" [69] and risks neglecting what is most valuable in the human person. Because of this, AI must not be viewed as an artificial type of human intelligence but as a product of it. [70]
36. Given these factors to consider, one can ask how AI can be understood within God's plan. To address this, it is essential to recall that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character however is a human undertaking that engages the humanistic and cultural dimensions of human creativity. [71]
37. Seen as a fruit of the potential inscribed within human intelligence, [72] clinical questions and the development of technical skills are part of the "partnership of males and female with God in improving the noticeable production." [73] At the same time, all scientific and technological achievements are, ultimately, gifts from God. [74] Therefore, people need to always use their abilities in view of the higher function for which God has given them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how technology has "treated countless evils which utilized to damage and limit people," [76] a fact for which we ought to rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological developments in themselves represent genuine human progress. [77] The Church is especially opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human person. [78] Like any human undertaking, technological development needs to be directed to serve the human individual and add to the pursuit of "greater justice, more extensive fraternity, and a more gentle order of social relations," which are "more valuable than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical ramifications of technological advancement are shared not just within the Church but likewise among lots of scientists, technologists, and professional associations, who progressively require ethical reflection to guide this development in an accountable way.

39. To attend to these challenges, it is necessary to emphasize the importance of ethical duty grounded in the self-respect and occupation of the human individual. This assisting concept likewise applies to concerns concerning AI. In this context, the ethical measurement takes on main importance since it is individuals who develop systems and figure out the purposes for which they are utilized. [80] Between a maker and a human, only the latter is really an ethical agent-a subject of moral responsibility who works out flexibility in his/her decisions and accepts their effects. [81] It is not the machine however the human who remains in relationship with reality and goodness, directed by an ethical conscience that calls the person "to enjoy and to do what is good and to prevent evil," [82] attesting to "the authority of reality in recommendation to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn." [83] Likewise, in between a device and a human, just the human can be sufficiently self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, discerning with prudence, and seeking the excellent that is possible in every scenario. [84] In truth, all of this also belongs to the individual's workout of intelligence.

40. Like any product of human creativity, AI can be directed towards favorable or negative ends. [85] When utilized in ways that respect human self-respect and promote the well-being of individuals and neighborhoods, it can contribute favorably to the human vocation. Yet, as in all areas where human beings are called to make decisions, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human freedom enables the possibility of picking what is wrong, the ethical assessment of this technology will require to take into consideration how it is directed and utilized.

41. At the same time, it is not only completions that are fairly substantial but also the ways utilized to attain them. Additionally, the overall vision and understanding of the human individual ingrained within these systems are crucial to consider also. Technological items reflect the worldview of their developers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to "form the world and engage consciences on the level of values." [87] On a social level, some technological developments could likewise reinforce relationships and power dynamics that are inconsistent with a correct understanding of the human individual and society.

42. Therefore, the ends and the methods used in a provided application of AI, along with the total vision it incorporates, need to all be assessed to ensure they appreciate human self-respect and promote the common good. [88] As Pope Francis has specified, "the intrinsic self-respect of every male and every lady" need to be "the key criterion in assessing emerging technologies; these will show 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 essential function not just in creating and producing technology but also in directing its use in line with the genuine good of the human person. [90] The duty for managing this wisely pertains to every level of society, directed by the principle of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The dedication to guaranteeing that AI constantly supports and promotes the supreme worth of the dignity of every person and the fullness of the human occupation functions as a requirement of discernment for designers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, in addition to to its users. It remains legitimate for each application of the innovation at every level of its use.

44. An evaluation of the implications of this directing concept might begin by considering the significance of ethical responsibility. Since complete moral causality belongs only to personal representatives, not synthetic ones, it is essential to be able to recognize and specify who bears duty for the processes included in AI, particularly those efficient in finding out, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up approaches and really deep neural networks make it possible for AI to fix intricate problems, they make it tough to understand the processes that result in the services they embraced. This complicates responsibility considering that if an AI application produces unwanted results, determining who is accountable ends up being hard. To address this problem, attention needs to be offered to the nature of accountability procedures in complex, extremely automated settings, where outcomes might just become obvious in the medium to long term. For this, it is necessary that ultimate responsibility for decisions used AI rests with the human decision-makers which there is accountability for making use of AI at each stage of the decision-making process. [91]
45. In addition to determining who is responsible, it is necessary to determine the objectives provided to AI systems. Although these systems may use without supervision self-governing knowing systems and often follow paths that people can not rebuild, they eventually pursue objectives that human beings have actually assigned to them and are governed by procedures developed by their designers and developers. Yet, this presents an obstacle due to the fact that, as AI models end up being increasingly capable of independent knowing, the ability to maintain control over them to ensure that such applications serve human functions may efficiently reduce. This raises the vital concern of how to guarantee that AI systems are ordered for the good of people and not against them.

46. While duty for the ethical use of AI systems starts with those who establish, produce, handle, and supervise such systems, it is also shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis kept in mind, the maker "makes a technical option amongst a number of possibilities based either on well-defined criteria or on analytical reasonings. Humans, however, not only choose, however in their hearts can deciding." [92] Those who use AI to achieve a task and follow its outcomes produce a context in which they are ultimately responsible for the power they have actually entrusted. Therefore, insofar as AI can help people in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it should be credible, engel-und-waisen.de secure, robust enough to deal with inconsistencies, and transparent in their operation to alleviate biases and unintended side results. [93] Regulatory structures must make sure that all legal entities remain liable for the usage of AI and all its effects, with appropriate safeguards for openness, privacy, and responsibility. [94] Moreover, those using AI ought to take care not to end up being overly dependent on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases contemporary society's currently high dependence on innovation.

47. The Church's moral and social mentor offers resources to assist make sure that AI is utilized in a manner that maintains human agency. Considerations about justice, for instance, should likewise attend to problems such as cultivating simply social dynamics, maintaining global security, and promoting peace. By exercising vigilance, people and communities can recognize methods to utilize AI to benefit mankind while preventing applications that might deteriorate human self-respect or harm the environment. In this context, the idea of obligation should be comprehended not only in its most restricted sense but as a "responsibility for the look after others, which is more than merely representing results attained." [95]
48. Therefore, AI, like any innovation, can be part of a conscious and responsible response to humankind's occupation to the good. However, as previously gone over, AI must be directed by human intelligence to line up with this occupation, ensuring it appreciates the self-respect of the human person. Recognizing this "exalted dignity," the Second Vatican Council verified that "the social order and its development must inevitably work to the benefit of the human individual." [96] In light of this, the use of AI, as Pope Francis said, must be "accompanied by an ethic influenced by a vision of the typical good, a principles of liberty, obligation, and fraternity, efficient in fostering the full development of people in relation to others and to the whole of development." [97]
49. Within this basic perspective, some observations follow listed below to show how the preceding arguments can help supply an ethical orientation in useful circumstances, in line with the "knowledge of heart" that Pope Francis has proposed. [98] While not exhaustive, this discussion is offered in service of the discussion that thinks about how AI can be used to maintain the self-respect of the human person and promote the typical good. [99]
50. As Pope Francis observed, "the intrinsic dignity of each person and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human family should undergird the development of new innovations and serve as unassailable criteria for evaluating them before they are used." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI could "introduce crucial developments in farming, education and culture, a better level of life for entire nations and individuals, and the growth of human fraternity and social relationship," and hence be "utilized to promote integral human development." [101] AI could also help organizations determine those in requirement and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other similar applications of this innovation might contribute to human advancement and the typical good. [102]
52. However, while AI holds lots of possibilities for promoting the excellent, it can likewise prevent and even counter human development and the typical good. Pope Francis has actually noted that "evidence to date suggests that digital innovations have increased inequality in our world. Not simply differences in material wealth, which are likewise substantial, however also differences in access to political and social influence." [103] In this sense, AI could be used to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, create brand-new kinds of poverty, expand the "digital divide," and get worse existing social inequalities. [104]
53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a couple of powerful business raises significant ethical issues. Exacerbating this issue is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single person can work out complete oversight over the huge and complicated datasets utilized for calculation. This absence of well-defined responsibility develops the threat that AI might be controlled for personal or corporate gain or to direct popular opinion for the benefit of a particular industry. Such entities, motivated by their own interests, have the capability to work out "forms of control as subtle as they are intrusive, developing mechanisms for the manipulation of consciences and of the democratic procedure." [105]
54. Furthermore, there is the threat of AI being used to promote what Pope Francis has actually called the "technocratic paradigm," which views all the world's issues as solvable through technological ways alone. [106] In this paradigm, human dignity and fraternity are typically reserved in the name of performance, "as if truth, goodness, and reality instantly flow from technological and financial power as such." [107] Yet, human self-respect and the common good should never be breached for the sake of performance, [108] for "technological developments that do not result in an improvement in the lifestyle of all mankind, but on the contrary, aggravate inequalities and conflicts, can never count as real progress. " [109] Instead, AI must be put "at the service of another type of development, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral." [110]
55. Attaining this objective requires a deeper reflection on the relationship in between autonomy and responsibility. Greater autonomy increases each individual's duty throughout numerous elements of communal life. For Christians, the structure of this duty lies in the acknowledgment that all human capabilities, consisting of the individual's autonomy, originated from God and are suggested to be utilized in the service of others. [111] Therefore, rather than merely pursuing economic or technological goals, AI needs to serve "the typical good of the entire human household," which is "the amount overall of social conditions that permit people, 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 guy is a social being; and if he does not participate in relations with others, he can neither live nor develop his presents." [113] This conviction underscores that living in society is intrinsic to the nature and occupation of the human person. [114] As social beings, we seek relationships that include mutual exchange and the pursuit of fact, in the course of which, people "share with each other the reality they have discovered, or believe they have actually discovered, in such a way that they assist one another in the look for fact." [115]
57. Such a quest, together with other elements of human interaction, presupposes encounters and ura.cc mutual exchange between individuals formed by their special histories, ideas, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a varied, multifaceted, and complex truth: individual and social, logical and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis highlights this vibrant, keeping in mind that "together, we can look for the truth in dialogue, in unwinded conversation or in passionate argument. To do so calls for determination; it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently accept the more comprehensive experience of people and peoples. [...] The process of structure fraternity, be it local or universal, can only be undertaken by spirits that are complimentary and available to genuine encounters." [116]
58. It remains in this context that a person can think about the difficulties AI postures to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the prospective to promote connections within the human household. However, it might likewise prevent a real encounter with reality and, ultimately, lead individuals to "a deep and melancholic dissatisfaction with social relations, or a damaging sense of isolation." [117] Authentic human relationships require the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their delight. [118] Since human intelligence is revealed and enhanced likewise in social and embodied methods, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are important for engaging with reality in its fullness.

59. Because "real wisdom demands an encounter with truth," [119] the increase of AI presents another challenge. Since AI can efficiently imitate the products of human intelligence, the ability to understand when one is connecting with a human or a device can no longer be taken for approved. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other sophisticated outputs that are typically connected with humans. Yet, it needs to be understood for what it is: a tool, not an individual. [120] This difference is typically obscured by the language utilized by practitioners, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and thus blurs the line between human and device.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI also poses specific difficulties for the development of children, potentially motivating them to develop patterns of interaction that deal with human relationships in a transactional way, as one would relate to a chatbot. Such practices could lead young individuals to see teachers as simple dispensers of details rather than as mentors who guide and nurture their intellectual and ethical growth. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and an unfaltering dedication to the good of the other, are important and irreplaceable in promoting the complete advancement of the human individual.

61. In this context, it is essential to clarify that, despite using anthropomorphic language, no AI application can truly experience compassion. Emotions can not be lowered to facial expressions or phrases produced in response to triggers; they reflect the way an individual, as an entire, connects to the world and to his/her own life, with the body playing a main function. True empathy requires the capability to listen, recognize another's irreducible individuality, invite their otherness, and understand the meaning behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the realm of analytical judgment in which AI stands out, true compassion belongs to the relational sphere. It includes intuiting and collaring the lived experiences of another while maintaining the distinction between self and other. [122] While AI can mimic compassionate responses, it can not duplicate the eminently personal and relational nature of authentic empathy. [123]
62. In light of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as an individual must constantly be prevented; doing so for deceitful functions is a serious ethical offense that might 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 needs mindful oversight to prevent damage, maintain openness, and make sure the self-respect of all individuals. [124]
63. In a progressively separated world, some people have actually turned to AI searching for bytes-the-dust.com deep human relationships, simple friendship, and even psychological bonds. However, while human beings are suggested to experience genuine relationships, AI can just simulate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an essential part of how an individual grows to become who she or he is suggested to be. If AI is used to assist people foster authentic connections between people, it can contribute positively to the full awareness of the individual. Conversely, if we change relationships with God and with others with interactions with technology, we run the risk of changing authentic relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of retreating into synthetic worlds, we are contacted us to participate in a dedicated and deliberate method with truth, especially by relating to the poor and suffering, consoling those in grief, and creating bonds of communion with all.

64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being significantly incorporated into financial and financial systems. Significant financial investments are presently being made not just in the innovation sector but also in energy, financing, and media, especially in the locations of marketing and sales, logistics, technological innovation, compliance, and risk management. At the very same time, AI's applications in these locations have actually likewise highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of significant chances but likewise extensive dangers. A first real critical point in this area worries the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a few corporations-only those big business would gain from the worth developed by AI rather than business that use it.

65. Other broader elements of AI's influence on the economic-financial sphere need to also be thoroughly analyzed, particularly worrying the interaction between concrete reality and the digital world. One crucial consideration in this regard involves the coexistence of diverse and alternative forms of financial and monetary organizations within an offered context. This aspect needs to be encouraged, as it can bring benefits in how it supports the real economy by fostering its development and stability, particularly during times of crisis. Nevertheless, it must be stressed that digital truths, not limited by any spatial bonds, tend to be more homogeneous and impersonal than communities rooted in a specific place and a particular history, with a common journey defined by shared values and hopes, but likewise by inescapable disputes and divergences. This diversity is an indisputable property to a neighborhood's economic life. Turning over the economy and financing completely to digital technology would reduce this variety and richness. As an outcome, lots of options to economic issues that can be reached through natural discussion between the involved celebrations may no longer be attainable in a world controlled by procedures and only the appearance of nearness.

66. Another location where AI is already having an extensive impact is the world of work. As in lots of other fields, AI is driving essential changes across many professions, with a variety of effects. On the one hand, it has the potential to improve proficiency and performance, create brand-new tasks, allow workers to concentrate on more ingenious jobs, and open brand-new horizons for creativity and innovation.

67. However, while AI assures to increase efficiency by taking control of ordinary jobs, it regularly forces workers to adjust to the speed and needs of devices rather than devices being created to support those who work. As an outcome, contrary to the marketed benefits of AI, current techniques to the technology can paradoxically deskill workers, subject them to automated security, and relegate them to rigid and repeated tasks. The requirement to keep up with the speed of innovation can erode workers' sense of agency and suppress the innovative abilities they are anticipated to give their work. [125]
68. AI is presently getting rid of the need for some jobs that were as soon as carried out by people. If AI is used to change human workers instead of complement them, there is a "considerable risk of disproportionate advantage for the couple of at the price of the impoverishment of lots of." [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more effective, there is an involved danger that human labor might lose its worth in the economic world. This is the rational effect of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humankind oppressed to performance, where, ultimately, the expense of mankind must be cut. Yet, human lives are fundamentally important, independent of their economic output. Nevertheless, the "existing design," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to prefer a financial investment in efforts to help the sluggish, the weak, or the less talented to find opportunities in life." [127] In light of this, "we can not permit a tool as effective and important as Artificial Intelligence to reinforce such a paradigm, but rather, we must make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its expansion." [128]
69. It is necessary to keep in mind that "the order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around." [129] Human work should not just be at the service of profit however at "the service of the whole human person [...] taking into account the individual's product requirements and the requirements of his/her intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and spiritual life." [130] In this context, the Church recognizes that work is "not only a method of making one's daily bread" however is also "a vital dimension of social life" and "a way [...] of individual development, the structure of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of presents. Work provides us a sense of shared obligation for the development of the world, and eventually, for our life as an individuals." [131]
70. Since work is a "part of the significance of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal fulfillment," "the objective ought to not be that technological progress progressively replaces human work, for this would be destructive to humanity" [132] -rather, it should promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI must assist, not replace, human judgment. Similarly, it should never deteriorate creativity or lower workers to mere "cogs in a machine." Therefore, "respect for the self-respect of laborers and the importance of employment for the financial well-being of people, households, and societies, for task security and just incomes, should be a high top priority for the international community as these forms of innovation penetrate more deeply into our offices." [133]
71. As participants in God's healing work, healthcare professionals have the occupation and responsibility to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the healthcare profession carries an "intrinsic and indisputable ethical measurement," acknowledged by the Hippocratic Oath, which requires physicians and health care specialists to devote themselves to having "outright respect for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Do-gooder, this dedication is to be performed by males and females "who decline the development of a society of exemption, and act instead as next-door neighbors, raising up and rehabilitating the fallen for the sake of the typical good." [136]
72. Seen in this light, AI seems to hold enormous potential in a variety of applications in the medical field, such as helping the diagnostic work of healthcare companies, helping with relationships in between patients and medical staff, providing new treatments, and broadening access to quality care also for those who are isolated or marginalized. In these ways, the technology might enhance the "caring and caring nearness" [137] that doctor are contacted us to extend to the sick and suffering.

73. However, if AI is utilized not to enhance however to change the relationship in between patients and healthcare providers-leaving clients to interact with a maker rather than a human being-it would lower a crucially crucial human relational structure to a central, impersonal, and unequal structure. Instead of motivating solidarity with the ill and suffering, such applications of AI would run the risk of aggravating the loneliness that frequently accompanies health problem, particularly in the context of a culture where "persons are no longer viewed as a critical worth to be cared for and appreciated." [138] This misuse of AI would not line up with regard for the dignity of the human individual and uniformity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the well-being of clients and the decisions that touch upon their lives are at the heart of the healthcare occupation. This responsibility requires physician to work out all their skill and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded choices regarding those delegated to their care, always appreciating the inviolable dignity of the patients and the need for notified consent. As an outcome, decisions concerning patient treatment and the weight of duty they entail need to constantly remain with the human person and needs to never be entrusted to AI. [139]
75. In addition, utilizing AI to determine who ought to get treatment based mainly on economic measures or metrics of efficiency represents an especially problematic instance of the "technocratic paradigm" that need to be turned down. [140] For, "optimizing resources suggests utilizing them in an ethical and fraternal way, and not punishing the most delicate." [141] Additionally, AI tools in health care are "exposed to forms of predisposition and discrimination," where "systemic mistakes can quickly multiply, producing not only oppressions in individual cases but likewise, due to the cause and effect, genuine types of social inequality." [142]
76. The combination of AI into healthcare also poses the danger of enhancing other existing disparities in access to healthcare. As health care ends up being progressively oriented toward avoidance and lifestyle-based approaches, AI-driven options might inadvertently favor more upscale populations who currently enjoy much better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This pattern dangers strengthening a "medication for the rich" design, where those with monetary means gain from innovative preventative tools and customized health details while others struggle to gain access to even basic services. To avoid such injustices, fair structures are needed to guarantee that using AI in health care does not worsen existing health care inequalities but rather serves the common good.

77. The words of the Second Vatican Council remain totally appropriate today: "True education aims to form individuals with a view toward their final end and the good of the society to which they belong." [143] As such, education is "never ever a simple process of handing down realities and intellectual abilities: rather, its aim is to add to the person's holistic development in its numerous aspects (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, and so on), including, for instance, neighborhood life and relations within the academic community," [144] in keeping with the nature and self-respect of the human person.

78. This method involves a commitment to cultivating the mind, however always as a part of the important advancement of the individual: "We should break that idea of education which holds that educating ways filling one's head with ideas. That is the way we inform robots, cerebral minds, not individuals. Educating is taking a danger in the tension between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]
79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human individual is the essential relationship between instructor and trainee. Teachers do more than communicate knowledge; they model necessary human qualities and influence the happiness of discovery. [146] Their existence motivates trainees both through the content they teach and the care they demonstrate for their trainees. This bond cultivates trust, mutual understanding, and the capability to address each individual's special self-respect and capacity. On the part of the trainee, this can produce an authentic desire to grow. The physical existence of a teacher produces a relational dynamic that AI can not replicate, one that deepens engagement and nurtures the trainee's integral development.

80. In this context, AI presents both opportunities and difficulties. If used in a sensible manner, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and purchased to the genuine goals of education, AI can end up being an important instructional resource by enhancing access to education, using tailored support, and offering immediate feedback to trainees. These advantages could boost the learning experience, especially in cases where customized attention is needed, or instructional resources are otherwise limited.

81. Nevertheless, an essential part of education is forming "the intelligence to factor well in all matters, to reach out towards fact, 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 vital in an age marked by innovation, in which "it is no longer simply a concern of 'using' instruments of interaction, but of living in a highly digitalized culture that has actually had a profound influence on [...] our capability to communicate, discover, be informed and participate in relationship with others." [149] However, instead of promoting "a cultivated intelligence," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and profession that it undertakes," [150] the substantial use of AI in education might cause the trainees' increased reliance on technology, deteriorating their ability to perform some skills separately and aggravating their dependence on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are designed to assist individuals establish their important thinking capabilities and problem-solving skills, lots of others simply provide responses instead of prompting trainees to come to responses themselves or compose text for themselves. [152] Instead of training young people how to accumulate details and generate quick responses, education should encourage "the responsible use of liberty to face concerns with common sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in the use of kinds of artificial intelligence must aim above all at promoting critical thinking. Users of any ages, however especially the young, need to establish a discerning technique to the use of information and content gathered online or produced by expert system systems. Schools, universities, and scientific societies are challenged to help trainees and professionals to grasp the social and ethical aspects of the advancement and uses of innovation." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II recalled, "worldwide today, characterized by such fast advancements in science and technology, the tasks of a Catholic University presume an ever greater importance and seriousness." [155] In a particular way, Catholic universities are advised to be present as fantastic labs of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary secret, they are urged to engage "with wisdom and creativity" [156] in mindful research study on this phenomenon, helping to extract the salutary potential 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 new frontiers in the discussion between faith and factor.

84. Moreover, it should be noted that present AI programs have been known to provide prejudiced or produced details, which can lead trainees to rely on unreliable content. This issue "not just risks of legitimizing fake news and strengthening a dominant culture's benefit, however, in brief, it likewise undermines the academic procedure itself." [157] With time, clearer differences may emerge between correct and incorrect usages of AI in education and research. Yet, a decisive guideline is that making use of AI need to always be transparent and never misrepresented.

85. AI could be used as an aid to human dignity if it helps individuals comprehend complex ideas or directs them to sound resources that support their search for the reality. [158]
86. However, AI likewise presents a severe risk of generating manipulated material and false details, which can quickly mislead individuals due to its similarity to the truth. Such misinformation might take place unintentionally, as in the case of AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear real however are not. Since generating material that mimics human artifacts is main to AI's performance, mitigating these risks proves challenging. Yet, the consequences of such aberrations and incorrect details can be rather grave. For this reason, all those associated with producing and using AI systems should be devoted to the truthfulness and accuracy of the details processed by such systems and distributed to the general public.

87. While AI has a latent potential to produce incorrect details, a a lot more unpleasant problem depends on the purposeful abuse of AI for adjustment. This can occur when individuals or companies intentionally create and spread false material with the aim to deceive or cause damage, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to a false depiction of an individual, edited or created by an AI algorithm. The risk of deepfakes is particularly obvious when they are utilized to target or harm others. While the images or videos themselves might be artificial, the damage they cause is genuine, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "genuine wounds in their human dignity." [159]
88. On a more comprehensive scale, by distorting "our relationship with others and with reality," [160] AI-generated fake media can gradually undermine the foundations of society. This concern requires mindful policy, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or influenced media-can spread unintentionally, sustaining political polarization and social unrest. When society becomes indifferent to the reality, different groups build their own variations of "truths," weakening the "mutual ties and shared dependences" [161] that underpin the fabric of social life. As deepfakes trigger people to question whatever and AI-generated incorrect content wears down rely on what they see and hear, polarization and dispute will just grow. Such prevalent deception is no unimportant matter; it strikes at the core of humankind, taking apart the fundamental trust on which societies are built. [162]
89. Countering AI-driven fallacies is not only the work of market experts-it needs the efforts of all people of goodwill. "If technology is to serve human dignity and not damage it, and if it is to promote peace instead of violence, then the human neighborhood should be proactive in resolving these patterns with respect to human dignity and the promo of the great." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated content needs to always work out diligence in confirming the fact of what they distribute and, in all cases, must "prevent the sharing of words and images that are deteriorating of human beings, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that exploit the weak and vulnerable." [164] This calls for the continuous prudence and mindful discernment of all users regarding their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are inherently relational, and the data everyone creates in the digital world can be viewed as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data conveys not only details however also individual and relational understanding, which, in a significantly digitized context, can total up to power over the person. Moreover, while some kinds of information may pertain to public aspects of a person's life, others might discuss the person's interiority, maybe even their conscience. Seen in this way, privacy plays an important function in safeguarding the boundaries of a person's inner life, maintaining their flexibility to relate to others, reveal themselves, and make choices without undue control. This security is likewise tied to the defense of spiritual flexibility, as monitoring can also be misused to exert control over the lives of believers and how they express their faith.

91. It is proper, therefore, to resolve the concern of personal privacy from a concern for the legitimate liberty and inalienable self-respect of the human person "in all circumstances." [166] The Second Vatican Council consisted of the right "to secure privacy" amongst the fundamental rights "needed for living a truly human life," a right that must be extended to all people on account of their "sublime dignity." [167] Furthermore, the Church has likewise affirmed the right to the genuine respect for a private life in the context of affirming the individual's right to a good track record, defense of their physical and psychological integrity, and liberty from damage or undue intrusion [168] -essential elements of the due respect for the intrinsic dignity of the human person. [169]
92. Advances in AI-powered information processing and analysis now make it possible to infer patterns in a person's habits and thinking from even a little amount of details, making the role of information privacy even more imperative as a protect for the self-respect and relational nature of the human person. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant mindsets towards others are on the rise, distances are otherwise shrinking or disappearing to the point that the right to privacy scarcely exists. Everything has become a sort of spectacle to be examined and examined, and people's lives are now under constant surveillance." [170]
93. While there can be genuine and proper methods to utilize AI in keeping with human dignity and the common good, utilizing it for surveillance aimed at making use of, limiting others' flexibility, or benefitting a few at the expense of the lots of is unjustifiable. The danger of security overreach should be kept track of by suitable regulators to make sure transparency and public responsibility. Those accountable for surveillance needs to never exceed their authority, which should constantly favor the dignity and freedom of everyone as the necessary basis of a simply and gentle society.

94. Furthermore, "basic regard for human dignity needs that we decline to permit the individuality of the individual to be determined with a set of data." [171] This specifically uses when AI is used to assess individuals or groups based on their habits, attributes, or history-a practice known as "social scoring": "In social and economic decision-making, we need to be mindful about handing over judgments to algorithms that process information, frequently collected surreptitiously, on an individual's makeup and previous behavior. Such information can be polluted by societal bias and preconceptions. An individual's past habits should not be used to reject him or her the opportunity to alter, grow, and add to society. We can not enable algorithms to restrict or condition respect for human self-respect, or to exclude empathy, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that individuals have the ability to change." [172]
95. AI has many promising applications for enhancing our relationship with our "common home," such as creating designs to forecast extreme environment events, proposing engineering services to lower their effect, handling relief operations, and forecasting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable farming, enhance energy usage, and provide early warning systems for public health emergencies. These developments have the prospective to enhance strength against climate-related difficulties and promote more sustainable advancement.

96. At the same time, present AI models and the hardware required to support them consume huge amounts of energy and water, considerably contributing to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This truth is frequently obscured by the method this technology exists in the popular creativity, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can give the impression that information is saved and processed in an intangible realm, detached from the physical world. However, "the cloud" is not an ethereal domain different from the real world; as with all computing technologies, it counts on physical devices, cable televisions, and energy. The same is true of the innovation behind AI. As these systems grow in complexity, specifically big language models (LLMs), they require ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and greater storage infrastructure. Considering the heavy toll these technologies handle the environment, it is vital to develop sustainable services that decrease their effect on our common home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is essential "that we try to find solutions not only in innovation however in a modification of humanity." [175] A total and authentic understanding of creation acknowledges that the worth of all created things can not be minimized to their mere energy. Therefore, a completely human method to the stewardship of the earth declines the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which seeks to "draw out everything possible" from the world, [176] and rejects the "myth of development," which assumes that "environmental problems will solve themselves just with the application of brand-new innovation and without any need for ethical considerations or deep change." [177] Such a mindset must give method to a more holistic technique that appreciates the order of production and promotes the integral good of the human individual while safeguarding our typical home. [178]
98. The Second Vatican Council and the constant mentor of the Popes considering that then have actually insisted that peace is not simply the lack of war and is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers in between foes. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the tranquility of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without protecting the items of persons, free interaction, respect for the self-respect of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity and can not be attained through force alone; instead, it needs to be mainly constructed through client diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, uniformity, essential human advancement, and regard for the self-respect of all people. [180] In this method, the tools utilized to maintain peace should never be allowed to validate oppression, violence, or oppression. Instead, they ought to constantly be governed by a "firm decision to respect other individuals and countries, together with their dignity, in addition to the deliberate practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical capabilities could assist countries look for peace and guarantee security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can likewise be highly troublesome. Pope Francis has observed that "the ability to conduct military operations through push-button control systems has caused a minimized perception of the destruction brought on by those weapon systems and the problem of obligation for their usage, resulting in a much more cold and separated technique to the immense catastrophe of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which autonomous weapons make war more practical militates against the concept of war as a last resort 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 catastrophic consequences for human rights. [184]
100. In specific, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which can identifying and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for grave ethical issue" since they do not have the "special human capability for moral judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this reason, Pope Francis has actually urgently required a reconsideration of the development of these weapons and a restriction on their usage, starting with "a reliable and concrete commitment to introduce ever greater and proper human control. No device must ever pick to take the life of a person." [186]
101. Since it is a small step from devices that can eliminate autonomously with accuracy to those capable of massive destruction, some AI researchers have actually expressed concerns that such technology postures an "existential danger" by having the prospective to act in methods that might threaten the survival of entire regions or perhaps of humankind itself. This danger demands serious attention, reflecting the long-standing issue about technologies that give war "an uncontrollable damaging power over terrific numbers of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing kids. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "carry out an evaluation of war with an entirely new mindset" [188] is more immediate than ever.

102. At the exact same time, while the theoretical risks of AI deserve attention, the more immediate and pressing issue depends on how people with malicious intentions may abuse this technology. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future abilities are unpredictable, mankind's previous actions supply clear cautions. The atrocities dedicated throughout history suffice to raise deep concerns about the potential abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that "humanity now has instruments of unprecedented power: we can turn this world into a garden, or reduce it to a stack of rubble." [190] Given this reality, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are complimentary to use our intelligence towards things developing positively," or towards "decadence and shared damage." [191] To prevent humankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there must be a clear stand against all applications of technology that inherently threaten human life and dignity. This dedication requires mindful discernment about using AI, especially in military defense applications, to make sure that it always respects human dignity and serves the typical good. The development and release of AI in armaments should go through the greatest levels of ethical analysis, governed by a concern for human dignity and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology uses exceptional tools to oversee and establish the world's resources. However, in many cases, humankind is significantly delivering control of these resources to makers. Within some circles of researchers and futurists, there is optimism about the potential of synthetic basic intelligence (AGI), a theoretical type of AI that would match or go beyond human intelligence and produce inconceivable developments. Some even hypothesize that AGI could attain superhuman capabilities. At the same time, as society wanders away from a connection with the transcendent, some are lured to turn to AI looking for meaning or fulfillment-longings that can just be truly satisfied in communion with God. [194]
105. However, the presumption of substituting God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture explicitly cautions against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI may prove much more sexy than standard idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths however do not speak; eyes, however do not see; ears, but do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or at least offers the illusion of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is crucial to bear in mind that AI is but a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated material, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not have a lot of the abilities particular to human life, and it is also imperfect. By turning to AI as a perceived "Other" greater than itself, with which to share presence and responsibilities, humanity risks creating an alternative to God. However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, but humankind itself-which, in this method, ends up being enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the prospective to serve mankind and add to the common excellent, it remains a development of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and ingenuity" (Acts 17:29). It should never be ascribed excessive worth. As the Book of Wisdom verifies: "For a male made them, and one whose spirit is obtained formed them; for no male can form a god which is like himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is much better than the things he worships considering that he has life, however they never have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. On the other hand, human beings, "by their interior life, transcend the whole material universe; they experience this deep interiority when they enter into their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they decide their own fate in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis reminds us, that each specific discovers the "strange connection between self-knowledge and openness to others, between the encounter with one's personal uniqueness and the willingness to provide oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "capable of setting our other powers and enthusiasms, and our entire individual, in a position of respect and loving obedience before the Lord," [198] who "offers to deal with each one of us as a 'Thou,' always and permanently." [199]
108. Considering the different challenges presented by advances in innovation, Pope Francis highlighted the need for development in "human obligation, values, and conscience," proportionate to the development in the potential that this technology brings [200] -acknowledging that "with an increase in human power comes an expanding of duty on the part of individuals and neighborhoods." [201]
109. At the very same time, the "necessary and basic question" remains "whether in the context of this development guy, as male, is ending up being genuinely much better, that is to state, more fully grown spiritually, more knowledgeable about the self-respect of his mankind, more responsible, more available to others, particularly the neediest and the weakest, and readier to provide and to aid all." [202]
110. As an outcome, it is essential to know how to evaluate specific applications of AI in specific contexts to figure out whether its usage promotes human dignity, the occupation of the human person, and the common good. Just like many technologies, the impacts of the various usages of AI might not always be foreseeable from their creation. As these applications and their social impacts become clearer, proper actions ought to be made at all levels of society, following the principle of subsidiarity. Individual users, families, civil society, corporations, organizations, federal governments, and global organizations must operate at their proper levels to make sure that AI is utilized for the good of all.

111. A substantial challenge and chance for the common good today depends on considering AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of people and communities and highlights our shared responsibility for cultivating the important well-being of others. The twentieth-century thinker Nicholas Berdyaev observed that people typically blame devices for personal and social issues; however, "this just embarrasses guy and does not correspond to his self-respect," for "it is unworthy to move obligation from guy to a machine." [203] Only the human person can be morally responsible, and the difficulties of a technological society are eventually spiritual in nature. Therefore, dealing with those obstacles "needs an accumulation of spirituality." [204]
112. An additional point to consider is the call, prompted by the appearance of AI on the world phase, for a restored gratitude of all that is human. Years back, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos warned that "the risk is not in the reproduction of makers, however in the ever-increasing number of men accustomed from their childhood to desire just what makers can provide." [205] This obstacle is as true today as it was then, as the quick pace of digitization runs the risk of a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable elements of life are set aside and after that forgotten and even considered unimportant since they can not be computed in formal terms. AI needs to be used just as a tool to complement human intelligence instead of change its richness. [206] Cultivating those elements of human life that transcend calculation is essential for maintaining "an authentic mankind" that "seems to stay in the midst of our technological culture, almost unnoticed, like a mist permeating gently underneath a closed door." [207]
113. The large area of the world's understanding is now available in manner ins which would have filled past generations with wonder. However, to make sure that improvements in knowledge do not become humanly or spiritually barren, one must surpass the mere build-up of information and aim to attain real knowledge. [208]
114. This knowledge is the gift that humanity requires most to deal with the extensive concerns and ethical challenges presented by AI: "Only by adopting a spiritual way of seeing truth, just by recuperating a knowledge of the heart, can we face and interpret the newness of our time." [209] Such "wisdom of the heart" is "the virtue that allows us to incorporate the entire and its parts, our decisions and their effects." It "can not be looked for from makers," but it "lets itself be found by those who seek it and be seen by those who enjoy it; it prepares for those who prefer it, and it enters search of those who are deserving of it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]
115. In a world marked by AI, we require 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 reveal their genuine meaning." [211]
116. Since a "individual's excellence is determined not by the details or understanding they have, but by the depth of their charity," [212] how we incorporate AI "to consist of the least of our siblings and siblings, the susceptible, and those most in requirement, will be the real procedure of our humankind." [213] The "wisdom of the heart" can illuminate and assist the human-centered usage of this innovation to help promote the common excellent, take care of our "typical home," advance the look for the truth, foster important human development, favor human solidarity and fraternity, and lead humanity to its ultimate objective: happiness and full communion with God. [214]
117. From this perspective of wisdom, believers will have the ability to act as moral agents efficient in using this innovation to promote an authentic vision of the human person and society. [215] This must be done with the understanding that technological progress becomes part of God's prepare for creation-an activity that we are contacted us to purchase towards the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the continuous search for the True and the Good.

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

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

Ex audientia die 14 ianuarii 2025 Franciscus

Contents

I. Introduction

II. What is Artificial Intelligence?

III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition

Rationality

Embodiment

Relationality

Relationship with the Truth

Stewardship of the World

An Important Understanding of Human Intelligence

The Limits of AI

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

Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making

V. Specific Questions

AI and Society

AI and Human Relationships

AI, the Economy, and Labor

AI and Healthcare

AI and Education

AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse

AI, Privacy, and Surveillance

AI and the Protection of Our Common Home

AI and Warfare

AI and Our Relationship with God

VI. Concluding Reflections

True Wisdom

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See likewise Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. [2] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 307. Cf. Id., Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (21 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020 ), 43. [3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [5] J. McCarthy, et al., "A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence" (31 August 1955), http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024). [6] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), pars. 2-3: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [7] Terms in this document explaining the outputs or processes of AI are utilized figuratively to explain its operations and are not meant to anthropomorphize the maker. [8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [9] Here, one can see the main positions of the "transhumanists" and the "posthumanists." Transhumanists argue that technological improvements will allow humans to overcome their biological constraints and boost both their physical and cognitive abilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, compete that such advances will eventually alter human identity to the level that humankind itself may no longer be considered really "human." Both views rest on a fundamentally negative perception 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 full awareness. Yet, this unfavorable view of the body is inconsistent with a correct understanding of human dignity. While the Church supports genuine scientific progress, it affirms that human self-respect is rooted in "the individual as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "dignity is likewise intrinsic in each person's body, which takes part in its own method in remaining in imago Dei" (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18). [10] This technique shows a functionalist point of view, which decreases the human mind to its functions and assumes that its functions can be totally measured in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear truly smart, it would still remain functional in nature. [11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460. [12] If "thinking" is attributed to machines, it must be clarified that this refers to calculative thinking instead of critical thinking. Similarly, if machines are said to run utilizing logical thinking, it must be defined that this is limited to computational reasoning. On the other hand, by its very nature, human thought is an imaginative procedure that eludes programming and transcends constraints. [13] On the foundational function of language in shaping understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York City 2010, 141-182). [14] For further discussion of these anthropological and theological structures, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144. [15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21. [16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi 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 appropriately be offered"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When thinking about all that they have, people find that they are most differentiated from animals exactly by the fact they possess intelligence." This is likewise repeated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who mentions that "male is the most best of all earthly beings enhanced with movement, and his correct 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, advertisement 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a contemporary viewpoint that echoes aspects of the classical and middle ages difference between these 2 modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York 2011. [19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp. [20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138. [21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intelligence can examine the truth of things through reflection, experience and discussion, and pertain to acknowledge in that reality, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal ethical demands." [22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp. [24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "typically considers the human person as a being who exists in the body and is unimaginable beyond it" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Che cosa è l'uomo?" (Sal 8,5): Un itinerario di antropologia biblica [30 September 2019], par. 19). Cf. ibid., pars. 20-21, 43-44, 48. [25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100 (2008 ), 863: "Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, but instead totally divulged its significance and value." [26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81. [27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and thus it is joined to the body in order that it might have a presence and an operation appropriate to its nature." [29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18. [30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357. [31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54. [32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221. [33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27. [34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls also possess reason and with it they circle in discourse around the fact of things. [...] [O] n account of the way in which they are capable of focusing the numerous into the one, they too, in their own style and as far as they can, deserve conceptions like those of the angels" (en. tr. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York City - Mahwah 1987, 106-107). [35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 3: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7. [36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 42: AAS 91 (1999 ), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1043: "the human mind can going beyond immediate concerns and grasping certain truths that are imperishable, as real now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, reason finds universal worths obtained from that same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034. [38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last proceeding of factor is to recognize that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York City 1958, 77). [39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [40] Our semantic capacity allows us to comprehend messages in any kind of interaction in a manner that both takes into account and transcends their product or empirical structures (such as computer system code). Here, intelligence becomes a wisdom that "allows us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, scenarios, occasions and to uncover their real significance" (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 generate brand-new material or concepts, mainly by using an original perspective on reality. Both capabilities depend on the existence of an individual 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 fact, is much more than personal sensation [...] Certainly, its close relation to reality promotes its universality and maintains it from being 'restricted to a narrow field without relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to truth hence secures it from 'a fideism that deprives it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643. [43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7. [44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. [46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as priced estimate in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294. [47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure compares deep space to "a book showing, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who gives presence to all things (Breviloquium 2.12.1). Cf. Alain de Lille, De Incarnatione Christi, PL 210, 579a: "Omnis mundi creatura quasi liber et pictura nobis est et speculum." [48] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 67: AAS 107 (2015 ), 874; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589-592; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 57: "humans inhabit a distinct place in deep space according to the magnificent plan: they delight in the benefit of sharing in the magnificent governance of visible creation. [...] Since man's location as ruler remains in truth an involvement in the magnificent governance of creation, we mention it here as a kind of stewardship." [49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165. [50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This concept is also shown in the creation account, where God brings animals to Adam "to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living animal, that was its name" (Gen. 2:19), an action that demonstrates the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's 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 great by noticing and relishing truths." [61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232). [62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he greatest norm of human life is the magnificent law itself-eternal, unbiased and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the ways of the human community according to a strategy developed in his knowledge and love. God has made it possible for male to participate in this law of his so that, under the mild personality of magnificent providence, many might have the ability to show up at a much deeper and deeper understanding of unchangeable truth." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. [63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016. [64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042. [66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has actually inscribed his own image and likeness on guy (cf. Gen 1:26), providing upon him a matchless dignity [...] In result, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not correspond to any work he performs, however which circulation from his important dignity as a person." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22. [68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310. [69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is understood as a technical term to show this technology, recalling that the expression is also used to designate the discipline and not only its applications. [71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857. [72] For example, see the support of clinical expedition in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the appreciation for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These authors, amongst a long list of other Catholics participated in scientific research study and technological exploration, highlight that "faith and science can be unified in charity, supplied that science is put at the service of the men and female of our time and not misused to harm or perhaps destroy them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87. [73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. [74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888. [77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658. [78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim. [79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293. [80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4. [81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes man an ethical topic. When he acts deliberately, guy is, so to speak, the father of his acts." [82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776. [83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777. [84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father motivated efforts "to ensure that technology remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed towards the excellent." [85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the function of human company in choosing a wider aim (Ziel) that then notifies the specific function (Zweck) for which each technological application is created, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um die Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71. [86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a purpose and, in its effect on human society, always represents a form of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, thus enabling certain individuals to perform specific actions while avoiding others from carrying out different ones. In a basically specific method, this constitutive power-dimension of innovation always consists of the worldview of those who developed and developed it." [87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309. [88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Faced with the marvels of devices, which seem to understand how to pick individually, we need to be really clear that decision-making [...] need to always be delegated the human individual. We would condemn mankind to a future without hope if we eliminated people's ability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend upon the options of machines." [92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [93] The term "predisposition" in this document refers to algorithmic bias (organized and constant mistakes in computer 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 parameter used to adjust the output of "neurons" to change more precisely to the information). [94] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father affirmed the growth in consensus "on the requirement for development procedures to appreciate such values as inclusion, openness, security, equity, privacy and reliability," and also invited "the efforts of global organizations to control these technologies so that they promote real progress, contributing, that is, to a much 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 additional discussion of the ethical concerns raised by AI from a Catholic viewpoint, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253. [99] On the value of dialogue in a pluralist society oriented towards a "robust and strong social principles," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. [104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10. [105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; pricing estimate the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), larsaluarna.se 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245. [106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050. [107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047. [108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309. [109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027. [112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123. [113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034. [114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149. [115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414. [118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057. [119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985. [120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989). [123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Many individuals] want their interpersonal relationships supplied by advanced equipment, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel tells us constantly to risk of an in person encounter with others, with their physical presence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their delight 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 neighborhood, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045. [124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1. [125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899. [126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107. [128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' mentor about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893. [129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as estimated 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 male' and not male 'for work.' Through this conclusion one rightly pertains to recognize 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 health care. When a sick individual is not put in the center or their dignity is not considered, this generates attitudes that can lead even to speculation on the bad luck of others. And this is really grave! [...] The application of a service approach to the healthcare sector, if indiscriminate [...] may run the risk of disposing of people." [142] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [143] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729. [144] Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on using 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 due to the fact that they are witnesses." [147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126. [148] Francis, Meeting with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, pricing estimate the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592. [150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167. [151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413. [152] In a 2023 policy file about the usage of generative AI in education and research study, UNESCO notes: "Among the key questions [of the usage of generative AI (GenAI) in education and research] is whether people can potentially cede standard levels of thinking and skill-acquisition procedures to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking abilities based on the outputs offered by AI. Writing, for example, is frequently associated with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], people can now start with a well-structured outline offered by GenAI. Some experts have characterized making use of GenAI to create text in this method as 'composing without believing'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American thinker Hannah Arendt visualized such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and warned: "If it needs to turn out to be true that knowledge (in the sense of knowledge) and thought have parted business for great, then we would certainly end up being the helpless servants, not a lot of our machines since our knowledge" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3). [153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417. [154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914. [155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479. [156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10. [157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3. [158] For example, it may assist people gain access to the "variety of resources for creating greater knowledge of reality" 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 ), forum.altaycoins.com 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): hb9lc.org L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074. [162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be genuinely indifferent to the question of whether what they understand is true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he composes: 'I have fulfilled many who wanted to trick, but none who desired to be tricked'"; pricing quote Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794. [163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62. [164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8. [165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Network (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149. [166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24. [167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no man may with impunity break that human dignity which God himself treats with terrific respect"; as priced quote in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804. [168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203. [169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, systemcheck-wiki.de Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human dignity in cyberspace requires States to likewise respect the right to privacy, by shielding citizens from invasive security and enabling them to protect their personal details from unauthorized gain access to." [170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984. [171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body determined a list of "early guarantees of AI assisting to attend to 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 transform information into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools may assist develop new methods and financial investments to decrease emissions, affect new economic sector financial investments in net absolutely no, protect biodiversity, and develop broad-based social strength" (ibid.). [174] "The cloud" refers to a network of physical servers throughout the world that enables 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 make sure and secure a space for appropriate human control over the choices made by expert system programs: human dignity itself depends on it." [186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The development and use of lethal self-governing weapons systems (LAWS) that lack the suitable human control would pose fundamental ethical concerns, considered that LAWS can never ever be ethically responsible subjects efficient in complying with international humanitarian law." [187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: "Nor can we neglect the possibility of sophisticated weapons winding up in the incorrect hands, helping with, for example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the organizations of genuine systems of government. In a word, the world does not need brand-new technologies that add to the unfair development 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 mere build-up of items and services [...] is insufficient for the realization of human joy. Nor, in effect, does the availability of the lots of real advantages provided in recent times by science and innovation, consisting of the computer sciences, bring liberty from every kind of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the substantial body of resources and prospective at man's disposal is guided by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the true good of the mankind, it easily turns against man to oppress him." Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564. [196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6. [199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6. [200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. Completion of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83). [201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288. [203] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," in C. Mitcham - R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York City 19832, 212-213. [204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210. [205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829. [206] Cf. Francis, Consulting With the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023). [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 wisdom. Wisdom is not born of fast searches on the internet nor is it a mass of unverified data. That is not the way to develop in the encounter with truth." [209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [210] Ibid. [211] Ibid. [212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121. [213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124. [214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.