GitLab

1. With wisdom both ancient and new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are contacted us to review the current difficulties and opportunities posed by scientific and technological developments, particularly by the recent advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian tradition concerns the present of intelligence as a vital aspect of how people are produced "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Beginning with an integral vision of the human individual and the scriptural calling to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church emphasizes that this gift of intelligence must be expressed through the accountable usage of reason and technical abilities in the stewardship of the produced world.

2. The Church motivates the improvement of science, innovation, the arts, and other types of human undertaking, seeing them as part of the "collaboration of males and female with God in perfecting the visible creation." [1] As Sirach affirms, God "provided skill to human beings, that he might be glorified in his magnificent works" (Sir. 38:6). Human abilities and creativity come from God and, when used appropriately, glorify God by showing his knowledge and goodness. Due to this, when we ask ourselves what it implies to "be human," we can not leave out a factor to consider of our scientific and technological abilities.

3. It is within this perspective that the present 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 created it. For instance, unlike many other human productions, AI can be trained on the results of human creativity and after that create new "artifacts" with a level of speed and ability that frequently rivals or exceeds what humans can do, such as producing text or images equivalent from human compositions. This raises critical concerns about AI's potential role in the growing crisis of reality in the general public online forum. Moreover, this technology is designed to learn and make certain options autonomously, adapting to brand-new scenarios and offering solutions not visualized by its programmers, and thus, it raises basic questions about ethical obligation and human security, with wider ramifications for society as a whole. This brand-new circumstance has triggered many individuals to review what it suggests to be human and the function of humankind in the world.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad consensus that AI marks a new and substantial stage in humanity's engagement with technology, putting it at the heart of what Pope Francis has explained as an "epochal change." [2] Its effect is felt globally and in a wide variety of locations, consisting of interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, healthcare, law, warfare, and international relations. As AI advances rapidly toward even greater accomplishments, it is seriously important to consider its anthropological and ethical ramifications. This involves not only mitigating dangers and preventing damage however likewise guaranteeing that its applications are utilized to promote human development and the common good.

5. To contribute positively to the discernment relating to AI, and in response to Pope Francis' call for a restored "knowledge of heart," [3] the Church uses its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active role in the international discussion on these concerns, the Church invites those delegated with transmitting the faith-including parents, instructors, pastors, and bishops-to dedicate themselves to this important subject with care and attention. While this file is meant specifically for them, it is also implied to be available to a more comprehensive audience, especially those who share the conviction that clinical and technological advances need to be directed toward serving the human person and the common good. [4]
6. To this end, the file starts by distinguishing between principles of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then checks out the Christian understanding of human intelligence, supplying a framework rooted in the Church's philosophical and theological tradition. Finally, the document offers guidelines to make sure that the advancement and usage of AI maintain human dignity and promote the integral development of the human individual and society.

7. The principle of "intelligence" in AI has actually developed gradually, making use of a series of ideas from different disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a substantial milestone happened in 1956 when the American computer scientist John McCarthy organized a summer season workshop at Dartmouth University to check out the issue of "Artificial Intelligence," which he defined as "that of making a maker act in manner ins which would be called smart if a human were so behaving." [5] This workshop introduced a research program focused on creating machines capable of carrying out jobs typically related to the human intellect and smart behavior.

8. Since then, AI research has actually advanced rapidly, resulting in the development of complex systems efficient in carrying out highly sophisticated jobs. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are typically developed to manage specific and limited functions, such as equating languages, predicting the trajectory of a storm, categorizing images, answering concerns, or creating visual material at the user's demand. While the meaning of "intelligence" in AI research differs, the majority of modern AI systems-particularly those using device learning-rely on statistical inference instead of rational reduction. By evaluating large datasets to identify patterns, AI can "forecast" [7] results and propose new methods, simulating some cognitive processes common of human problem-solving. Such accomplishments have been enabled through advances in calculating innovation (including neural networks, unsupervised artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) as well as hardware developments (such as specialized processors). Together, these innovations allow AI systems to react to different types of human input, adjust to brand-new scenarios, and even suggest unique solutions not prepared for by their original developers. [8]
9. Due to these fast advancements, many tasks once managed solely by humans are now entrusted to AI. These systems can enhance or perhaps supersede what people are able to perform in many fields, especially in specialized areas such as information analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is developed for a specific job, numerous researchers aim to establish what is referred to as "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system efficient in running across all cognitive domains and performing any task within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI could one day attain the state of "superintelligence," going beyond human intellectual capacities, or contribute to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, nevertheless, fear that these possibilities, even if hypothetical, might one day eclipse the human individual, while still others invite this potential improvement. [9]
10. Underlying this and many other point of views on the subject is the implicit assumption that the term "intelligence" can be used in the exact same way to refer to both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not capture the complete scope of the principle. In the case of human beings, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the individual in his or her totality, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is comprehended functionally, frequently with the presumption that the activities attribute of the human mind can be broken down into digitized actions that machines can reproduce. [10]
11. This functional perspective is exemplified by the "Turing Test," which considers a maker "smart" if a person can not identify its habits from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "habits" refers only to the performance of particular intellectual tasks; it does not account for the full breadth of human experience, which includes abstraction, feelings, creativity, and the aesthetic, ethical, and religious sensibilities. Nor does it incorporate the complete variety of expressions particular of the human mind. Instead, when it comes to AI, the "intelligence" of a system is assessed methodologically, but also reductively, based on its capability to produce proper responses-in this case, those related to the human intellect-regardless of how those reactions are created.

12. AI's sophisticated features offer it sophisticated abilities to carry out jobs, but not the ability to think. [12] This distinction is most importantly essential, as the method "intelligence" is specified inevitably forms how we comprehend the relationship between human idea and this innovation. [13] To value this, one need to recall the richness of the philosophical tradition and Christian faith, which offer a deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's mentor on the nature, self-respect, and occupation of the human person. [14]
13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has played a main function in comprehending what it means to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all individuals by nature desire to know." [15] This knowledge, with its capability for abstraction that comprehends the nature and meaning of things, sets people apart from the animal world. [16] As thinkers, theologians, and psychologists have taken a look at the precise nature of this intellectual professors, they have actually likewise checked out how human beings comprehend the world and their distinct location within it. Through this expedition, the Christian tradition has pertained to understand the human person as a being consisting of both body and soul-deeply connected to this world and yet transcending it. [17]
14. In the classical custom, the idea of intelligence is typically understood through the complementary ideas of "reason" (ratio) and "intellect" (intellectus). These are not different faculties however, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are two modes in which the same intelligence operates: "The term intellect is presumed from the inward grasp of the reality, while the name reason is taken from the analytical and discursive process." [18] This concise description highlights the 2 fundamental and complementary measurements of human intelligence. Intellectus refers to the intuitive grasp of the truth-that is, nabbing it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and grounds argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to thinking proper: the discursive, analytical process that causes judgment. Together, intellect and factor form the two aspects of the act of intelligere, "the appropriate operation of the human being as such." [19]
15. Explaining the human person as a "logical" being does not minimize the individual to a particular mode of idea; rather, it recognizes that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and permeates all aspects of human activity. [20] Whether worked out well or poorly, this capability is an intrinsic aspect of humanity. In this sense, the "term 'rational' encompasses all the capabilities of the human person," consisting of those associated to "understanding and understanding, as well as those of willing, loving, selecting, and preferring; it also includes all corporeal functions closely related to these capabilities." [21] This detailed point of view underscores how, in the human person, developed in the "image of God," factor is incorporated in a manner that raises, shapes, and transforms both the person's will and actions. [22]
16. Christian believed thinks about the intellectual faculties of the human person within the structure of an essential anthropology that sees the human being as essentially embodied. In the human individual, spirit and matter "are not two natures unified, but rather their union forms a single nature." [23] In other words, the soul is not simply the immaterial "part" of the person contained within the body, nor is the body an outer shell housing an intangible "core." Rather, the entire human individual is all at once both material 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 therefore, an authentically spiritual dimension) within and through this embodied existence. [24] The profound meaning of this condition is further brightened by the mystery of the Incarnation, through which God himself took on our flesh and "raised it up to a sublime dignity." [25]
17. Although deeply rooted in bodily presence, the human individual goes beyond the material world through the soul, which is "nearly on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intellect's capability for transcendence and the of the will come from the soul, by which the human person "shares in the light of the divine mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of knowledge without the body. [28] In this way, the intellectual professors of the human person are an integral part of a sociology that acknowledges that the human person is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further aspects of this understanding will be developed in what follows.

18. Humans are "purchased by their very nature to social communion," [30] having the capability to understand one another, to offer themselves in love, and to participate in communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not an isolated faculty however is worked out in relationships, discovering its fullest expression in discussion, cooperation, and solidarity. We find out with others, and we find out through others.

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

21. Human intelligence is eventually "God's present made for the assimilation of reality." [34] In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it enables the individual to check out realities that go beyond simple sensory experience or energy, because "the desire for reality belongs to human nature itself. It is a natural home of human factor to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limits of empirical information, human intelligence can "with real certitude attain to truth itself as knowable." [36] While truth remains just partly known, the desire for truth "stimulates reason always 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 borders of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this tourist attraction, the human person is caused seek "realities of a higher order." [39]
22. This inherent drive toward the pursuit of fact is particularly apparent in the distinctly human capacities for semantic understanding and creativity, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "manner that is appropriate to the social nature and self-respect of the human person." [41] Likewise, an unfaltering orientation to the reality is necessary for charity to be both genuine and universal. [42]
23. The look for reality discovers its greatest expression in openness to truths that transcend the physical and produced world. In God, all realities attain their ultimate and original meaning. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "essential choice that engages the whole person." [44] In this way, the human individual ends up being totally what he or she is contacted us to be: "the intelligence and the will show their spiritual nature," allowing the individual "to act in a way that realizes individual freedom to the full." [45]
24. The Christian faith understands creation as the totally free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, develops "not to increase his magnificence, however to show it forth and to communicate it." [46] Since God creates according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), development is imbued with an intrinsic order that reflects God's strategy (cf. Gen. 1; Dan. 2:21 -22; Is. 45:18; Ps. 74:12 -17; 104), [47] within which God has actually called humans to presume a distinct role: to cultivate and take care of the world. [48]
25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, human beings live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and abilities to take care of and develop development in accord with God's strategy. [49] In this, human intelligence reflects the Divine Intelligence that developed all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] continually sustains them, and guides them to their supreme purpose in him. [51] Moreover, human beings are called to develop their abilities in science and technology, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in a correct relationship with development, humans, on the one hand, utilize their intelligence and ability to work together with God in guiding production towards the purpose to which he has called it. [52] On the other hand, creation itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, assists the human mind to "rise gradually to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]
26. In this context, human intelligence ends up being more plainly understood as a faculty that forms an integral part of how the whole individual engages with reality. Authentic engagement needs welcoming the full scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with reality unfolds in numerous methods, as everyone, in his/her multifaceted uniqueness [54], looks for to understand the world, associate with others, resolve issues, express imagination, and pursue integral well-being through the harmonious interplay of the numerous measurements of the person's intelligence. [55] This includes rational and linguistic abilities but can likewise include other modes of engaging with reality. Consider the work of a craftsmen, who "should know how to recognize, in inert matter, a particular kind that others can not recognize" [56] and bring it forth through insight and practical ability. Indigenous peoples who live near to the earth typically possess a profound sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a pal who knows the ideal word to state or a person adept at handling human relationships exhibits an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, discussion and generous encounter between individuals." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of expert system, we can not forget that poetry and love are required to conserve our humankind." [59]
28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the combination of truth into the moral and spiritual life of the person, guiding his/her actions in light of God's goodness and truth. According to God's strategy, intelligence, in its fullest sense, also includes the ability to enjoy what holds true, great, and lovely. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel revealed, "intelligence is absolutely nothing without delight." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the greatest heaven in Paradiso, testifies that the culmination of this intellectual pleasure is found in the "light intellectual loaded with love, love of real excellent filled with happiness, joy which goes beyond every sweetness." [61]
29. An appropriate understanding of human intelligence, for that reason, can not be minimized to the simple acquisition of facts or the ability to carry out particular jobs. Instead, it includes the person's openness to the supreme concerns of life and shows an orientation towards the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the magnificent image within the person, human intelligence has the ability to access the totality of being, contemplating existence in its fullness, which goes beyond what is quantifiable, and grasping the significance of what has actually been understood. For followers, this capability includes, in a specific method, the ability to grow in the knowledge of the secrets of God by utilizing factor to engage ever more exceptionally with exposed facts (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is formed by divine love, which "is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence possesses an important reflective dimension, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian purpose.

30. In light of the foregoing discussion, the differences in between human intelligence and existing AI systems end up being evident. While AI is a remarkable technological accomplishment capable of imitating certain outputs associated with human intelligence, it operates by performing jobs, attaining objectives, or making decisions based upon quantitative data and computational logic. For instance, with its analytical power, AI excels at incorporating information from a range of fields, modeling complex systems, and fostering interdisciplinary connections. In this way, it can assist experts collaborate in resolving complex issues that "can not be dealt with from a single viewpoint or from a single set of interests." [64]
31. However, even as AI procedures and simulates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains fundamentally restricted to a logical-mathematical framework, which enforces inherent constraints. Human intelligence, on the other hand, develops naturally throughout the person's physical and mental 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 basically various from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, consisting of sensory input, psychological reactions, social interactions, and the unique context of each minute. These aspects shape and form individuals within their personal history.In contrast, AI, doing not have a physical body, counts on computational thinking and knowing based upon large datasets that consist of tape-recorded human experiences and understanding.

32. Consequently, although AI can simulate aspects of human reasoning and perform particular jobs with incredible speed and efficiency, its computational abilities represent just a fraction of the wider capacities of the human mind. For example, AI can not currently duplicate ethical discernment or the ability to establish authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is located within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral formation that essentially forms the person's viewpoint, incorporating the physical, emotional, social, ethical, and spiritual dimensions of life. Since AI can not use this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely entirely on this innovation or treat it as the main methods of interpreting the world can lead to "a loss of appreciation for the entire, for the relationships in between things, and for the more comprehensive horizon." [65]
33. Human intelligence is not mainly about finishing functional tasks but about understanding and actively engaging with truth in all its dimensions; it is also efficient in surprising insights. Since AI does not have the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to reality and goodness, its capacities-though seemingly limitless-are unparalleled with the human capability to comprehend reality. So much can be gained from a disease, an embrace of reconciliation, and even an easy sundown; certainly, many experiences we have as people open brand-new horizons and use the possibility of attaining new wisdom. No device, working entirely with information, can determine up to these and countless other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an extremely close equivalence in between human intelligence and AI threats catching a functionalist point of view, where individuals are valued based upon the work they can carry out. However, an individual's worth does not depend on having particular skills, cognitive and technological achievements, or specific success, but on the person's inherent dignity, grounded in being produced in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains undamaged in all circumstances, consisting of for those not able to exercise their capabilities, whether it be an unborn kid, an unconscious person, or an older person who is suffering. [67] It likewise underpins the custom of human rights (and, in specific, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "an important point of merging in the search for commonalities" [68] and can, hence, work as a basic ethical guide in conversations on the accountable advancement and use of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the very use of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can prove misleading" [69] and threats overlooking what is most valuable in the human person. In light of this, AI should not be seen as an artificial kind of human intelligence but as a product of it. [70]
36. Given these factors to consider, one can ask how AI can be comprehended within God's plan. To address this, it is important to remember that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character however is a human undertaking that engages the humanistic and cultural dimensions of human imagination. [71]
37. Seen as a fruit of the possible engraved within human intelligence, [72] scientific query and the advancement of technical abilities belong to the "cooperation of males and female with God in perfecting the visible creation." [73] At the exact same time, all scientific and technological achievements are, eventually, presents from God. [74] Therefore, humans should constantly utilize their abilities in view of the greater function for which God has actually granted them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how technology has actually "remedied many evils which used to hurt and restrict people," [76] a truth for which we need to rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological improvements in themselves represent genuine human development. [77] The Church is especially opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human individual. [78] Like any human venture, technological advancement must be directed to serve the human individual and contribute to the pursuit of "greater justice, more substantial fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations," which are "better than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical implications of technological development are shared not just within the Church but also among lots of scientists, technologists, and professional associations, who increasingly call for ethical reflection to assist this advancement in an accountable way.

39. To attend to these challenges, it is necessary to highlight the significance of moral duty grounded in the self-respect and vocation of the human individual. This directing principle likewise applies to questions concerning AI. In this context, the ethical dimension takes on main value since it is individuals who design systems and identify the purposes for which they are utilized. [80] Between a maker and a human being, only the latter is genuinely a moral agent-a topic of moral duty who works out flexibility in his or her choices and accepts their repercussions. [81] It is not the maker however the human who remains in relationship with reality and goodness, assisted by an ethical conscience that calls the individual "to like and to do what is great and to avoid evil," [82] bearing witness to "the authority of truth in recommendation to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn." [83] Likewise, between a machine and a human, just the human can be adequately self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, critical with vigilance, and looking for the excellent that is possible in every situation. [84] In truth, all of this likewise belongs to the individual's exercise of intelligence.

40. Like any product of human imagination, AI can be directed toward favorable or unfavorable ends. [85] When used in ways that appreciate human dignity and promote the wellness of people and neighborhoods, it can contribute favorably to the human vocation. Yet, as in all locations where humans are called to make decisions, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human liberty enables the possibility of choosing what is incorrect, the ethical examination of this innovation will need to take into consideration how it is directed and utilized.

41. At the exact same time, it is not only completions that are fairly significant however likewise the methods used to attain them. Additionally, the general vision and understanding of the human individual ingrained within these systems are crucial to consider also. Technological items show the worldview of their designers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to "form the world and engage consciences on the level of worths." [87] On a societal level, some technological advancements might likewise reinforce relationships and power characteristics that are inconsistent with a proper understanding of the human individual and society.

42. Therefore, completions and the ways used in a given application of AI, along with the general vision it includes, must all be assessed to guarantee they respect human dignity and promote the typical good. [88] As Pope Francis has specified, "the intrinsic self-respect of every guy and every female" must be "the key criterion in assessing emerging technologies; these will show fairly sound to the extent that they assist regard that dignity and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] including in the social and financial spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays a crucial function not just in developing and producing technology but also in directing its use in line with the authentic good of the human individual. [90] The responsibility for managing this wisely pertains to every level of society, assisted by the concept of subsidiarity and other concepts of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The dedication to ensuring that AI constantly supports and promotes the supreme value of the self-respect of every person and the fullness of the human vocation serves as a criterion of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, along with to its users. It remains legitimate for each application of the technology at every level of its usage.

44. An examination of the ramifications of this assisting principle might begin by considering the significance of ethical duty. Since full moral causality belongs only to individual agents, not artificial ones, it is crucial to be able to recognize and specify who bears responsibility for the processes involved in AI, particularly those capable of learning, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up techniques and very deep neural networks make it possible for AI to resolve complex problems, they make it difficult to comprehend the procedures that lead to the options they embraced. This complicates responsibility since if an AI application produces unwanted outcomes, determining who is responsible ends up being tough. To address this problem, attention needs to be offered to the nature of accountability processes in complex, extremely automated settings, where results may only become evident in the medium to long term. For this, it is very important that ultimate responsibility for decisions used AI rests with the human decision-makers which there is accountability for the use of AI at each phase of the decision-making process. [91]
45. In addition to identifying who is accountable, it is important to determine the goals given to AI systems. Although these systems may utilize unsupervised self-governing learning systems and often follow paths that human beings can not reconstruct, they ultimately pursue goals that humans have actually assigned to them and are governed by processes developed by their designers and programmers. Yet, this provides a challenge due to the fact that, as AI models become increasingly efficient in independent learning, the capability to maintain control over them to guarantee that such applications serve human purposes may efficiently diminish. This raises the critical concern of how to make sure that AI systems are bought for the good of individuals and not against them.

46. While responsibility for the ethical use of AI systems begins with those who establish, produce, manage, and oversee such systems, it is also shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis noted, the device "makes a technical choice among a number of possibilities based either on distinct criteria or on statistical reasonings. Humans, nevertheless, not just choose, however in their hearts can choosing." [92] Those who use AI to accomplish a task and follow its outcomes develop a context in which they are ultimately accountable for the power they have actually handed over. Therefore, insofar as AI can help human beings in making choices, the algorithms that govern it should be reliable, safe and secure, robust enough to deal with disparities, and transparent in their operation to reduce predispositions and unintended adverse effects. [93] Regulatory structures must guarantee that all legal entities remain responsible for making use of AI and all its consequences, with appropriate safeguards for openness, privacy, and accountability. [94] Moreover, those using AI should take care not to end up being extremely based on it for their decision-making, a pattern that increases contemporary society's currently high dependence on innovation.

47. The Church's ethical and social mentor supplies resources to assist ensure that AI is utilized in such a way that maintains human firm. Considerations about justice, for example, must also deal with concerns such as promoting simply social characteristics, maintaining global security, and promoting peace. By exercising vigilance, people and neighborhoods can determine methods to utilize AI to benefit humanity while avoiding applications that could break down human self-respect or damage the environment. In this context, the idea of responsibility must be comprehended not only in its most restricted sense however as a "responsibility for the take care of others, which is more than merely accounting for outcomes attained." [95]
48. Therefore, AI, like any technology, can be part of a conscious and accountable response to mankind's vocation to the good. However, as previously gone over, AI should be directed by human intelligence to line up with this occupation, ensuring it respects the dignity of the human person. Recognizing this "exalted dignity," the Second Vatican Council verified that "the social order and its advancement must inevitably work to the benefit of the human individual." [96] Because of this, using AI, as Pope Francis said, need to be "accompanied by an ethic influenced by a vision of the typical good, an ethic of liberty, responsibility, and fraternity, capable of cultivating the full advancement of individuals in relation to others and to the whole of production." [97]
49. Within this basic viewpoint, some observations follow listed below to highlight how the preceding arguments can help supply an ethical orientation in practical scenarios, in line with the "wisdom of heart" that Pope Francis has actually proposed. [98] While not exhaustive, this conversation is offered in service of the discussion that thinks about how AI can be utilized to maintain the dignity of the human individual and promote the common good. [99]
50. As Pope Francis observed, "the fundamental dignity of each person and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human family should undergird the advancement of new innovations and serve as unassailable criteria for examining them before they are utilized." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI might "present important developments in agriculture, education and culture, an enhanced level of life for whole nations and individuals, and the growth of human fraternity and social friendship," and thus be "used to promote essential human advancement." [101] AI could likewise assist companies recognize 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 numerous possibilities for promoting the great, it can likewise hinder or even counter human advancement and the common good. Pope Francis has actually kept in mind that "evidence to date suggests that digital innovations have actually increased inequality in our world. Not simply differences in material wealth, which are also substantial, however likewise differences in access to political and social influence." [103] In this sense, AI might be utilized to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, develop new kinds of hardship, widen the "digital divide," and worsen existing social inequalities. [104]
53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a few powerful companies raises substantial ethical concerns. Exacerbating this problem is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single person can exercise complete oversight over the huge and complex datasets utilized for calculation. This lack of distinct accountability produces the risk that AI might be manipulated for personal or business gain or to direct popular opinion for the advantage of a particular industry. Such entities, motivated by their own interests, have the capacity to work out "forms of control as subtle as they are intrusive, developing mechanisms for the manipulation of consciences and of the democratic process." [105]
54. Furthermore, there is the risk of AI being utilized to promote what Pope Francis has called the "technocratic paradigm," which views all the world's issues as understandable through technological ways alone. [106] In this paradigm, human self-respect and fraternity are frequently reserved in the name of performance, "as if reality, goodness, and truth instantly flow from technological and economic power as such." [107] Yet, human dignity and the common great must never be violated for the sake of efficiency, [108] for "technological advancements that do not result in an improvement in the quality of life of all humanity, but on the contrary, aggravate inequalities and disputes, can never count as real development. " [109] Instead, AI should be put "at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral." [110]
55. Attaining this goal requires a deeper reflection on the relationship in between autonomy and obligation. Greater autonomy heightens everyone's duty across various elements of communal life. For Christians, the structure of this responsibility depends on the acknowledgment that all human capacities, consisting of the person's autonomy, originated from God and are suggested to be used in the service of others. [111] Therefore, instead of simply pursuing financial or technological goals, AI ought to serve "the common good of the entire human family," which is "the sum overall of social conditions that allow individuals, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their satisfaction more totally and more easily." [112]
56. The Second Vatican Council observed that "by his inner nature man 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 highlights that living in society is intrinsic to the nature and occupation of the human person. [114] As social beings, we seek relationships that include shared exchange and the pursuit of truth, in the course of which, individuals "show each other the fact they have actually discovered, or think they have actually found, in such a method that they assist one another in the search for truth." [115]
57. Such a mission, together with other elements of human communication, presupposes encounters and shared exchange between people shaped by their special histories, ideas, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a diverse, diverse, and complex truth: individual and social, reasonable and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis underscores this dynamic, keeping in mind that "together, we can look for the truth in dialogue, in relaxed discussion or in enthusiastic argument. To do so calls for perseverance; it entails minutes of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently welcome the broader experience of individuals and peoples. [...] The procedure of building fraternity, be it local or universal, can just be undertaken by spirits that are totally free and available to authentic encounters." [116]
58. It remains in this context that one can consider the difficulties AI poses to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the potential to cultivate connections within the human family. However, it might likewise impede a true encounter with reality and, ultimately, lead individuals to "a deep and melancholic frustration with social relations, or a hazardous sense of isolation." [117] Authentic human relationships need the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their happiness. [118] Since human intelligence is expressed and enriched likewise in social and embodied methods, genuine and spontaneous encounters with others are essential for engaging with reality in its fullness.

59. Because "true wisdom demands an encounter with truth," [119] the increase of AI introduces another obstacle. Since AI can successfully mimic the items of human intelligence, the capability to understand when one is communicating with a human or a maker can no longer be considered approved. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other innovative outputs that are generally associated with human beings. Yet, it needs to be understood for what it is: a tool, not an individual. [120] This difference is often obscured by the language utilized by specialists, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and therefore blurs the line between human and machine.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI also postures specific challenges for the advancement of children, possibly encouraging them to develop patterns of interaction that deal with human relationships in a transactional manner, as one would associate with a chatbot. Such practices might lead youths to see teachers as simple dispensers of details instead of as coaches who direct and support their intellectual and ethical growth. Genuine relationships, rooted in empathy and a steadfast dedication to the good of the other, are vital and irreplaceable in fostering the complete development of the human person.

61. In this context, it is essential to clarify that, regardless of the usage of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can genuinely experience empathy. Emotions can not be reduced to facial expressions or phrases generated in response to triggers; they reflect the method an individual, as a whole, relates to the world and to his or her own life, with the body playing a main function. True empathy requires the ability to listen, recognize another's irreducible uniqueness, invite their otherness, and grasp the significance behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the realm of analytical judgment in which AI stands out, real empathy comes from the relational sphere. It involves intuiting and capturing the lived experiences of another while maintaining the difference in between self and other. [122] While AI can mimic understanding actions, it can not duplicate the eminently individual and relational nature of genuine empathy. [123]
62. Because of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as an individual need to always be avoided; doing so for deceitful purposes is a grave ethical violation that might deteriorate social trust. Similarly, using AI to trick in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, including the sphere of sexuality-is also to be considered immoral and requires mindful oversight to prevent damage, maintain openness, and guarantee the dignity of all individuals. [124]
63. In a progressively separated world, some people have actually turned to AI looking for deep human relationships, simple friendship, and even psychological bonds. However, while human beings are implied to experience authentic relationships, AI can just replicate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an important part of how a person grows to become who he or she is meant to be. If AI is utilized to help people foster authentic connections in between individuals, it can contribute favorably to the complete realization of the person. Conversely, if we replace relationships with God and with others with interactions with innovation, we run the risk of replacing genuine relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of pulling back into synthetic worlds, we are called to take part in a dedicated and intentional way with reality, particularly 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 currently being made not just in the innovation sector however likewise in energy, finance, and media, especially in the areas of marketing and sales, logistics, technological development, compliance, and danger management. At the exact same time, AI's applications in these locations have likewise highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of tremendous chances however also extensive dangers. A first genuine vital point in this area worries the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a couple of corporations-only those large business would gain from the worth produced by AI instead of business that use it.

65. Other more comprehensive aspects of AI's impact on the economic-financial sphere should also be carefully examined, especially concerning the interaction between concrete reality and the digital world. One important factor to consider in this regard involves the coexistence of varied and alternative forms of financial and financial institutions within a provided context. This aspect must be motivated, as it can bring benefits in how it supports the genuine economy by fostering its development and stability, specifically throughout times of crisis. Nevertheless, it should be worried that digital realities, not restricted by any spatial bonds, tend to be more uniform and impersonal than neighborhoods rooted in a specific location and a specific history, with a common journey identified by shared worths and hopes, but also by unavoidable disputes and divergences. This variety is an undeniable asset to a neighborhood's financial life. Turning over the economy and finance totally to digital technology would lower this range and richness. As an outcome, numerous solutions to financial issues that can be reached through natural dialogue between the included celebrations might no longer be attainable in a world controlled by procedures and just the appearance of nearness.

66. Another area where AI is currently having a profound impact is the world of work. As in numerous other fields, AI is driving basic transformations across numerous professions, with a series of effects. On the one hand, it has the possible to improve expertise and productivity, create new tasks, enable workers to concentrate on more innovative jobs, and open brand-new horizons for imagination and innovation.

67. However, while AI assures to enhance productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it regularly forces employees to adjust to the speed and demands of devices instead of makers being developed to support those who work. As an outcome, contrary to the advertised benefits of AI, present techniques to the innovation can paradoxically deskill employees, subject them to automated monitoring, and relegate them to rigid and repetitive jobs. The requirement to stay up to date with the speed of technology can erode workers' sense of firm and stifle the innovative capabilities they are anticipated to give their work. [125]
68. AI is presently getting rid of the requirement for some jobs that were once performed by people. If AI is used to change human workers instead of complement them, there is a "substantial danger of out of proportion benefit for the few at the cost of the impoverishment of lots of." [126] Additionally, as AI becomes more effective, there is an associated danger that human labor may lose its worth in the financial realm. This is the rational effect of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humanity shackled to efficiency, where, ultimately, the expense of humankind need to be cut. Yet, human lives are inherently important, independent of their financial output. Nevertheless, the "existing design," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to prefer an investment in efforts to assist the slow, the weak, or the less gifted to discover chances in life." [127] Due to this, "we can not enable a tool as powerful and important as Artificial Intelligence to enhance such a paradigm, but rather, we need to make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its growth." [128]
69. It is essential to bear in mind that "the order of things need to be secondary to the order of persons, and not the other way around." [129] Human work needs to not just be at the service of revenue but at "the service of the entire human individual [...] considering the person's material needs and the requirements of his or her intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and spiritual life." [130] In this context, the Church recognizes that work is "not just a means of making one's daily bread" but is also "an important dimension of social life" and "a method [...] of individual development, the structure of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of gifts. Work provides us a sense of shared responsibility for the development of the world, and eventually, for our life as a people." [131]
70. Since work is a "part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth, human advancement and individual satisfaction," "the goal should not be that technological progress significantly changes human work, for this would be damaging to humankind" [132] -rather, it must promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI should assist, not change, human judgment. Similarly, it should never ever degrade imagination or reduce workers to simple "cogs in a maker." Therefore, "respect for the self-respect of laborers and the importance of work for the economic well-being of individuals, families, and societies, for task security and just wages, should be a high priority for the international community as these forms of technology permeate more deeply into our workplaces." [133]
71. As individuals in God's healing work, health care professionals have the occupation and duty to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the healthcare occupation carries an "intrinsic and undeniable ethical measurement," acknowledged by the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges physicians and healthcare specialists to commit themselves to having "outright regard 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 neighbors, raising up and fixing up the fallen for the sake of the typical good." [136]
72. Seen in this light, AI seems to hold tremendous capacity in a range of applications in the medical field, such as helping the diagnostic work of health care suppliers, assisting in relationships in between patients and medical personnel, providing new treatments, and broadening access to quality care also for those who are isolated or marginalized. In these ways, the technology could boost the "caring and loving closeness" [137] that doctor are contacted us to reach the ill 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 communicate with a device rather than a human being-it would minimize a crucially essential human relational structure to a central, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of encouraging uniformity with the sick and suffering, such applications of AI would run the risk of intensifying the loneliness that often accompanies illness, especially in the context of a culture where "individuals are no longer seen as a vital worth to be looked after and respected." [138] This misuse of AI would not align with respect for the dignity of the human individual and solidarity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the wellness of clients and the decisions that touch upon their lives are at the heart of the healthcare occupation. This responsibility needs doctor to work out all their ability and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options regarding those delegated to their care, always respecting the inviolable self-respect of the clients and the requirement for notified authorization. As a result, choices relating to client treatment and the weight of responsibility they entail need to constantly remain with the human individual and should never ever be handed over to AI. [139]
75. In addition, utilizing AI to identify who should receive treatment based mainly on financial procedures or metrics of performance represents an especially bothersome circumstances of the "technocratic paradigm" that need to be declined. [140] For, "optimizing resources implies utilizing them in an ethical and fraternal method, and not penalizing the most fragile." [141] Additionally, AI tools in health care are "exposed to kinds of predisposition and discrimination," where "systemic errors can easily multiply, producing not just oppressions in private cases however also, due to the cause and effect, real kinds of social inequality." [142]
76. The combination of AI into health care likewise poses the risk of amplifying other existing disparities in access to healthcare. As healthcare becomes progressively oriented towards avoidance and lifestyle-based methods, AI-driven options might inadvertently prefer more affluent populations who currently take pleasure in much better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This pattern dangers enhancing a "medicine for the abundant" model, where those with financial means gain from innovative preventative tools and individualized health details while others struggle to gain access to even standard services. To prevent such injustices, fair frameworks are required to guarantee that making use of AI in healthcare does not worsen existing health care inequalities but rather serves the typical good.

77. The words of the Second Vatican Council remain fully relevant 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 facts and intellectual abilities: rather, its aim is to contribute to the person's holistic formation in its numerous aspects (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, and so on), including, for instance, neighborhood life and relations within the academic neighborhood," [144] in keeping with the nature and dignity of the human individual.

78. This approach involves a commitment to cultivating the mind, however always as a part of the important development of the person: "We should break that idea of education which holds that educating methods filling one's head with ideas. That is the method we educate automatons, cerebral minds, not individuals. Educating is taking a risk in the stress in between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]
79. At the center of this work of forming the whole human individual is the indispensable relationship in between teacher and trainee. Teachers do more than convey knowledge; they design necessary human qualities and inspire the delight of discovery. [146] Their existence encourages trainees both through the content they teach and the care they demonstrate for their trainees. This bond cultivates trust, good understanding, and the capacity to deal with everyone's special dignity and capacity. On the part of the trainee, this can generate a real desire to grow. The physical presence of an instructor produces a relational dynamic that AI can not reproduce, one that deepens engagement and nurtures the trainee's essential advancement.

80. In this context, AI provides both chances and difficulties. If utilized in a prudent manner, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and bought to the genuine goals of education, AI can become an important instructional resource by enhancing access to education, providing tailored support, and supplying immediate feedback to trainees. These benefits could improve the knowing experience, particularly in cases where personalized attention is required, or academic resources are otherwise scarce.

81. Nevertheless, a vital part of education is forming "the intellect to factor well in all matters, to reach out towards reality, and to understand it," [147] while helping the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is even more crucial in an age marked by technology, in which "it is no longer merely a concern of 'utilizing' instruments of interaction, but of living in an extremely digitalized culture that has had an extensive influence on [...] our capability to interact, learn, be informed and participate in relationship with others." [149] However, rather of fostering "a cultivated intellect," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and occupation that it carries out," [150] the substantial use of AI in education might result in the trainees' increased reliance on innovation, deteriorating their capability to carry out some skills individually and intensifying their reliance on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are created to help people establish their important thinking abilities and analytical skills, many others merely offer responses rather of triggering trainees to get to responses themselves or compose text for themselves. [152] Instead of training youths how to amass details and produce fast responses, education ought to encourage "the responsible use of liberty to deal with problems with common sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in the usage of types of artificial intelligence need to aim above all at promoting crucial thinking. Users of all ages, however specifically the young, need to establish a critical method to making use of data and content gathered on the web or produced by expert system systems. Schools, universities, and scientific societies are challenged to assist trainees and specialists to comprehend the social and ethical elements of the advancement and usages of technology." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II remembered, "in the world today, identified by such fast advancements in science and innovation, the tasks of a Catholic University assume an ever greater value and seriousness." [155] In a specific way, Catholic universities are urged to be present as excellent laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary key, they are advised to engage "with knowledge and creativity" [156] in mindful research study on this phenomenon, helping to draw out the salutary potential within the numerous fields of science and reality, and assisting them always towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the typical good, reaching brand-new frontiers in the dialogue between faith and factor.

84. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that current AI programs have been known to supply prejudiced or made details, which can lead trainees to rely on inaccurate material. This issue "not just runs the risk of legitimizing fake news and strengthening a dominant culture's benefit, however, in other words, it likewise undermines the academic procedure itself." [157] With time, clearer differences may emerge between correct and inappropriate uses of AI in education and research. Yet, a definitive guideline is that making use of AI ought to constantly be transparent and never misrepresented.

85. AI could be used as an aid to human self-respect if it helps people understand intricate concepts or directs them to sound resources that support their look for the reality. [158]
86. However, AI likewise provides a major risk of generating controlled material and false details, which can quickly mislead people due to its resemblance to the reality. Such misinformation may take place unintentionally, as when it comes to AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine however are not. Since creating content that imitates human artifacts is main to AI's performance, mitigating these risks shows difficult. Yet, the effects of such aberrations and incorrect details can be quite severe. For this reason, all those associated with producing and utilizing AI systems need to be dedicated to the truthfulness and accuracy of the details processed by such systems and disseminated to the general public.

87. While AI has a latent potential to create false details, an even more unpleasant problem depends on the deliberate abuse of AI for adjustment. This can happen when people or companies intentionally generate and spread out false content with the aim to deceive or trigger harm, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to an incorrect representation of a person, edited or produced by an AI algorithm. The danger of deepfakes is particularly apparent when they are used to target or harm others. While the images or videos themselves may be synthetic, the damage they cause is genuine, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "genuine injuries in their human self-respect." [159]
88. On a more comprehensive scale, by misshaping "our relationship with others and with reality," [160] AI-generated phony media can gradually weaken the structures of society. This issue needs mindful policy, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or influenced media-can spread inadvertently, sustaining political polarization and social discontent. When society ends up being indifferent to the fact, various groups construct their own variations of "truths," weakening the "mutual ties and shared reliances" [161] that underpin the fabric of social life. As deepfakes trigger individuals to question everything and AI-generated incorrect content wears down rely on what they see and hear, polarization and dispute will just grow. Such widespread deceptiveness is no insignificant matter; it strikes at the core of humankind, dismantling the fundamental trust on which societies are developed. [162]
89. Countering AI-driven fallacies is not only the work of market experts-it requires the efforts of all individuals of goodwill. "If technology is to serve human self-respect and not hurt it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human neighborhood should be proactive in dealing with these trends with regard to human self-respect and the promo of the great." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated material needs to always exercise diligence in verifying the truth of what they distribute and, in all cases, ought to "prevent the sharing of words and images that are breaking down of human beings, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that make use of the weak and susceptible." [164] This requires the ongoing vigilance and mindful discernment of all users concerning their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are naturally relational, and the information each individual generates in the digital world can be seen as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data communicates not only details but likewise individual and relational understanding, which, in an increasingly digitized context, can total up to power over the person. Moreover, while some types of information might pertain to public aspects of a person's life, others might discuss the individual's interiority, possibly even their conscience. Seen in this method, privacy plays an important function in securing the boundaries of a person's inner life, maintaining their freedom to connect to others, reveal themselves, and make decisions without undue control. This defense is likewise connected to the defense of spiritual liberty, as surveillance can also be misused to exert control over the lives of believers and how they reveal their faith.

91. It is suitable, for that reason, to attend to the issue of privacy from a concern for the genuine freedom and inalienable dignity of the human person "in all circumstances." [166] The Second Vatican Council consisted of the right "to safeguard personal privacy" amongst the fundamental rights "necessary for living a genuinely human life," a right that needs to be encompassed all individuals on account of their "superb self-respect." [167] Furthermore, the Church has actually also verified the right to the legitimate respect for a personal life in the context of affirming the individual's right to a good credibility, defense of their physical and psychological stability, and liberty from damage or undue invasion [168] -important elements of the due respect for the intrinsic self-respect of the human individual. [169]
92. Advances in AI-powered information processing and analysis now make it possible to presume patterns in an individual's habits and believing from even a small quantity of details, making the role of information privacy much more crucial as a secure for the dignity 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 rarely exists. Everything has become a sort of phenomenon to be taken a look at and inspected, and people's lives are now under continuous surveillance." [170]
93. While there can be genuine and proper ways to use AI in keeping with human dignity and the typical great, using it for surveillance aimed at exploiting, limiting others' liberty, or benefitting a few at the expenditure of the lots of is unjustifiable. The danger of security overreach need to be kept an eye on by proper regulators to guarantee openness and public accountability. Those accountable for security needs to never ever surpass their authority, which should constantly prefer the self-respect and liberty of everyone as the important basis of a simply and humane society.

94. Furthermore, "essential regard for human dignity needs that we decline to permit the individuality of the person to be related to a set of information." [171] This specifically uses when AI is utilized to evaluate people or groups based on their behavior, attributes, or history-a practice called "social scoring": "In social and financial decision-making, we need to be cautious about delegating judgments to algorithms that process data, often gathered surreptitiously, on a person's makeup and previous behavior. Such information can be polluted by social prejudices and preconceptions. An individual's past habits need to not be utilized to reject him or her the opportunity to alter, grow, and add to society. We can not permit algorithms to restrict or condition regard for human self-respect, or to omit compassion, grace, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that individuals have the ability to alter." [172]
95. AI has lots of appealing applications for enhancing our relationship with our "typical home," such as producing designs to forecast severe environment events, proposing engineering options to lower their effect, handling relief operations, and predicting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable farming, optimize energy use, and offer early caution systems for public health emergency situations. These improvements have the prospective to enhance durability against climate-related obstacles and promote more sustainable advancement.

96. At the very same time, existing AI models and the hardware needed to support them take in vast quantities of energy and water, considerably contributing to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This reality is frequently obscured by the way this innovation exists in the popular imagination, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can provide the impression that information is kept and processed in an intangible world, removed 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 machines, cables, and energy. The exact same holds true of the technology behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, specifically big language designs (LLMs), they require ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and higher storage infrastructure. Considering the heavy toll these innovations take on the environment, it is essential to establish sustainable services that decrease their effect on our common home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is vital "that we look for solutions not only in technology however in a change of mankind." [175] A complete and authentic understanding of development acknowledges that the worth of all developed things can not be reduced to their mere energy. Therefore, a fully human approach to the stewardship of the earth rejects the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which looks for to "draw out whatever possible" from the world, [176] and turns down the "myth of progress," which assumes that "environmental problems will fix themselves simply with the application of brand-new technology and without any requirement for ethical factors to consider or deep modification." [177] Such a frame of mind needs to provide way to a more holistic technique that respects the order of creation and promotes the important good of the human individual while protecting our common home. [178]
98. The Second Vatican Council and the constant teaching of the Popes ever since have actually firmly insisted that peace is not merely the lack of war and is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between enemies. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the serenity of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without safeguarding the items of persons, complimentary communication, regard for the self-respect of individuals and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the result of charity and can not be attained through force alone; instead, it needs to be mainly built through client diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, solidarity, integral human advancement, and respect for the self-respect of all individuals. [180] In this method, the tools used to maintain peace ought to never be allowed to validate oppression, violence, or oppression. Instead, they must always be governed by a "firm decision to regard other individuals and countries, together with their self-respect, along with the purposeful practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical abilities could help nations look for peace and guarantee security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can likewise be highly problematic. Pope Francis has actually observed that "the ability to conduct military operations through remote control systems has actually resulted in a minimized perception of the destruction brought on by those weapon systems and the concern of obligation for their usage, leading to a a lot more cold and detached technique to the enormous catastrophe of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which self-governing weapons make war more feasible militates against the principle of war as a last hope 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 devastating consequences for human rights. [184]
100. In specific, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which are capable of recognizing and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for severe ethical concern" since they lack the "distinct human capacity for moral judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this factor, Pope Francis has urgently required a reconsideration of the development of these weapons and a prohibition on their usage, beginning with "a reliable and concrete dedication to present ever higher and correct human control. No device ought to ever select to take the life of a human." [186]
101. Since it is a little step from devices that can eliminate autonomously with precision to those capable of massive damage, some AI researchers have expressed concerns that such innovation presents an "existential danger" by having the prospective to act in methods that could threaten the survival of entire areas or even of humanity itself. This risk demands serious attention, showing the enduring concern about technologies that approve war "an unmanageable destructive power over terrific numbers of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing kids. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "undertake an examination of war with an entirely new attitude" [188] is more immediate than ever.

102. At the very same time, while the theoretical threats of AI deserve attention, the more instant and pushing concern depends on how people with destructive intentions might misuse this innovation. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future abilities are unforeseeable, mankind's previous actions supply clear warnings. The atrocities devoted throughout history suffice to raise deep issues about the prospective abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that "humankind now has instruments of unprecedented power: we can turn this world into a garden, or decrease it to a stack of rubble." [190] Given this fact, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are totally free to apply our intelligence towards things progressing favorably," or towards "decadence and shared damage." [191] To prevent humanity from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there should be a clear stand against all applications of innovation that naturally threaten human life and self-respect. This commitment needs careful discernment about making use of AI, particularly in military defense applications, to guarantee that it constantly appreciates human self-respect and serves the typical good. The development and implementation of AI in weaponries must be subject to the highest levels of ethical analysis, governed by an issue for human dignity and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology offers remarkable tools to supervise and establish the world's resources. However, in many cases, mankind is significantly delivering control of these resources to machines. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, there is optimism about the potential of artificial basic intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical form of AI that would match or go beyond human intelligence and cause inconceivable improvements. Some even speculate that AGI could attain superhuman capabilities. At the exact same time, as society drifts away from a connection with the transcendent, some are tempted to turn to AI in search of significance or fulfillment-longings that can just be really pleased in communion with God. [194]
105. However, the presumption of replacing God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture explicitly warns against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI may prove a lot more sexy than conventional idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths however do not speak; eyes, however do not see; ears, but do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or at least provides the illusion of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is essential to keep in mind that AI is but a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated material, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not have much of the abilities particular to human life, and it is likewise imperfect. By turning to AI as a viewed "Other" greater than itself, with which to share presence and obligations, humanity threats developing a substitute for God. However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, however mankind itself-which, in this way, ends up being enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the possible to serve humanity and contribute to the common great, it remains a production of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and resourcefulness" (Acts 17:29). It should never be ascribed excessive worth. As the Book of Wisdom affirms: "For a guy made them, and one whose spirit is obtained formed them; for no 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 objects he worships because he has life, but they never have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. In contrast, humans, "by their interior life, go beyond the whole material universe; they experience this deep interiority when they participate in their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they choose their own fate in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis advises us, that each private finds the "mystical connection between self-knowledge and openness to others, in between the encounter with one's individual uniqueness and the determination to offer oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "efficient in setting our other powers and passions, and our entire individual, in a stance of reverence and loving obedience before the Lord," [198] who "offers to deal with each one people as a 'Thou,' constantly and permanently." [199]
108. Considering the various challenges positioned by advances in technology, Pope Francis highlighted the requirement for development in "human obligation, worths, and conscience," proportionate to the development in the potential that this technology brings [200] -acknowledging that "with a boost in human power comes a widening of obligation on the part of people and communities." [201]
109. At the exact same time, the "necessary and basic question" remains "whether in the context of this progress male, as man, is ending up being really much better, that is to state, more mature spiritually, more familiar with the self-respect of his humanity, more accountable, more available to others, particularly the neediest and the weakest, and readier to give and to aid all." [202]
110. As a result, it is crucial to understand how to evaluate private applications of AI in specific contexts to identify whether its use promotes human self-respect, the vocation of the human individual, and the typical good. Just like lots of technologies, the effects of the numerous usages of AI might not always be foreseeable from their creation. As these applications and their social effects become clearer, proper actions should be made at all levels of society, following the principle of subsidiarity. Individual users, households, civil society, corporations, organizations, federal governments, and global organizations ought to work at their appropriate levels to make sure that AI is used for the good of all.

111. A substantial obstacle and chance for the typical excellent today lies in considering AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of individuals and neighborhoods and highlights our shared obligation for cultivating the important well-being of others. The twentieth-century theorist Nicholas Berdyaev observed that people typically blame makers for individual and social problems; nevertheless, "this only humiliates man and does not correspond to his dignity," for "it is unworthy to transfer obligation from male to a machine." [203] Only the human person can be morally accountable, and the difficulties of a technological society are ultimately spiritual in nature. Therefore, facing those challenges "demands a surge of spirituality." [204]
112. A further indicate consider is the call, triggered by the look of AI on the world phase, for a renewed appreciation of all that is human. Years back, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos cautioned that "the danger is not in the multiplication of devices, however in the ever-increasing number of men accustomed from their youth to desire just what makers can give." [205] This challenge is as true today as it was then, as the rapid rate of digitization runs the risk of a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable aspects of life are set aside and after that forgotten or even deemed unimportant since they can not be calculated in formal terms. AI needs to be utilized just as a tool to complement human intelligence instead of replace its richness. [206] Cultivating those elements of human life that go beyond calculation is essential for maintaining "a genuine humankind" that "seems to dwell in the midst of our technological culture, practically unnoticed, like a mist seeping carefully beneath a closed door." [207]
113. The vast expanse of the world's knowledge is now available in manner ins which would have filled previous generations with awe. However, to make sure that improvements in understanding do not end up being humanly or spiritually barren, one must surpass the mere accumulation of data and aim to attain true knowledge. [208]
114. This knowledge is the present that humanity needs most to attend to the extensive questions and ethical difficulties postured by AI: "Only by embracing a spiritual method of viewing reality, only by recovering a knowledge of the heart, can we challenge and translate the newness of our time." [209] Such "knowledge of the heart" is "the virtue that allows us to integrate the entire and its parts, our decisions and their effects." It "can not be sought from makers," however it "lets itself be found by those who seek it and be seen by those who like it; it expects those who want it, and it goes in search of those who deserve it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]
115. In a world marked by AI, we require the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "allows us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, scenarios, occasions and to uncover their genuine significance." [211]
116. Since a "person's perfection is determined not by the details or understanding they possess, but by the depth of their charity," [212] how we incorporate AI "to include the least of our brothers and siblings, the vulnerable, and those most in need, will be the true step of our mankind." [213] The "knowledge of the heart" can light up and direct the human-centered usage of this innovation to assist promote the common good, care for our "common home," advance the look for the fact, foster essential human development, favor human uniformity and fraternity, and lead mankind to its ultimate goal: joy and complete communion with God. [214]
117. From this viewpoint of wisdom, followers will have the ability to function as ethical agents capable of utilizing this technology to promote an authentic vision of the human individual and society. [215] This ought to be done with the understanding that technological progress is part of God's prepare for creation-an activity that we are called to buy toward the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the consistent 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, approved this Note and bought its publication.

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

Ex audientia die 14 ianuarii 2025 Franciscus

Contents

I. Introduction

II. What is Artificial Intelligence?

III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition

Rationality

Embodiment

Relationality

Relationship with the Truth

Stewardship of the World

An Essential Understanding of Human Intelligence

The Limits of AI

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

Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making

V. Specific Questions

AI and Society

AI and Human Relationships

AI, the Economy, and Labor

AI and Healthcare

AI and Education

AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse

AI, Privacy, and Surveillance

AI and the Protection of Our Common Home

AI and Warfare

AI and Our Relationship with God

VI. Concluding Reflections

True Wisdom

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See also Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. [2] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 307. Cf. Id., Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (21 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020 ), 43. [3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [5] J. McCarthy, et al., "A Proposition for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence" (31 August 1955), http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024). [6] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), pars. 2-3: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [7] Terms in this document explaining the outputs or processes of AI are used figuratively to explain its operations and are not planned to anthropomorphize the machine. [8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [9] Here, one can see the main positions of the "transhumanists" and the "posthumanists." Transhumanists argue that technological advancements will enable people to conquer their biological constraints and boost both their physical and cognitive abilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, contend that such advances will eventually change human identity to the level that humankind itself might no longer be considered truly "human." Both views rest on a basically 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 contact us to full awareness. Yet, this negative view of the body is inconsistent with a proper understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports genuine scientific development, it affirms that human dignity is rooted in "the individual as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "dignity is also inherent in each individual's body, which participates 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 method reflects a functionalist viewpoint, which minimizes the human mind to its functions and assumes that its functions can be completely measured in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear 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 "believing" is credited to machines, it should be clarified that this describes calculative thinking instead of important thinking. Similarly, if devices are said to operate utilizing rational thinking, it must be specified that this is limited to computational reasoning. On the other hand, by its very nature, human thought is a creative process that eludes programming and goes beyond constraints. [13] On the fundamental function of language in forming understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York 2010, 141-182). [14] For further conversation of these anthropological and doctrinal foundations, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144. [15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21. [16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [faculty] by which he is superior to the illogical animals. Now, this [faculty] is factor itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it may more appropriately be provided"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When thinking about all that they have, human beings discover that they are most identified from animals precisely by the truth they have intelligence." This is also repeated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who mentions that "male is the most best of all earthly beings endowed with movement, and his correct and natural operation is intellection," by which man abstracts from things and "receives in his mind things actually intelligible" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 76). [17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, ad 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a modern point of view that echoes components of the classical and middle ages difference in 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 dialogue, 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 individual as a being who exists in the body and is unthinkable beyond it" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Che cosa è l'uomo?" (Sal 8,5): Un itinerario di antropologia biblica [30 September 2019], par. 19). Cf. ibid., pars. 20-21, 43-44, 48. [25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100 (2008 ), 863: "Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, however instead completely revealed 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 hence it is joined to the body in order that it might have a presence and an operation ideal to its nature." [29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18. [30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357. [31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54. [32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221. [33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27. [34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls likewise possess reason and with it they circle in discourse around the reality of things. [...] [O] n account of the way in which they can concentrating the many 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 - 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 comprehending certain facts that are unvarying, as real now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, reason discovers universal worths obtained from that very same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034. [38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last proceeding of reason is to recognize that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York 1958, 77). [39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [40] Our semantic capability allows us to understand messages in any kind of interaction in a way that both considers and transcends their material or empirical structures (such as computer system code). Here, intelligence becomes a wisdom that "enables us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, circumstances, events and to discover their genuine significance" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our imagination enables us to produce new material or concepts, mainly by using an original perspective on truth. Both capabilities depend upon the presence 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 reality, is a lot more than personal sensation [...] Certainly, its close relation to reality cultivates its universality and maintains it from being 'confined to a narrow field lacking relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to fact therefore protects it from 'a fideism that denies it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643. [43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7. [44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. [46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as 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 likens the universe 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: "people occupy a special location in deep space according to the divine strategy: they delight in the benefit of sharing in the magnificent governance of visible production. [...] Since male's location as ruler remains in reality a participation in the magnificent governance of development, we mention it here as a type of stewardship." [49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165. [50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This idea is likewise shown in the creation account, where God brings 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 shows the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's development. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117. [51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301. [52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302. [53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2. [54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7. [55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8. [57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906. [58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987. [59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: "L'intelligence n'est rien sans la délectation." Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: "The mind and the will are put at the service of the greater excellent by noticing and relishing facts." [61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232). [62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he highest standard of human life is the divine law itself-eternal, objective and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the methods of the human neighborhood according to a plan conceived in his knowledge and love. God has allowed male to take part in this law of his so that, under the mild disposition of divine providence, many may be able to get to a deeper and much deeper knowledge of unchangeable reality." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. [63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016. [64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042. [66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has actually inscribed his own image and similarity on man (cf. Gen 1:26), giving upon him a matchless self-respect [...] In effect, 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 self-respect as an individual." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22. [68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310. [69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is understood as a technical term to suggest this innovation, remembering that the expression is also used to designate the discipline and not just its applications. [71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857. [72] For example, see the encouragement of clinical expedition in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the appreciation for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These writers, amongst a long list of other Catholics participated in scientific research and technological expedition, show that "faith and science can be united in charity, provided that science is put at the service of the men and lady of our time and not misused to hurt or perhaps damage them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87. [73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. [74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888. [77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658. [78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim. [79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293. [80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4. [81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts intentionally, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts." [82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776. [83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777. [84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father encouraged efforts "to guarantee that technology remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed toward the great." [85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the role of human agency in selecting a broader aim (Ziel) that then informs the particular function (Zweck) for which each technological application is produced, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um pass away Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71. [86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a function and, in its influence on human society, always represents a type of order in social relations and a plan of power, therefore allowing certain people to perform specific actions while preventing others from performing different ones. In a basically explicit method, this constitutive power-dimension of innovation constantly includes the worldview of those who developed and established it." [87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309. [88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Confronted with the marvels of makers, which appear to understand how to choose separately, we need to be extremely clear that decision-making [...] must always be left to the human person. We would condemn mankind to a future without hope if we removed people's capability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend upon the options of makers." [92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [93] The term "bias" in this file describes algorithmic bias (methodical and consistent mistakes in computer system systems that might disproportionately bias certain groups in unintentional ways) 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 utilized 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 verified the development in consensus "on the requirement for advancement processes to respect such values as addition, transparency, security, equity, privacy and reliability," and also invited "the efforts of global organizations to manage these technologies so that they promote genuine progress, contributing, that is, to a better world and an integrally higher quality of life." [95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8. [96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571. [98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For more discussion of the ethical concerns raised by AI from a Catholic point of view, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253. [99] On the significance of dialogue in a pluralist society oriented toward a "robust and strong social principles," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. [104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10. [105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; estimating the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245. [106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050. [107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047. [108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309. [109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027. [112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123. [113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034. [114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149. [115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414. [118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057. [119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985. [120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989). [123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Many individuals] want their interpersonal relationships supplied by advanced equipment, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel informs us constantly to risk of a face-to-face encounter with others, with their physical presence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their happiness which infects 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 man' and not male 'for work.' Through this conclusion one rightly pertains to recognize the pre-eminence of the subjective meaning of work over the objective one." [132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320. [133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502. [135] Ibid. [136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as priced quote 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 appears, with its painful effects, it is that of healthcare. When an ill person is not placed in the center or their self-respect is ruled out, this triggers mindsets that can lead even to speculation on the misery of others. And this is very severe! [...] The application of a service technique to the healthcare sector, if indiscriminate [...] might risk disposing of human beings." [142] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [143] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729. [144] Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on making use of Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729; Francis, Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016), 6: AAS 108 (2016 ), 57-58. [145] Francis, Address to Members of the Global Researchers Advancing Catholic Education Project (20 April 2022): AAS 114 (2022 ), 580. [146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), par. 41: AAS 68 (1976 ), 31, pricing quote Id., Address to the Members of the "Consilium de Laicis" (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: "if [the contemporary individual] does listen to instructors, it is 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 the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, pricing quote the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592. [150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167. [151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413. [152] In a 2023 policy file about using generative AI in education and research, UNESCO notes: "One of the key concerns [of the usage of generative AI (GenAI) in education and research] is whether human beings can perhaps cede standard levels of thinking and skill-acquisition procedures to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking abilities based on the outputs provided by AI. Writing, for example, is often related to the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], humans can now start with a well-structured summary provided by GenAI. Some specialists have defined 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 theorist Hannah Arendt anticipated such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and cautioned: "If it must end up being real that understanding (in the sense of knowledge) and believed have parted company for great, then we would certainly end up being the powerless slaves, not a lot of our makers as of our knowledge" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3). [153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417. [154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914. [155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479. [156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10. [157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3. [158] For example, it may assist individuals gain access to the "range of resources for creating greater knowledge of reality" contained in the works of viewpoint (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8. [159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62. [160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074. [162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be genuinely indifferent to the concern of whether what they know is real or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he writes: 'I have actually met lots of who wanted to deceive, however none who wanted to be tricked'"; estimating 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, pyra-handheld.com Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8. [165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Media (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149. [166] Dicastery for wavedream.wiki the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24. [167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no man may with impunity violate that human self-respect which God himself treats with great respect"; as priced estimate in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804. [168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), trademarketclassifieds.com 202-203. [169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human self-respect in cyberspace requires States to likewise respect the right to personal privacy, by shielding people from intrusive surveillance and allowing them to safeguard their individual details from unapproved gain access to." [170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984. [171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body identified a list of "early promises of AI helping to resolve environment modification" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The document observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can change data into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools might help establish brand-new methods and financial investments to reduce emissions, affect new personal sector financial investments in net absolutely no, safeguard biodiversity, and develop broad-based social durability" (ibid.). [174] "The cloud" refers to a network of physical servers throughout the world that makes it possible for users to shop, procedure, and manage their data from another location. [175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850. [176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890. [177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870. [178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852. [179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640. [180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317. [181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101. [182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310. [184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105. [185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We require to guarantee and protect a space for correct human control over the options made by expert system programs: human self-respect itself depends on it." [186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The development and use of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) that lack the appropriate human control would pose fundamental ethical concerns, considered that LAWS can never be ethically accountable subjects capable of adhering to global humanitarian law." [187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: "Nor can we neglect the possibility of advanced weapons winding up in the wrong hands, facilitating, for instance, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the organizations of genuine systems of federal government. In a word, the world does not require new technologies that add to the unfair advancement of commerce and the weapons trade and subsequently end up promoting the recklessness of war." [190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565. [191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878. [192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687. [193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39. [194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661. [195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a better understanding today that the mere accumulation of goods and services [...] is inadequate for the realization of human happiness. Nor, in consequence, does the availability of the lots of real benefits supplied in recent times by science and technology, including the computer technology, bring liberty from every form of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the considerable body of resources and prospective at male's disposal is directed by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the true good of the human race, it easily turns against guy 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 19832, 212-213. [204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210. [205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829. [206] Cf. Francis, Meeting the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023). [207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: "The flood of details at our fingertips does not produce greater wisdom. Wisdom is not born of fast searches on the internet nor is it a mass of unverified data. That is not the method to mature in the encounter with truth." [209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [210] Ibid. [211] Ibid. [212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121. [213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124. [214] Cf. Francis, 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.