GitLab

1. With wisdom both ancient and brand-new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are contacted us to assess the existing difficulties and chances positioned by scientific and technological improvements, particularly by the current advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian custom regards the gift of intelligence as a necessary aspect of how human beings are developed "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Starting from an integral vision of the human person and the scriptural calling to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church stresses that this gift of intelligence ought to be expressed through the responsible use of factor and technical capabilities in the stewardship of the developed world.

2. The Church motivates the development of science, innovation, the arts, and other kinds of human endeavor, viewing them as part of the "cooperation of male and female with God in refining the visible production." [1] As Sirach verifies, God "provided skill to humans, that he might be glorified in his marvelous works" (Sir. 38:6). Human capabilities and imagination originate from God and, when used rightly, glorify God by reflecting his knowledge and goodness. In light of this, when we ask ourselves what it indicates to "be human," we can not omit a consideration of our scientific and technological capabilities.

3. It is within this viewpoint that today Note addresses the anthropological and ethical obstacles raised by AI-issues that are especially substantial, as one of the goals of this innovation is to mimic the human intelligence that designed it. For example, unlike lots of 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 surpasses what human beings can do, such as producing text or images identical from human structures. This raises vital concerns about AI's prospective function in the growing crisis of fact in the general public online forum. Moreover, this innovation is developed to find out and make certain choices autonomously, adjusting to brand-new situations and offering solutions not predicted by its programmers, and thus, it raises essential questions about ethical responsibility and human security, with broader implications for society as a whole. This new circumstance has triggered many individuals to assess what it indicates to be human and the function of mankind in the world.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad consensus that AI marks a brand-new and considerable phase in humanity's engagement with technology, putting it at the heart of what Pope Francis has actually explained as an "epochal modification." [2] Its impact is felt globally and in a vast array of locations, including interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, healthcare, law, warfare, and worldwide relations. As AI advances quickly towards even higher achievements, it is seriously important to consider its anthropological and ethical implications. This includes not just mitigating threats and preventing damage however also making sure that its applications are used to promote human progress and the common good.

5. To contribute positively to the discernment regarding AI, and in reaction to Pope Francis' call for a restored "knowledge of heart," [3] the Church provides its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active role in the international discussion on these concerns, the Church welcomes those turned over with sending the faith-including moms and dads, teachers, pastors, and bishops-to dedicate themselves to this critical topic with care and attention. While this file is intended particularly for them, it is likewise meant to be available to a wider audience, particularly those who share the conviction that scientific and technological advances need to be directed towards serving the human person and the common good. [4]
6. To this end, the document begins by distinguishing in between ideas of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then checks out the Christian understanding of human intelligence, offering a structure rooted in the Church's philosophical and theological tradition. Finally, the file offers standards to ensure that the advancement and use of AI maintain human self-respect and promote the essential development of the human individual and society.

7. The principle of "intelligence" in AI has evolved in time, making use of a variety of concepts from various disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a significant milestone occurred in 1956 when the American computer researcher John McCarthy organized a summertime workshop at Dartmouth University to explore the issue of "Artificial Intelligence," which he defined as "that of making a maker behave in ways that would be called intelligent if a human were so acting." [5] This workshop introduced a research program concentrated on creating makers efficient in performing tasks usually related to the human intelligence and intelligent habits.

8. Since then, AI research study has actually advanced rapidly, leading to the development of complex systems efficient in carrying out highly sophisticated tasks. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are usually designed to deal with specific and limited functions, such as equating languages, anticipating the trajectory of a storm, categorizing images, answering concerns, or generating visual material at the user's request. While the definition of "intelligence" in AI research varies, most modern AI systems-particularly those utilizing machine learning-rely on analytical reasoning rather than logical deduction. By examining big datasets to recognize patterns, AI can "anticipate" [7] results and propose brand-new approaches, imitating some cognitive procedures normal of human problem-solving. Such accomplishments have been enabled through advances in calculating innovation (consisting of neural networks, unsupervised artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) as well as hardware developments (such as specialized processors). Together, these technologies enable AI systems to react to different forms of human input, adapt to brand-new situations, and even suggest unique services not expected by their original programmers. [8]
9. Due to these fast improvements, lots of tasks as soon as handled specifically by human beings are now delegated to AI. These systems can enhance or perhaps supersede what humans are able to carry out in lots of fields, especially in specialized locations such as information analysis, image acknowledgment, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is developed for a particular job, numerous scientists aim to develop what is called "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system capable of running across all cognitive domains and performing any job within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI could one day attain the state of "superintelligence," exceeding human intellectual capabilities, or contribute to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, however, fear that these possibilities, even if theoretical, could one day eclipse the human person, while still others welcome this potential improvement. [9]
10. Underlying this and lots of other perspectives on the topic is the implicit presumption that the term "intelligence" can be used in the same way to refer to both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not record the full scope of the idea. In the case of humans, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the person in his/her entirety, 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 devices can duplicate. [10]
11. This functional perspective is exemplified by the "Turing Test," which thinks about a maker "intelligent" if a person can not distinguish its behavior from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "habits" refers just to the performance of specific intellectual jobs; it does not represent the complete breadth of human experience, which includes abstraction, emotions, creativity, and the aesthetic, moral, and religious sensibilities. Nor does it incorporate the full series of expressions characteristic of the human mind. Instead, when it comes to AI, the "intelligence" of a system is evaluated methodologically, however also reductively, based upon its ability to produce appropriate responses-in this case, those related to the human intellect-regardless of how those responses are generated.

12. AI's innovative features offer it advanced abilities to perform jobs, however not the capability to believe. [12] This distinction is most importantly crucial, as the method "intelligence" is defined undoubtedly shapes how we comprehend the relationship in between human thought and this innovation. [13] To appreciate this, one need to recall the richness of the philosophical tradition and Christian faith, which offer a much deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's teaching on the nature, dignity, and occupation of the human person. [14]
13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has actually played a main role in understanding what it implies to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all people by nature desire to know." [15] This knowledge, with its capacity for abstraction that comprehends the nature and meaning of things, sets people apart from the animal world. [16] As philosophers, theologians, and psychologists have actually analyzed the exact nature of this intellectual faculty, they have actually also checked out how human beings comprehend the world and their special location within it. Through this exploration, the Christian tradition has pertained to comprehend 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 tradition, the idea of intelligence is often comprehended through the complementary principles of "reason" (ratio) and "intelligence" (intellectus). These are not different professors but, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are 2 modes in which the very same intelligence operates: "The term intellect is inferred from the inward grasp of the reality, while the name reason is taken from the analytical and discursive process." [18] This succinct description highlights the two essential and complementary measurements of human intelligence. Intellectus describes the user-friendly grasp of the truth-that is, nabbing it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and grounds argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to thinking correct: the discursive, analytical process that leads to judgment. Together, intellect and factor form the 2 elements of the act of intelligere, "the appropriate operation of the human being as such." [19]
15. Explaining the human person as a "reasonable" being does not decrease the individual to a particular mode of thought; rather, it acknowledges that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and penetrates all aspects of human activity. [20] Whether worked out well or badly, this capacity is an intrinsic element of human nature. In this sense, the "term 'reasonable' encompasses all the capabilities of the human person," consisting of those associated to "understanding and understanding, as well as those of prepared, loving, choosing, and preferring; it also includes all corporeal functions carefully related to these abilities." [21] This detailed point of view underscores how, in the human individual, created in the "image of God," reason is integrated in a manner that raises, shapes, and changes both the individual's will and actions. [22]
16. Christian believed thinks about the intellectual professors of the human individual within the structure of an important sociology that views the human being as essentially embodied. In the human individual, spirit and matter "are not 2 natures united, however rather their union forms a single nature." [23] Simply put, the soul is not simply the immaterial "part" of the individual contained within the body, nor is the body an external shell housing an intangible "core." Rather, the entire human individual is simultaneously both material and spiritual. This understanding shows the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which sees the human person as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and hence, an authentically spiritual dimension) within and through this embodied existence. [24] The profound meaning of this condition is further brightened by the secret of the Incarnation, through which God himself handled our flesh and "raised it up to a sublime self-respect." [25]
17. Although deeply rooted in bodily existence, the human individual goes beyond the material world through the soul, which is "practically on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intellect's capacity for transcendence and the self-possessed freedom of the will come from the soul, by which the human individual "shares in the light of the divine mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its regular mode of knowledge without the body. [28] In this method, the intellectual professors of the human individual are an integral part of a sociology that recognizes that the human individual is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further aspects of this understanding will be established in what follows.

18. People are "bought by their very nature to interpersonal communion," [30] having the capacity to understand one another, to give themselves in love, and to get in into communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not an isolated faculty but is exercised in relationships, discovering its maximum expression in dialogue, cooperation, and uniformity. We discover with others, and we find out through others.

19. The relational orientation of the human person is ultimately grounded in the eternal self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is revealed in production and redemption. [31] The human person is "contacted us to share, by understanding and love, in God's own life." [32]
20. This occupation to communion with God is necessarily tied to the call to communion with others. Love of God can not be separated from love for one's 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 magnificent life of self-giving, transcend self-interest to respond more fully to the human occupation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Much more superb than knowing numerous things is the commitment to look after one another, for if "I understand all mysteries and all understanding [...] however do not have love, I am nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2).

21. Human intelligence is eventually "God's gift fashioned for the assimilation of reality." [34] In the double sense of intellectus-ratio, it enables the individual to explore realities that exceed simple sensory experience or energy, considering that "the desire for fact is part of humanity itself. It is a natural home of human reason to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limits of empirical data, human intelligence can "with genuine certitude attain to truth itself as knowable." [36] While truth remains only partly known, the desire for truth "spurs reason constantly to go further; certainly, it is as if factor were overwhelmed to see that it can always go beyond what it has actually already attained." [37] Although Truth in itself goes beyond the borders of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this destination, the human individual is caused seek "facts of a higher order." [39]
22. This innate drive toward the pursuit of reality is particularly evident in the noticeably human capacities for semantic understanding and imagination, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "manner that is proper to the social nature and self-respect of the human person." [41] Likewise, a steadfast orientation to the fact is essential for charity to be both authentic and universal. [42]
23. The search for fact discovers its greatest expression in openness to realities that transcend the physical and created world. In God, all realities attain their supreme and original significance. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "essential choice that engages the entire individual." [44] In this way, the human individual becomes fully what he or she is called to be: "the intelligence and the will show their spiritual nature," enabling the individual "to act in such a way that understands personal liberty to the complete." [45]
24. The Christian faith understands development as the free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, produces "not to increase his splendor, however to reveal it forth and to communicate it." [46] Since God develops according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), production is imbued with an intrinsic order that reflects God's strategy (cf. Gen. 1; Dan. 2:21 -22; Is. 45:18; Ps. 74:12 -17; 104), [47] within which God has actually called humans to presume a distinct role: to cultivate and care for the world. [48]
25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, humans live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and skills to take care of and develop development in accord with God's plan. [49] In this, human intelligence shows the Divine Intelligence that created all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] constantly sustains them, and guides them to their ultimate purpose in him. [51] Moreover, human beings are contacted us to establish their capabilities in science and innovation, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in a proper relationship with creation, people, on the one hand, use their intelligence and ability to cooperate with God in directing creation toward the function to which he has actually called it. [52] On the other hand, creation itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, assists the human mind to "ascend slowly to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]
26. In this context, human intelligence becomes more plainly understood as a professors that forms an important part of how the entire individual engages with reality. Authentic engagement requires embracing the complete scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with truth unfolds in numerous ways, as everyone, in his or her complex uniqueness [54], seeks to understand the world, associate with others, fix issues, reveal creativity, and pursue essential well-being through the harmonious interplay of the numerous measurements of the individual's intelligence. [55] This involves rational and linguistic abilities however can likewise incorporate other modes of communicating with truth. Consider the work of a craftsmen, who "must know how to recognize, in inert matter, a specific type that others can not acknowledge" [56] and bring it forth through insight and practical skill. Indigenous peoples who live close to the earth typically have an extensive sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a friend who knows the ideal word to state or a person skilled at handling human relationships exemplifies an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, discussion and generous encounter in between individuals." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of synthetic intelligence, we can not forget that poetry and love are essential to save our humankind." [59]
28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the combination of truth into the ethical and spiritual life of the individual, guiding his/her actions due to God's goodness and truth. According to God's strategy, intelligence, in its maximum sense, also includes the capability to relish what is true, excellent, and beautiful. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel expressed, "intelligence is nothing without delight." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the highest heaven in Paradiso, testifies that the culmination of this intellectual pleasure is found in the "light intellectual loaded with love, love of real good filled with pleasure, pleasure which goes beyond every sweetness." [61]
29. An appropriate understanding of human intelligence, therefore, can not be decreased to the mere acquisition of facts or the ability to perform specific tasks. Instead, it includes the individual's openness to the ultimate questions of life and reflects an orientation toward the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the divine image within the individual, human intelligence has the capability to access the totality of being, pondering existence in its fullness, which surpasses what is measurable, and understanding the significance of what has actually been comprehended. For believers, this capacity includes, in a specific way, the ability to grow in the understanding of the mysteries of God by utilizing factor to engage ever more profoundly with revealed truths (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is formed by magnificent love, which "is put forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence has an important reflective dimension, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian purpose.

30. In light of the foregoing conversation, the differences in between human intelligence and existing AI systems become obvious. While AI is a remarkable technological accomplishment capable of imitating certain outputs related to human intelligence, it operates by performing tasks, attaining goals, or making decisions based upon quantitative data and computational logic. For instance, with its analytical power, AI excels at integrating data from a range of fields, modeling complex systems, and promoting interdisciplinary connections. In this way, it can assist experts collaborate in fixing complex issues that "can not be dealt with from a single point of view or from a single set of interests." [64]
31. However, even as AI processes and replicates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains fundamentally confined to a logical-mathematical structure, which enforces inherent constraints. Human intelligence, on the other hand, establishes naturally throughout the person's physical and psychological growth, formed by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although sophisticated AI systems can "learn" through processes such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is essentially various from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is formed by embodied experiences, consisting of sensory input, psychological actions, social interactions, and the distinct context of each minute. These aspects shape and kind individuals within their personal history.In contrast, AI, lacking a physical body, counts on computational thinking and knowing based on vast datasets that include tape-recorded human experiences and understanding.

32. Consequently, although AI can imitate elements of human reasoning and carry out particular tasks with unbelievable speed and performance, its computational abilities represent just a portion of the more comprehensive capabilities of the human mind. For circumstances, AI can not presently duplicate ethical discernment or the capability to establish genuine relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is positioned within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral formation that essentially shapes the individual's point of view, including the physical, emotional, social, ethical, and spiritual measurements of life. Since AI can not offer this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely entirely on this innovation or treat it as the main methods of translating the world can lead to "a loss of appreciation for the entire, for the relationships between things, and for the more comprehensive horizon." [65]
33. Human intelligence is not mainly about completing practical jobs but about understanding and actively engaging with reality in all its dimensions; it is likewise efficient in unexpected insights. Since AI lacks the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to truth and goodness, its capacities-though relatively limitless-are matchless with the human ability to comprehend reality. A lot can be gained from an illness, a welcome of reconciliation, and even a simple sunset; certainly, many experiences we have as humans open brand-new horizons and use the possibility of attaining brand-new wisdom. No gadget, working entirely with information, can measure up to these and countless other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an excessively close equivalence between human intelligence and AI dangers succumbing to a functionalist perspective, where people are valued based upon the work they can perform. However, a person's worth does not depend on having specific skills, cognitive and technological achievements, or individual success, but on the person's intrinsic self-respect, grounded in being created in the image of God. [66] This self-respect remains intact in all circumstances, including for those unable to exercise their capabilities, whether it be an unborn kid, an unconscious individual, or an older individual who is suffering. [67] It also underpins the tradition of human rights (and, in specific, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "a crucial point of convergence in the search for commonalities" [68] and can, thus, work as a basic ethical guide in conversations on the accountable development and usage of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the really usage of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can show deceptive" [69] and risks neglecting what is most valuable in the human person. In light of this, AI should not be viewed as a synthetic kind of human intelligence however as an item of it. [70]
36. Given these considerations, one can ask how AI can be understood within God's plan. To address this, it is necessary to recall that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character however is a human venture that engages the humanistic and cultural measurements of human creativity. [71]
37. Viewed as a fruit of the potential engraved within human intelligence, [72] clinical query and the advancement of technical skills belong to the "partnership of males and female with God in refining the noticeable production." [73] At the very same time, all clinical and technological achievements are, eventually, presents from God. [74] Therefore, humans need to always use their abilities in view of the greater purpose for which God has actually approved them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has actually "treated numerous evils which utilized to harm and restrict human beings," [76] a fact for which we ought to rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological developments in themselves represent real human progress. [77] The Church is particularly opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human person. [78] Like any human undertaking, technological development must be directed to serve the human person and contribute to the pursuit of "greater justice, more comprehensive fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations," which are "more important than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical ramifications of technological advancement are shared not just within the Church but also among numerous researchers, technologists, and expert associations, who significantly require ethical reflection to assist this advancement in an accountable way.

39. To resolve these difficulties, it is important to highlight the value of moral duty grounded in the dignity and vocation of the human person. This assisting concept likewise uses to concerns concerning AI. In this context, the ethical dimension takes on main importance because it is people who design systems and identify the purposes for which they are utilized. [80] Between a device and a person, just the latter is truly a moral agent-a topic of moral duty who exercises liberty in his/her decisions and accepts their effects. [81] It is not the device however the human who remains in relationship with truth and goodness, guided by an ethical conscience that calls the person "to enjoy and to do what is excellent and to prevent wicked," [82] bearing witness to "the authority of truth in referral to the supreme Good to which the human individual is drawn." [83] Likewise, between a machine and a human, only 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 reality, all of this also belongs to the person's workout of intelligence.

40. Like any item of human imagination, AI can be directed toward positive or unfavorable ends. [85] When used in manner ins which respect human self-respect and promote the well-being of people and communities, it can contribute positively to the human vocation. Yet, as in all areas where humans are called to make choices, the shadow of evil likewise looms here. Where human flexibility permits the possibility of selecting what is wrong, the ethical evaluation of this innovation will require to consider how it is directed and used.

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

42. Therefore, completions and the means used in a provided application of AI, as well as the overall vision it incorporates, should all be examined to guarantee they appreciate human self-respect and promote the common good. [88] As Pope Francis has actually specified, "the intrinsic self-respect of every male and every woman" should be "the key criterion in evaluating emerging technologies; these will prove fairly sound to the level that they assist regard that dignity and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] consisting of in the social and economic spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays a crucial function not just in designing and producing technology but likewise in directing its usage in line with the authentic good of the human individual. [90] The responsibility for handling this sensibly pertains to every level of society, assisted by the principle of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The commitment to making sure that AI always supports and promotes the supreme worth of the dignity of every human and the fullness of the human occupation serves as a criterion of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, as well as to its users. It remains legitimate for every application of the innovation at every level of its usage.

44. An assessment of the ramifications of this guiding concept might begin by considering the significance of ethical obligation. Since full ethical causality belongs just to individual representatives, not synthetic ones, it is crucial to be able to identify and specify who bears responsibility for the procedures involved in AI, especially those efficient in finding out, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up approaches and really deep neural networks allow AI to fix intricate issues, they make it challenging to understand the procedures that cause the options they adopted. This makes complex responsibility considering that if an AI application produces undesired outcomes, determining who is accountable ends up being hard. To resolve this problem, attention needs to be provided to the nature of responsibility processes in complex, highly automated settings, where results might just end up being obvious in the medium to long term. For this, it is essential that ultimate responsibility for decisions made utilizing AI rests with the human decision-makers which there is accountability for the usage of AI at each stage of the decision-making process. [91]
45. In addition to identifying who is responsible, it is vital to recognize the objectives offered to AI systems. Although these systems may utilize unsupervised self-governing learning mechanisms and in some cases follow courses that human beings can not reconstruct, they ultimately pursue goals that humans have actually appointed to them and are governed by processes developed by their designers and developers. Yet, this presents a challenge because, as AI models end up being significantly efficient in independent knowing, the ability to maintain control over them to make sure that such applications serve human functions may successfully decrease. This raises the important question of how to make sure that AI systems are bought for the good of individuals and not against them.

46. While duty for the ethical use of AI systems starts with those who develop, produce, handle, and supervise such systems, it is also shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis kept in mind, the machine "makes a technical option among several possibilities based either on well-defined criteria or on analytical inferences. People, nevertheless, not just pick, but in their hearts are capable of deciding." [92] Those who use AI to accomplish a job and follow its results create a context in which they are eventually accountable for the power they have actually handed over. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist humans in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it should be trustworthy, protected, robust enough to deal with inconsistencies, and transparent in their operation to mitigate predispositions and unintended negative effects. [93] Regulatory frameworks need to ensure that all legal entities remain liable for using AI and all its effects, with suitable safeguards for openness, privacy, and responsibility. [94] Moreover, those utilizing AI needs to beware not to become excessively depending on it for their decision-making, classifieds.ocala-news.com a trend that increases modern society's already high dependence on technology.

47. The Church's ethical and social teaching provides resources to assist guarantee that AI is used in such a way that maintains human firm. Considerations about justice, for example, need to also resolve issues such as promoting simply social dynamics, maintaining global security, and promoting peace. By working out vigilance, individuals and neighborhoods can recognize methods to utilize AI to benefit humankind while preventing applications that could deteriorate human self-respect or harm the environment. In this context, the concept of duty should be understood not just in its most limited sense but as a "responsibility for the look after others, which is more than just representing results attained." [95]
48. Therefore, AI, like any technology, can be part of a conscious and accountable response to humanity's occupation to the great. However, as previously gone over, AI should be directed by human intelligence to line up with this occupation, guaranteeing it respects the dignity of the human individual. Recognizing this "exalted self-respect," the Second Vatican Council affirmed that "the social order and its development should invariably work to the advantage of the human person." [96] Due to this, the usage of AI, as Pope Francis said, must be "accompanied by an ethic influenced by a vision of the typical great, a principles of flexibility, duty, and fraternity, efficient in cultivating the full advancement of individuals in relation to others and to the entire of development." [97]
49. Within this basic perspective, some observations follow listed below to highlight how the preceding arguments can assist offer an ethical orientation in practical circumstances, in line with the "knowledge of heart" that Pope Francis has proposed. [98] While not exhaustive, this conversation is provided in service of the dialogue that considers how AI can be utilized to maintain the self-respect of the human person and promote the typical good. [99]
50. As Pope Francis observed, "the fundamental self-respect of each person and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human household should undergird the advancement of brand-new innovations and function as unassailable requirements for examining them before they are used." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI might "introduce important developments in farming, education and culture, an improved level of life for entire nations and peoples, and the development of human fraternity and social friendship," and therefore be "utilized to promote integral human development." [101] AI could also assist organizations recognize those in need and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other comparable applications of this technology could add to human development and the typical good. [102]
52. However, while AI holds lots of possibilities for promoting the great, it can also impede or perhaps counter human development and the common good. Pope Francis has noted that "evidence to date suggests that digital innovations have actually increased inequality in our world. Not simply distinctions in product wealth, which are also significant, but also distinctions in access to political and social influence." [103] In this sense, AI might be used to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, produce new types of poverty, 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 business raises substantial ethical concerns. Exacerbating this problem is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single individual can exercise complete oversight over the huge and complicated datasets utilized for calculation. This lack of distinct responsibility produces the danger that AI might be controlled for individual or business gain or to direct popular opinion for the benefit of a specific market. Such entities, encouraged by their own interests, have the capability to exercise "forms of control as subtle as they are invasive, developing systems for the adjustment of consciences and of the democratic procedure." [105]
54. Furthermore, there is the threat of AI being utilized to promote what Pope Francis has called the "technocratic paradigm," which views all the world's problems as solvable through technological ways alone. [106] In this paradigm, human dignity and fraternity are frequently set aside in the name of effectiveness, "as if reality, goodness, and fact immediately flow from technological and economic power as such." [107] Yet, human dignity and the typical great must never ever be breached for the sake of effectiveness, [108] for "technological advancements that do not result in an enhancement in the lifestyle of all mankind, however on the contrary, exacerbate inequalities and disputes, can never count as true progress. " [109] Instead, AI must be put "at the service of another kind of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more essential." [110]
55. Attaining this objective needs a deeper reflection on the relationship in between autonomy and responsibility. Greater autonomy increases each individual's obligation across numerous elements of common 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 meant to be utilized in the service of others. [111] Therefore, rather than merely pursuing economic or technological goals, AI ought to serve "the typical good of the whole human household," which is "the sum overall of social conditions that enable people, either as groups or as people, to reach their satisfaction more completely and more easily." [112]
56. The Second Vatican Council observed that "by his inner nature male is a social being; and if he does not get in into relations with others, he can neither live nor develop his presents." [113] This conviction highlights that living in society is intrinsic to the nature and occupation of the human person. [114] As social beings, we seek relationships that include shared exchange and the pursuit of reality, in the course of which, people "show each other the truth they have found, or believe they have actually discovered, in such a method that they assist one another in the look for truth." [115]
57. Such a quest, in addition to other aspects of human communication, presupposes encounters and mutual exchange in between people shaped by their special histories, ideas, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a diverse, complex, and complex reality: individual and social, rational and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis underscores this vibrant, keeping in mind that "together, we can seek the truth in discussion, in unwinded discussion or in enthusiastic argument. To do so calls for determination; it entails minutes of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently embrace the wider experience of individuals and individuals. [...] The process of building fraternity, be it local or universal, can just be carried out by spirits that are free and available to authentic encounters." [116]
58. It remains in this context that one can consider the obstacles AI poses to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the potential to foster connections within the human family. However, it could likewise hinder a true encounter with reality and, eventually, lead individuals to "a deep and melancholic discontentment with social relations, or a hazardous sense of isolation." [117] Authentic human relationships require the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their happiness. [118] Since human intelligence is expressed and enhanced likewise in interpersonal and embodied methods, genuine and spontaneous encounters with others are vital for engaging with reality in its fullness.

59. Because "real knowledge demands an encounter with reality," [119] the increase of AI presents another obstacle. Since AI can effectively imitate the products of human intelligence, the ability to understand when one is connecting with a human or a machine 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 comprehended for what it is: a tool, not an individual. [120] This distinction is often obscured by the language utilized by practitioners, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and therefore blurs the line between human and maker.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI likewise poses specific challenges for the advancement of kids, possibly motivating them to establish patterns of interaction that deal with human relationships in a transactional way, as one would associate with a chatbot. Such routines could lead young individuals to see instructors as simple dispensers of details instead of as mentors who assist and nurture their intellectual and moral growth. Genuine relationships, rooted in empathy and an unfaltering dedication to the good of the other, are necessary and irreplaceable in cultivating the complete development of the human person.

61. In this context, it is necessary to clarify that, in spite of the use of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can truly experience compassion. Emotions can not be lowered to facial expressions or phrases generated in response to prompts; they show the way an individual, as a whole, connects to the world and to his/her own life, with the body playing a main role. True compassion requires the capability to listen, recognize another's irreducible uniqueness, invite their otherness, and comprehend the meaning behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the world of analytical judgment in which AI excels, real compassion comes from the relational sphere. It includes intuiting and collaring the lived experiences of another while maintaining the difference between self and other. [122] While AI can mimic understanding reactions, it can not reproduce the eminently individual and relational nature of authentic empathy. [123]
62. In light of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as a person need to constantly be prevented; doing so for deceitful purposes is a serious ethical violation that could deteriorate social trust. Similarly, utilizing AI to trick in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, consisting of the sphere of sexuality-is also to be considered unethical and requires cautious oversight to prevent harm, maintain transparency, and guarantee the dignity of all people. [124]
63. In a significantly isolated world, some people have turned to AI looking for deep human relationships, simple companionship, or even psychological bonds. However, while people are meant to experience genuine relationships, AI can just imitate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an integral part of how an individual grows to become who she or he is meant to be. If AI is utilized to help individuals foster authentic connections in between individuals, it can contribute favorably to the full realization of the individual. Conversely, if we replace relationships with God and with others with interactions with innovation, we run the risk of replacing authentic 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 deliberate method with reality, especially by determining with the poor and suffering, consoling those in sorrow, and creating bonds of communion with all.

64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being increasingly integrated into financial and monetary systems. Significant investments are presently being made not only in the innovation sector but likewise in energy, finance, and media, especially in the areas of marketing and sales, logistics, technological innovation, compliance, and threat management. At the same time, AI's applications in these locations have actually likewise highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of significant opportunities but also extensive dangers. A very first real crucial point in this location worries the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a few corporations-only those large companies would gain from the value created by AI rather than business that use it.

65. Other more comprehensive aspects of AI's effect on the economic-financial sphere need to likewise be carefully analyzed, especially concerning the interaction in between concrete truth and the digital world. One essential consideration in this regard involves the coexistence of varied and alternative kinds of economic and banks within a given context. This element must be motivated, as it can bring advantages in how it supports the real economy by promoting its advancement and stability, especially throughout times of crisis. Nevertheless, it should be worried that digital truths, not restricted by any spatial bonds, tend to be more homogeneous and impersonal than communities rooted in a particular location and a specific history, with a typical journey defined by shared values and hopes, but likewise by inevitable differences and divergences. This variety is an undeniable property to a community's financial life. Turning over the economy and finance totally to digital technology would decrease this range and richness. As an outcome, lots of solutions to economic issues that can be reached through natural dialogue in between the included celebrations might no longer be attainable in a world controlled by treatments and only the appearance of nearness.

66. Another area where AI is already having a profound impact is the world of work. As in numerous other fields, AI is driving basic improvements across lots of occupations, with a variety of effects. On the one hand, it has the possible to improve competence and productivity, create new jobs, make it possible for workers to focus on more innovative jobs, and open brand-new horizons for creativity and development.

67. However, while AI assures to increase productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and needs of machines rather than makers being developed to support those who work. As an outcome, contrary to the marketed benefits of AI, present techniques to the innovation can paradoxically deskill employees, subject them to automated surveillance, and relegate them to stiff and repetitive jobs. The requirement to stay up to date with the speed of technology can deteriorate workers' sense of agency and suppress the ingenious capabilities they are anticipated to bring to their work. [125]
68. AI is presently eliminating the need for some tasks that were as soon as carried out by humans. If AI is utilized to replace human employees rather than complement them, there is a "significant threat of out of proportion advantage for the few at the cost of the impoverishment of lots of." [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more effective, there is an involved danger that human labor may lose its worth in the financial world. This is the rational repercussion of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humankind oppressed to effectiveness, where, eventually, the expense of humanity must be cut. Yet, human lives are inherently important, independent of their economic output. Nevertheless, the "existing model," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to prefer a financial investment in efforts to assist the sluggish, the weak, or the less skilled to discover chances in life." [127] Because of this, "we can not enable a tool as powerful and indispensable as Artificial Intelligence to strengthen such a paradigm, however 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 individuals, and not the other way around." [129] Human work must not only be at the service of profit however at "the service of the entire human person [...] taking into consideration the individual's material needs and the requirements of his/her intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and spiritual life." [130] In this context, the Church recognizes that work is "not only a way of making one's daily bread" but is also "a vital measurement of social life" and "a method [...] of individual development, the building of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of presents. Work gives us a sense of shared duty for the advancement of the world, and ultimately, 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 fulfillment," "the goal ought to not be that technological development progressively replaces human work, for this would be destructive to humanity" [132] -rather, it needs to promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI needs to assist, not change, human judgment. Similarly, it must never degrade creativity or minimize employees to simple "cogs in a device." Therefore, "regard for the dignity of workers and the significance of work for the financial well-being of people, families, and societies, for task security and simply wages, ought to be a high priority for the worldwide neighborhood as these kinds of technology permeate more deeply into our workplaces." [133]
71. As individuals in God's recovery work, health care professionals have the vocation and responsibility to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the health care profession carries an "intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension," recognized by the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges doctors and healthcare experts to commit themselves to having "absolute respect for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Good Samaritan, this commitment is to be brought out by males and females "who decline the creation of a society of exclusion, and act rather as neighbors, raising up and fixing up the succumbed to the sake of the common good." [136]
72. Seen in this light, AI seems to hold enormous potential in a range of applications in the medical field, such as helping the diagnostic work of healthcare providers, facilitating relationships between patients and medical personnel, using brand-new treatments, and expanding access to quality care also for those who are separated or marginalized. In these ways, the technology might improve the "thoughtful and loving closeness" [137] that doctor are contacted us to reach the sick and suffering.

73. However, if AI is utilized not to enhance but to change the relationship in between patients and health care providers-leaving clients to connect with a device instead of a human being-it would lower a crucially important human relational structure to a centralized, impersonal, and unequal structure. Instead of encouraging uniformity with the ill and suffering, such applications of AI would run the risk of worsening the solitude that frequently accompanies disease, particularly in the context of a culture where "individuals are no longer viewed as a vital worth to be looked after and appreciated." [138] This abuse of AI would not line up with regard for the self-respect of the human person and uniformity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the wellness of clients and the decisions that discuss their lives are at the heart of the healthcare profession. This accountability needs medical professionals to work out all their ability and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded choices relating to those entrusted to their care, always appreciating the inviolable dignity of the patients and the requirement for notified authorization. As an outcome, decisions concerning patient treatment and the weight of responsibility they entail should constantly remain with the human individual and should never be delegated to AI. [139]
75. In addition, utilizing AI to determine who ought to receive treatment based mainly on financial steps or metrics of effectiveness represents an especially troublesome instance of the "technocratic paradigm" that need to be turned down. [140] For, "enhancing resources implies using them in an ethical and fraternal method, and not penalizing the most vulnerable." [141] Additionally, AI tools in health care are "exposed to types of bias and discrimination," where "systemic errors can easily multiply, producing not just oppressions in specific cases however likewise, due to the cause and effect, real types of social inequality." [142]
76. The combination of AI into healthcare likewise presents the risk of amplifying other existing variations in access to treatment. As health care ends up being progressively oriented towards avoidance and lifestyle-based approaches, AI-driven options might inadvertently prefer more wealthy populations who already delight in better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This pattern risks strengthening a "medicine for the rich" design, where those with financial means gain from sophisticated preventative tools and personalized health details while others struggle to gain access to even standard services. To prevent such injustices, fair frameworks are required to make sure that the usage 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 totally appropriate today: "True education aims to form individuals with a view towards their last end and the good of the society to which they belong." [143] As such, education is "never ever a mere procedure of handing down realities and intellectual abilities: rather, its aim is to add to the individual's holistic formation in its various aspects (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, etc), including, for instance, community life and relations within the scholastic neighborhood," [144] in keeping with the nature and dignity of the human individual.

78. This method involves a commitment to cultivating the mind, however always as a part of the important advancement of the person: "We need to break that concept of education which holds that educating ways filling one's head with concepts. That is the way we educate robots, cerebral minds, not individuals. Educating is taking a threat in the stress in between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]
79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human person is the indispensable relationship in between teacher and trainee. Teachers do more than communicate 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 promotes trust, mutual understanding, and the capability to address everyone's unique dignity and capacity. On the part of the trainee, this can generate a real desire to grow. The physical existence of an instructor creates a relational dynamic that AI can not replicate, one that deepens engagement and nurtures the trainee's important advancement.

80. In this context, AI provides both chances and challenges. If used in a sensible manner, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and ordered to the authentic goals of education, AI can end up being an important educational resource by boosting access to education, using tailored assistance, and supplying instant feedback to trainees. These advantages could boost the knowing experience, particularly in cases where personalized attention is needed, or academic resources are otherwise scarce.

81. Nevertheless, a crucial part of education is forming "the intelligence to reason well in all matters, to connect towards fact, and to grasp 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 all the more vital in an age marked by innovation, in which "it is no longer merely a concern of 'using' instruments of communication, but of living in a highly digitalized culture that has had a profound effect on [...] our ability to interact, discover, be notified and participate in relationship with others." [149] However, instead of cultivating "a cultivated intelligence," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and occupation that it carries out," [150] the comprehensive usage of AI in education could result in the trainees' increased dependence on technology, eroding their capability to perform some abilities separately and aggravating their reliance on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are created to help people develop their vital believing abilities and analytical abilities, many others merely offer answers instead of prompting trainees to get to answers themselves or compose text for themselves. [152] Instead of training youths how to collect details and generate fast actions, education should motivate "the accountable use of freedom to face problems with common sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in making use of kinds of expert system need to aim above all at promoting vital thinking. Users of any ages, however especially the young, require to develop a discerning approach to making use of data and content gathered online or produced by expert system systems. Schools, universities, and clinical societies are challenged to assist trainees and specialists to comprehend the social and ethical elements of the advancement and uses of innovation." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II recalled, "in the world today, defined by such rapid developments in science and technology, the tasks of a Catholic University assume an ever greater significance and urgency." [155] In a specific method, Catholic universities are prompted to be present as excellent laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary secret, they are prompted to engage "with wisdom and imagination" [156] in mindful research study on this phenomenon, helping to draw out the salutary potential within the numerous fields of science and truth, and directing them constantly towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the typical excellent, reaching new frontiers in the discussion in between faith and factor.

84. Moreover, it must be noted that existing AI programs have actually been understood to supply prejudiced or made details, which can lead trainees to rely on inaccurate content. This issue "not just risks of legitimizing fake news and strengthening a dominant culture's benefit, but, simply put, it also undermines the instructional process itself." [157] With time, clearer differences may emerge between appropriate and inappropriate usages of AI in education and research study. Yet, a decisive guideline is that making use of AI need to always be transparent and never ever misrepresented.

85. AI might be used as an aid to human dignity if it helps people comprehend intricate ideas or directs them to sound resources that support their look for the reality. [158]
86. However, AI also provides a serious danger of creating controlled material and incorrect details, which can easily mislead people due to its similarity to the truth. Such misinformation might happen unintentionally, as in the case of AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine but are not. Since generating material that mimics human artifacts is main to AI's performance, alleviating these threats proves difficult. Yet, the consequences of such aberrations and incorrect details can be quite severe. For this reason, all those included in producing and utilizing AI systems must be devoted to the truthfulness and precision of the details processed by such systems and disseminated to the public.

87. While AI has a latent capacity to produce false details, a much more unpleasant issue depends on the deliberate misuse of AI for manipulation. This can happen when individuals or companies deliberately produce and spread out false material with the aim to trick or cause harm, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to a false depiction of a person, edited or created by an AI algorithm. The threat of deepfakes is particularly apparent when they are utilized to target or damage others. While the images or videos themselves may be artificial, the damage they cause is genuine, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "genuine wounds in their human self-respect." [159]
88. On a wider scale, by distorting "our relationship with others and with truth," [160] AI-generated fake media can gradually undermine the foundations of society. This concern requires cautious guideline, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or affected media-can spread inadvertently, sustaining political polarization and social discontent. When society becomes indifferent to the reality, numerous groups construct their own variations of "truths," damaging the "mutual ties and shared reliances" [161] that underpin the fabric of social life. As deepfakes trigger individuals to question whatever and AI-generated false content erodes rely on what they see and hear, polarization and conflict will just grow. Such prevalent deception is no unimportant matter; it strikes at the core of mankind, taking apart the foundational trust on which societies are built. [162]
89. Countering AI-driven falsehoods is not just the work of market experts-it requires the efforts of all individuals of goodwill. "If innovation is to serve human dignity and not harm it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human neighborhood needs to be proactive in resolving these patterns with respect to human dignity and the promotion of the excellent." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated content ought to constantly exercise diligence in validating the truth of what they distribute and, in all cases, ought to "prevent the sharing of words and images that are breaking down of people, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that make use of the weak and vulnerable." [164] This requires the continuous vigilance and careful discernment of all users concerning their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are inherently relational, and the data everyone produces in the digital world can be seen as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data conveys not only details however likewise individual and relational understanding, which, in an increasingly digitized context, can total up to power over the individual. Moreover, while some kinds of data might pertain to public elements of a person's life, others might discuss the individual's interiority, possibly even their conscience. Seen in this method, personal privacy plays a necessary role in protecting the limits of a person's inner life, maintaining their flexibility to associate with others, reveal themselves, and make choices without unnecessary control. This security is likewise tied to the defense of religious freedom, as monitoring can likewise be misused to exert control over the lives of believers and how they express their faith.

91. It is suitable, therefore, to resolve the concern of personal privacy from an issue for the genuine freedom and inalienable dignity of the human individual "in all situations." [166] The Second Vatican Council included the right "to secure privacy" among the basic rights "required for living a truly human life," a right that needs to be encompassed all people on account of their "superb dignity." [167] Furthermore, the Church has likewise verified the right to the genuine regard for a private life in the context of affirming the individual's right to a good reputation, defense of their physical and mental integrity, and freedom from damage or excessive intrusion [168] -vital elements of the due respect for the intrinsic self-respect of the human person. [169]
92. Advances in AI-powered data processing and analysis now make it possible to infer patterns in a person's behavior and thinking from even a percentage of details, making the role of information personal privacy even more imperative as a protect for the dignity and relational nature of the human person. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant attitudes towards others are on the increase, ranges are otherwise shrinking or disappearing to the point that the right to privacy rarely exists. Everything has actually become a sort of spectacle to be taken a look at and inspected, and people's lives are now under continuous monitoring." [170]
93. While there can be genuine and correct ways to use AI in keeping with human self-respect and the typical excellent, using it for surveillance aimed at making use of, restricting others' flexibility, or benefitting a few at the expenditure of the many is unjustifiable. The threat of surveillance overreach need to be monitored by suitable regulators to ensure transparency and public accountability. Those accountable for surveillance should never ever exceed their authority, which should always prefer the self-respect and flexibility of every person as the necessary basis of a just and humane society.

94. Furthermore, "fundamental regard for human self-respect demands that we decline to enable the individuality of the person to be determined with a set of information." [171] This especially applies when AI is utilized to examine people or groups based on their habits, qualities, or history-a practice referred to as "social scoring": "In social and economic decision-making, we need to be cautious about entrusting judgments to algorithms that process data, typically collected surreptitiously, on a person's makeup and prior habits. Such information can be contaminated by social bias and prejudgments. A person's past habits must not be utilized to deny him or her the opportunity to change, grow, and contribute to society. We can not enable algorithms to restrict or condition regard for human self-respect, or to exclude compassion, grace, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that individuals have the ability to change." [172]
95. AI has lots of appealing applications for enhancing our relationship with our "common home," such as developing models to forecast severe environment events, proposing engineering services to minimize their impact, managing relief operations, and forecasting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable farming, optimize energy usage, and offer early caution systems for public health emergency situations. These advancements have the possible to reinforce durability against climate-related challenges and promote more sustainable development.

96. At the exact same time, present AI designs and the hardware required to support them consume large quantities of energy and water, considerably contributing to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This reality is typically obscured by the way this technology exists in the popular creativity, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can give the impression that data is kept and processed in an intangible realm, detached from the real world. However, "the cloud" is not an ethereal domain different from the physical world; just like all calculating innovations, it depends on physical machines, cable televisions, and energy. The very same is true of the innovation behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, particularly large language models (LLMs), they need ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and greater storage infrastructure. Considering the heavy toll these technologies take on the environment, it is important to develop sustainable solutions that decrease their influence on our common home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is essential "that we look for services not just in technology however in a modification of humanity." [175] A complete and genuine understanding of creation recognizes that the value of all developed things can not be decreased to their simple energy. Therefore, a fully human technique to the stewardship of the earth turns down the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which looks for to "draw out whatever possible" from the world, [176] and declines the "misconception of development," which presumes that "ecological issues will resolve themselves merely with the application of new technology and with no need for ethical considerations or deep modification." [177] Such a mindset needs to pave the way to a more holistic approach that respects the order of development and promotes the important good of the human person while protecting our typical home. [178]
98. The Second Vatican Council and the constant mentor of the Popes because then have actually insisted that peace is not simply the absence of war and is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers in between enemies. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the tranquility of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without securing the items of persons, complimentary communication, regard for the self-respect of persons and individuals, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity and can not be attained through force alone; instead, it should be mainly built through client diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, uniformity, important human advancement, and regard for the self-respect of all individuals. [180] In this method, the tools used to maintain peace should never ever be enabled to justify oppression, violence, or injustice. Instead, they should constantly be governed by a "firm decision to respect other individuals and nations, together with their dignity, as well as the deliberate practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical abilities could assist countries look for peace and ensure security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can likewise be extremely bothersome. Pope Francis has observed that "the ability to perform military operations through push-button control systems has actually resulted in a lessened perception of the destruction brought on by those weapon systems and the problem of obligation for their use, leading to a a lot more cold and detached method to the tremendous disaster of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which autonomous weapons make war more viable militates against the concept of war as a last option in genuine self-defense, [183] possibly increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and speeding up a destabilizing arms race, with disastrous repercussions for human rights. [184]
100. In particular, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which are capable of identifying and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for grave ethical concern" due to the fact that they do not have the "distinct human capacity for moral judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this reason, Pope Francis has actually urgently called for a reconsideration of the advancement of these weapons and a restriction on their usage, beginning with "a reliable and concrete commitment to present ever greater and correct human control. No device must ever select to take the life of a human being." [186]
101. Since it is a small action from makers that can eliminate autonomously with accuracy to those efficient in massive destruction, some AI researchers have actually expressed concerns that such innovation presents an "existential danger" by having the possible to act in manner ins which could threaten the survival of entire areas or even of humankind itself. This risk demands severe attention, showing the enduring issue about innovations that give war "an unmanageable damaging power over excellent numbers of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing kids. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "undertake an evaluation of war with a completely brand-new attitude" [188] is more immediate than ever.

102. At the same time, while the theoretical threats of AI should have attention, the more instant and pressing issue depends on how individuals with malicious objectives may abuse this innovation. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future capabilities are unpredictable, humanity's previous actions provide clear cautions. The atrocities dedicated throughout history are adequate to raise deep concerns about the potential abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that "mankind now has instruments of extraordinary power: we can turn this world into a garden, or reduce it to a stack of rubble." [190] Given this truth, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are complimentary to apply our intelligence towards things developing favorably," or towards "decadence and shared destruction." [191] To avoid humanity from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there need to be a clear stand against all applications of technology that inherently threaten human life and dignity. This dedication needs cautious discernment about making use of AI, especially in military defense applications, to ensure that it constantly respects human self-respect and serves the typical good. The advancement and deployment of AI in armaments should go through the highest levels of ethical examination, governed by a concern for human dignity and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology uses exceptional tools to oversee and establish the world's resources. However, in many cases, humankind is progressively ceding control of these resources to makers. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, there is optimism about the capacity of synthetic general intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical kind of AI that would match or surpass human intelligence and bring about inconceivable advancements. Some even speculate that AGI could attain superhuman abilities. At the same time, as society drifts away from a connection with the transcendent, some are tempted to turn to AI searching for meaning or fulfillment-longings that can just be genuinely satisfied in communion with God. [194]
105. However, the anticipation of replacing God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture clearly cautions against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI may show even more seductive than conventional idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths however do not speak; eyes, however do not see; ears, but do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or a minimum of offers the illusion of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is vital to bear in mind that AI is however a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated material, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not possess many of the capabilities particular to human life, and it is likewise imperfect. By turning to AI as a viewed "Other" higher than itself, with which to share existence and duties, mankind dangers developing an alternative to God. However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, but humankind itself-which, in this method, ends up being enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the prospective to serve humanity and add to the typical excellent, it remains a creation of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and resourcefulness" (Acts 17:29). It should never ever be ascribed excessive worth. As the Book of Wisdom verifies: "For a guy made them, and one whose spirit is obtained formed them; for no guy can form a god which is like himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is better than the objects he worships considering that he has life, but they never ever have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. On the other hand, humans, "by their interior life, go beyond the whole product universe; they experience this deep interiority when they participate in their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they decide their own fate in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis reminds us, that each individual finds the "strange connection in between self-knowledge and openness to others, in between the encounter with one's individual uniqueness and the desire to give oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "efficient in setting our other powers and passions, and our whole individual, in a stance of reverence and loving obedience before the Lord," [198] who "offers to treat each one of us as a 'Thou,' constantly and forever." [199]
108. Considering the numerous obstacles postured by advances in innovation, Pope Francis stressed the requirement for growth in "human obligation, values, and conscience," proportionate to the development in the capacity that this technology brings [200] -acknowledging that "with a boost in human power comes a widening of obligation on the part of individuals and neighborhoods." [201]
109. At the very same time, the "important and fundamental concern" remains "whether in the context of this development guy, as guy, is becoming really better, that is to say, more fully grown spiritually, more familiar with the self-respect of his humankind, more responsible, more available to others, specifically the neediest and the weakest, and readier to offer and to aid all." [202]
110. As a result, it is important to understand how to assess specific applications of AI in specific contexts to determine whether its use promotes human self-respect, the vocation of the human person, and the common good. Just like lots of innovations, the effects of the numerous usages of AI might not always be foreseeable from their beginning. As these applications and their social impacts become clearer, suitable reactions must be made at all levels of society, following the concept of subsidiarity. Individual users, families, civil society, corporations, organizations, governments, and global companies ought to work at their appropriate levels to ensure that AI is utilized for the good of all.

111. A considerable challenge and opportunity for the typical excellent today depends on thinking about AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which highlights the interconnectedness of individuals and communities and highlights our shared obligation for cultivating the integral well-being of others. The twentieth-century theorist Nicholas Berdyaev observed that people typically blame devices for individual and social issues; however, "this just embarrasses guy and does not correspond to his dignity," for "it is unworthy to move duty from man to a machine." [203] Only the human person can be ethically responsible, and the challenges of a technological society are ultimately spiritual in nature. Therefore, dealing with those challenges "demands an augmentation of spirituality." [204]
112. A more point to consider is the call, triggered by the appearance of AI on the world phase, for a renewed appreciation of all that is human. Years ago, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos alerted that "the risk is not in the reproduction of devices, however in the ever-increasing number of males accustomed from their childhood to desire just what machines can give." [205] This obstacle is as real today as it was then, as the quick speed of digitization risks a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable aspects of life are set aside and then forgotten or even deemed unimportant due to the fact that they can not be calculated in formal terms. AI ought to be used just as a tool to match human intelligence instead of change its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that go beyond computation is vital for maintaining "a genuine humanity" that "appears to dwell in the middle of our technological culture, practically unnoticed, like a mist permeating carefully below a closed door." [207]
113. The large area of the world's understanding is now available in manner ins which would have filled past generations with awe. However, to guarantee that improvements in knowledge do not end up being humanly or spiritually barren, one should go beyond the simple accumulation of information and aim to attain real wisdom. [208]
114. This knowledge is the present that humankind requires most to attend to the extensive questions and ethical difficulties presented by AI: "Only by adopting a spiritual method of viewing reality, only by recovering a wisdom of the heart, can we challenge and interpret the newness of our time." [209] Such "wisdom of the heart" is "the virtue that enables us to incorporate the whole and its parts, our decisions and their effects." It "can not be looked for from devices," but it "lets itself be found by those who seek it and be seen by those who enjoy it; it prepares for those who prefer it, and it enters search of those who deserve it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]
115. In a world marked by AI, we need the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "allows us to look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, situations, occasions and to discover their genuine meaning." [211]
116. Since a "person's perfection is measured not by the details or knowledge they possess, but by the depth of their charity," [212] how we include AI "to consist of the least of our siblings and sisters, the vulnerable, and those most in requirement, will be the true procedure of our mankind." [213] The "knowledge of the heart" can illuminate and direct the human-centered usage of this innovation to help promote the typical great, look after our "common home," advance the look for the fact, foster essential human advancement, prefer human uniformity and fraternity, and lead humankind to its supreme objective: happiness and full communion with God. [214]
117. From this viewpoint of knowledge, believers will be able to function as moral representatives capable of utilizing this technology to promote a genuine vision of the human individual and society. [215] This need to be made with the understanding that technological development is part of God's prepare for creation-an activity that we are called to order toward the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the continual search for the True and the Good.

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

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

Ex audientia pass away 14 ianuarii 2025 Franciscus

Contents

I. Introduction

II. What is Artificial Intelligence?

III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition

Rationality

Embodiment

Relationality

Relationship with the Truth

Stewardship of the World

An Integral Understanding of Human Intelligence

The Limits of AI

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

Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making

V. Specific Questions

AI and Society

AI and Human Relationships

AI, the Economy, and Labor

AI and Healthcare

AI and Education

AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse

AI, Privacy, and Surveillance

AI and the Protection of Our Common Home

AI and Warfare

AI and Our Relationship with God

VI. Concluding Reflections

True Wisdom

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See likewise Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. [2] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 307. Cf. Id., Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (21 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020 ), 43. [3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [5] J. McCarthy, et al., "A Proposition for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence" (31 August 1955), http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024). [6] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), pars. 2-3: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [7] Terms in this file explaining the outputs or procedures of AI are used figuratively to explain its operations and are not intended 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 make it possible for people to overcome their biological constraints and improve both their physical and cognitive capabilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, compete that such advances will eventually change human identity to the level that humanity itself might no longer be thought about truly "human." Both views rest on an essentially unfavorable understanding of human corporality, which treats the body more as a barrier than as an important part of the person's identity and call to complete realization. Yet, this unfavorable view of the body is inconsistent with an appropriate understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports genuine scientific progress, it affirms that human dignity is rooted in "the individual as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "dignity is likewise intrinsic in each individual's body, which gets involved in its own method remaining in imago Dei" (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18). [10] This approach shows a functionalist perspective, which lowers the human mind to its functions and assumes that its functions can be completely quantified in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear genuinely intelligent, it would still remain functional in nature. [11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460. [12] If "believing" is credited to devices, it needs to be clarified that this describes calculative thinking rather than important thinking. Similarly, if devices are said to operate utilizing logical thinking, it must be defined that this is limited to computational reasoning. On the other hand, by its very nature, human idea is an imaginative process that avoids programs and transcends constraints. [13] On the foundational function of language in shaping understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York City 2010, 141-182). [14] For further conversation of these anthropological and doctrinal structures, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144. [15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21. [16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi 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 remarkable to the illogical animals. Now, this [professors] is factor itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it may more suitably be given"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When thinking about all that they have, humans discover that they are most identified from animals specifically by the fact they possess intelligence." This is also restated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who states that "guy is the most perfect of all earthly beings enhanced with motion, and his appropriate and natural operation is intellection," by which male abstracts from things and "receives in his mind things really intelligible" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 76). [17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, advertisement 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a modern point of view that echoes aspects of the classical and medieval difference between these 2 modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York City 2011. [19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp. [20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138. [21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intelligence can examine the reality of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and pertain to recognize in that truth, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal moral needs." [22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp. [24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "normally considers the human individual as a being who exists in the body and is unimaginable beyond it" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Che cosa è l'uomo?" (Sal 8,5): Un itinerario di antropologia biblica [30 September 2019], par. 19). Cf. ibid., pars. 20-21, 43-44, 48. [25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100 (2008 ), 863: "Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, but instead totally 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 unified to the body in order that it might have an existence and an operation appropriate to its nature." [29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18. [30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357. [31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54. [32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221. [33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27. [34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls likewise possess reason and with it they circle in discourse around the reality of things. [...] [O] n account of the manner in which they are capable of focusing the 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 City - Mahwah 1987, 106-107). [35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 3: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7. [36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 42: AAS 91 (1999 ), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1043: "the human mind is capable of going beyond instant issues and understanding certain facts that are changeless, as real now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, factor discovers universal worths obtained from that exact same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034. [38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last proceeding of factor is to recognize that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York City 1958, 77). [39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [40] Our semantic capacity permits us to comprehend messages in any type of interaction in a manner that both takes into account and their product or empirical structures (such as computer system code). Here, intelligence becomes a wisdom that "enables us to look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, circumstances, occasions and to uncover their real meaning" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our imagination allows us to produce new material or concepts, mainly by providing an initial viewpoint on reality. Both capabilities depend on the presence of an individual subjectivity for their complete awareness. [41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. [42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a commitment to the truth, is far more than personal sensation [...] Certainly, its close relation to fact fosters its universality and maintains it from being 'confined to a narrow field devoid of relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to fact therefore secures it from 'a fideism that denies it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643. [43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7. [44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. [46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294. [47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure compares deep space to "a book showing, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who approves existence to all things (Breviloquium 2.12.1). Cf. Alain de Lille, De Incarnatione Christi, PL 210, 579a: "Omnis mundi creatura quasi liber et pictura nobis est et speculum." [48] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 67: AAS 107 (2015 ), 874; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589-592; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 57: "humans occupy a special place in deep space according to the magnificent plan: they enjoy the advantage of sharing in the magnificent governance of visible production. [...] Since guy's location as ruler remains in fact a participation in the divine governance of creation, we speak of it here as a form of stewardship." [49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165. [50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This concept is likewise reflected in the production account, where God brings creatures to Adam "to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living creature, that was its name" (Gen. 2:19), an action that demonstrates the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's development. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117. [51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301. [52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302. [53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2. [54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7. [55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8. [57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906. [58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987. [59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: "L'intelligence n'est rien sans la délectation." Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: "The mind and the will are put at the service of the higher good by picking up and appreciating truths." [61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232). [62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he greatest norm of human life is the divine law itself-eternal, objective and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the ways of the human community according to a strategy conceived in his wisdom and love. God has actually enabled guy to participate in this law of his so that, under the mild disposition of magnificent providence, lots of might be able to come to a much deeper and much deeper knowledge of unchangeable fact." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. [63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016. [64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042. [66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has actually inscribed his own image and similarity on guy (cf. Gen 1:26), providing upon him a matchless dignity [...] In impact, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not represent any work he carries out, however which circulation from his necessary dignity as a person." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22. [68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310. [69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is understood as a technical term to suggest this innovation, remembering that the expression is also utilized to designate the field of study and not only its applications. [71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857. [72] For example, see the motivation of clinical expedition in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the gratitude for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These authors, among a long list of other Catholics took part in scientific research study and technological exploration, highlight that "faith and science can be unified in charity, provided that science is put at the service of the guys and lady of our time and not misused to hurt or even damage them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87. [73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. [74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888. [77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658. [78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim. [79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293. [80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4. [81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes guy a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, male is, so to speak, the daddy of his acts." [82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776. [83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777. [84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father motivated efforts "to make sure that technology remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed toward the good." [85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the function of human agency in choosing a broader aim (Ziel) that then informs the specific function (Zweck) for which each technological application is developed, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um die Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71. [86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a purpose and, in its effect on human society, always represents a type of order in social relations and a plan of power, thus making it possible for certain individuals to perform specific actions while avoiding others from carrying out different ones. In a basically specific method, this constitutive power-dimension of innovation always includes the worldview of those who created and established it." [87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309. [88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Confronted with the marvels of makers, which seem to know how to pick individually, we must be extremely clear that decision-making [...] need to constantly be delegated the human individual. We would condemn humankind to a future without hope if we took away people's capability to make choices about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend upon the choices of devices." [92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [93] The term "bias" in this document describes algorithmic bias (systematic and constant errors in computer system systems that may disproportionately prejudice certain groups in unintentional ways) or finding out predisposition (which will lead to training on a prejudiced data set) and not the "predisposition vector" in neural networks (which is a criterion utilized to change the output of "neurons" to change more accurately to the data). [94] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father verified the growth in consensus "on the need for advancement procedures to appreciate such values as addition, transparency, security, equity, personal privacy and dependability," and also welcomed "the efforts of international organizations to manage these technologies so that they promote authentic development, contributing, that is, to a much better world and an integrally higher quality of life." [95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8. [96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571. [98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For more discussion of the ethical questions raised by AI from a Catholic viewpoint, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253. [99] On the importance of dialogue in a pluralist society oriented toward a "robust and solid social ethics," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. [104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10. [105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; 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 ), fishtanklive.wiki 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] desire their social relationships offered 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 an in person encounter with others, with their physical existence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their pleasure which infects us in our close and continuous interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from subscription in the community, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045. [124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1. [125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899. [126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107. [128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' teaching about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893. [129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as priced quote in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453. [130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: "work is 'for guy' and not man 'for work.' Through this conclusion one appropriately pertains to acknowledge the pre-eminence of the subjective significance of work over the objective one." [132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320. [133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502. [135] Ibid. [136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as quoted in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8. [137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops' Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: "If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture appears, with its painful repercussions, it is that of healthcare. When a sick person is not positioned in the center or their dignity is not considered, this offers rise to mindsets that can lead even to speculation on the misfortune of others. And this is really severe! [...] The application of a company approach to the healthcare sector, if indiscriminate [...] may risk disposing of humans." [142] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [143] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729. [144] Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on the Use of Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729; Francis, Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016), 6: AAS 108 (2016 ), 57-58. [145] Francis, Address to Members of the Global Researchers Advancing Catholic Education Project (20 April 2022): AAS 114 (2022 ), 580. [146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), par. 41: AAS 68 (1976 ), 31, estimating Id., Address to the Members of the "Consilium de Laicis" (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: "if [the contemporary person] does listen to instructors, it is because they are witnesses." [147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126. [148] Francis, Meeting with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, pricing quote the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592. [150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167. [151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413. [152] In a 2023 policy document about the use of generative AI in education and research study, UNESCO notes: "One of the crucial questions [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 processes to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking skills based on the outputs provided by AI. Writing, for instance, is often connected with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], humans can now start with a well-structured overview offered by GenAI. Some specialists have actually identified making use of GenAI to create text in this method as 'composing without thinking'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American philosopher Hannah Arendt anticipated such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and cautioned: "If it must end up being true that knowledge (in the sense of know-how) and thought have parted business for good, then we would certainly end up being the powerless slaves, not so much of our machines since our know-how" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3). [153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417. [154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914. [155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479. [156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10. [157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3. [158] For example, it might help individuals gain access to the "range of resources for creating higher understanding of truth" contained in the works of viewpoint (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8. [159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62. [160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): oke.zone L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074. [162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be really indifferent to the question of whether what they understand holds true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he composes: 'I have actually satisfied many who wished to trick, but none who wished to be tricked'"; pricing estimate Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794. [163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62. [164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8. [165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Media (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149. [166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24. [167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no man might with impunity breach that human self-respect which God himself treats with terrific respect"; as estimated in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804. [168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203. [169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human dignity in cyberspace obliges States to also appreciate the right to privacy, by protecting citizens from intrusive surveillance and permitting them to protect their individual details from unauthorized gain access to." [170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984. [171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body recognized a list of "early guarantees of AI helping to address climate modification" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The file observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can transform information into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools may assist establish brand-new strategies and investments to decrease emissions, influence brand-new personal sector investments in net zero, protect biodiversity, and construct broad-based social durability" (ibid.). [174] "The cloud" refers to a network of physical servers throughout the world that enables users to shop, procedure, and manage their data remotely. [175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850. [176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890. [177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870. [178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852. [179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640. [180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317. [181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101. [182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310. [184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105. [185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We require to guarantee and protect an area for correct human control over the choices made by artificial intelligence programs: human dignity itself depends on it." [186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The development and usage of deadly autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) that do not have the appropriate human control would position essential ethical issues, considered that LAWS can never be morally responsible subjects efficient in adhering to international humanitarian law." [187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: "Nor can we overlook the possibility of sophisticated weapons winding up in the incorrect hands, assisting in, for example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the institutions of genuine systems of federal government. In a word, the world does not need brand-new technologies that contribute to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and subsequently wind up promoting the recklessness of war." [190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565. [191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878. [192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687. [193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39. [194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661. [195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a much better understanding today that the simple build-up of goods and services [...] is insufficient for the awareness of human joy. Nor, in effect, does the availability of the lots of genuine advantages provided in current times by science and innovation, including the computer technology, bring liberty from every kind of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the substantial body of resources and prospective at guy's disposal is directed by an ethical understanding and by an orientation towards the real good of the mankind, it easily turns against male to oppress him." Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564. [196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6. [199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6. [200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. The End of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83). [201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288. [203] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," in C. Mitcham - R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York 19832, 212-213. [204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210. [205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829. [206] Cf. Francis, Meeting with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023). [207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: "The flood of details at our fingertips does not make for higher wisdom. Wisdom is not born of fast searches on the web nor is it a mass of unproven data. That is not the way to mature in the encounter with fact." [209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [210] Ibid. [211] Ibid. [212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121. [213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124. [214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.