GitLab

1. With wisdom both ancient and new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are contacted us to reflect on the present difficulties and opportunities postured by clinical and technological improvements, especially by the current development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian tradition regards the gift of intelligence as a vital aspect of how people are developed "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Starting from an essential vision of the human person and the scriptural calling to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church highlights that this present of intelligence need to be expressed through the responsible usage of factor and technical capabilities in the stewardship of the created world.

2. The Church motivates the improvement of science, technology, the arts, and other forms of human venture, viewing them as part of the "collaboration of males and female with God in refining the visible creation." [1] As Sirach verifies, God "provided skill to people, that he might be glorified in his wonderful works" (Sir. 38:6). Human abilities and creativity come from God and, when utilized appropriately, glorify God by showing his knowledge and goodness. In light of this, when we ask ourselves what it indicates to "be human," we can not exclude a factor to consider of our scientific and technological abilities.

3. It is within this viewpoint that the present 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 imitate the human intelligence that created it. For example, unlike many other human productions, AI can be trained on the results of human imagination and after that produce new "artifacts" with a level of speed and skill that typically equals or exceeds what human beings can do, such as producing text or images equivalent from human structures. This raises important issues about AI's possible function in the growing crisis of fact in the general public online forum. Moreover, this innovation is developed to discover and make certain choices autonomously, adapting to new circumstances and supplying solutions not visualized by its developers, and thus, it raises fundamental concerns about ethical responsibility and human safety, with wider ramifications for society as a whole. This new situation has actually triggered many individuals to review what it indicates to be human and the role of mankind worldwide.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad consensus that AI marks a brand-new and significant phase in humanity's engagement with innovation, putting it at the heart of what Pope Francis has actually explained as an "epochal change." [2] Its effect is felt worldwide and in a wide variety of areas, including interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, healthcare, law, warfare, and global relations. As AI advances quickly toward even higher accomplishments, it is critically crucial to consider its anthropological and ethical implications. This includes not only mitigating risks and avoiding harm however likewise ensuring that its applications are used to promote human progress and the common good.

5. To contribute favorably to the discernment concerning AI, and in response to Pope Francis' require a restored "knowledge of heart," [3] the Church offers its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active role in the international discussion on these problems, the Church invites those turned over with transmitting the faith-including parents, instructors, pastors, and bishops-to devote themselves to this crucial subject with care and attention. While this file is intended especially for them, it is likewise implied to be available to a broader audience, especially those who share the conviction that scientific and technological advances must be directed toward serving the human person and the common good. [4]
6. To this end, the file starts by identifying in between concepts of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then checks out the Christian understanding of human intelligence, supplying a framework rooted in the Church's philosophical and doctrinal tradition. Finally, the file offers standards to guarantee that the development and use of AI maintain human self-respect and promote the important advancement of the human person and society.

7. The principle of "intelligence" in AI has developed gradually, drawing on a range of concepts from different disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a considerable turning point took place in 1956 when the American computer researcher John McCarthy arranged a summer season workshop at Dartmouth University to check out the issue of "Artificial Intelligence," which he defined as "that of making a maker act in manner ins which would be called intelligent if a human were so behaving." [5] This workshop introduced a research program concentrated on developing makers efficient in carrying out tasks usually connected with the human intelligence and smart behavior.

8. Since then, AI research study has advanced quickly, resulting in the advancement of complex systems efficient in carrying out extremely sophisticated jobs. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are normally designed to handle specific and minimal functions, such as translating languages, anticipating the trajectory of a storm, categorizing images, addressing concerns, or generating visual content at the user's demand. While the definition of "intelligence" in AI research study differs, most modern AI systems-particularly those utilizing device learning-rely on statistical inference rather than rational reduction. By evaluating big datasets to recognize patterns, AI can "forecast" [7] results and propose brand-new techniques, imitating some cognitive processes typical of human analytical. Such accomplishments have been enabled through advances in computing innovation (including neural networks, unsupervised artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) as well as hardware developments (such as specialized processors). Together, these innovations enable AI systems to respond to different kinds of human input, adjust to brand-new scenarios, and even suggest novel solutions not prepared for by their original developers. [8]
9. Due to these quick advancements, numerous jobs once managed solely by people are now turned over to AI. These systems can augment or perhaps supersede what humans are able to perform in numerous fields, especially in specialized locations such as information analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is created for a particular task, numerous scientists aim to establish what is called "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system capable of operating throughout all cognitive domains and carrying out 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, nevertheless, fear that these possibilities, even if theoretical, might one day eclipse the human person, while still others invite this prospective transformation. [9]
10. Underlying this and many other point of views 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 capture the full scope of the concept. In the case of human beings, intelligence is a professors that pertains to the individual in his/her totality, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is understood functionally, often with the presumption that the activities characteristic of the human mind can be broken down into digitized actions that machines can replicate. [10]
11. This functional perspective is exhibited by the "Turing Test," which thinks about a maker "intelligent" if an individual can not identify its behavior from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "behavior" refers only to the performance of particular intellectual jobs; it does not account for the full breadth of human experience, that includes abstraction, feelings, creativity, and the visual, ethical, and spiritual sensibilities. Nor does it include the full variety of expressions particular of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the "intelligence" of a system is evaluated methodologically, however also reductively, based upon its ability to produce appropriate responses-in this case, those associated with the human intellect-regardless of how those actions are generated.

12. AI's sophisticated features give it sophisticated capabilities to perform tasks, but not the ability to think. [12] This difference is most importantly important, as the method "intelligence" is specified undoubtedly shapes how we understand the relationship in between human thought and this technology. [13] To appreciate this, one must recall the richness of the philosophical tradition and Christian faith, which provide a deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's teaching on the nature, dignity, and vocation of the human person. [14]
13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has played a main role in comprehending what it suggests to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all individuals by nature desire to understand." [15] This understanding, with its capacity for abstraction that grasps the nature and significance of things, sets people apart from the animal world. [16] As thinkers, theologians, and psychologists have taken a look at the specific nature of this intellectual professors, they have also explored how humans comprehend the world and their unique location within it. Through this expedition, the Christian custom has actually pertained to comprehend the human individual as a being including both body and soul-deeply connected to this world and yet transcending it. [17]
14. In the classical custom, the idea of intelligence is typically comprehended through the complementary ideas of "reason" (ratio) and "intelligence" (intellectus). These are not different professors but, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are two modes in which the same intelligence operates: "The term intellect is presumed from the inward grasp of the reality, while the name reason is taken from the curious and discursive procedure." [18] This concise description highlights the 2 basic and complementary measurements of human intelligence. Intellectus describes the user-friendly grasp of the truth-that is, collaring it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and grounds argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to reasoning appropriate: the discursive, analytical procedure that results in judgment. Together, intelligence and reason form the 2 elements of the act of intelligere, "the proper operation of the human being as such." [19]
15. Explaining the human person as a "reasonable" being does not lower the individual to a specific mode of thought; rather, it acknowledges that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and penetrates all elements of human activity. [20] Whether exercised well or inadequately, this capacity is an intrinsic element of human nature. In this sense, the "term 'logical' encompasses all the capabilities of the human individual," consisting of those related to "knowing and comprehending, along with those of willing, caring, selecting, and wanting; it also consists of all corporeal functions closely associated to these capabilities." [21] This detailed perspective highlights how, in the human person, created in the "image of God," reason is incorporated in a way that raises, shapes, and changes both the person's will and actions. [22]
16. Christian thought considers the intellectual professors of the human person within the framework of an important sociology that sees the human being as essentially embodied. In the human individual, spirit and matter "are not 2 natures unified, but rather their union forms a single nature." [23] In other words, the soul is not simply the immaterial "part" of the individual contained within the body, nor is the body an outer shell housing an intangible "core." Rather, the whole human person is concurrently both material and spiritual. This understanding reflects the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which sees the human person as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and thus, an authentically spiritual measurement) within and through this embodied existence. [24] The profound meaning of this condition is further illuminated by the secret of the Incarnation, through which God himself took on our flesh and "raised it approximately a sublime dignity." [25]
17. Although deeply rooted in physical existence, the human individual transcends 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 magnificent mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its regular mode of knowledge without the body. [28] In this way, the intellectual professors of the human person are an important part of a sociology that acknowledges that the human person is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further elements of this understanding will be developed in what follows.

18. Humans are "purchased by their very nature to interpersonal communion," [30] possessing the capability to understand one another, to give themselves in love, and to enter into communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not an isolated professors however is exercised in relationships, discovering its maximum expression in dialogue, collaboration, and solidarity. We discover with others, and we learn through others.

19. The relational orientation of the human person is ultimately grounded in the everlasting self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is revealed in production and redemption. [31] The human person is "called to share, by understanding and love, in God's own life." [32]
20. This vocation to communion with God is necessarily connected to the call to communion with others. Love of God can not be separated from love for one's neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20; Mt. 22:37 -39). By the grace of sharing God's life, Christians are also called to imitate Christ's outpouring present (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "like one another, as I have loved you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the magnificent life of self-giving, go beyond self-interest to react more totally to the human vocation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Even more sublime than knowing numerous things is the commitment to care for one another, for if "I understand all secrets 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 fact." [34] In the double sense of intellectus-ratio, it allows the individual to explore truths that go beyond simple sensory experience or energy, since "the desire for fact becomes part of human nature itself. It is a natural home of human factor to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limits of empirical data, human intelligence can "with real certitude attain to reality itself as knowable." [36] While reality remains just partly understood, the desire for truth "spurs reason always to go further; certainly, it is as if factor were overwhelmed to see that it can always go beyond what it has already attained." [37] Although Truth in itself goes beyond the boundaries of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this attraction, the human individual is resulted in seek "facts of a greater order." [39]
22. This innate drive towards the pursuit of truth is particularly obvious in the clearly human capacities for semantic understanding and imagination, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "way that is proper to the social nature and dignity of the human person." [41] Likewise, a steadfast orientation to the reality is essential for charity to be both genuine and universal. [42]
23. The search for fact finds its highest expression in openness to realities that go beyond the physical and created world. In God, all realities attain their supreme and initial meaning. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "fundamental decision that engages the entire person." [44] In this method, the human person becomes fully what she or he is called to be: "the intellect and the will display their spiritual nature," enabling the person "to act in a manner that realizes personal liberty to the full." [45]
24. The Christian faith comprehends creation as the complimentary act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, creates "not to increase his splendor, but to show it forth and to interact it." [46] Since God produces according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), development is imbued with an intrinsic order that shows God's plan (cf. Gen. 1; Dan. 2:21 -22; Is. 45:18; Ps. 74:12 -17; 104), [47] within which God has actually called people to presume a distinct function: to cultivate and take care of the world. [48]
25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, human beings live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and abilities to take care of and develop development in accord with God's plan. [49] In this, human intelligence shows the Divine Intelligence that developed all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] continuously sustains them, and guides them to their supreme 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 an appropriate relationship with development, humans, on the one hand, utilize their intelligence and ability to cooperate with God in guiding development toward the function to which he has called it. [52] On the other hand, creation itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, helps the human mind to "rise gradually to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]
26. In this context, human intelligence ends up being more plainly comprehended as a professors that forms an integral part of how the whole person engages with reality. Authentic engagement needs embracing the full scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with reality unfolds in numerous ways, as each person, in his or her multifaceted individuality [54], looks for to understand the world, associate with others, resolve issues, express creativity, and pursue essential wellness through the harmonious interplay of the different measurements of the individual's intelligence. [55] This includes rational and linguistic abilities however can likewise include other modes of engaging with truth. Consider the work of a craftsmen, who "should understand how to discern, in inert matter, a particular form that others can not acknowledge" [56] and bring it forth through insight and useful skill. Indigenous peoples who live close to the earth typically have a profound sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a friend who knows the right word to say or a person proficient at handling human relationships exemplifies an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, discussion and generous encounter between persons." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of artificial intelligence, we can not forget that poetry and love are needed to save our humanity." [59]
28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the combination of fact into the ethical and spiritual life of the individual, assisting his or her actions because of God's goodness and fact. According to God's strategy, intelligence, in its maximum sense, likewise consists of the ability to savor what holds true, excellent, and stunning. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel revealed, "intelligence is absolutely nothing without delight." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the greatest heaven in Paradiso, testifies that the culmination of this intellectual delight is discovered in the "light intellectual full of love, love of true good filled with pleasure, delight which transcends every sweet taste." [61]
29. A correct understanding of human intelligence, therefore, can not be reduced to the mere acquisition of truths or the ability to perform particular tasks. Instead, it includes the person's openness to the supreme concerns of life and reflects an orientation toward the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the divine image within the individual, human intelligence has the capability to access the totality of being, pondering existence in its fullness, which goes beyond what is measurable, and understanding the significance of what has actually been comprehended. For believers, this capacity consists of, in a particular method, the capability to grow in the understanding of the secrets of God by using factor to engage ever more exceptionally with exposed facts (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is formed by magnificent love, which "is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence has an important contemplative measurement, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any practical purpose.

30. Because of the foregoing discussion, the differences between human intelligence and present AI systems end up being apparent. While AI is an extraordinary technological achievement capable of imitating certain outputs associated with human intelligence, it operates by performing jobs, attaining goals, or making choices based on quantitative data and computational logic. For instance, with its analytical power, AI stands out at integrating information from a variety of fields, modeling complex systems, and promoting interdisciplinary connections. In this way, it can help experts work together in solving intricate issues that "can not be dealt with from a single viewpoint or from a single set of interests." [64]
31. However, even as AI procedures and replicates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains essentially confined to a logical-mathematical framework, which enforces fundamental constraints. Human intelligence, in contrast, develops organically throughout the person's physical and mental growth, formed by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although advanced AI systems can "discover" through procedures such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is basically various from the developmental development of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, including sensory input, psychological responses, social interactions, and the distinct context of each minute. These elements shape and kind individuals within their personal history.In contrast, AI, lacking a physical body, counts on computational reasoning and knowing based on large datasets that consist of taped human experiences and knowledge.

32. Consequently, although AI can mimic aspects of human reasoning and carry out particular tasks with incredible speed and performance, its computational abilities represent only a portion of the broader capabilities of the human mind. For example, AI can not currently duplicate moral discernment or the capability to develop authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is positioned within a personally lived history of intellectual and ethical development that fundamentally forms the individual's viewpoint, including the physical, psychological, social, ethical, and spiritual dimensions of life. Since AI can not provide this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely entirely on this innovation or treat it as the main ways of analyzing the world can cause "a loss of appreciation for the whole, for the relationships between things, and for the wider horizon." [65]
33. Human intelligence is not mainly about finishing functional tasks but about understanding and actively engaging with reality in all its measurements; it is also capable of unexpected insights. Since AI lacks the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to truth and goodness, its capacities-though seemingly limitless-are incomparable with the human ability to grasp reality. So much can be gained from an illness, an accept of reconciliation, and even an easy sunset; certainly, many experiences we have as people open brand-new horizons and use the possibility of attaining brand-new wisdom. No device, working exclusively with data, can measure up to these and countless other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an extremely close equivalence between human intelligence and AI risks catching a functionalist viewpoint, where people are valued based on the work they can perform. However, an individual's worth does not depend upon possessing particular skills, cognitive and technological achievements, or private success, however on the individual's inherent dignity, grounded in being produced in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains intact in all situations, consisting of for those not able to exercise their capabilities, whether it be a coming kid, an unconscious person, or an older person who is suffering. [67] It likewise underpins the custom of human rights (and, in particular, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "an important point of merging in the search for typical ground" [68] and can, therefore, function as a basic ethical guide in conversations on the accountable advancement and use of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the extremely usage of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can prove misleading" [69] and dangers overlooking what is most precious in the human person. Due to this, AI should not be seen as a synthetic form of human intelligence however as an item of it. [70]
36. Given these considerations, one can ask how AI can be comprehended within God's plan. To answer this, it is crucial to recall that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character however is a human venture that engages the humanistic and cultural dimensions of human imagination. [71]
37. Viewed as a fruit of the possible inscribed within human intelligence, [72] scientific inquiry and the advancement of technical abilities become part of the "cooperation of man and woman with God in perfecting the noticeable creation." [73] At the very same time, all scientific and technological accomplishments are, eventually, gifts from God. [74] Therefore, people should always use their abilities in view of the higher function for which God has approved them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has actually "remedied many evils which utilized to harm and limit people," [76] a truth for which we ought to rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological developments in themselves represent authentic human progress. [77] The Church is particularly opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human individual. [78] Like any human undertaking, technological advancement needs to be directed to serve the human person and add to the pursuit of "greater justice, more comprehensive fraternity, and a more gentle order of social relations," which are "more important than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical ramifications of technological development are shared not only within the Church however likewise among many scientists, technologists, and professional associations, who increasingly call for ethical reflection to guide this advancement in a responsible way.

39. To deal with these challenges, it is important to stress the importance of ethical duty grounded in the self-respect and occupation of the human individual. This assisting principle also applies to questions concerning AI. In this context, the ethical dimension handles main importance because it is individuals who design systems and figure out the functions for which they are utilized. [80] Between a maker and a person, only the latter is truly an ethical agent-a subject of ethical responsibility who exercises flexibility in his or her choices and accepts their effects. [81] It is not the maker but the human who remains in relationship with truth and goodness, assisted by a moral conscience that calls the person "to like and to do what is great and to avoid wicked," [82] bearing witness to "the authority of reality in referral to the supreme Good to which the human individual is drawn." [83] Likewise, in between a machine and a human, just the human can be sufficiently self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, critical with vigilance, and seeking the excellent that is possible in every situation. [84] In reality, all of this likewise comes from the person's exercise of intelligence.

40. Like any product of human creativity, AI can be directed towards favorable or negative ends. [85] When used in methods that appreciate human self-respect and promote the wellness of people and neighborhoods, it can contribute positively to the human occupation. Yet, as in all areas where human beings are contacted us to make decisions, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human freedom allows for the possibility of choosing what is wrong, the ethical evaluation of this innovation will require to take into consideration how it is directed and used.

41. At the exact same time, it is not just the ends that are fairly significant but likewise the ways utilized to attain them. Additionally, the general vision and understanding of the human person ingrained within these systems are crucial to think about too. Technological products show the worldview of their designers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to "shape the world and engage consciences on the level of worths." [87] On a social level, some technological developments could also reinforce relationships and power characteristics that are inconsistent with a proper understanding of the human person and society.

42. Therefore, completions and the means utilized in a provided application of AI, as well as the total vision it incorporates, should all be evaluated to ensure they respect human dignity and promote the typical good. [88] As Pope Francis has specified, "the intrinsic self-respect of every male and every woman" should be "the essential requirement in assessing emerging technologies; these will show fairly sound to the extent that they assist regard that self-respect and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] including in the social and economic spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays an important role not only in creating and producing innovation however also in directing its use in line with the genuine good of the human individual. [90] The responsibility for handling this wisely pertains to every level of society, assisted by the concept of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The dedication to ensuring that AI constantly supports and promotes the supreme worth of the self-respect of every human and the fullness of the human vocation acts as a criterion of discernment for designers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, in addition to to its users. It remains valid for each application of the technology at every level of its usage.

44. An examination of the implications of this directing concept might start by thinking about the importance of ethical duty. Since full moral causality belongs just to personal agents, not artificial ones, it is important to be able to identify and specify who bears obligation for the processes associated with AI, demo.qkseo.in particularly those efficient in finding out, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up methods and really deep neural networks make it possible for AI to fix complex problems, they make it challenging to understand the procedures that result in the services they embraced. This makes complex accountability given that if an AI application produces undesirable results, determining who is accountable ends up being difficult. To resolve this problem, attention needs to be given to the nature of accountability procedures in complex, highly automated settings, where outcomes may just end up being evident in the medium to long term. For this, it is very important that supreme responsibility for decisions used AI rests with the human decision-makers and that there is accountability for using AI at each phase of the decision-making process. [91]
45. In addition to determining who is accountable, it is necessary to identify the objectives offered to AI systems. Although these systems may utilize not being watched self-governing learning systems and in some cases follow paths that human beings can not rebuild, they ultimately pursue goals that humans have actually appointed to them and are governed by processes established by their designers and programmers. Yet, this presents a difficulty because, as AI models end up being progressively efficient in independent knowing, the ability to maintain control over them to guarantee that such applications serve human functions may efficiently lessen. This raises the vital concern of how to make sure that AI systems are for the good of people and not against them.

46. While obligation for the ethical usage of AI systems begins with those who develop, produce, handle, and oversee such systems, it is likewise shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis kept in mind, the device "makes a technical choice amongst a number of possibilities based either on distinct requirements or on analytical reasonings. Humans, however, not only pick, but in their hearts are capable of choosing." [92] Those who use AI to accomplish a job and follow its results create a context in which they are eventually responsible for the power they have entrusted. Therefore, insofar as AI can help human beings in making choices, the algorithms that govern it ought to be reliable, secure, robust enough to deal with disparities, and transparent in their operation to alleviate biases and unintentional negative effects. [93] Regulatory structures should guarantee that all legal entities remain liable for the use of AI and all its consequences, with proper safeguards for transparency, personal privacy, and accountability. [94] Moreover, those utilizing AI ought to beware not to end up being overly based on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases contemporary society's currently high dependence on technology.

47. The Church's ethical and social mentor provides resources to help make sure that AI is used in a manner that maintains human company. Considerations about justice, for instance, must likewise resolve concerns such as fostering just social characteristics, maintaining international security, and promoting peace. By exercising vigilance, individuals and neighborhoods can recognize ways to use AI to benefit mankind while avoiding applications that might deteriorate human self-respect or harm the environment. In this context, the concept of duty should be comprehended not only in its most restricted sense but as a "responsibility for the take care of others, which is more than just accounting for results attained." [95]
48. Therefore, AI, like any innovation, can be part of a mindful and accountable response to humanity's vocation to the great. However, as previously talked about, AI must be directed by human intelligence to line up with this occupation, ensuring it appreciates the dignity of the human person. Recognizing this "exalted dignity," the Second Vatican Council affirmed that "the social order and its development should inevitably work to the benefit of the human person." [96] In light of this, making use of AI, as Pope Francis said, should be "accompanied by an ethic influenced by a vision of the typical excellent, an ethic of freedom, obligation, and fraternity, capable of cultivating the full advancement of people in relation to others and to the whole of development." [97]
49. Within this general perspective, some observations follow listed below to show how the preceding arguments can help offer an ethical orientation in practical scenarios, in line with the "knowledge of heart" that Pope Francis has actually proposed. [98] While not extensive, this discussion is used in service of the dialogue that considers how AI can be used to maintain the dignity of the human individual 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 need to undergird the development of new technologies and act as unassailable requirements for examining them before they are utilized." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI might "present important developments in agriculture, education and culture, an improved level of life for entire countries and individuals, and the development of human fraternity and social relationship," and therefore be "utilized to promote important human advancement." [101] AI might likewise help companies determine those in requirement and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other comparable applications of this innovation could contribute to human development and the typical good. [102]
52. However, while AI holds lots of possibilities for promoting the great, it can likewise hinder or even counter human advancement and the typical good. Pope Francis has noted that "proof to date recommends that digital innovations have actually increased inequality in our world. Not simply differences in material wealth, which are also significant, but likewise differences in access to political and social impact." [103] In this sense, AI could be used to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, develop new kinds of hardship, expand the "digital divide," and aggravate existing social inequalities. [104]
53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a couple of powerful business raises considerable ethical issues. Exacerbating this issue is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single individual can work out total oversight over the huge and complex datasets used for calculation. This lack of well-defined accountability produces the risk that AI could be controlled for personal or business gain or to direct popular opinion for the advantage of a specific industry. Such entities, motivated by their own interests, have the capacity to exercise "forms of control as subtle as they are invasive, creating mechanisms for the control of consciences and of the democratic procedure." [105]
54. Furthermore, there is the threat of AI being utilized to promote what Pope Francis has actually called the "technocratic paradigm," which views all the world's problems as understandable through technological methods alone. [106] In this paradigm, human self-respect and fraternity are often set aside in the name of effectiveness, "as if reality, goodness, and fact instantly stream from technological and economic power as such." [107] Yet, human self-respect and the typical great should never ever be breached for the sake of effectiveness, [108] for "technological advancements that do not cause an improvement in the lifestyle of all humankind, but on the contrary, exacerbate inequalities and conflicts, can never count as real development. " [109] Instead, AI should be put "at the service of another kind of development, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more essential." [110]
55. Attaining this goal requires a much deeper reflection on the relationship in between autonomy and duty. Greater autonomy increases everyone's obligation across different aspects of communal life. For Christians, the foundation of this obligation depends on the acknowledgment that all human capacities, including the individual's autonomy, originated from God and are suggested to be utilized in the service of others. [111] Therefore, instead of simply pursuing economic or technological goals, AI ought to serve "the typical good of the whole human family," which is "the amount total of social conditions that permit individuals, 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 innermost nature guy is a social being; and if he does not enter into relations with others, he can neither live nor develop his gifts." [113] This conviction highlights that residing 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 fact, in the course of which, individuals "show each other the truth they have discovered, or think they have found, in such a method that they help one another in the search for fact." [115]
57. Such a quest, along with other elements of human interaction, presupposes encounters and shared exchange in between individuals shaped by their distinct histories, thoughts, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a diverse, diverse, and intricate reality: individual and social, reasonable and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis underscores this vibrant, keeping in mind that "together, we can seek the reality in dialogue, in relaxed discussion or in enthusiastic debate. To do so calls for perseverance; it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently accept the more comprehensive experience of individuals and peoples. [...] The procedure of structure fraternity, be it regional or universal, can just be undertaken by spirits that are totally free and available to genuine encounters." [116]
58. It remains in this context that one can consider the difficulties AI poses to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the potential to foster connections within the human family. However, it could likewise prevent a real encounter with truth and, ultimately, lead people to "a deep and melancholic dissatisfaction with social relations, or a hazardous sense of isolation." [117] Authentic human relationships need the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their delight. [118] Since human intelligence is revealed and enhanced also in interpersonal and embodied ways, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are vital for engaging with truth in its fullness.

59. Because "real knowledge demands an encounter with truth," [119] the rise of AI introduces another challenge. Since AI can effectively mimic the products of human intelligence, the capability to know when one is engaging with a human or a device can no longer be taken for granted. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other sophisticated outputs that are usually related to human beings. Yet, it needs to be understood for what it is: a tool, not an individual. [120] This distinction is typically obscured by the language utilized by professionals, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and hence blurs the line in between human and maker.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI also presents specific obstacles for the advancement of kids, possibly motivating them to develop patterns of interaction that deal with human relationships in a transactional manner, as one would relate to a chatbot. Such habits might lead youths to see instructors as simple dispensers of details instead of as mentors who direct and nurture their intellectual and moral development. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and a steadfast dedication to the good of the other, are essential and irreplaceable in cultivating the complete advancement of the human person.

61. In this context, it is essential to clarify that, despite the use of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can genuinely experience compassion. Emotions can not be lowered to facial expressions or expressions produced in response to prompts; they reflect the way an individual, as an entire, relates to the world and to his or her own life, with the body playing a main function. True compassion needs the capability to listen, acknowledge another's irreducible individuality, welcome their otherness, and comprehend the meaning behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the world of analytical judgment in which AI stands out, real empathy belongs to the relational sphere. It includes intuiting and apprehending the lived experiences of another while maintaining the difference in between self and other. [122] While AI can imitate empathetic actions, it can not replicate the eminently individual and relational nature of genuine empathy. [123]
62. Because of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as a person ought to always be prevented; doing so for deceptive functions is a grave ethical offense that could erode social trust. Similarly, utilizing AI to deceive in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, consisting of the sphere of sexuality-is also to be considered immoral and needs cautious oversight to prevent damage, maintain transparency, and make sure the self-respect of all individuals. [124]
63. In an increasingly isolated world, some individuals have turned to AI searching for deep human relationships, simple companionship, and even emotional bonds. However, while humans are implied to experience genuine relationships, AI can only mimic them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an important part of how a person grows to become who he or she is indicated to be. If AI is used to assist people foster authentic connections in between individuals, it can contribute favorably to the full realization of the person. Conversely, if we change relationships with God and with others with interactions with technology, we risk replacing genuine relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of retreating into synthetic worlds, we are contacted us to participate in a committed and deliberate way with reality, particularly by relating to the bad and suffering, consoling those in grief, and forging bonds of communion with all.

64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being progressively incorporated into economic and financial systems. Significant investments are currently being made not only in the technology sector but likewise in energy, financing, and media, especially in the areas of marketing and sales, logistics, technological innovation, compliance, and danger management. At the very same time, AI's applications in these areas have actually likewise highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of remarkable opportunities however also profound dangers. A first genuine crucial point in this area worries the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a few corporations-only those large business would gain from the value developed by AI rather than business that utilize it.

65. Other wider aspects of AI's influence on the economic-financial sphere must also be carefully examined, especially worrying the interaction in between concrete reality and the digital world. One important factor to consider in this regard includes the coexistence of varied and alternative forms of economic and banks within a given context. This aspect should be encouraged, as it can bring benefits in how it supports the real economy by cultivating its development and stability, especially during times of crisis. Nevertheless, it must be worried that digital truths, not restricted by any spatial bonds, tend to be more homogeneous and impersonal than neighborhoods rooted in a particular location and a particular history, with a common journey defined by shared worths and hopes, however likewise by inevitable arguments and divergences. This variety is an undeniable property to a community's economic life. Turning over the economy and financing entirely to digital technology would minimize this variety and richness. As a result, many services to economic issues that can be reached through natural discussion between the included celebrations might no longer be attainable in a world dominated by treatments and only the appearance of proximity.

66. Another location where AI is already having an extensive effect is the world of work. As in many other fields, AI is driving fundamental improvements across numerous professions, with a variety of results. On the one hand, it has the potential to enhance know-how and performance, develop new jobs, make it possible for employees to focus on more ingenious jobs, and open brand-new horizons for creativity and innovation.

67. However, while AI assures to boost performance by taking over ordinary tasks, it often forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of devices instead of makers being created to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the advertised benefits of AI, present methods to the technology can paradoxically deskill employees, subject them to automated surveillance, and relegate them to rigid and repeated tasks. The need to keep up with the pace of innovation can deteriorate workers' sense of firm and stifle the innovative capabilities they are anticipated to give their work. [125]
68. AI is currently getting rid of the requirement for some jobs that were once performed by human beings. If AI is utilized to change human employees rather than complement them, there is a "significant risk of out of proportion benefit for the few at the cost of the impoverishment of numerous." [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more powerful, there is an involved danger that human labor might lose its worth in the economic realm. This is the rational consequence of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humanity oppressed to performance, where, eventually, the expense of humankind should be cut. Yet, human lives are inherently important, independent of their financial output. Nevertheless, the "current design," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to favor an investment in efforts to assist the slow, the weak, or the less talented to discover opportunities in life." [127] Due to this, "we can not allow a tool as powerful and important as Artificial Intelligence to strengthen such a paradigm, but rather, we should make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its expansion." [128]
69. It is essential to keep in mind that "the order of things must be secondary to the order of persons, and not the other method around." [129] Human work must not only be at the service of profit however at "the service of the entire human individual [...] taking into consideration the individual's product requirements and the requirements of his/her intellectual, moral, spiritual, and religious life." [130] In this context, the Church recognizes that work is "not just a method of making one's daily bread" however is likewise "an important dimension of social life" and "a means [...] of personal development, the building of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of gifts. Work provides us a sense of shared obligation for the development of the world, and ultimately, for our life as a people." [131]
70. Since work is a "part of the significance of life on this earth, a course to growth, human development and personal satisfaction," "the goal should not be that technological development increasingly replaces human work, for this would be harmful to mankind" [132] -rather, it needs to promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI ought to assist, not replace, human judgment. Similarly, it should never deteriorate imagination or minimize workers to mere "cogs in a machine." Therefore, "respect for the dignity of workers and the importance of employment for the financial well-being of individuals, families, and societies, for task security and just incomes, ought to be a high top priority for the global community as these types of innovation penetrate more deeply into our workplaces." [133]
71. As individuals in God's healing work, health care experts have the vocation and obligation to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the healthcare profession brings an "intrinsic and indisputable ethical dimension," recognized by the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges physicians and health care professionals to devote themselves to having "outright regard for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Do-gooder, this dedication is to be performed by males and females "who decline the creation of a society of exemption, and act rather as neighbors, raising up and restoring the succumbed to the sake of the typical good." [136]
72. Seen in this light, AI appears to hold tremendous capacity in a range of applications in the medical field, such as assisting the diagnostic work of healthcare suppliers, assisting in relationships between patients and medical staff, providing brand-new treatments, and expanding access to quality care likewise for those who are isolated or marginalized. In these methods, the technology could improve the "caring and loving nearness" [137] that health care service providers are called to extend to the sick and suffering.

73. However, if AI is utilized not to enhance but to replace the relationship in between clients and health care providers-leaving clients to communicate with a device instead of a human being-it would decrease a most importantly 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 risk intensifying the loneliness that often accompanies disease, particularly in the context of a culture where "individuals are no longer seen as a vital worth to be taken care of and appreciated." [138] This abuse of AI would not align with respect for the dignity of the human person and solidarity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the well-being of clients and the choices that touch upon their lives are at the heart of the health care occupation. This responsibility needs medical professionals to exercise all their ability and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded choices concerning those delegated to their care, always respecting the inviolable dignity of the patients and the need for notified permission. As a result, choices regarding patient treatment and the weight of duty they entail should always remain with the human individual and ought to never ever be delegated to AI. [139]
75. In addition, utilizing AI to identify who must receive treatment based mainly on financial measures or metrics of effectiveness represents a particularly troublesome circumstances of the "technocratic paradigm" that must be declined. [140] For, "enhancing resources suggests utilizing them in an ethical and fraternal method, and not punishing the most vulnerable." [141] Additionally, AI tools in health care are "exposed to kinds of predisposition and discrimination," where "systemic errors can easily increase, producing not just oppressions in private cases but likewise, due to the cause and effect, genuine forms of social inequality." [142]
76. The integration of AI into health care also positions the threat of amplifying other existing disparities in access to treatment. As health care ends up being increasingly oriented towards avoidance and lifestyle-based approaches, AI-driven options might inadvertently prefer more upscale populations who already take pleasure in better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This trend risks strengthening a "medicine for the abundant" design, where those with monetary methods gain from sophisticated preventative tools and personalized health details while others battle to gain access to even basic services. To avoid such inequities, fair structures are required to make sure that the usage of AI in healthcare does not get worse existing health care inequalities but rather serves the common good.

77. The words of the Second Vatican Council remain fully relevant today: "True education aims to form individuals with a view towards their final end and the good of the society to which they belong." [143] As such, education is "never ever a mere procedure of handing down truths and intellectual skills: rather, its aim is to contribute to the person's holistic development in its different elements (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, etc), consisting of, for instance, neighborhood life and relations within the academic community," [144] in keeping with the nature and dignity of the human person.

78. This technique involves a commitment to cultivating the mind, but always as a part of the essential advancement of the individual: "We need to break that concept of education which holds that informing means filling one's head with concepts. That is the method we inform automatons, cerebral minds, not individuals. Educating is taking a danger in the stress between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]
79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human individual is the vital relationship in between teacher and trainee. Teachers do more than convey knowledge; they design important human qualities and influence the happiness of discovery. [146] Their existence motivates trainees both through the content they teach and the care they demonstrate for their trainees. This bond fosters trust, shared understanding, and the capacity to address each individual's unique self-respect and capacity. On the part of the trainee, this can create an authentic desire to grow. The physical existence of an instructor produces a relational dynamic that AI can not reproduce, one that deepens engagement and nurtures the trainee's integral advancement.

80. In this context, AI presents both chances and challenges. If utilized in a prudent manner, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and purchased to the genuine goals of education, AI can end up being an important instructional resource by improving access to education, providing tailored assistance, and providing immediate feedback to trainees. These advantages could improve the learning experience, especially in cases where customized attention is required, or academic resources are otherwise scarce.

81. Nevertheless, an essential part of education is forming "the intellect to factor well in all matters, to connect towards fact, and to understand it," [147] while assisting the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is even more vital in an age marked by technology, in which "it is no longer simply a question of 'using' instruments of communication, however of living in a highly digitalized culture that has had a profound influence on [...] our capability to interact, find out, be informed and get in into relationship with others." [149] However, rather of cultivating "a cultivated intelligence," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and profession that it carries out," [150] the substantial use of AI in education might lead to the trainees' increased dependence on innovation, deteriorating their capability to carry out some abilities independently and intensifying their dependence on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are designed to help individuals establish their important believing abilities and analytical abilities, many others merely provide responses rather of triggering trainees to reach responses themselves or write text on their own. [152] Instead of training young individuals how to accumulate details and create fast responses, education needs to encourage "the accountable usage of flexibility to deal with problems with good sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in using kinds of expert system need to aim above all at promoting important thinking. Users of all ages, however specifically the young, need to develop a discerning method to the use of data and content gathered on the internet or produced by expert system systems. Schools, universities, and scientific societies are challenged to help trainees and experts to comprehend the social and ethical elements of the development and usages of technology." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II recalled, "in the world today, defined by such rapid advancements in science and innovation, the jobs of a Catholic University presume an ever greater value and seriousness." [155] In a particular method, Catholic universities are urged to be present as terrific labs of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary secret, they are advised to engage "with wisdom and imagination" [156] in mindful research on this phenomenon, helping to extract the salutary potential within the different fields of science and reality, and assisting them constantly towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the common excellent, reaching new frontiers in the discussion between faith and reason.

84. Moreover, it must be kept in mind that existing AI programs have actually been understood to offer prejudiced or fabricated details, which can lead trainees to trust unreliable material. This problem "not only risks of legitimizing phony news and strengthening a dominant culture's advantage, but, simply put, it also undermines the instructional process itself." [157] With time, clearer differences might emerge between appropriate and inappropriate uses of AI in education and research study. Yet, a decisive guideline is that using AI should constantly be transparent and never ever misrepresented.

85. AI could be used as an aid to human self-respect if it assists individuals comprehend intricate principles or directs them to sound resources that support their look for the fact. [158]
86. However, AI likewise presents a major danger of creating controlled material and incorrect details, which can easily misinform people due to its similarity to the reality. Such false information might take place unintentionally, as in the case of AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine however are not. Since producing material that mimics human artifacts is main to AI's functionality, alleviating these dangers shows tough. Yet, the repercussions of such aberrations and false details can be rather grave. For this reason, all those involved in producing and using AI systems need to be devoted to the truthfulness and accuracy of the details processed by such systems and distributed to the public.

87. While AI has a latent capacity to create false details, a a lot more uncomfortable problem depends on the purposeful abuse of AI for adjustment. This can take place when people or organizations intentionally generate and spread out false material with the aim to deceive or cause damage, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to a false depiction of a person, edited or generated by an AI algorithm. The risk of deepfakes is especially evident when they are used to target or damage others. While the images or videos themselves may be synthetic, the damage they cause is real, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "genuine injuries in their human self-respect." [159]
88. On a wider scale, by misshaping "our relationship with others and with truth," [160] AI-generated fake media can slowly weaken the structures of society. This concern requires careful regulation, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or affected media-can spread unintentionally, sustaining political polarization and social discontent. When society becomes indifferent to the truth, various groups construct their own versions of "facts," compromising the "mutual ties and mutual dependencies" [161] that underpin the material of social life. As deepfakes trigger people to question whatever and AI-generated false content deteriorates trust in what they see and hear, polarization and dispute will only grow. Such extensive deceptiveness is no unimportant matter; it strikes at the core of humanity, dismantling the fundamental trust on which societies are developed. [162]
89. Countering AI-driven fallacies is not just the work of market experts-it requires the efforts of all people of goodwill. "If innovation is to serve human dignity and not hurt it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human neighborhood needs to be proactive in addressing these trends with respect to human dignity and the promo of the excellent." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated material needs to always work out diligence in validating the reality of what they share and, in all cases, need to "avoid the sharing of words and images that are breaking down of humans, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that exploit the weak and vulnerable." [164] This calls for the continuous prudence and cautious discernment of all users regarding their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are naturally relational, and the data everyone creates in the digital world can be viewed as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data communicates not only details however likewise personal and relational understanding, which, in a significantly digitized context, can total up to power over the individual. Moreover, while some kinds of information might pertain to public elements of an individual's life, others might discuss the person's interiority, maybe even their conscience. Seen in this method, privacy plays a necessary role in safeguarding the limits of an individual's inner life, maintaining their liberty to connect to others, reveal themselves, and make choices without undue control. This security is also connected to the defense of spiritual liberty, as monitoring can likewise be misused to apply control over the lives of believers and how they reveal their faith.

91. It is suitable, for that reason, to deal with the issue of privacy from a concern for the legitimate liberty and inalienable dignity of the human individual "in all circumstances." [166] The Second Vatican Council consisted of the right "to safeguard personal privacy" amongst the essential rights "necessary for living a really human life," a right that should be encompassed all individuals on account of their "superb dignity." [167] Furthermore, the Church has likewise verified the right to the legitimate regard for a private life in the context of affirming the person's right to an excellent reputation, defense of their physical and psychological stability, and flexibility from harm or undue invasion [168] -necessary elements of the due regard for the intrinsic dignity of the human individual. [169]
92. Advances in AI-powered data processing and analysis now make it possible to infer patterns in a person's habits and believing from even a percentage of details, making the function of information personal privacy a lot more essential as a safeguard for the dignity and relational nature of the human person. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant mindsets towards others are on the increase, distances are otherwise diminishing or vanishing to the point that the right to personal privacy scarcely exists. Everything has actually ended up being a sort of phenomenon to be analyzed and checked, and people's lives are now under constant monitoring." [170]
93. While there can be genuine and proper ways to utilize AI in keeping with human self-respect and the typical great, using it for monitoring aimed at exploiting, limiting others' flexibility, or benefitting a couple of at the expense of the lots of is unjustifiable. The threat of monitoring overreach should be monitored by proper regulators to make sure openness and public accountability. Those accountable for security should never ever exceed their authority, which must constantly prefer the self-respect and flexibility of everyone as the necessary basis of a simply and gentle society.

94. Furthermore, "essential regard for human self-respect needs that we decline to allow the originality of the person to be related to a set of information." [171] This specifically applies when AI is utilized to examine people or groups based on their habits, attributes, or history-a practice referred to as "social scoring": "In social and financial decision-making, we need to beware about delegating judgments to algorithms that process information, frequently collected surreptitiously, on a person's makeup and previous habits. Such data can be contaminated by societal prejudices and preconceptions. A person's past behavior ought to not be utilized to deny him or her the chance to alter, grow, and contribute to society. We can not allow algorithms to limit or condition respect for human dignity, or to omit empathy, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that individuals have the ability to alter." [172]
95. AI has numerous appealing applications for enhancing our relationship with our "common home," such as creating designs to forecast severe environment occasions, proposing engineering options to decrease their effect, handling relief operations, and predicting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable agriculture, optimize energy usage, and supply early warning systems for public health emergencies. These advancements have the possible to reinforce strength against climate-related difficulties and promote more sustainable development.

96. At the same time, present AI designs and the hardware needed to support them take in large quantities of energy and water, significantly contributing to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This truth is typically obscured by the way this technology exists in the popular creativity, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can provide the impression that information is stored and processed in an intangible realm, removed from the physical world. However, "the cloud" is not an ethereal domain different from the physical world; similar to all computing innovations, it relies on physical devices, cables, and energy. The same holds true of the innovation behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, particularly large language designs (LLMs), they need ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and higher storage facilities. Considering the heavy toll these technologies handle the environment, it is important to develop sustainable solutions that decrease their effect on our common home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is vital "that we search for solutions not just in technology but in a change of mankind." [175] A total and genuine understanding of development recognizes that the worth of all developed things can not be minimized to their mere utility. Therefore, a completely human approach to the stewardship of the earth rejects the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which seeks to "draw out whatever possible" from the world, [176] and rejects the "myth of development," which assumes that "eco-friendly problems will solve themselves just with the application of brand-new innovation and with no need for ethical factors to consider or deep change." [177] Such a mindset should pave the way to a more holistic technique that appreciates the order of creation and promotes the essential good of the human person while protecting our typical home. [178]
98. The Second Vatican Council and the consistent teaching of the Popes considering that then have firmly insisted that peace is not simply the lack of war and is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers in between adversaries. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the serenity of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without safeguarding the products of persons, complimentary communication, respect for the dignity of persons and individuals, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the impact of charity and can not be attained through force alone; instead, it needs to be mainly constructed through client diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, uniformity, essential human advancement, and respect for the dignity of all individuals. [180] In this method, the tools utilized to maintain peace must never ever be allowed to validate injustice, violence, or oppression. Instead, they need to constantly be governed by a "firm determination to regard other individuals and countries, along with their self-respect, in addition to the purposeful practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical capabilities could help countries look for peace and guarantee security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can also be extremely bothersome. Pope Francis has actually observed that "the capability to carry out military operations through push-button control systems has actually led to a minimized perception of the devastation brought on by those weapon systems and the burden of duty for their use, leading to a much more cold and detached approach to the enormous tragedy 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 legitimate self-defense, [183] potentially increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and precipitating a destabilizing arms race, with catastrophic consequences for human rights. [184]
100. In particular, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which can 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 "special human capacity for moral judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this reason, Pope Francis has urgently called for a reconsideration of the advancement of these weapons and a prohibition on their use, beginning with "an effective and concrete commitment to introduce ever higher and proper human control. No maker must ever choose to take the life of a person." [186]
101. Since it is a little action from machines that can kill autonomously with accuracy to those capable of massive damage, some AI scientists have actually expressed concerns that such innovation poses an "existential danger" by having the potential to act in ways that might threaten the survival of whole areas or perhaps of mankind itself. This risk needs major attention, showing the long-standing issue about innovations that grant war "an uncontrollable harmful power over varieties of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing kids. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "undertake an assessment of war with a totally new mindset" [188] is more immediate than ever.

102. At the exact same time, while the theoretical risks of AI are worthy of attention, the more instant and pushing concern lies in how people with malicious objectives might abuse this innovation. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future abilities are unpredictable, mankind's previous actions offer clear cautions. The atrocities devoted throughout history suffice to raise deep concerns about the potential abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that "mankind now has instruments of unprecedented power: we can turn this world into a garden, or decrease it to a stack of debris." [190] Given this reality, the Church advises us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are free to use our intelligence towards things developing positively," or toward "decadence and shared damage." [191] To avoid humankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there must be a clear stand against all applications of technology that inherently threaten human life and self-respect. This dedication requires mindful discernment about making use of AI, particularly in military defense applications, to make sure that it constantly respects human dignity and serves the common good. The development and release of AI in armaments should go through the greatest levels of ethical analysis, governed by an issue for human self-respect and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology provides impressive tools to manage and develop the world's resources. However, in many cases, humankind is increasingly delivering control of these resources to machines. Within some circles of researchers and futurists, there is optimism about the potential of synthetic basic intelligence (AGI), a theoretical kind of AI that would match or go beyond human intelligence and produce unimaginable developments. Some even speculate that AGI might attain superhuman capabilities. At the exact same time, as society wanders away from a connection with the transcendent, some are 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 presumption of replacing God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture explicitly warns against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI may prove even more seductive than traditional idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths but do not speak; eyes, but do not see; ears, but do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or a minimum of provides the illusion of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is crucial to keep in mind that AI is but a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated product, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not have a number of the capabilities particular to human life, and it is also fallible. By turning to AI as a viewed "Other" greater than itself, with which to share existence and duties, humankind risks producing a replacement for God. However, it is not AI that is eventually deified and worshipped, however mankind itself-which, in this way, ends up being enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the possible to serve mankind and contribute to the typical great, it remains a creation of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and resourcefulness" (Acts 17:29). It must never 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 male can form a god which resembles himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is much better than the objects he worships because he has life, however they never have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. On the other hand, people, "by their interior life, go beyond the entire material universe; they experience this deep interiority when they participate in their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they choose their own fate in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis reminds us, that each individual finds the "mystical connection in between self-knowledge and openness to others, in between the encounter with one's individual uniqueness and the willingness to give oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "capable of setting our other powers and enthusiasms, and our entire person, in a position of respect and loving obedience before the Lord," [198] who "uses to treat every one people as a 'Thou,' constantly and permanently." [199]
108. Considering the numerous obstacles posed by advances in innovation, Pope Francis highlighted the need for development in "human obligation, worths, and conscience," proportionate to the development in the capacity that this innovation brings [200] -acknowledging that "with an increase in human power comes an expanding of responsibility on the part of individuals and neighborhoods." [201]
109. At the very same time, the "essential and essential question" remains "whether in the context of this progress male, as man, is becoming really better, that is to say, more fully grown spiritually, more conscious of the self-respect of his mankind, more responsible, more available to others, specifically the neediest and the weakest, and readier to give and to aid all." [202]
110. As a result, it is crucial to understand how to examine private applications of AI in particular contexts to determine whether its use promotes human self-respect, the occupation of the human person, and the typical good. Just like numerous innovations, the impacts of the numerous uses of AI may not constantly be foreseeable from their creation. As these applications and their social impacts become clearer, appropriate reactions ought to be made at all levels of society, following the principle of subsidiarity. Individual users, households, civil society, corporations, organizations, federal governments, and global companies need to operate at their proper levels to ensure that AI is utilized for the good of all.

111. A considerable challenge and opportunity for the typical good today lies in considering AI within a structure of relational intelligence, which stresses the interconnectedness of people and communities and highlights our shared duty for cultivating the essential well-being of others. The twentieth-century thinker Nicholas Berdyaev observed that people often blame makers for individual and social issues; however, "this just embarrasses male and does not represent his self-respect," for "it is not worthy to move duty from guy to a maker." [203] Only the human person can be ethically accountable, and the obstacles of a technological society are eventually spiritual in nature. Therefore, facing those challenges "demands an accumulation of spirituality." [204]
112. A further point to think about is the call, prompted by the look of AI on the world phase, for a restored gratitude of all that is human. Years earlier, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos alerted that "the risk is not in the reproduction of makers, however in the ever-increasing number of men accustomed from their youth to desire only 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 after that forgotten or perhaps deemed irrelevant since they can not be calculated in official terms. AI should be used just as a tool to complement human intelligence rather than change its richness. [206] Cultivating those elements of human life that go beyond computation is essential for maintaining "a genuine humankind" that "seems to stay in the middle of our technological culture, practically undetected, like a mist seeping gently below a closed door." [207]
113. The vast stretch 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 become humanly or spiritually barren, one should go beyond the simple accumulation of data and aim to attain real wisdom. [208]
114. This wisdom is the gift that mankind requires most to attend to the profound concerns and ethical difficulties postured by AI: "Only by adopting a spiritual method of viewing truth, only by recovering a wisdom of the heart, can we face and interpret the newness of our time." [209] Such "wisdom of the heart" is "the virtue that enables us to integrate the entire and its parts, our decisions and their repercussions." It "can not be looked for from machines," but it "lets itself be discovered by those who seek it and be seen by those who enjoy it; it anticipates those who desire it, and it goes in search of those who are worthwhile of 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 take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, circumstances, occasions and to discover their real significance." [211]
116. Since a "person's excellence is determined not by the details or understanding they possess, but by the depth of their charity," [212] how we incorporate AI "to include the least of our bros and sisters, the vulnerable, and those most in need, will be the true step of our humankind." [213] The "knowledge of the heart" can light up and assist the human-centered use of this technology to help promote the common great, take care of our "common home," advance the look for the truth, foster integral human development, prefer human solidarity and fraternity, and lead humanity to its ultimate goal: happiness and full communion with God. [214]
117. From this point of view of knowledge, followers will be able to function as moral representatives capable of utilizing this innovation to promote an authentic vision of the human individual and society. [215] This must be done with the understanding that technological progress is part of God's prepare for creation-an activity that we are called to purchase towards the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the consistent search for the True and the Good.

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

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

Ex audientia 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 Essential Understanding of Human Intelligence

The Limits of AI

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

Helping Human Freedom and coastalplainplants.org 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 ), nerdgaming.science 43. [3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [5] J. McCarthy, et al., "A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence" (31 August 1955), http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024). [6] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), pars. 2-3: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [7] Terms in this 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 human beings to overcome their biological constraints and enhance both their physical and cognitive capabilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, contend that such advances will ultimately alter human identity to the level that humankind itself may no longer be thought about truly "human." Both views rest on a basically unfavorable understanding of human corporality, which treats the body more as an obstacle than as an integral part of the individual's identity and contact us to complete realization. Yet, this negative view of the body is irregular with an appropriate understanding of human dignity. While the Church supports authentic scientific progress, it verifies that human self-respect is rooted in "the person as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "dignity is also inherent in everyone's body, which takes part in its own method remaining in imago Dei" (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18). [10] This technique shows a functionalist perspective, which decreases the human mind to its functions and presumes that its functions can be entirely 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 "thinking" is credited to makers, it needs to be clarified that this refers to calculative thinking rather than vital thinking. Similarly, if makers are said to operate using rational thinking, it needs to be specified that this is limited to computational logic. On the other hand, by its very nature, human idea is a creative procedure that eludes programs and goes beyond constraints. [13] On the fundamental role 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 2010, 141-182). [14] For further discussion of these anthropological and theological structures, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144. [15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21. [16] Cf. Augustine, drapia.org De Genesi ad litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [professors] by which he transcends to the irrational animals. Now, this [professors] is factor itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it might more suitably be offered"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When considering all that they have, human beings find that they are most distinguished from animals exactly by the reality they possess intelligence." This is likewise repeated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who mentions that "male is the most best of all earthly beings endowed with movement, and his appropriate and natural operation is intellection," by which male abstracts from things and "gets in his mind things really intelligible" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 76). [17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, 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 middle ages difference in between these two modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York 2011. [19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp. [20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138. [21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intelligence can investigate the reality of things through reflection, experience and discussion, and pertain to recognize because reality, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal ethical demands." [22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp. [24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "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, however rather completely divulged its meaning and value." [26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81. [27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and thus it is united to the body in order that it might have an existence and an operation suitable to its nature." [29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18. [30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357. [31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54. [32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221. [33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27. [34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls also have factor and with it they circle in discourse around the fact of things. [...] [O] n account of the way in which they can focusing the many into the one, they too, in their own fashion and as far as they can, are worthy of conceptions like those of the angels" (en. tr. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York City - Mahwah 1987, 106-107). [35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 3: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7. [36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 42: AAS 91 (1999 ), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1043: "the human mind can transcending instant concerns and understanding certain realities that are unvarying, as real now as in the past. As it peers into humanity, factor finds universal worths obtained from that same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034. [38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last case of factor is to acknowledge that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York 1958, 77). [39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [40] Our semantic capacity allows us to understand messages in any type of communication in a way that both takes into consideration and transcends their material or empirical structures (such as computer code). Here, intelligence becomes a wisdom that "enables us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, scenarios, occasions and to discover their genuine meaning" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our creativity allows us to generate brand-new material or ideas, mainly by offering an initial viewpoint on reality. Both capacities depend upon the existence of an individual subjectivity for their full awareness. [41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. [42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a dedication to the fact, is much more than individual sensation [...] Certainly, its close relation to fact promotes its universality and maintains it from being 'confined to a narrow field lacking relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to fact therefore protects it from 'a fideism that deprives it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643. [43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7. [44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. [46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as estimated in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294. [47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure likens deep space to "a book showing, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who 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 distinct place in the universe according to the magnificent strategy: they delight in the privilege of sharing in the divine governance of noticeable creation. [...] Since male's location as ruler remains in reality an involvement in the magnificent governance of development, we mention 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 idea is also shown 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 sensing and appreciating realities." [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 standard of human life is the divine law itself-eternal, unbiased and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the ways of the human neighborhood according to a plan conceived in his wisdom and love. God has actually allowed guy to take part in this law of his so that, under the mild disposition of magnificent providence, numerous may have the ability to come to a deeper and deeper understanding 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 imprinted his own image and similarity on man (cf. Gen 1:26), providing upon him an incomparable self-respect [...] In impact, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not correspond to any work he performs, however which flow from his essential 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 comprehended as a technical term to show this technology, remembering that the expression is likewise used to designate the field of study and not just its applications. [71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857. [72] For example, see the motivation of clinical expedition in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the appreciation for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These authors, among a long list of other Catholics participated in scientific research and technological exploration, highlight that "faith and science can be unified in charity, provided that science is put at the service of the males and female of our time and not misused to harm or perhaps destroy them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87. [73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. [74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888. [77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658. [78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim. [79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293. [80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4. [81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes man an ethical topic. When he acts intentionally, man is, so to speak, the dad of his acts." [82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776. [83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777. [84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father motivated efforts "to guarantee that 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 company in choosing a broader aim (Ziel) that then notifies the particular purpose (Zweck) for which each technological application is produced, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um pass away Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71. [86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a purpose and, in its influence on human society, always represents a type of order in social relations and a plan of power, hence making it possible for certain people to perform particular actions while avoiding others from carrying out various ones. In a more or less specific way, this constitutive power-dimension of technology always includes the worldview of those who invented and developed it." [87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309. [88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Confronted with the marvels of devices, which seem to understand how to choose separately, we must be extremely clear that decision-making [...] should always be delegated the human person. We would condemn humanity to a future without hope if we removed people's ability to make choices about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend on the choices of makers." [92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [93] The term "bias" in this file refers to algorithmic predisposition (organized and constant errors in computer system systems that may disproportionately bias certain groups in unintended ways) or learning predisposition (which will result in training on a biased 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 information). [94] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father affirmed the development in consensus "on the requirement for advancement processes to respect such values as inclusion, openness, security, equity, personal privacy and reliability," and also invited "the efforts of worldwide organizations to control these innovations so that they promote genuine development, contributing, that is, to a better world and an integrally greater quality of life." [95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8. [96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571. [98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For more discussion of the ethical questions raised by AI from a Catholic 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 towards a "robust and solid social principles," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. [104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10. [105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; pricing quote the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245. [106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050. [107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047. [108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309. [109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027. [112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123. [113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034. [114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149. [115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414. [118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057. [119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985. [120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989). [123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Lots of people] desire their social relationships offered by advanced devices, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel informs us continuously to run the threat of a face-to-face encounter with others, with their physical presence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their happiness which contaminates us in our close and continuous interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from membership in the neighborhood, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045. [124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1. [125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899. [126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107. [128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' mentor about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893. [129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as priced 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 man' and not man 'for work.' Through this conclusion one rightly pertains to acknowledge the pre-eminence of the subjective significance of work over the unbiased one." [132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320. [133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502. [135] Ibid. [136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as priced estimate in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8. [137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops' Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: "If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture is manifest, with its painful effects, it is that of healthcare. When an ill individual is not positioned in the center or their dignity is ruled out, this provides increase to attitudes that can lead even to speculation on the bad luck of others. And this is very serious! [...] The application of a service method to the health care sector, if indiscriminate [...] may run the risk of disposing of human beings." [142] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [143] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729. [144] Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on making use of Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729; Francis, Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016), 6: AAS 108 (2016 ), 57-58. [145] Francis, Address to Members of the Global Researchers Advancing Catholic Education Project (20 April 2022): AAS 114 (2022 ), 580. [146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), par. 41: AAS 68 (1976 ), 31, pricing estimate Id., Address to the Members of the "Consilium de Laicis" (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: "if [the modern person] does listen to teachers, it is due to the fact that they are witnesses." [147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126. [148] Francis, Meeting the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, pricing quote the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592. [150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167. [151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413. [152] In a 2023 policy file about using generative AI in education and research study, UNESCO notes: "Among the key concerns [of the usage of generative AI (GenAI) in education and research] is whether human beings can possibly cede fundamental levels of thinking and skill-acquisition procedures to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking skills based on the outputs provided by AI. Writing, for example, is often connected with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], people can now start with a well-structured summary supplied by GenAI. Some experts have actually defined making use of GenAI to produce text in this method as 'composing without believing'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American theorist Hannah Arendt anticipated such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and warned: "If it ought to turn out to be true that knowledge (in the sense of knowledge) and believed have parted company for great, then we would certainly become the defenseless servants, not a lot of our machines as of 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, raovatonline.org 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 instance, it might assist people gain access to the "variety of resources for generating greater knowledge of truth" contained in the works of viewpoint (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8. [159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62. [160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074. [162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be truly indifferent to the question of whether what they know is real or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he writes: 'I have satisfied numerous who wanted to deceive, but none who wished to be tricked'"; estimating Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794. [163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62. [164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8. [165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Media (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149. [166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24. [167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no male may with impunity breach that human self-respect which God himself treats with excellent 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 self-respect in the online world obliges States to also respect the right to personal privacy, by protecting citizens from invasive surveillance and enabling them to secure their personal details from unapproved gain access to." [170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984. [171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body identified a list of "early pledges of AI helping to address environment change" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The document observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can change information into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools might assist develop new strategies and financial investments to minimize emissions, influence new economic sector investments in net no, secure biodiversity, and develop broad-based social strength" (ibid.). [174] "The cloud" refers to a network of physical servers throughout the world that allows users to shop, procedure, and handle their data remotely. [175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850. [176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890. [177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870. [178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852. [179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640. [180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317. [181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101. [182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310. [184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105. [185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We require to make sure and protect an area for proper human control over the options made by expert system programs: human self-respect itself depends on it." [186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The advancement and use of deadly autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) that lack the appropriate human control would present essential ethical concerns, considered that LAWS can never be morally responsible topics 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 ignore the possibility of advanced weapons ending up in the incorrect hands, facilitating, for example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the organizations of legitimate systems of government. In a word, the world does not need new innovations that add to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and consequently wind up promoting the recklessness of war." [190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565. [191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878. [192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687. [193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39. [194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661. [195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a better understanding today that the mere build-up of products and services [...] is insufficient for the awareness of human happiness. Nor, in repercussion, does the availability of the numerous genuine advantages offered in recent times by science and innovation, consisting of the computer sciences, bring flexibility from every kind of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the considerable body of resources and potential at man's disposal is directed by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the real good of the human race, it easily turns against man to oppress him." Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564. [196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6. [199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6. [200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. Completion of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83). [201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288. [203] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," in C. Mitcham - R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York City 19832, 212-213. [204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210. [205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829. [206] Cf. Francis, Meeting with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023). [207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: "The flood of details at our fingertips does not make for greater wisdom. Wisdom is not born of fast searches on the web nor is it a mass of unproven data. That is not the method to grow in the encounter with truth." [209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [210] Ibid. [211] Ibid. [212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121. [213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124. [214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.