1. With wisdom both ancient and new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to assess the present challenges and opportunities postured by scientific and technological developments, especially by the current advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian custom relates to the present of intelligence as a necessary aspect of how people are created "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Starting from an important vision of the human individual and the biblical calling to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church emphasizes that this gift of intelligence must be expressed through the responsible usage of reason and technical capabilities in the stewardship of the produced world.

2. The Church motivates the advancement of science, innovation, the arts, and other kinds of human endeavor, viewing them as part of the "partnership of man and lady with God in perfecting the noticeable creation." [1] As Sirach affirms, God "offered skill to human beings, that he may be glorified in his splendid works" (Sir. 38:6). Human capabilities and imagination originate from God and, when utilized appropriately, glorify God by reflecting his wisdom and goodness. In light of this, when we ask ourselves what it implies to "be human," we can not omit a factor to consider of our clinical and technological abilities.

3. It is within this point of view that the present Note addresses the anthropological and ethical difficulties raised by AI-issues that are particularly significant, as one of the goals of this innovation is to imitate the human intelligence that created it. For instance, unlike many other human developments, AI can be trained on the outcomes of human imagination and after that create new "artifacts" with a level of speed and ability that often equals or surpasses what human beings can do, such as producing text or images identical from human compositions. This raises critical concerns about AI's potential function in the growing crisis of reality in the general public online forum. Moreover, this technology is created to discover and make certain options autonomously, adapting to new scenarios and offering solutions not foreseen by its developers, and thus, it raises fundamental questions about ethical obligation and human safety, with wider implications for society as a whole. This new situation has actually triggered many people to reflect on what it indicates to be human and the function of humanity worldwide.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad agreement that AI marks a brand-new and considerable phase in humanity's engagement with technology, positioning it at the heart of what Pope Francis has explained as an "epochal change." [2] Its effect is felt globally and in a large range of locations, consisting of interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, healthcare, law, warfare, and worldwide relations. As AI advances quickly towards even greater achievements, it is seriously crucial to consider its anthropological and ethical ramifications. This involves not just mitigating threats and avoiding damage but also ensuring that its applications are utilized to promote human progress and the common good.

5. To contribute favorably to the discernment regarding AI, and in action to Pope Francis' call for a restored "wisdom of heart," [3] the Church provides its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active function in the international dialogue on these concerns, the Church invites those delegated with transferring the faith-including parents, teachers, pastors, and bishops-to devote themselves to this crucial topic with care and attention. While this file is intended specifically for them, it is also meant to be available to a wider audience, particularly those who share the conviction that clinical and technological advances should be directed toward serving the human person and the common good. [4]
6. To this end, the document begins by identifying between ideas of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then explores the Christian understanding of human intelligence, supplying a structure rooted in the Church's philosophical and doctrinal tradition. Finally, the file uses standards to make sure that the development and usage of AI maintain human self-respect and promote the essential advancement of the human person and society.

7. The idea of "intelligence" in AI has actually developed over time, drawing on a variety of ideas from various disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a considerable milestone happened in 1956 when the American computer system researcher John McCarthy organized a summer season workshop at Dartmouth University to explore the issue of "Artificial Intelligence," which he defined as "that of making a machine behave in methods that would be called smart if a human were so acting." [5] This workshop launched a research program focused on creating devices capable of performing jobs typically related to the human intelligence and intelligent habits.

8. Since then, AI research has advanced quickly, resulting in the advancement of complex systems efficient in performing extremely sophisticated tasks. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are usually designed to manage particular and limited functions, such as translating languages, forecasting the trajectory of a storm, categorizing images, answering concerns, or generating visual material at the user's request. While the definition of "intelligence" in AI research differs, most contemporary AI systems-particularly those utilizing machine learning-rely on analytical reasoning instead of sensible reduction. By evaluating large datasets to determine patterns, AI can "predict" [7] outcomes and propose new approaches, simulating some cognitive processes typical of human analytical. Such achievements have been made possible through advances in calculating technology (consisting of neural networks, not being watched artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) along with hardware innovations (such as specialized processors). Together, these innovations enable AI systems to respond to different types of human input, adapt to brand-new scenarios, and even suggest unique services not anticipated by their initial developers. [8]
9. Due to these fast advancements, lots of jobs once managed specifically by humans are now delegated to AI. These systems can enhance or even supersede what people are able to do in numerous fields, especially in specialized areas such as data analysis, image acknowledgment, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is developed for a specific task, numerous researchers aim to develop what is understood as "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system efficient in running across all cognitive domains and performing any job within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI might one day attain the state of "superintelligence," surpassing human intellectual capabilities, or add to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, nevertheless, fear that these possibilities, even if hypothetical, might one day eclipse the human individual, while still others welcome this potential change. [9]
10. Underlying this and numerous other perspectives on the subject is the implicit presumption that the term "intelligence" can be utilized in the exact same way to describe both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not capture the complete scope of the principle. In the case of people, intelligence is a professors that pertains to the person in his/her entirety, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is understood functionally, typically with the anticipation that the activities characteristic of the human mind can be broken down into digitized actions that machines can replicate. [10]
11. This functional viewpoint is exhibited by the "Turing Test," which considers a device "smart" if a person can not identify its behavior from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "habits" refers only to the efficiency of specific intellectual tasks; it does not represent the complete breadth of human experience, that includes abstraction, emotions, creativity, and the visual, moral, and religious perceptiveness. Nor does it incorporate the complete series 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 on its ability to produce proper responses-in this case, those related to the human intellect-regardless of how those actions are created.

12. AI's advanced functions give it sophisticated abilities to perform tasks, but not the ability to believe. [12] This difference is crucially essential, as the method "intelligence" is defined undoubtedly forms how we understand the relationship in between human thought and this technology. [13] To value this, one need to recall the richness of the philosophical custom and Christian faith, which use a much deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's teaching on the nature, dignity, and occupation of the human person. [14]
13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has played a main function in understanding what it implies to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all people by nature desire to know." [15] This understanding, with its capability for abstraction that understands the nature and meaning of things, sets humans apart from the animal world. [16] As philosophers, theologians, and psychologists have examined the precise nature of this intellectual professors, they have actually likewise explored how people comprehend the world and their special location within it. Through this expedition, the Christian tradition has actually pertained to comprehend the human person as a being consisting of both body and soul-deeply connected to this world and yet transcending it. [17]
14. In the classical tradition, the principle of intelligence is often comprehended through the complementary concepts of "factor" (ratio) and "intellect" (intellectus). These are not different faculties however, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are two modes in which the very same intelligence operates: "The term intellect is presumed from the inward grasp of the reality, while the name reason is drawn from the analytical and discursive procedure." [18] This succinct description highlights the two fundamental and complementary dimensions of human intelligence. Intellectus describes the user-friendly grasp of the truth-that is, capturing it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and grounds argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to thinking proper: the discursive, analytical process that leads to judgment. Together, intelligence and factor form the two elements of the act of intelligere, "the proper operation of the human being as such." [19]
15. Explaining the human person as a "logical" being does not minimize the individual to a specific mode of idea; rather, it acknowledges that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and penetrates all elements of human activity. [20] Whether worked out well or inadequately, this capacity is an intrinsic aspect of human nature. In this sense, the "term 'rational' includes all the capacities of the human person," including those associated to "knowing and comprehending, along with those of willing, loving, selecting, and preferring; it also consists of all corporeal functions closely associated to these capabilities." [21] This detailed point of view underscores how, in the human individual, produced in the "image of God," reason is integrated in a way that raises, shapes, and changes both the individual's will and actions. [22]
16. Christian thought considers the intellectual faculties of the human person within the structure of an essential sociology that views the human being as essentially embodied. In the human individual, spirit and matter "are not 2 natures joined, however rather their union forms a single nature." [23] In other words, the soul is not merely the immaterial "part" of the individual contained within the body, nor is the body an external shell housing an intangible "core." Rather, the entire human person is simultaneously both product and spiritual. This understanding reflects the of Sacred Scripture, which views the human individual as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and thus, an authentically spiritual dimension) within and through this embodied presence. [24] The extensive meaning of this condition is more lit up by the secret of the Incarnation, through which God himself took on our flesh and "raised it as much as a superb self-respect." [25]
17. Although deeply rooted in bodily existence, the human individual transcends the material world through the soul, which is "nearly on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intellect's capability for transcendence and the self-possessed liberty of the will come from the soul, by which the human individual "shares in the light of the divine mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of knowledge without the body. [28] In this way, the intellectual faculties of the human individual are an integral part of an anthropology that recognizes that the human person is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further elements of this understanding will be established in what follows.

18. Human beings are "purchased by their very nature to interpersonal communion," [30] having the capacity to know one another, to provide themselves in love, and to enter into communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not an isolated professors however is worked out in relationships, finding its max expression in dialogue, cooperation, and solidarity. We find out with others, and we discover through others.

19. The relational orientation of the human person is ultimately grounded in the everlasting self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is exposed in production and redemption. [31] The human person is "contacted us to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life." [32]
20. This vocation to communion with God is always tied to the call to communion with others. Love of God can not be separated from love for one's neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20; Mt. 22:37 -39). By the grace of sharing God's life, Christians are also contacted us to imitate Christ's outpouring gift (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "love one another, as I have liked 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 superb than knowing many things is the dedication to care for one another, for if "I understand all secrets and all knowledge [...] however do not have love, I am nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2).

21. Human intelligence is ultimately "God's gift made for the assimilation of reality." [34] In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it allows the person to explore realities that surpass simple sensory experience or energy, since "the desire for truth is part of humanity itself. It is an innate residential or commercial property of human factor to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limitations of empirical data, human intelligence can "with real certitude attain to truth itself as knowable." [36] While reality remains only partially known, the desire for reality "stimulates reason always to go even more; certainly, it is as if factor were overwhelmed to see that it can always surpass what it has currently attained." [37] Although Truth in itself goes beyond the boundaries of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this attraction, the human person is resulted in seek "facts of a greater order." [39]
22. This inherent drive towards the pursuit of truth is especially evident in the clearly human capabilities for semantic understanding and imagination, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "way that is suitable to the social nature and self-respect 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 look for fact finds its highest expression in openness to truths that transcend the physical and created world. In God, all realities attain their ultimate and initial meaning. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "fundamental decision that engages the entire person." [44] In this method, the human individual ends up being completely what he or she is contacted us to be: "the intellect and the will display their spiritual nature," allowing the individual "to act in a way that understands individual freedom to the complete." [45]
24. The Christian faith understands production as the totally free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, produces "not to increase his splendor, however to reveal it forth and to interact it." [46] Since God creates according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), creation is imbued with an intrinsic order that 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 humans to presume a distinct role: to cultivate and look after the world. [48]
25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, botdb.win people live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and skills to look after and establish development in accord with God's plan. [49] In this, human intelligence reflects the Divine Intelligence that produced all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] constantly sustains them, and guides them to their ultimate function in him. [51] Moreover, human beings are called to develop their abilities in science and technology, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in a proper relationship with creation, people, on the one hand, utilize their intelligence and ability to cooperate with God in guiding creation toward the purpose to which he has actually called it. [52] On the other hand, development itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, assists the human mind to "rise gradually to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]
26. In this context, human intelligence ends up being more plainly understood as a professors that forms an integral part of how the entire individual engages with reality. Authentic engagement requires accepting the full scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with reality unfolds in numerous methods, as everyone, in his/her multifaceted uniqueness [54], looks for to understand the world, associate with others, resolve problems, reveal creativity, and pursue integral well-being through the harmonious interplay of the different measurements of the individual's intelligence. [55] This includes sensible and linguistic capabilities however can also incorporate other modes of communicating with reality. Consider the work of an artisan, who "need to understand how to recognize, in inert matter, a specific form that others can not recognize" [56] and bring it forth through insight and useful ability. Indigenous peoples who live close to the earth frequently have an extensive sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a pal who understands the right word to state or an individual proficient at managing human relationships exhibits an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, discussion and generous encounter between individuals." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of expert system, we can not forget that poetry and love are required to conserve our humanity." [59]
28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the integration of truth into the ethical and spiritual life of the individual, guiding his or her actions because of God's goodness and reality. According to God's plan, intelligence, in its max sense, likewise includes the capability to appreciate what is real, great, and beautiful. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel revealed, "intelligence is nothing without delight." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the greatest heaven in Paradiso, affirms that the culmination of this intellectual pleasure is found in the "light intellectual loaded with love, love of true excellent filled with pleasure, delight which transcends every sweet taste." [61]
29. An appropriate understanding of human intelligence, therefore, can not be minimized to the simple acquisition of realities or the capability to carry out specific tasks. Instead, it includes the person's openness to the supreme concerns of life and shows an orientation toward the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the magnificent image within the individual, human intelligence has the capability to access the totality of being, contemplating presence in its fullness, which exceeds what is measurable, and grasping the meaning of what has actually been understood. For followers, this capacity consists of, in a particular method, the capability to grow in the knowledge of the secrets of God by utilizing reason to engage ever more profoundly with revealed truths (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is shaped by divine love, which "is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence possesses a necessary contemplative measurement, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian purpose.

30. In light of the foregoing discussion, the distinctions in between human intelligence and present AI systems end up being apparent. While AI is an extraordinary technological accomplishment efficient in imitating certain outputs associated with human intelligence, it operates by performing tasks, attaining objectives, or making decisions based upon quantitative data and computational logic. For instance, with its analytical power, AI excels at incorporating data from a range of fields, modeling complex systems, and fostering interdisciplinary connections. In this method, it can help specialists team up in fixing complicated issues that "can not be dealt with from a single perspective or from a single set of interests." [64]
31. However, even as AI procedures and replicates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains basically confined to a logical-mathematical structure, which enforces fundamental constraints. Human intelligence, in contrast, develops naturally throughout the person's physical and mental growth, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although advanced AI systems can "learn" through processes such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is fundamentally different from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is formed by embodied experiences, consisting of sensory input, psychological reactions, social interactions, and the distinct context of each moment. These components shape and kind people within their personal history.In contrast, AI, lacking a physique, depends on computational reasoning and learning based on vast datasets that include taped human experiences and knowledge.

32. Consequently, although AI can imitate aspects of human reasoning and perform particular jobs with unbelievable speed and performance, its computational capabilities represent just a portion of the broader capabilities of the human mind. For circumstances, AI can not currently duplicate moral discernment or the capability to develop genuine relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is located within a personally lived history of intellectual and ethical formation that basically shapes the person's perspective, incorporating the physical, psychological, social, moral, and spiritual measurements of life. Since AI can not offer this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely exclusively on this technology or treat it as the main methods of analyzing the world can cause "a loss of appreciation for the whole, for the relationships between things, and for the more comprehensive horizon." [65]
33. Human intelligence is not mainly about finishing functional jobs however about understanding and actively engaging with truth in all its measurements; it is also capable of surprising insights. Since AI lacks the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to truth and goodness, its capacities-though apparently limitless-are matchless with the human ability to understand reality. So much can be gained from an illness, a welcome of reconciliation, and even a simple sundown; certainly, many experiences we have as people open brand-new horizons and offer the possibility of attaining brand-new knowledge. No device, working solely with information, can determine up to these and many other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an overly close equivalence between human intelligence and AI dangers succumbing to a functionalist perspective, where people are valued based upon the work they can carry out. However, a person's worth does not depend upon having specific skills, cognitive and technological achievements, or private success, but on the person's inherent self-respect, grounded in being developed in the image of God. [66] This self-respect remains intact in all situations, including for those unable to exercise their capabilities, whether it be an unborn child, an unconscious individual, or an older person who is suffering. [67] It likewise underpins the custom of human rights (and, in specific, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "an essential point of convergence in the look for commonalities" [68] and can, therefore, serve as a fundamental ethical guide in conversations on the responsible development and usage of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the extremely usage of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can prove deceptive" [69] and dangers overlooking what is most valuable in the human individual. Because of this, AI ought to not be seen as an artificial kind of human intelligence however as an item of it. [70]
36. Given these factors to consider, one can ask how AI can be understood within God's plan. To answer this, it is essential to remember that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character but is a human undertaking that engages the humanistic and cultural dimensions of human imagination. [71]
37. Viewed as a fruit of the possible engraved within human intelligence, [72] scientific inquiry and the advancement of technical abilities become part of the "cooperation of males and female with God in improving the visible creation." [73] At the same time, all clinical and technological accomplishments are, eventually, presents from God. [74] Therefore, humans need to always use their capabilities in view of the higher purpose for which God has approved them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has "remedied countless evils which used to damage and restrict human beings," [76] a fact for which we must rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological improvements in themselves represent genuine 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 endeavor, technological development needs to be directed to serve the human individual and add to the pursuit of "greater justice, more extensive fraternity, and a more gentle order of social relations," which are "better than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical implications of technological development are shared not only within the Church but also amongst lots of researchers, technologists, and expert associations, who progressively call for ethical reflection to assist this advancement in an accountable method.

39. To address these difficulties, it is important to stress the value of moral responsibility grounded in the dignity and vocation of the human individual. This assisting principle likewise uses to questions concerning AI. In this context, the ethical measurement handles main value since it is people who design systems and figure out the purposes for which they are used. [80] Between a device and a person, only the latter is genuinely an ethical agent-a topic of moral duty who exercises flexibility in his/her choices and accepts their consequences. [81] It is not the device but the human who remains in relationship with fact and goodness, guided by an ethical conscience that calls the person "to enjoy and to do what is great and to prevent evil," [82] bearing witness to "the authority of truth in referral to the supreme Good to which the human individual is drawn." [83] Likewise, in between a maker and a human, only the human can be sufficiently self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, critical with vigilance, and seeking the great that is possible in every circumstance. [84] In truth, all of this also belongs to the individual's workout of intelligence.

40. Like any product of human creativity, AI can be directed toward positive or negative ends. [85] When used in manner ins which respect human dignity and promote the wellness of individuals and communities, it can contribute positively to the human vocation. Yet, as in all locations where human beings are called to make decisions, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human flexibility permits the possibility of selecting what is wrong, the moral assessment of this innovation will need to consider how it is directed and utilized.

41. At the exact same time, it is not just completions that are fairly considerable but also the means employed to attain them. Additionally, the overall vision and understanding of the human individual ingrained within these systems are very important to think about as well. Technological products reflect 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 advancements could likewise enhance relationships and power characteristics that are irregular with a correct understanding of the human person and society.

42. Therefore, the ends and the methods utilized in a given application of AI, along with the general vision it includes, should all be evaluated to guarantee they appreciate human self-respect and promote the common good. [88] As Pope Francis has actually mentioned, "the intrinsic dignity of every male and every woman" need to be "the key requirement in examining emerging innovations; these will prove fairly sound to the extent that they assist regard that self-respect and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] consisting of in the social and economic spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays a crucial role not only in developing and producing technology however likewise in directing its usage in line with the genuine good of the human person. [90] The obligation for managing this sensibly pertains to every level of society, directed by the principle of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The commitment to guaranteeing that AI constantly supports and promotes the supreme worth of the dignity of every human being and the fullness of the human occupation acts as a requirement of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, in addition to to its users. It remains legitimate for every application of the technology at every level of its usage.

44. An examination of the ramifications of this guiding principle might begin by thinking about the value of ethical duty. Since full ethical causality belongs only to personal agents, not artificial ones, it is crucial to be able to determine and specify who bears responsibility for the procedures involved in AI, particularly those efficient in learning, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up methods and extremely deep neural networks enable AI to resolve complex problems, they make it difficult to understand the processes that cause the solutions they adopted. This makes complex responsibility considering that if an AI application produces undesired outcomes, determining who is responsible ends up being tough. To address this issue, attention requires to be provided to the nature of responsibility processes in complex, extremely automated settings, where outcomes may just become obvious in the medium to long term. For this, it is essential that ultimate obligation for decisions used AI rests with the human decision-makers and that there is responsibility for making use of AI at each stage of the decision-making process. [91]
45. In addition to identifying who is accountable, it is important to determine the objectives given to AI systems. Although these systems may use not being watched self-governing knowing systems and often follow courses that human beings can not reconstruct, they eventually pursue objectives that human beings have appointed to them and are governed by processes developed by their designers and programmers. Yet, this provides an obstacle due to the fact that, as AI designs become progressively efficient in independent knowing, the capability to maintain control over them to ensure that such applications serve human purposes might effectively diminish. This raises the critical question of how to guarantee that AI systems are bought for the good of people and not against them.

46. While obligation for the ethical usage of AI systems starts with those who establish, produce, handle, and supervise such systems, it is likewise shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis kept in mind, the maker "makes a technical option among several possibilities based either on well-defined criteria or on statistical reasonings. Human beings, nevertheless, not just pick, however in their hearts can choosing." [92] Those who use AI to accomplish a job and follow its outcomes produce a context in which they are eventually accountable for the power they have actually entrusted. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist human beings in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it ought to be reliable, safe, robust enough to manage disparities, and transparent in their operation to reduce predispositions and unintentional negative effects. [93] Regulatory frameworks must make sure that all legal entities remain liable for making use of AI and all its effects, with proper safeguards for openness, personal privacy, and accountability. [94] Moreover, those using AI needs to beware not to become extremely depending on it for their decision-making, a pattern that increases modern society's already high reliance on innovation.

47. The Church's moral and social mentor provides resources to help guarantee that AI is utilized in a manner that maintains human company. Considerations about justice, for example, ought to also address issues such as fostering simply social characteristics, maintaining global security, and promoting peace. By exercising prudence, people and communities can recognize methods to utilize AI to benefit humanity while preventing applications that might deteriorate human self-respect or harm the environment. In this context, the principle of duty should be comprehended not just in its most limited 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 technology, can be part of a conscious and accountable response to mankind's occupation to the excellent. However, as formerly discussed, AI must be directed by human intelligence to align with this occupation, ensuring it appreciates the dignity of the human individual. Recognizing this "exalted dignity," the Second Vatican Council verified that "the social order and its advancement must invariably work to the benefit of the human person." [96] Due to this, making use of AI, as Pope Francis said, must be "accompanied by an ethic influenced by a vision of the common great, an ethic of liberty, duty, and fraternity, capable of promoting the full advancement of individuals in relation to others and to the whole of production." [97]
49. Within this general point of view, some observations follow below to highlight how the preceding arguments can help provide an ethical orientation in practical situations, in line with the "knowledge of heart" that Pope Francis has actually proposed. [98] While not exhaustive, this conversation is provided in service of the dialogue that considers how AI can be utilized to maintain the dignity of the human individual and promote the common good. [99]
50. As Pope Francis observed, "the intrinsic self-respect of each person and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human household should support the development of brand-new innovations and function as unassailable requirements for evaluating them before they are used." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI could "present crucial innovations in farming, education and culture, an improved level of life for entire countries and individuals, and the development of human fraternity and social friendship," and hence be "utilized to promote integral human development." [101] AI could also help organizations determine those in requirement and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other comparable applications of this innovation could contribute to human advancement and the common good. [102]
52. However, while AI holds lots of possibilities for promoting the good, it can also hinder or even counter human advancement and the typical good. Pope Francis has noted that "proof to date suggests that digital technologies have increased inequality in our world. Not just distinctions in product wealth, which are likewise considerable, but also differences in access to political and social impact." [103] In this sense, AI might be utilized to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, develop new kinds of hardship, expand the "digital divide," and worsen existing social inequalities. [104]
53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a few powerful business raises substantial ethical concerns. Exacerbating this problem is the intrinsic nature of AI systems, where no single individual can exercise complete oversight over the large and intricate datasets utilized for calculation. This absence of well-defined accountability develops the danger that AI could be manipulated for individual or corporate gain or to direct popular opinion for the benefit of a particular market. Such entities, inspired by their own interests, have the capability to exercise "kinds of control as subtle as they are invasive, developing systems for the adjustment of consciences and of the democratic procedure." [105]
54. Furthermore, there is the risk of AI being used to promote what Pope Francis has actually called the "technocratic paradigm," which views all the world's issues as solvable through technological methods alone. [106] In this paradigm, human dignity and fraternity are frequently reserved in the name of performance, "as if reality, goodness, and fact automatically stream from technological and financial power as such." [107] Yet, human dignity and the typical great needs to never be violated for the sake of efficiency, [108] for "technological advancements that do not result in an enhancement in the lifestyle of all mankind, but on the contrary, worsen inequalities and disputes, can never ever count as true development. " [109] Instead, AI must be put "at the service of another kind of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral." [110]
55. Attaining this goal requires a much deeper reflection on the relationship between autonomy and duty. Greater autonomy heightens everyone's obligation throughout various aspects of communal life. For Christians, the foundation of this responsibility depends on the recognition that all human capacities, including the person's autonomy, originated from God and are suggested to be utilized in the service of others. [111] Therefore, instead of simply pursuing financial or technological objectives, AI needs to serve "the typical good of the entire human family," which is "the sum total of social conditions that enable people, either as groups or as people, to reach their fulfillment more totally and more easily." [112]
56. The Second Vatican Council observed that "by his inner nature male is a social being; and if he does not participate in relations with others, he can neither live nor establish his gifts." [113] This conviction underscores that living in society is intrinsic to the nature and occupation of the human individual. [114] As social beings, we seek relationships that involve shared exchange and the pursuit of truth, in the course of which, individuals "share with each other the fact they have discovered, or think they have actually found, in such a method that they assist one another in the look for fact." [115]
57. Such a mission, in addition to other elements of human interaction, presupposes encounters and shared exchange between individuals shaped by their distinct histories, thoughts, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a diverse, diverse, and complicated truth: specific and social, logical and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis highlights this vibrant, keeping in mind that "together, we can seek the fact in dialogue, in relaxed conversation or in enthusiastic argument. To do so requires perseverance; it entails minutes of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently accept the more comprehensive experience of individuals and peoples. [...] The process of structure fraternity, be it local or universal, can just be undertaken by spirits that are complimentary and available to authentic encounters." [116]
58. It remains in this context that a person can think about the difficulties AI positions to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the possible to foster connections within the human household. However, it might likewise hinder a real encounter with reality and, ultimately, lead individuals to "a deep and melancholic discontentment with interpersonal relations, or a harmful sense of seclusion." [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 likewise in interpersonal and embodied methods, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are vital for engaging with truth in its fullness.

59. Because "true knowledge requires an encounter with reality," [119] the increase of AI introduces another difficulty. Since AI can effectively mimic the products of human intelligence, the capability to know when one is connecting with a human or a machine can no longer be considered approved. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other sophisticated outputs that are typically connected with humans. Yet, it must be comprehended for what it is: a tool, not a person. [120] This difference is typically obscured by the language used by specialists, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and hence blurs the line in between human and machine.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI also positions specific challenges for the development 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 practices could lead youths to see instructors as mere dispensers of details rather than as coaches who direct and nurture their intellectual and moral growth. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and an unfaltering commitment to the good of the other, are necessary and irreplaceable in fostering the complete development of the human individual.

61. In this context, it is very important to clarify that, regardless of using anthropomorphic language, no AI application can genuinely experience empathy. Emotions can not be lowered to facial expressions or expressions generated in action to triggers; they show the way a person, as an entire, associates with the world and to his/her own life, with the body playing a main role. True empathy needs the ability to listen, recognize another's irreducible individuality, invite their otherness, and comprehend the significance behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the world of analytical judgment in which AI excels, real empathy comes from the relational sphere. It involves intuiting and capturing the lived experiences of another while maintaining the difference in between self and other. [122] While AI can simulate understanding responses, it can not duplicate the incomparably personal and relational nature of authentic empathy. [123]
62. Due to the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as an individual must always be avoided; doing so for fraudulent functions is a serious ethical violation that might erode social trust. Similarly, utilizing AI to deceive in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, including the sphere of sexuality-is likewise to be considered unethical and needs careful oversight to prevent damage, maintain transparency, and ensure the dignity of all people. [124]
63. In a progressively isolated world, some people have turned to AI searching for deep human relationships, easy companionship, and even psychological bonds. However, while people are meant to experience authentic relationships, AI can only replicate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an important part of how a person grows to become who she or he is suggested to be. If AI is utilized to help individuals foster genuine connections between people, it can contribute favorably to the full realization of the individual. Conversely, if we replace relationships with God and with others with interactions with technology, we run the risk of replacing genuine relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of pulling back into artificial worlds, we are called to participate in a committed and deliberate method with truth, especially by recognizing with the bad and suffering, consoling those in sorrow, and creating bonds of communion with all.

64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being significantly integrated into financial and financial systems. Significant investments are presently being made not only in the technology sector however also in energy, financing, and media, especially in the areas of marketing and sales, logistics, technological innovation, compliance, and danger management. At the same time, AI's applications in these locations have likewise highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of remarkable chances however also extensive risks. A very first genuine crucial point in this location concerns the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a few corporations-only those big business would gain from the value developed by AI instead of business that use it.

65. Other more comprehensive aspects of AI's influence on the economic-financial sphere must also be carefully examined, especially concerning the interaction between concrete truth and the digital world. One crucial factor to consider in this regard involves the coexistence of diverse and alternative forms of financial and monetary organizations within an offered context. This element needs to be encouraged, as it can bring advantages in how it supports the real economy by promoting its development and stability, especially throughout times of crisis. Nevertheless, it needs to be worried that digital truths, not limited by any spatial bonds, tend to be more homogeneous and impersonal than neighborhoods rooted in a specific place and a specific history, with a typical journey characterized by shared values and hopes, however also by unavoidable arguments and divergences. This diversity is an indisputable possession to a neighborhood's financial life. Turning over the economy and financing entirely to digital innovation would decrease this range and richness. As a result, many solutions to financial problems that can be reached through natural dialogue in 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 currently having an extensive effect is the world of work. As in many other fields, AI is driving essential transformations throughout numerous professions, with a variety of impacts. On the one hand, it has the potential to improve knowledge and performance, produce brand-new tasks, enable workers to focus on more innovative tasks, and open new horizons for imagination and development.

67. However, while AI assures to improve performance by taking over mundane tasks, it regularly forces workers to adapt to the speed and needs of machines rather than devices being created to support those who work. As an outcome, contrary to the advertised benefits of AI, present techniques to the technology can paradoxically deskill workers, subject them to automated surveillance, and relegate them to stiff and repeated tasks. The need to keep up with the rate of innovation can erode employees' sense of company and suppress the innovative abilities they are expected to bring to their work. [125]
68. AI is currently getting rid of the need for some jobs that were when performed by people. If AI is used to change human workers rather than complement them, there is a "substantial risk of out of proportion benefit for the few at the cost of the impoverishment of numerous." [126] Additionally, as AI becomes more effective, there is an involved threat that human labor might lose its worth in the economic realm. This is the rational effect of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humanity enslaved to effectiveness, where, ultimately, the expense of mankind must be cut. Yet, human lives are inherently valuable, independent of their economic output. Nevertheless, the "current model," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to favor a financial investment in efforts to help the slow, the weak, or the less gifted to discover chances in life." [127] Because of this, "we can not permit a tool as effective and essential as Artificial Intelligence to strengthen such a paradigm, however rather, we must make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its expansion." [128]
69. It is important to keep in mind that "the order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other method around." [129] Human work should not only be at the service of profit but at "the service of the entire human individual [...] taking into consideration the individual's material requirements and the requirements of his/her intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and religious life." [130] In this context, the Church recognizes that work is "not just a way of making one's daily bread" however is likewise "an essential measurement of social life" and "a means [...] of personal growth, the structure of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of presents. Work offers us a sense of shared obligation for the advancement of the world, and eventually, for our life as a people." [131]
70. Since work is a "part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to development, human advancement and individual fulfillment," "the objective must not be that technological development significantly changes human work, for this would be detrimental to humanity" [132] -rather, it must promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI ought to help, not change, human judgment. Similarly, it must never degrade imagination or decrease employees to simple "cogs in a maker." Therefore, "regard for the self-respect of laborers and the value of employment for the economic well-being of individuals, households, and societies, for job security and simply salaries, ought to be a high concern for the international community as these kinds of technology penetrate more deeply into our workplaces." [133]
71. As participants in God's healing work, health care specialists have the vocation and obligation to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the health care occupation carries an "intrinsic and indisputable ethical dimension," recognized by the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges doctors and healthcare specialists to devote themselves to having "absolute respect for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Good Samaritan, this commitment is to be carried out by guys and ladies "who decline the creation of a society of exclusion, and act rather as neighbors, raising up and restoring the fallen for the sake of the typical good." [136]
72. Seen in this light, AI appears to hold tremendous potential in a variety of applications in the medical field, such as assisting the diagnostic work of doctor, assisting in relationships in between clients and medical staff, using brand-new treatments, and expanding access to quality care also for those who are separated or marginalized. In these methods, the innovation could boost the "thoughtful and caring nearness" [137] that healthcare suppliers are contacted us to encompass the ill and suffering.

73. However, if AI is used not to improve but to change the relationship between clients and healthcare providers-leaving clients to communicate with a device rather than a human being-it would minimize a most importantly crucial human relational structure to a centralized, impersonal, and unequal structure. Instead of motivating solidarity with the ill and suffering, such applications of AI would risk intensifying the isolation that frequently accompanies illness, particularly in the context of a culture where "individuals are no longer seen as a critical value to be looked after and appreciated." [138] This misuse of AI would not align with regard for the dignity of the human person and uniformity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the wellness of clients and the choices that touch upon their lives are at the heart of the healthcare profession. This responsibility needs physician to exercise all their skill and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options concerning those entrusted to their care, always respecting the inviolable dignity of the clients and the requirement for notified permission. As an outcome, choices concerning client treatment and the weight of obligation they entail need to constantly remain with the human person and ought to never be handed over to AI. [139]
75. In addition, using AI to identify who need to receive treatment based mainly on financial procedures or metrics of performance represents an especially bothersome instance of the "technocratic paradigm" that need to be declined. [140] For, "enhancing resources means utilizing them in an ethical and fraternal method, and not punishing the most vulnerable." [141] Additionally, AI tools in health care are "exposed to forms of predisposition and discrimination," where "systemic errors can easily increase, producing not only injustices in private cases but also, due to the domino effect, real forms of social inequality." [142]
76. The integration of AI into health care also poses the danger of amplifying other existing variations in access to medical care. As health care ends up being significantly oriented toward avoidance and lifestyle-based techniques, AI-driven options may unintentionally favor more wealthy populations who already enjoy better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This trend threats reinforcing a "medicine for the rich" model, where those with financial methods gain from advanced preventative tools and individualized health details while others struggle to gain access to even basic services. To avoid such injustices, fair structures are needed to ensure that using AI in healthcare does not get worse existing healthcare inequalities but rather serves the typical good.

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

78. This technique involves a dedication to cultivating the mind, but constantly as a part of the important advancement of the person: "We must break that idea of education which holds that educating ways filling one's head with ideas. That is the method we educate automatons, cerebral minds, not people. Educating is taking a threat in the tension in between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]
79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human individual is the important relationship between instructor and trainee. Teachers do more than communicate understanding; they model necessary human qualities and influence the happiness of discovery. [146] Their presence motivates trainees both through the material they teach and the care they show for their trainees. This bond promotes trust, shared understanding, and the capacity to resolve everyone's distinct dignity and capacity. On the part of the trainee, this can create an authentic desire to grow. The physical presence of an instructor develops a relational dynamic that AI can not reproduce, one that deepens engagement and supports the trainee's essential development.

80. In this context, AI presents both chances and obstacles. If utilized in a sensible manner, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and bought to the authentic goals of education, AI can become a valuable academic resource by boosting access to education, providing tailored assistance, and offering immediate feedback to trainees. These advantages could boost the learning experience, engel-und-waisen.de particularly in cases where individualized attention is needed, or instructional resources are otherwise scarce.

81. Nevertheless, a crucial part of education is forming "the intellect to factor well in all matters, to reach out towards reality, and to grasp it," [147] while helping the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is even more crucial in an age marked by innovation, in which "it is no longer simply a concern of 'using' instruments of interaction, but of residing in an extremely digitalized culture that has had a profound influence on [...] our ability to interact, learn, be notified and get in into relationship with others." [149] However, rather of promoting "a cultivated intellect," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and profession that it undertakes," [150] the extensive usage of AI in education might cause the trainees' increased dependence on technology, deteriorating their capability to carry out some skills independently and worsening their reliance on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are developed to help individuals establish their vital thinking capabilities and analytical abilities, numerous others simply provide responses instead of triggering trainees to get to answers themselves or compose text on their own. [152] Instead of training young individuals how to collect details and produce quick actions, education ought to encourage "the accountable use of freedom to deal with problems with great sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in the usage of kinds of expert system ought to aim above all at promoting critical thinking. Users of any ages, but especially the young, need to establish a discerning method to making use of data and content gathered on the internet or produced by synthetic intelligence systems. Schools, universities, and scientific societies are challenged to assist trainees and professionals to comprehend the social and ethical aspects of the advancement and uses of technology." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II recalled, "worldwide today, identified by such fast developments in science and technology, the tasks of a Catholic University assume an ever higher importance and urgency." [155] In a specific way, Catholic universities are advised to be present as terrific labs of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary key, they are prompted to engage "with wisdom and creativity" [156] in mindful research on this phenomenon, assisting to extract the salutary potential within the various fields of science and reality, and guiding them constantly towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the common good, reaching brand-new frontiers in the discussion between faith and reason.

84. Moreover, it should be noted that current AI programs have actually been known to provide prejudiced or fabricated details, which can lead trainees to trust inaccurate content. This problem "not only risks of legitimizing phony news and enhancing a dominant culture's benefit, but, in other words, it likewise undermines the academic process itself." [157] With time, clearer differences may emerge in between appropriate and inappropriate uses of AI in education and research. Yet, a decisive standard is that making use of AI must always be transparent and never misrepresented.

85. AI could be utilized as an aid to human dignity if it helps people comprehend complicated concepts or directs them to sound resources that support their look for the reality. [158]
86. However, AI likewise presents a severe threat of creating controlled content and incorrect details, which can easily misinform people due to its similarity to the truth. Such misinformation may take place inadvertently, as when it comes to AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine but are not. Since creating content that mimics human artifacts is main to AI's performance, alleviating these dangers shows difficult. Yet, the effects of such aberrations and false details can be rather serious. For this factor, all those associated with producing and utilizing AI systems should be committed to the truthfulness and precision of the details processed by such systems and distributed to the general public.

87. While AI has a latent potential to produce false details, an even more unpleasant issue lies in the intentional misuse of AI for adjustment. This can happen when individuals or organizations deliberately generate and spread false material with the aim to deceive or cause harm, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to an incorrect representation of a person, modified or created by an AI algorithm. The threat of deepfakes is especially evident when they are utilized to target or hurt others. While the images or videos themselves may be synthetic, the damage they cause is genuine, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "genuine injuries in their human dignity." [159]
88. On a broader scale, by misshaping "our relationship with others and with reality," [160] AI-generated fake media can slowly weaken the foundations of society. This concern needs cautious regulation, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or affected media-can spread inadvertently, sustaining political polarization and social discontent. When society ends up being indifferent to the fact, numerous groups construct their own variations of "realities," weakening the "mutual ties and mutual dependences" [161] that underpin the material of social life. As deepfakes cause individuals to question whatever and AI-generated false content deteriorates trust in what they see and hear, polarization and conflict will only grow. Such prevalent deception is no minor matter; it strikes at the core of humanity, dismantling the fundamental trust on which societies are built. [162]
89. Countering AI-driven fallacies is not just the work of industry experts-it requires the efforts of all individuals of goodwill. "If technology is to serve human dignity and not damage it, and if it is to promote peace instead of violence, then the human neighborhood needs to be proactive in addressing these trends with regard to human self-respect and the promo of the excellent." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated content should always work out diligence in confirming the reality of what they disseminate and, in all cases, should "prevent the sharing of words and images that are deteriorating of humans, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that make use of the weak and vulnerable." [164] This calls for the ongoing prudence and careful discernment of all users regarding their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are naturally relational, and the information everyone produces in the digital world can be seen as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data conveys not just details but also individual and relational understanding, which, in an increasingly digitized context, can amount to power over the person. Moreover, while some types of information may pertain to public elements of a person's life, others may discuss the person's interiority, maybe even their conscience. Seen in this method, personal privacy plays a necessary role in safeguarding the limits of a person's inner life, maintaining their liberty to associate with others, express themselves, and make choices without excessive control. This protection is also connected to the defense of religious flexibility, as monitoring can also be misused to apply control over the lives of believers and how they express their faith.

91. It is proper, for that reason, to resolve the issue of personal privacy from a concern for the genuine flexibility and inalienable dignity of the human individual "in all scenarios." [166] The Second Vatican Council included the right "to secure privacy" amongst the basic rights "required for living a really human life," a right that ought to be extended to all people on account of their "superb dignity." [167] Furthermore, the Church has likewise verified the right to the legitimate respect 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 liberty from damage or excessive invasion [168] -essential 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 presume patterns in a person's habits and believing from even a small amount of details, making the role of data personal privacy much more imperative as a secure for the self-respect and relational nature of the human individual. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant attitudes towards others are on the rise, distances are otherwise shrinking or vanishing to the point that the right to privacy hardly exists. Everything has actually become a type of phenomenon to be examined and checked, and individuals's lives are now under continuous surveillance." [170]
93. While there can be genuine and correct ways to use AI in keeping with human dignity and the common great, using it for surveillance aimed at exploiting, restricting others' flexibility, or benefitting a few at the cost of the lots of is unjustifiable. The threat of monitoring overreach should be kept an eye on by proper regulators to guarantee transparency and public responsibility. Those responsible for monitoring ought to never ever surpass their authority, which need to constantly favor the self-respect and flexibility of every individual as the important basis of a simply and gentle society.

94. Furthermore, "basic regard for human self-respect demands that we refuse to enable the uniqueness of the individual to be determined with a set of information." [171] This specifically applies when AI is utilized to examine individuals or groups based upon their habits, qualities, or history-a practice understood as "social scoring": "In social and financial decision-making, we need to be mindful about delegating judgments to algorithms that process information, often collected surreptitiously, on an individual's makeup and prior habits. Such information can be infected by social bias and preconceptions. A person's previous habits 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 restrict or condition respect for human self-respect, or to leave out compassion, grace, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able to change." [172]
95. AI has lots of promising applications for enhancing our relationship with our "common home," such as developing models to anticipate severe environment occasions, proposing engineering solutions to decrease their impact, handling relief operations, and forecasting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable farming, optimize energy use, and supply early caution systems for public health emergencies. These improvements have the possible to strengthen durability against climate-related difficulties and promote more sustainable development.

96. At the very same time, current AI models and the hardware required to support them take in vast amounts of energy and water, significantly adding to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This truth is typically obscured by the method this innovation is presented in the popular imagination, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can provide the impression that information is stored and processed in an intangible realm, removed from the real world. However, "the cloud" is not a heavenly domain separate from the physical world; just like all computing technologies, it relies on physical devices, cables, and energy. The very same holds true of the innovation behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, particularly big language models (LLMs), they need ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and higher storage infrastructure. Considering the heavy toll these innovations take on the environment, it is vital to establish sustainable services that reduce their influence on our typical home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is necessary "that we look for solutions not only in technology however in a modification of humanity." [175] A total and authentic understanding of development recognizes that the value of all created things can not be minimized to their simple utility. Therefore, a completely human approach to the stewardship of the earth declines the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which looks for to "draw out whatever possible" from the world, [176] and turns down the "myth of development," which assumes that "environmental problems will solve themselves simply with the application of new innovation and without any requirement for ethical factors to consider or deep change." [177] Such a frame of mind needs to pave the way to a more holistic technique that respects 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 constant teaching of the Popes ever since have insisted that peace is not merely the absence of war and photorum.eclat-mauve.fr is not restricted to maintaining a balance of powers in between adversaries. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the harmony of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without safeguarding the products of individuals, complimentary communication, respect for the dignity of persons and individuals, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity and can not be attained through force alone; instead, it must be mainly developed through patient diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, uniformity, integral human development, and respect for the dignity of all people. [180] In this way, the tools used to maintain peace should never be allowed to validate injustice, violence, or injustice. Instead, they should constantly be governed by a "firm determination to regard other individuals and countries, along with their self-respect, along with the purposeful practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical capabilities could assist nations seek peace and make sure security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can likewise be extremely problematic. Pope Francis has actually observed that "the capability to conduct military operations through remote control systems has actually caused a minimized perception of the destruction brought on by those weapon systems and the concern of duty for their use, resulting in a a lot more cold and removed method to the enormous catastrophe of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which self-governing weapons make war more viable militates against the principle of war as a last resort in genuine self-defense, [183] potentially increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and precipitating a destabilizing arms race, with devastating repercussions for human rights. [184]
100. In particular, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which are capable of identifying and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for grave ethical concern" due to the fact that they do not have the "unique human capability for ethical judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this reason, Pope Francis has actually urgently called for a reconsideration of the advancement of these weapons and a prohibition on their usage, starting with "an efficient and concrete dedication to present ever higher and appropriate human control. No device needs to ever select to take the life of a human being." [186]
101. Since it is a little step from makers that can eliminate autonomously with accuracy to those efficient in massive damage, some AI scientists have revealed concerns that such innovation postures an "existential danger" by having the potential to act in manner ins which might threaten the survival of whole regions or perhaps of humankind itself. This risk demands severe attention, reflecting the enduring concern about innovations that give war "an uncontrollable devastating power over multitudes of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing children. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "undertake an examination of war with a completely brand-new attitude" [188] is more immediate than ever.

102. At the same time, while the theoretical dangers of AI are worthy of attention, the more immediate and pressing issue lies in how people with destructive objectives may abuse this innovation. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future capabilities are unforeseeable, humanity's past actions supply clear warnings. The atrocities devoted throughout history suffice to raise deep concerns about the potential abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that "humankind now has instruments of unprecedented power: we can turn this world into a garden, or decrease it to a stack of rubble." [190] Given this reality, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are totally free to apply our intelligence towards things progressing favorably," or toward "decadence and shared destruction." [191] To avoid humankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there should be a clear stand against all applications of technology that naturally threaten human life and self-respect. This commitment needs mindful discernment about the usage of AI, particularly in military defense applications, to ensure that it always respects human self-respect and serves the common good. The advancement and release of AI in weaponries should be subject to the greatest levels of ethical examination, governed by an issue for human self-respect and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology offers remarkable tools to oversee and develop the world's resources. However, sometimes, humanity is progressively delivering control of these resources to makers. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, there is optimism about the capacity of synthetic basic intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical type of AI that would match or exceed human intelligence and produce inconceivable improvements. Some even speculate that AGI might attain superhuman capabilities. At the very same time, as society wanders away from a connection with the transcendent, some are tempted to turn to AI in search of meaning or fulfillment-longings that can just be really satisfied in communion with God. [194]
105. However, the presumption of substituting God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture clearly cautions against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI might prove much more sexy than standard idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths but do not speak; eyes, however do not see; ears, however do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or a minimum of gives the illusion of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is crucial to keep in mind that AI is but a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated product, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not have many of the capabilities particular to human life, and it is also fallible. By turning to AI as a viewed "Other" higher than itself, with which to share presence and responsibilities, humankind dangers producing an alternative for God. However, it is not AI that is eventually deified and worshipped, but humanity itself-which, in this way, ends up being enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the potential to serve humankind and add to the common excellent, it remains a development of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and ingenuity" (Acts 17:29). It needs to 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 man can form a god which is like himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is better than the things he worships because he has life, but they never have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. On the other hand, people, "by their interior life, go beyond the whole product universe; they experience this deep interiority when they get in into their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they decide their own destiny in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis reminds us, that each specific finds the "mysterious connection between self-knowledge and openness to others, in between the encounter with one's personal individuality and the willingness to offer oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "efficient in setting our other powers and passions, and our whole individual, in a position of reverence and loving obedience before the Lord," [198] who "uses to treat each one of us as a 'Thou,' always and forever." [199]
108. Considering the numerous obstacles postured by advances in technology, Pope Francis emphasized the requirement for development in "human responsibility, values, and conscience," proportionate to the growth in the potential that this technology brings [200] -acknowledging that "with an increase in human power comes a broadening of duty on the part of people and communities." [201]
109. At the same time, the "important and fundamental question" remains "whether in the context of this development male, as male, is becoming really much better, that is to say, more mature spiritually, more aware of the dignity of his mankind, more responsible, more available to others, especially the neediest and the weakest, and readier to offer and to aid all." [202]
110. As an outcome, it is vital to understand how to evaluate private applications of AI in specific contexts to figure out whether its use promotes human self-respect, the vocation of the human individual, and the common good. Similar to numerous technologies, the effects of the numerous usages of AI might not constantly be foreseeable from their beginning. As these applications and their social effects become clearer, suitable reactions should be made at all levels of society, following the principle of subsidiarity. Individual users, families, civil society, corporations, organizations, federal governments, and worldwide organizations must work at their proper levels to make sure that AI is utilized for the good of all.

111. A substantial obstacle and opportunity for the typical great today depends on considering AI within a structure of relational intelligence, which stresses the interconnectedness of individuals and neighborhoods and highlights our shared duty for promoting the important wellness of others. The twentieth-century theorist Nicholas Berdyaev observed that individuals often blame machines for individual and social issues; however, "this just humiliates guy and does not correspond to his self-respect," for "it is not worthy to move responsibility from male to a machine." [203] Only the human person can be morally accountable, and the obstacles of a technological society are eventually spiritual in nature. Therefore, dealing with those obstacles "needs a climax of spirituality." [204]
112. A further point to consider is the call, triggered by the appearance of AI on the world stage, for a renewed appreciation of all that is human. Years back, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos alerted that "the risk is not in the multiplication of makers, but in the ever-increasing number of males accustomed from their childhood to desire just what makers can give." [205] This difficulty is as true today as it was then, as the quick rate of digitization risks a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable aspects of life are set aside and then forgotten or even deemed irrelevant due to the fact that they can not be calculated in formal terms. AI must be utilized 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 crucial for maintaining "a genuine humanity" that "seems to stay in the midst of our technological culture, practically undetected, like a mist permeating carefully beneath a closed door." [207]
113. The large expanse of the world's knowledge is now available in manner ins which would have filled previous generations with wonder. However, to ensure that improvements in understanding do not become humanly or spiritually barren, one should go beyond the mere accumulation of data and aim to attain real wisdom. [208]
114. This knowledge is the gift that humanity needs most to attend to the profound concerns and ethical challenges positioned by AI: "Only by adopting a spiritual method of viewing reality, just by recovering a wisdom of the heart, can we challenge and interpret the newness of our time." [209] Such "wisdom of the heart" is "the virtue that allows us to incorporate the whole and its parts, our decisions and their effects." It "can not be looked for from makers," but it "lets itself be found by those who seek it and be seen by those who love it; it anticipates those who want it, and it goes in search of those who deserve it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]
115. In a world marked by AI, we require the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "enables us to look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, situations, occasions and to reveal their real meaning." [211]
116. Since a "individual's perfection is determined not by the details or knowledge they have, but by the depth of their charity," [212] how we integrate AI "to include the least of our brothers and sisters, the vulnerable, and those most in requirement, will be the real step of our mankind." [213] The "knowledge of the heart" can illuminate and assist the human-centered usage of this innovation to help promote the common great, take care of our "common home," advance the look for the truth, foster essential human development, favor human uniformity and fraternity, and lead humankind to its supreme goal: happiness and full communion with God. [214]
117. From this point of view of knowledge, followers will have the ability to function as ethical representatives capable of using this technology to promote a genuine vision of the human individual and society. [215] This ought to be done with the understanding that technological development belongs to God's prepare for creation-an activity that we are contacted us to buy towards the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the consistent look for the True and the Good.

The Supreme Pontiff, Francis, at the Audience approved on 14 January 2025 to the undersigned Prefects and Secretaries of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery for Culture and Education, approved this Note and bought 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 Decision-Making

V. Specific Questions

AI and Society

AI and Human Relationships

AI, the Economy, and Labor

AI and Healthcare

AI and Education

AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse

AI, Privacy, and Surveillance

AI and the Protection of Our Common Home

AI and Warfare

AI and Our Relationship with God

VI. Concluding Reflections

True Wisdom

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See also Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. [2] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 307. Cf. Id., Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (21 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020 ), 43. [3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [5] J. McCarthy, et al., "A 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 processes of AI are utilized figuratively to explain its operations and are not meant to anthropomorphize the maker. [8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [9] Here, one can see the main positions of the "transhumanists" and the "posthumanists." Transhumanists argue that technological advancements will make it possible for human beings to conquer their biological constraints and enhance both their physical and cognitive capabilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, compete that such advances will eventually modify human identity to the level that humankind itself may no longer be considered genuinely "human." Both views rest on an essentially negative understanding of human corporality, which treats the body more as an obstacle than as an important part of the individual's identity and call to complete awareness. Yet, this unfavorable view of the body is inconsistent with a proper understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports real scientific development, it affirms that human self-respect is rooted in "the person as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "self-respect is also fundamental in each individual'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 approach shows a functionalist perspective, which lowers the human mind to its functions and presumes that its functions can be completely quantified in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear genuinely intelligent, it would still remain practical in nature. [11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460. [12] If "believing" is attributed to machines, it needs to be clarified that this refers to calculative thinking instead of important thinking. Similarly, if machines are said to operate using sensible thinking, it should be specified that this is restricted to computational reasoning. On the other hand, by its very nature, human idea is an innovative process that avoids programming and goes beyond constraints. [13] On the fundamental function of language in shaping understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York 2010, 141-182). [14] For further discussion of these anthropological and theological structures, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144. [15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21. [16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi 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 illogical animals. Now, this [faculty] is factor itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it might more suitably be provided"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When thinking about all that they have, human beings find that they are most distinguished from animals exactly by the reality they have intelligence." This is likewise restated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who mentions that "man is the most perfect of all earthly beings enhanced with movement, and his appropriate and natural operation is intellection," by which man abstracts from things and "receives in his mind things in fact intelligible" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 76). [17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, ad 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a modern viewpoint that echoes elements of the classical and medieval 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 intellect can examine the truth of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and pertain to acknowledge because truth, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal moral needs." [22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp. [24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "usually considers the human individual as a being who exists in the body and is unimaginable outside of it" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Che cosa è l'uomo?" (Sal 8,5): Un itinerario di antropologia biblica [30 September 2019], par. 19). Cf. ibid., pars. 20-21, 43-44, 48. [25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100 (2008 ), 863: "Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, however rather totally disclosed 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 hence it is joined to the body in order that it might have an existence and an operation appropriate to its nature." [29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18. [30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357. [31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54. [32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221. [33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27. [34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls likewise possess reason and with it they circle in discourse around the fact of things. [...] [O] n account of the manner in which they are capable of focusing the numerous into the one, they too, in their own style and as far as they can, deserve conceptions like those of the angels" (en. tr. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York - Mahwah 1987, 106-107). [35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 3: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7. [36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 42: AAS 91 (1999 ), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1043: "the human mind can going beyond instant concerns and grasping certain facts that are changeless, as real now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, factor discovers universal values obtained from that very same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034. [38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last case of factor is to recognize that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York 1958, 77). [39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [40] Our semantic capability enables us to understand messages in any type of communication in a way that both considers and transcends their material or empirical structures (such as computer system code). Here, intelligence becomes a wisdom that "enables us to look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, circumstances, occasions and to discover their real significance" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our creativity allows us to create brand-new content or concepts, mainly by offering an initial perspective on reality. Both capabilities depend on the existence of a personal subjectivity for their complete realization. [41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. [42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a dedication to the fact, is a lot more than personal feeling [...] Certainly, its close relation to fact fosters its universality and maintains it from being 'restricted to a narrow field lacking relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to truth thus 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 priced estimate in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294. [47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure compares the universe to "a book showing, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who gives presence to all things (Breviloquium 2.12.1). Cf. Alain de Lille, De Incarnatione Christi, PL 210, 579a: "Omnis mundi creatura quasi liber et pictura nobis est et speculum." [48] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 67: AAS 107 (2015 ), 874; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589-592; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 57: "people occupy a special location in the universe according to the magnificent plan: they delight in the opportunity of sharing in the divine governance of visible production. [...] Since guy's location as ruler remains in reality an involvement in the magnificent governance of creation, we speak of it here as a type of stewardship." [49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165. [50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This idea is likewise reflected in the production account, where God brings creatures to Adam "to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living animal, that was its name" (Gen. 2:19), an action that shows the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's development. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117. [51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301. [52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302. [53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2. [54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7. [55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8. [57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906. [58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987. [59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: "L'intelligence n'est rien sans la délectation." Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: "The mind and the will are put at the service of the higher good by picking up and relishing truths." [61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232). [62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he greatest norm of human life is the divine law itself-eternal, unbiased and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the methods of the human community according to a plan conceived in his knowledge and love. God has actually made it possible for guy to take part in this law of his so that, under the mild disposition of divine providence, numerous might have the ability to reach a deeper and much 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 inscribed his own image and likeness on man (cf. Gen 1:26), providing upon him a matchless dignity [...] In result, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not represent any work he performs, but which circulation from his necessary self-respect as an individual." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22. [68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310. [69] Francis, Message for wiki.rolandradio.net the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is comprehended as a technical term to suggest this technology, remembering that the expression is also utilized to designate the discipline and not only its applications. [71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857. [72] For instance, see the motivation of scientific expedition in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the appreciation for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These writers, amongst a long list of other Catholics participated in clinical research and technological expedition, show that "faith and science can be united in charity, offered that science is put at the service of the men and female of our time and not misused to harm or even ruin them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87. [73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. [74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888. [77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658. [78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim. [79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293. [80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4. [81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes man a moral topic. When he acts intentionally, male is, so to speak, the father of his acts." [82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776. [83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777. [84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father encouraged efforts "to guarantee that technology remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed toward the good." [85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the function of human agency in picking a larger aim (Ziel) that then notifies the particular function (Zweck) for which each technological application is developed, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um die Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71. [86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a purpose and, in its effect on human society, constantly represents a type of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, hence allowing certain individuals to carry out 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 developed and developed it." [87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309. [88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Confronted with the marvels of devices, which seem to know how to select separately, we need to be very clear that decision-making [...] should always be left to the human individual. We would condemn humanity to a future without hope if we eliminated individuals's ability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend on the choices of machines." [92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [93] The term "predisposition" in this document refers to algorithmic predisposition (systematic and consistent errors in computer system systems that might disproportionately prejudice certain groups in unexpected methods) or discovering predisposition (which will result in training on a biased data set) and not the "bias vector" in neural networks (which is a criterion utilized to adjust the output of "nerve cells" to adjust 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 verified the development in consensus "on the need for development processes to appreciate such values as addition, transparency, security, equity, privacy and dependability," and likewise welcomed "the efforts of international companies to manage these technologies so that they promote real progress, 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 additional discussion of the ethical concerns raised by AI from a Catholic perspective, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253. [99] On the significance of discussion in a pluralist society oriented toward a "robust and strong social ethics," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. [104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10. [105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; 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:" [Many people] desire their interpersonal relationships provided by advanced devices, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel tells us continuously to run the danger of an in person encounter with others, with their physical existence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their delight which contaminates us in our close and constant interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from subscription 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' teaching about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893. [129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453. [130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: "work is 'for male' and not man 'for work.' Through this conclusion one rightly pertains to recognize the pre-eminence of the subjective significance of work over the unbiased one." [132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: accc.rcec.sinica.edu.tw 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 consequences, it is that of health care. When an ill person is not placed in the center or their dignity is ruled out, this offers increase to attitudes that can lead even to speculation on the misfortune of others. And this is very severe! [...] The application of a company method to the health care sector, if indiscriminate [...] might risk disposing of people." [142] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [143] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729. [144] Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on the Use of Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729; Francis, Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016), 6: AAS 108 (2016 ), 57-58. [145] Francis, Address to Members of the Global Researchers Advancing Catholic Education Project (20 April 2022): AAS 114 (2022 ), 580. [146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), par. 41: AAS 68 (1976 ), 31, estimating Id., Address to the Members of the "Consilium de Laicis" (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: "if [the contemporary individual] does listen to teachers, it is since 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, quoting the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592. [150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167. [151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413. [152] In a 2023 policy file about the use of generative AI in education and research, UNESCO notes: "One of the crucial questions [of using generative AI (GenAI) in education and research] is whether human beings can potentially deliver fundamental levels of thinking and skill-acquisition procedures to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking abilities based upon the outputs provided by AI. Writing, for example, is typically related to the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], people can now begin with a well-structured summary supplied by GenAI. Some professionals have actually defined making use of GenAI to create text in this method as 'writing without thinking'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American thinker Hannah Arendt visualized such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and warned: "If it must end up being true that knowledge (in the sense of know-how) and believed have parted business for good, then we would certainly end up being the powerless servants, not so much of our machines as of our knowledge" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3). [153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417. [154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914. [155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479. [156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10. [157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3. [158] For instance, it might assist individuals gain access to the "selection of resources for creating higher understanding of truth" contained in the works of viewpoint (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8. [159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62. [160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074. [162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be genuinely indifferent to the question of whether what they know holds true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he writes: 'I have actually met lots of who wished to trick, however none who wished to be tricked'"; pricing quote Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794. [163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62. [164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8. [165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Media (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149. [166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24. [167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no male might with impunity breach that human self-respect which God himself treats with great reverence"; as priced quote in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804. [168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203. [169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human self-respect in cyberspace obliges States to also respect the right to personal privacy, by protecting people from intrusive monitoring and enabling them to protect their individual details from unapproved gain access to." [170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984. [171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body recognized a list of "early promises of AI helping to attend to environment modification" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The file observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can transform information into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools may assist establish brand-new techniques and investments to reduce emissions, influence new economic sector investments in net no, safeguard biodiversity, and build broad-based social durability" (ibid.). [174] "The cloud" refers to a network of physical servers throughout the world that makes it possible for users to store, procedure, and handle their information 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 ensure and secure a space for appropriate human control over the choices made by artificial intelligence programs: human self-respect itself depends on it." [186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The development and use of deadly autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) that lack the proper human control would posture essential ethical issues, provided that LAWS can never ever be morally accountable topics capable of adhering to worldwide 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 disregard the possibility of sophisticated weapons winding up in the incorrect hands, facilitating, for instance, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the organizations of legitimate systems of federal government. In a word, the world does not require brand-new technologies that add to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and consequently end up promoting the folly of war." [190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565. [191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878. [192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687. [193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39. [194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661. [195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a much better understanding today that the simple accumulation of products and services [...] is insufficient for the realization of human happiness. Nor, in repercussion, does the availability of the lots of real advantages offered in current times by science and technology, consisting of the computer technology, bring freedom from every form of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the considerable body of resources and possible at male's disposal is directed by an ethical understanding and by an orientation towards the real good of the mankind, it easily turns against guy to oppress him." Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564. [196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6. [199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6. [200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. Completion of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83). [201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288. [203] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," in C. Mitcham - R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York 19832, 212-213. [204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210. [205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829. [206] Cf. Francis, Meeting the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023). [207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: "The flood of details at our fingertips does not produce greater wisdom. Wisdom is not born of quick searches on the web nor is it a mass of unproven data. That is not the way 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.