1. With wisdom both ancient and new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to review the current obstacles and chances positioned by scientific and technological developments, particularly by the recent advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian custom concerns the gift of intelligence as an essential element of how human beings are developed "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Starting from an integral vision of the human individual and the biblical contacting us to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church highlights that this present of intelligence need to be expressed through the accountable usage of reason and technical capabilities in the stewardship of the developed world.

2. The Church encourages the improvement of science, technology, the arts, and other forms of human venture, viewing them as part of the "cooperation of males and female with God in improving the visible creation." [1] As Sirach verifies, God "provided ability to humans, that he may be glorified in his magnificent works" (Sir. 38:6). Human capabilities and creativity originate from God and, when utilized appropriately, glorify God by reflecting his wisdom and goodness. Due to this, when we ask ourselves what it means to "be human," we can not exclude a consideration of our scientific and technological abilities.

3. It is within this perspective that the present Note addresses the anthropological and ethical challenges raised by AI-issues that are particularly significant, as one of the objectives of this innovation is to imitate the human intelligence that developed it. For example, unlike numerous other human developments, AI can be trained on the outcomes of human creativity and after that produce brand-new "artifacts" with a level of speed and ability that often measures up to or exceeds what human beings can do, such as producing text or images equivalent from human compositions. This raises vital concerns about AI's possible role in the growing crisis of fact in the general public online forum. Moreover, this technology is designed to find out and make certain choices autonomously, adapting to new circumstances and supplying solutions not anticipated by its developers, and therefore, it raises basic questions about ethical duty and human security, with more comprehensive implications for society as a whole. This brand-new circumstance has prompted lots of people to assess what it implies to be human and the role of mankind on the planet.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad consensus that AI marks a brand-new and significant phase in humankind's engagement with innovation, placing it at the heart of what Pope Francis has actually explained as an "epochal modification." [2] Its effect is felt internationally and in a large range of areas, including interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, health care, law, warfare, and international relations. As AI advances rapidly toward even higher achievements, it is seriously important to consider its anthropological and ethical implications. This includes not just mitigating risks and avoiding harm however likewise making sure that its applications are used to promote human progress and the typical good.

5. To contribute positively to the discernment regarding AI, and in action to Pope Francis' require a restored "wisdom of heart," [3] the Church offers its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active function in the worldwide dialogue on these problems, the Church invites those entrusted with transmitting the faith-including parents, instructors, pastors, and bishops-to commit themselves to this crucial subject with care and attention. While this document is intended particularly for them, it is likewise implied to be available to a more comprehensive audience, especially those who share the conviction that scientific and technological advances ought to be directed toward serving the human person and the common good. [4]
6. To this end, the document starts by distinguishing in between principles of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then checks out the Christian understanding of human intelligence, providing a structure rooted in the Church's philosophical and doctrinal tradition. Finally, the document offers guidelines to ensure that the advancement and usage of AI maintain human dignity and promote the important development of the human individual and society.

7. The idea of "intelligence" in AI has evolved over time, drawing on a series of ideas from different disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a significant turning point happened in 1956 when the American computer researcher John McCarthy organized a summer season workshop at Dartmouth University to check out the issue of "Artificial Intelligence," which he defined as "that of making a machine behave in manner ins which would be called intelligent if a human were so acting." [5] This workshop introduced a research program concentrated on designing devices capable of carrying out tasks normally associated with the human intelligence and smart behavior.

8. Ever since, AI research has actually advanced quickly, resulting in the advancement of complex systems capable of performing extremely advanced jobs. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are usually created to handle particular and limited functions, such as equating languages, predicting the trajectory of a storm, classifying images, answering questions, or creating visual material at the user's demand. While the definition of "intelligence" in AI research differs, a lot of modern AI systems-particularly those utilizing maker learning-rely on analytical inference instead of rational deduction. By examining big datasets to recognize patterns, AI can "predict" [7] outcomes and propose brand-new approaches, mimicking some cognitive processes common of human analytical. Such achievements have been made possible through advances in computing technology (including neural networks, without supervision artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) in addition to hardware developments (such as specialized processors). Together, these technologies make it possible for AI systems to react to various types of human input, adapt to brand-new scenarios, and even suggest unique services not expected by their original developers. [8]
9. Due to these quick advancements, numerous jobs as soon as managed specifically by human beings are now delegated to AI. These systems can enhance or perhaps supersede what people are able to perform in many fields, particularly in specialized areas such as data analysis, image acknowledgment, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is developed for a particular job, numerous researchers aim to establish what is referred to as "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system capable of running throughout all cognitive domains and carrying out any job within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI could one day attain the state of "superintelligence," surpassing human intellectual capabilities, or contribute to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, nevertheless, fear that these possibilities, even if hypothetical, might one day eclipse the human individual, while still others welcome this possible transformation. [9]
10. Underlying this and numerous other perspectives on the topic is the implicit assumption that the term "intelligence" can be used in the same method to refer to both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not catch the complete scope of the principle. In the case of people, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the person in his or her whole, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is understood functionally, often with the anticipation that the activities quality of the human mind can be broken down into digitized actions that machines can replicate. [10]
11. This practical point of view is exemplified by the "Turing Test," which considers a maker "intelligent" if a person can not differentiate its habits from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "behavior" refers only to the efficiency of specific intellectual tasks; it does not account for the full breadth of human experience, which includes abstraction, emotions, imagination, and the aesthetic, ethical, and spiritual perceptiveness. Nor does it incorporate the full series of expressions characteristic of the human mind. Instead, when it comes to AI, the "intelligence" of a system is evaluated methodologically, but likewise reductively, based upon its capability to produce suitable responses-in this case, those associated with the human intellect-regardless of how those responses are produced.

12. AI's advanced functions offer it sophisticated capabilities to perform jobs, but not the ability to believe. [12] This distinction is crucially essential, as the method "intelligence" is defined undoubtedly shapes how we comprehend the relationship between human idea and this technology. [13] To appreciate this, one need to remember the richness of the philosophical tradition and Christian faith, which offer a much deeper and more detailed understanding of understanding that is main to the Church's mentor on the nature, dignity, and vocation of the human person. [14]
13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has played a main role in comprehending what it implies to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all people by nature desire to know." [15] This knowledge, with its capability for abstraction that grasps the nature and significance of things, sets human beings apart from the animal world. [16] As philosophers, theologians, and psychologists have analyzed the precise nature of this intellectual faculty, they have actually likewise checked out how humans understand the world and their special place within it. Through this exploration, the Christian tradition has actually pertained to understand the human person as a being including both body and soul-deeply linked to this world and yet transcending it. [17]
14. In the classical tradition, the principle of intelligence is frequently comprehended through the complementary principles of "factor" (ratio) and "intelligence" (intellectus). These are not different faculties but, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are two modes in which the same intelligence operates: "The term intellect is inferred from the inward grasp of the reality, while the name reason is drawn from the analytical and discursive process." [18] This concise description highlights the two fundamental and complementary measurements of human intelligence. Intellectus describes the intuitive grasp of the truth-that is, capturing it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and premises argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to thinking correct: the discursive, analytical process that leads to judgment. Together, intellect and factor form the two aspects of the act of intelligere, "the appropriate operation of the human being as such." [19]
15. Explaining the human person as a "rational" being does not reduce the individual to a specific mode of thought; rather, it recognizes that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and penetrates all elements of human activity. [20] Whether worked out well or improperly, this capability is an intrinsic element of humanity. In this sense, the "term 'reasonable' encompasses all the capacities of the human individual," consisting of those related to "understanding and understanding, as well as those of prepared, loving, selecting, and preferring; it likewise consists of all corporeal functions carefully related to these capabilities." [21] This detailed perspective underscores how, in the human individual, developed in the "image of God," factor is integrated in such a way that raises, shapes, and transforms both the person's will and actions. [22]
16. Christian thought thinks about the intellectual professors of the human person within the structure of an integral sociology that views the human being as essentially embodied. In the human person, spirit and matter "are not two natures joined, but rather their union forms a single nature." [23] To put it simply, the soul is not merely the immaterial "part" of the person contained within the body, nor is the body an external shell real estate an intangible "core." Rather, the whole human individual is simultaneously both product and spiritual. This understanding reflects the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which views the human person as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and hence, an authentically spiritual dimension) within and through this embodied presence. [24] The extensive meaning of this condition is additional brightened by the secret of the Incarnation, through which God himself took on our flesh and "raised it up to a sublime dignity." [25]
17. Although deeply rooted in physical presence, the human person goes beyond the material world through the soul, which is "almost on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intelligence's capability for transcendence and the self-possessed freedom of the will belong to the soul, by which the human individual "shares in the light of the divine mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its regular mode of knowledge without the body. [28] In this way, the intellectual professors of the human person are an essential part of a sociology that recognizes that the human person is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further elements of this understanding will be developed in what follows.

18. Human beings are "purchased by their very nature to social communion," [30] having the capacity to know one another, to provide themselves in love, and to participate in communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not a separated faculty however is worked out in relationships, discovering its maximum expression in discussion, partnership, and solidarity. We discover with others, and we learn through others.

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

21. Human intelligence is ultimately "God's present fashioned for the assimilation of reality." [34] In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it makes it possible for the person to explore realities that go beyond simple sensory experience or energy, since "the desire for reality becomes part of human nature itself. It is an innate home of human reason to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limits of empirical information, human intelligence can "with authentic certitude attain to reality itself as knowable." [36] While truth remains only partially understood, the desire for truth "stimulates factor always to go even more; certainly, it is as if factor were overwhelmed to see that it can always go beyond what it has already attained." [37] Although Truth in itself goes beyond the limits of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this destination, the human individual is resulted in look for "realities of a greater order." [39]
22. This innate drive towards the pursuit of fact is particularly apparent in the distinctly human capacities for semantic understanding and creativity, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "way that is proper to the social nature and dignity of the human individual." [41] Likewise, a steadfast orientation to the truth is vital for charity to be both authentic and universal. [42]
23. The look for fact discovers its greatest expression in openness to realities that go beyond the physical and produced world. In God, all realities attain their ultimate and original meaning. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "basic choice that engages the entire individual." [44] In this way, the human person becomes fully what he or she is called to be: "the intellect and the will show their spiritual nature," making it possible for the individual "to act in a manner that understands personal liberty to the full." [45]
24. The Christian faith understands creation as the free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, creates "not to increase his splendor, but to show it forth and to communicate 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 strategy (cf. Gen. 1; Dan. 2:21 -22; Is. 45:18; Ps. 74:12 -17; 104), [47] within which God has called human beings to presume a special role: to cultivate and take care of the world. [48]
25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, humans live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and abilities to look after and develop production in accord with God's strategy. [49] In this, human intelligence reflects the Divine Intelligence that created all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] constantly sustains them, and guides them to their ultimate function in him. [51] Moreover, humans are contacted us to establish their abilities in science and technology, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in a proper relationship with development, human beings, on the one hand, utilize their intelligence and skill to cooperate with God in assisting creation toward the function to which he has called it. [52] On the other hand, production itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, assists the human mind to "ascend slowly to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]
26. In this context, human intelligence ends up being more plainly understood as a professors that forms an integral part of how the whole individual engages with truth. Authentic engagement needs embracing the full scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with truth unfolds in different ways, as each person, in his/her diverse individuality [54], seeks to understand the world, associate with others, solve problems, express imagination, and pursue essential well-being through the harmonious interaction of the different measurements of the person's intelligence. [55] This includes rational and linguistic abilities however can likewise incorporate other modes of connecting with truth. Consider the work of a craftsmen, who "need to know how to discern, in inert matter, a specific kind that others can not recognize" [56] and bring it forth through insight and useful ability. Indigenous individuals who live near to the earth often possess a profound sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a good friend who knows the best word to say or a person proficient at managing human relationships exemplifies an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, discussion and generous encounter in between individuals." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of expert system, we can not forget that poetry and love are required to save our mankind." [59]
28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the integration of fact into the ethical and spiritual life of the person, assisting his/her actions due to God's goodness and truth. According to God's plan, intelligence, in its fullest sense, likewise consists of the ability to appreciate what is true, excellent, and lovely. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel expressed, "intelligence is nothing without pleasure." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the highest paradise in Paradiso, affirms that the culmination of this intellectual pleasure is discovered in the "light intellectual complete of love, love of real good filled with happiness, pleasure which transcends every sweetness." [61]
29. A correct understanding of human intelligence, therefore, can not be minimized to the mere acquisition of realities or the capability to carry out specific jobs. Instead, it involves the individual's openness to the ultimate concerns of life and reflects an orientation toward the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the divine image within the individual, human intelligence has the capability to access the totality of being, contemplating presence in its fullness, which surpasses what is measurable, and grasping the significance of what has been comprehended. For followers, this capability includes, in a specific way, the capability to grow in the knowledge of the secrets of God by utilizing factor to engage ever more exceptionally with revealed facts (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is shaped by magnificent love, which "is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence has an important reflective dimension, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian function.

30. Due to the foregoing conversation, the differences between human intelligence and existing AI systems become apparent. While AI is an extraordinary technological accomplishment capable of mimicing certain outputs related to human intelligence, it runs by carrying out tasks, attaining objectives, or making decisions based on quantitative data and computational logic. For example, with its analytical power, AI excels at incorporating data from a range of fields, modeling complex systems, and cultivating interdisciplinary connections. In this method, it can assist specialists team up in solving intricate issues that "can not be handled from a single perspective or from a single set of interests." [64]
31. However, even as AI procedures and simulates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains basically restricted to a logical-mathematical framework, which enforces fundamental constraints. Human intelligence, in contrast, establishes naturally throughout the person's physical and mental growth, formed by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although sophisticated AI systems can "discover" through processes such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is essentially different from the developmental development of human intelligence, which is formed by embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the distinct context of each minute. These components shape and type people within their personal history.In contrast, AI, doing not have a physical body, counts on computational thinking and knowing based upon large datasets that consist of recorded human experiences and knowledge.

32. Consequently, although AI can imitate elements of human reasoning and perform specific jobs with unbelievable speed and performance, its computational abilities represent just a portion of the wider capacities of the human mind. For example, AI can not presently duplicate moral discernment or the capability to establish genuine relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is positioned within a personally lived history of intellectual and ethical development that fundamentally forms the person's point of view, including the physical, psychological, social, ethical, and spiritual measurements of life. Since AI can not offer this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely solely on this technology or treat it as the main means of analyzing the world can cause "a loss of gratitude for the whole, for the relationships between things, and for the broader horizon." [65]
33. Human intelligence is not mainly about completing practical tasks however about understanding and actively engaging with truth in all its dimensions; it is likewise efficient in surprising insights. Since AI does not have the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to truth and goodness, its capacities-though apparently limitless-are unparalleled with the human capability to grasp truth. A lot can be gained from a disease, an embrace of reconciliation, and even a basic sundown; certainly, lots of experiences we have as humans open brand-new horizons and use the possibility of attaining brand-new wisdom. No gadget, working solely with data, can measure up to these and many other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an overly close equivalence in between human intelligence and AI risks succumbing to a functionalist point of view, where individuals are valued based upon the work they can perform. However, a person's worth does not depend on having particular abilities, cognitive and technological achievements, or private success, however on the individual's fundamental self-respect, grounded in being created in the image of God. [66] This self-respect remains intact in all situations, consisting of for those not able to exercise their abilities, whether it be a coming kid, an unconscious individual, or an older person who is suffering. [67] It likewise underpins the tradition of human rights (and, in particular, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "an essential point of convergence in the search for common ground" [68] and can, therefore, act as a fundamental ethical guide in conversations on the responsible advancement and use of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the extremely usage of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can show deceptive" [69] and dangers neglecting what is most precious in the human person. Due to this, AI must not be seen as a synthetic kind of human intelligence but as an item of it. [70]
36. Given these considerations, one can ask how AI can be comprehended within God's strategy. To address this, it is essential to remember that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character however is a human undertaking that engages the humanistic and cultural dimensions of human creativity. [71]
37. Seen as a fruit of the potential inscribed within human intelligence, [72] clinical inquiry and the advancement of technical abilities become part of the "collaboration of man and woman with God in improving the visible creation." [73] At the very same time, all scientific and technological achievements are, eventually, gifts from God. [74] Therefore, humans must constantly use their abilities in view of the greater function for which God has actually given them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how technology has "corrected countless evils which used to damage and limit human beings," [76] a reality for which we need to rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological improvements in themselves represent real human development. [77] The Church is especially opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the self-respect of the human person. [78] Like any human venture, technological advancement should be directed to serve the human individual and contribute 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 however likewise among many researchers, technologists, and expert associations, who increasingly call for ethical reflection to assist this advancement in a responsible method.

39. To resolve these obstacles, it is important to emphasize the significance of moral duty grounded in the dignity and vocation of the human person. This assisting concept likewise applies to concerns concerning AI. In this context, the ethical measurement takes on main value due to the fact that it is individuals who develop systems and determine the purposes for which they are utilized. [80] Between a maker and a person, just the latter is truly an ethical agent-a topic of ethical duty who exercises liberty in his/her choices and accepts their consequences. [81] It is not the device however the human who remains in relationship with fact and goodness, guided by a moral conscience that calls the person "to enjoy and to do what is good and to prevent evil," [82] bearing witness to "the authority of reality in referral to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn." [83] Likewise, in between a machine and a human, chessdatabase.science only the human can be adequately self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, critical with prudence, and seeking the good that is possible in every scenario. [84] In fact, all of this also belongs to the person's exercise of intelligence.

40. Like any product of human creativity, AI can be directed toward positive or unfavorable ends. [85] When utilized in manner ins which respect human self-respect and promote the well-being of people and neighborhoods, it can contribute positively to the human vocation. Yet, as in all locations where human beings are called to make choices, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human freedom enables the possibility of choosing what is wrong, the moral examination of this innovation will need to take into consideration how it is directed and utilized.

41. At the very same time, it is not only the ends that are fairly considerable however likewise the ways used to attain them. Additionally, the general vision and understanding of the human individual ingrained within these systems are essential to consider too. Technological products show the worldview of their developers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to "shape the world and engage consciences on the level of values." [87] On a societal level, some technological advancements might likewise reinforce relationships and power characteristics that are inconsistent with an appropriate understanding of the human individual and society.

42. Therefore, the ends and the means utilized in a given application of AI, as well as the general vision it integrates, must all be evaluated to guarantee they respect human dignity and promote the typical good. [88] As Pope Francis has stated, "the intrinsic dignity of every man and every woman" should be "the essential criterion in evaluating emerging technologies; these will show fairly sound to the extent that they assist regard that self-respect and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] including in the social and economic spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays an essential function not just in creating and producing innovation but also in directing its use in line with the genuine good of the human person. [90] The responsibility for managing this carefully pertains to every level of society, guided by the principle of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The commitment to making sure that AI always supports and promotes the supreme value of the self-respect of every person and the fullness of the human occupation functions as a criterion of discernment for designers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, along with to its users. It remains valid for every application of the innovation at every level of its usage.

44. An assessment of the implications of this guiding principle might start by considering the significance of moral responsibility. Since full ethical causality belongs only to individual agents, not artificial ones, it is crucial to be able to identify and specify who bears responsibility for the processes associated with AI, especially those capable of discovering, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up methods and really deep neural networks make it possible for AI to fix intricate issues, they make it challenging to understand the procedures that cause the services they adopted. This makes complex responsibility given that if an AI application produces unwanted outcomes, determining who is accountable ends up being difficult. To address this issue, attention needs to be offered to the nature of accountability processes in complex, highly automated settings, where outcomes might only become obvious in the medium to long term. For this, it is very important that ultimate duty for decisions used AI rests with the human decision-makers and that there is accountability for the usage of AI at each phase of the decision-making procedure. [91]
45. In addition to identifying who is accountable, it is essential to determine the objectives offered to AI systems. Although these systems might utilize unsupervised autonomous knowing systems and sometimes follow paths that human beings can not rebuild, they ultimately pursue goals that human beings have designated to them and are governed by procedures established by their designers and developers. Yet, this provides a challenge due to the fact that, as AI models end up being increasingly capable of independent learning, the capability to maintain control over them to guarantee that such applications serve human functions may efficiently diminish. This raises the crucial question of how to ensure that AI systems are purchased for the good of people and not against them.

46. While duty 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 noted, the maker "makes a technical option among several possibilities based either on distinct criteria or on statistical reasonings. Human beings, nevertheless, not just choose, but in their hearts can choosing." [92] Those who utilize AI to accomplish a task and follow its results develop a context in which they are eventually accountable for the power they have handed over. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist human beings in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it needs to be trustworthy, safe, robust enough to handle inconsistencies, and transparent in their operation to reduce predispositions and unexpected adverse effects. [93] Regulatory structures must guarantee that all legal entities remain responsible for the usage of AI and all its consequences, with appropriate safeguards for transparency, personal privacy, and responsibility. [94] Moreover, those utilizing AI needs to beware not to become excessively reliant on it for their decision-making, a pattern that increases modern society's currently high dependence on innovation.

47. The Church's ethical and social teaching provides resources to help make sure that AI is used in a method that maintains human firm. Considerations about justice, for instance, must also deal with problems such as cultivating just social dynamics, maintaining global security, and promoting peace. By working out prudence, individuals and neighborhoods can recognize ways to utilize AI to benefit humankind while avoiding applications that might break down human self-respect or harm the environment. In this context, the idea of responsibility must be understood not just in its most limited sense however as a "duty for the care for others, which is more than just representing results attained." [95]
48. Therefore, AI, like any technology, can be part of a mindful and responsible response to humankind's occupation to the great. However, as previously talked about, AI needs to be directed by human intelligence to align with this occupation, ensuring it appreciates the dignity of the human individual. Recognizing this "exalted self-respect," the Second Vatican Council verified that "the social order and its advancement need to usually work to the benefit of the human person." [96] In light of this, using AI, as Pope Francis said, must be "accompanied by an ethic influenced by a vision of the common great, a principles of freedom, obligation, and fraternity, efficient in cultivating the complete development of people in relation to others and to the whole of development." [97]
49. Within this general point of view, some observations follow below to show how the preceding arguments can assist offer an ethical orientation in practical scenarios, in line with the "wisdom of heart" that Pope Francis has actually proposed. [98] While not exhaustive, this discussion is offered in service of the dialogue that thinks about how AI can be used to maintain the dignity of the human individual and promote the typical good. [99]
50. As Pope Francis observed, "the intrinsic dignity of each human and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human family need to undergird the advancement of new innovations and function as unassailable criteria for evaluating them before they are employed." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI could "introduce important innovations in farming, education and culture, an improved level of life for entire nations and peoples, and the development of human fraternity and social relationship," and therefore be "used to promote essential human development." [101] AI might likewise assist companies recognize those in need and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other similar applications of this technology might add to human development and the typical good. [102]
52. However, while AI holds many possibilities for promoting the good, it can likewise hinder and even counter human development and the typical good. Pope Francis has actually kept in mind that "proof to date recommends that digital technologies have increased inequality in our world. Not just differences in product wealth, which are also considerable, however also differences in access to political and social impact." [103] In this sense, AI could be used to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, produce brand-new forms of poverty, broaden 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 couple of powerful business raises considerable ethical issues. Exacerbating this issue is the fundamental nature of AI systems, where no single individual can work out total oversight over the huge and complicated datasets used for calculation. This lack of well-defined responsibility produces the danger that AI could be controlled for individual or business gain or to direct popular opinion for the advantage of a particular market. Such entities, inspired by their own interests, have the capacity to work out "forms of control as subtle as they are intrusive, creating systems for the manipulation of consciences and of the democratic procedure." [105]
54. Furthermore, there is the danger of AI being used to promote what Pope Francis has called the "technocratic paradigm," which perceives all the world's issues as solvable through technological ways alone. [106] In this paradigm, human self-respect and fraternity are typically set aside in the name of effectiveness, "as if reality, goodness, and fact immediately flow from technological and economic power as such." [107] Yet, human dignity and the typical excellent must never be breached for the sake of performance, [108] for "technological advancements that do not lead to an improvement in the lifestyle of all mankind, however on the contrary, intensify inequalities and conflicts, can never ever count as true progress. " [109] Instead, AI must be put "at the service of another type of development, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more essential." [110]
55. Attaining this goal needs a deeper reflection on the relationship between autonomy and responsibility. Greater autonomy heightens each person's obligation across various elements of common life. For Christians, the foundation of this responsibility depends on the acknowledgment that all human capacities, consisting of the individual's autonomy, come from God and are suggested to be used in the service of others. [111] Therefore, instead of merely pursuing financial or technological objectives, AI must serve "the common good of the whole human household," which is "the amount total of social conditions that allow individuals, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more totally and more quickly." [112]
56. The Second Vatican Council observed that "by his innermost nature guy is a social being; and if he does not participate in relations with others, he can neither live nor develop his presents." [113] This conviction highlights that residing in society is intrinsic to the nature and vocation of the human individual. [114] As social beings, we seek relationships that involve mutual exchange and the pursuit of fact, in the course of which, individuals "show each other the reality they have discovered, or believe they have found, in such a way that they assist one another in the look for truth." [115]
57. Such a mission, in addition to other aspects of human interaction, presupposes encounters and shared exchange in between individuals shaped by their distinct histories, ideas, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a diverse, multifaceted, and complex truth: individual and social, logical and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis highlights this vibrant, keeping in mind that "together, we can seek the fact in discussion, in relaxed discussion or in enthusiastic argument. To do so calls for perseverance; it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently embrace the more comprehensive experience of individuals and individuals. [...] The process of structure fraternity, be it local or universal, can only be carried out by spirits that are free and available to authentic encounters." [116]
58. It remains in this context that a person can consider the challenges AI poses to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the prospective to cultivate connections within the human family. However, it might likewise impede a real encounter with reality and, eventually, lead individuals to "a deep and melancholic dissatisfaction with interpersonal relations, or a damaging sense of isolation." [117] Authentic human relationships need the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their joy. [118] Since human intelligence is expressed and enhanced also in social and embodied ways, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are indispensable for engaging with truth in its fullness.

59. Because "true knowledge requires an encounter with reality," [119] the increase of AI presents another difficulty. Since AI can successfully imitate the items of human intelligence, the capability to understand when one is communicating with a human or a machine can no longer be considered given. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other advanced outputs that are normally related to humans. Yet, it needs to be comprehended for what it is: a tool, not an individual. [120] This distinction is often obscured by the language used by professionals, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and therefore blurs the line between human and machine.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI also positions specific challenges for the development of children, possibly motivating them to develop patterns of interaction that deal with human relationships in a transactional way, as one would connect to a chatbot. Such habits could lead youths to see instructors as mere dispensers of details rather than as mentors who direct and nurture their intellectual and moral development. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and an unfaltering dedication to the good of the other, are necessary and irreplaceable in promoting the full advancement of the human individual.

61. In this context, it is essential to clarify that, regardless of using anthropomorphic language, no AI application can genuinely experience compassion. Emotions can not be reduced to facial expressions or phrases produced in reaction to prompts; they show the way an individual, as a whole, associates with the world and to his or her own life, with the body playing a main role. True empathy requires the ability to listen, acknowledge another's irreducible individuality, invite their otherness, and understand the significance behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the realm of analytical judgment in which AI stands out, true compassion comes from the relational sphere. It includes intuiting and capturing the lived experiences of another while maintaining the distinction in between self and other. [122] While AI can mimic compassionate actions, it can not reproduce the incomparably individual and relational nature of genuine empathy. [123]
62. Because of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as an individual must always be avoided; doing so for deceptive purposes is a severe ethical violation that could wear down social trust. Similarly, using AI to trick in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, consisting of the sphere of sexuality-is likewise to be considered unethical and requires careful oversight to prevent harm, maintain openness, and ensure the dignity of all individuals. [124]
63. In a progressively separated world, some people have actually turned to AI in search of deep human relationships, basic companionship, or even psychological bonds. However, while human beings are indicated to experience genuine relationships, AI can only simulate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an essential part of how a person grows to become who she or he is suggested to be. If AI is used to assist individuals foster genuine connections between individuals, it can contribute positively to the full realization of the individual. Conversely, if we replace relationships with God and with others with interactions with innovation, we run the risk of replacing authentic relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of pulling away into artificial worlds, we are contacted us to participate in a committed and intentional method with reality, especially by relating to the poor and suffering, consoling those in grief, and creating bonds of communion with all.

64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being increasingly incorporated into economic and financial systems. Significant investments are presently being made not just in the technology sector however also in energy, finance, 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 significant opportunities however likewise profound threats. A very first real critical point in this location worries the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a few corporations-only those large companies would gain from the value produced by AI instead of business that utilize it.

65. Other broader elements of AI's effect on the economic-financial sphere need to also be thoroughly analyzed, particularly worrying the interaction in between concrete reality and the digital world. One essential factor to consider in this regard includes the coexistence of varied and alternative kinds of economic and financial organizations within a provided context. This aspect ought to be motivated, as it can bring benefits in how it supports the genuine economy by promoting its advancement and stability, particularly throughout times of crisis. Nevertheless, it needs to be stressed that digital truths, not restricted by any spatial bonds, tend to be more uniform and impersonal than neighborhoods rooted in a particular place and a particular history, with a common journey defined by shared values and hopes, but likewise by inevitable arguments and divergences. This diversity is an indisputable possession to a community's economic life. Turning over the economy and finance entirely to digital innovation would reduce this variety and richness. As an outcome, numerous services to financial problems that can be reached through natural dialogue in between the involved parties may no longer be attainable in a world controlled by treatments and just the look of nearness.

66. Another area where AI is already having an extensive impact is the world of work. As in lots of other fields, AI is driving basic improvements throughout numerous occupations, with a range of effects. On the one hand, it has the potential to enhance expertise and productivity, create new jobs, enable workers to focus on more ingenious tasks, and open new horizons for imagination and innovation.

67. However, while AI assures to improve efficiency by taking control of ordinary tasks, it often requires employees to adjust to the speed and needs of makers instead of devices being developed to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the advertised advantages of AI, current methods to the technology can paradoxically deskill employees, subject them to automated monitoring, and relegate them to rigid and recurring tasks. The requirement to keep up with the rate of technology can wear down workers' sense of agency and stifle the innovative capabilities they are expected to bring to their work. [125]
68. AI is presently eliminating the need for some tasks that were as soon as performed by people. If AI is utilized to change human employees rather than match them, there is a "significant threat of out of proportion benefit for the few at the cost of the impoverishment of many." [126] Additionally, as AI becomes more effective, there is an associated threat that human labor might lose its value in the economic world. This is the logical repercussion of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humanity enslaved to efficiency, where, ultimately, the expense of humanity must be cut. Yet, human lives are intrinsically important, independent of their economic output. Nevertheless, the "present model," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to prefer an investment in efforts to help the sluggish, the weak, or the less talented to find chances in life." [127] Because of this, "we can not enable a tool as effective and important as Artificial Intelligence to strengthen such a paradigm, but rather, we should make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its growth." [128]
69. It is necessary to keep in mind that "the order of things must be subordinate to the order of individuals, and not the other way around." [129] Human work needs to not just be at the service of profit however at "the service of the whole human person [...] taking into account the individual's product needs and the requirements of his or her intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and spiritual life." [130] In this context, the Church recognizes that work is "not only a way of earning one's daily bread" however is likewise "an important dimension of social life" and "a means [...] of individual growth, the building of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of gifts. Work offers us a sense of shared responsibility for the advancement of the world, and ultimately, for our life as a people." [131]
70. Since work is a "part of the meaning of life on this earth, a course to development, human advancement and personal fulfillment," "the goal needs to not be that technological progress progressively changes human work, for this would be damaging to mankind" [132] -rather, it should promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI must assist, not change, human judgment. Similarly, it should never deteriorate creativity or reduce employees to simple "cogs in a maker." Therefore, "respect for the dignity of workers and the importance of employment for the economic well-being of people, families, and societies, for job security and simply incomes, should be a high priority for the global community as these types of technology penetrate more deeply into our offices." [133]
71. As individuals in God's healing work, health care specialists have the occupation and duty to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the health care occupation carries an "intrinsic and indisputable ethical measurement," recognized by the Hippocratic Oath, which requires physicians and healthcare experts to devote themselves to having "outright regard for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Good Samaritan, this dedication is to be performed by males and females "who reject the creation of a society of exclusion, and act instead as next-door neighbors, raising up and fixing up the fallen for the sake of the common good." [136]
72. Seen in this light, AI seems to hold enormous potential in a variety of applications in the medical field, such as assisting the diagnostic work of health care service providers, assisting in relationships between patients and medical staff, offering brand-new treatments, and expanding access to quality care likewise for those who are separated or marginalized. In these methods, the technology might boost the "thoughtful and caring closeness" [137] that healthcare providers are called to encompass the sick and suffering.

73. However, if AI is used not to enhance but to change the relationship in between clients and health care providers-leaving clients to engage with a machine instead of a human being-it would lower a crucially crucial human relational structure to a central, impersonal, and unequal structure. Instead of encouraging uniformity with the sick and suffering, such applications of AI would run the risk of aggravating the solitude that frequently accompanies disease, specifically in the context of a culture where "individuals are no longer viewed as a critical value to be taken care of and appreciated." [138] This misuse of AI would not align with regard for the dignity of the human individual and uniformity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the well-being of clients and the decisions that discuss their lives are at the heart of the health care occupation. This accountability needs physician to work out all their ability and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options concerning those delegated to their care, always respecting the inviolable dignity of the clients and the requirement for informed consent. As an outcome, decisions regarding patient treatment and the weight of obligation they entail should constantly remain with the human individual and ought to never ever be delegated to AI. [139]
75. In addition, utilizing AI to identify who should receive treatment based mainly on financial steps or metrics of effectiveness represents a particularly bothersome circumstances of the "technocratic paradigm" that must be turned down. [140] For, "enhancing resources implies utilizing them in an ethical and fraternal way, and not punishing the most delicate." [141] Additionally, AI tools in healthcare are "exposed to forms of predisposition and discrimination," where "systemic errors can quickly increase, producing not only injustices in private cases however also, due to the domino effect, genuine kinds of social inequality." [142]
76. The combination of AI into health care also presents 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 approaches, AI-driven options might accidentally favor more wealthy populations who currently delight in much better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This pattern risks reinforcing a "medicine for the rich" model, where those with monetary ways gain from sophisticated preventative tools and personalized health details while others struggle to gain access to even basic services. To avoid such injustices, fair frameworks are required to make sure that the usage of AI in healthcare does not intensify existing health care inequalities however rather serves the typical good.

77. The words of the Second Vatican Council remain fully pertinent today: "True education aims to form people with a view towards their last end and the good of the society to which they belong." [143] As such, education is "never a mere process of handing down realities and intellectual skills: rather, its aim is to add to the person's holistic development in its different aspects (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, etc), including, for instance, neighborhood life and relations within the scholastic neighborhood," [144] in keeping with the nature and dignity of the human person.

78. This method involves a commitment to cultivating the mind, however constantly as a part of the essential advancement of the individual: "We should break that idea of education which holds that educating means filling one's head with ideas. That is the way we inform automatons, cerebral minds, not individuals. Educating is taking a risk in the stress between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]
79. At the center of this work of forming the whole human person is the indispensable relationship between instructor and trainee. Teachers do more than communicate knowledge; they design essential human qualities and inspire the joy of discovery. [146] Their existence encourages trainees both through the material they teach and the care they demonstrate for their trainees. This bond cultivates trust, mutual understanding, and the capability to resolve each person's unique self-respect and potential. On the part of the trainee, this can create an authentic desire to grow. The physical presence of a teacher creates a relational dynamic that AI can not replicate, one that deepens engagement and nurtures the trainee's essential advancement.

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 genuine objectives of education, AI can end up being a valuable instructional resource by boosting access to education, providing tailored assistance, and providing instant feedback to trainees. These advantages might boost the learning experience, especially in cases where customized attention is needed, or educational resources are otherwise scarce.

81. Nevertheless, an important part of education is forming "the intellect to factor well in all matters, to reach out towards truth, and to understand it," [147] while assisting the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is even more vital in an age marked by technology, in which "it is no longer simply a question of 'utilizing' instruments of interaction, however of residing in an extremely digitalized culture that has had an extensive effect on [...] our capability to interact, learn, be notified and get in into relationship with others." [149] However, rather of fostering "a cultivated intellect," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and profession that it carries out," [150] the extensive usage of AI in education could cause the trainees' increased dependence on technology, eroding their ability to perform some skills individually and intensifying their reliance on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are developed to help people establish their crucial thinking abilities and analytical skills, lots of others merely offer responses instead of prompting trainees to reach responses themselves or compose text on their own. [152] Instead of training young people how to collect details and produce quick actions, education must encourage "the accountable usage of freedom to face concerns with great sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in the use of kinds of artificial intelligence need to aim above all at promoting critical thinking. Users of all ages, however especially the young, need to establish a critical approach to using information and content gathered on the internet or produced by artificial intelligence systems. Schools, universities, and clinical societies are challenged to assist trainees and professionals to grasp the social and ethical elements of the development and usages of technology." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II recalled, "on the planet today, defined by such rapid developments in science and innovation, the tasks of a Catholic University presume an ever higher importance and urgency." [155] In a particular 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 secret, they are prompted to engage "with wisdom and imagination" [156] in mindful research study on this phenomenon, helping to extract the salutary potential within the different fields of science and truth, and assisting them always towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the typical great, reaching brand-new frontiers in the dialogue in between faith and reason.

84. Moreover, it ought to be kept in mind that existing AI programs have been known to supply prejudiced or fabricated details, which can lead trainees to rely on inaccurate content. This issue "not just risks of legitimizing fake news and enhancing a dominant culture's benefit, however, simply put, it also weakens the academic procedure itself." [157] With time, clearer differences might emerge between proper and incorrect uses of AI in education and research study. Yet, a definitive standard is that making use of AI must always be transparent and never misrepresented.

85. AI might be used as an aid to human dignity if it helps people understand complex concepts or directs them to sound resources that support their look for the fact. [158]
86. However, AI likewise presents a major danger of producing controlled material and incorrect details, which can quickly misinform individuals due to its similarity to the reality. Such misinformation might take place inadvertently, as when it comes to AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear real however are not. Since generating material that mimics human artifacts is main to AI's functionality, reducing these threats shows tough. Yet, the effects of such aberrations and false details can be rather serious. For this factor, all those included in producing and utilizing AI systems must be devoted to the truthfulness and accuracy of the details processed by such systems and distributed to the public.

87. While AI has a latent capacity to create incorrect details, a a lot more troubling issue depends on the deliberate misuse of AI for manipulation. This can happen when individuals or companies intentionally generate and spread out incorrect content with the aim to trick or trigger damage, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to an incorrect representation of an individual, modified or produced by an AI algorithm. The danger of deepfakes is particularly apparent when they are utilized to target or damage others. While the images or videos themselves may be synthetic, the damage they cause is real, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "real injuries in their human self-respect." [159]
88. On a broader scale, by misshaping "our relationship with others and with truth," [160] AI-generated fake media can slowly undermine the foundations of society. This issue requires careful policy, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or influenced media-can spread inadvertently, sustaining political polarization and social discontent. When society ends up being indifferent to the reality, different groups build their own variations of "facts," weakening the "reciprocal ties and mutual dependencies" [161] that underpin the fabric of social life. As deepfakes cause people to question everything and AI-generated incorrect content erodes trust in what they see and hear, polarization and dispute will only grow. Such widespread deceptiveness is no insignificant matter; it strikes at the core of humankind, dismantling the foundational trust on which societies are developed. [162]
89. Countering AI-driven frauds is not only the work of industry experts-it needs the efforts of all people of goodwill. "If technology is to serve human dignity and not hurt it, and if it is to promote peace instead of violence, then the human community needs to be proactive in resolving these patterns with regard to human dignity and the promotion of the excellent." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated material ought to always work out diligence in validating the fact of what they distribute and, in all cases, need to "prevent the sharing of words and images that are degrading of human beings, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that make use of the weak and vulnerable." [164] This requires the ongoing prudence and mindful discernment of all users concerning their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are inherently relational, and the data everyone generates in the digital world can be seen as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data communicates not only details but likewise individual and relational knowledge, which, in an increasingly digitized context, can amount to power over the person. Moreover, while some kinds of data may pertain to public elements of a person's life, others might touch upon the person's interiority, maybe even their conscience. Seen in this method, personal privacy plays an important function in protecting the limits of an individual's inner life, maintaining their liberty to associate with others, express themselves, and make choices without excessive control. This defense is also tied to the defense of spiritual liberty, as monitoring can likewise be misused to put in control over the lives of believers and how they reveal their faith.

91. It is suitable, therefore, to attend to the problem of personal privacy from a concern for the legitimate flexibility and inalienable self-respect of the human person "in all scenarios." [166] The Second Vatican Council included the right "to secure personal privacy" amongst the essential rights "needed for living a genuinely human life," a right that should be extended to all individuals on account of their "sublime dignity." [167] Furthermore, the Church has also verified the right to the genuine regard for a personal life in the context of verifying the individual's right to a good reputation, defense of their physical and mental integrity, and liberty from damage or unnecessary intrusion [168] -necessary elements of the due respect 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 behavior and believing from even a percentage of details, making the function of data personal privacy much more imperative as a safeguard for the dignity and relational nature of the human individual. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant mindsets towards others are on the rise, distances are otherwise shrinking or disappearing to the point that the right to personal privacy hardly exists. Everything has actually ended up being a kind of phenomenon to be analyzed and checked, and individuals's lives are now under constant monitoring." [170]
93. While there can be legitimate and appropriate methods to use AI in keeping with human self-respect and the typical great, utilizing it for security aimed at exploiting, restricting others' freedom, or benefitting a few at the expenditure of the lots of is unjustifiable. The risk of security overreach need to be kept an eye on by proper regulators to guarantee transparency and public accountability. Those responsible for monitoring must never ever surpass their authority, which should always prefer the dignity and freedom of everyone as the necessary basis of a simply and gentle society.

94. Furthermore, "fundamental regard for human self-respect needs that we refuse to allow the originality of the individual to be related to a set of information." [171] This specifically applies when AI is used to examine people or groups based on their behavior, characteristics, or history-a practice referred to as "social scoring": "In social and economic decision-making, we must beware about entrusting judgments to algorithms that process data, frequently gathered surreptitiously, on an individual's makeup and prior habits. Such information can be polluted by societal prejudices and preconceptions. A person's previous behavior need to not be utilized to reject him or her the opportunity to alter, grow, and contribute to society. We can not enable algorithms to restrict or condition respect for human dignity, or to omit empathy, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able to alter." [172]
95. AI has lots of appealing applications for enhancing our relationship with our "typical home," such as developing designs to forecast severe climate events, proposing engineering options to minimize their effect, managing relief operations, and predicting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable agriculture, enhance energy usage, and provide early caution systems for public health emergencies. These developments have the potential to enhance strength against climate-related obstacles and promote more sustainable advancement.

96. At the very same time, current AI models and the hardware needed to support them take in large quantities of energy and water, substantially adding to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This truth is often obscured by the method this innovation exists in the popular imagination, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can provide the impression that data is kept and processed in an intangible realm, removed from the real world. However, "the cloud" is not an ethereal domain separate from the physical world; similar to all computing technologies, it depends on physical devices, cable televisions, and energy. The same holds true of the technology behind AI. As these systems grow in complexity, specifically large language designs (LLMs), they need ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and higher storage facilities. Considering the heavy toll these innovations handle the environment, it is essential to establish sustainable options that minimize their influence on our typical home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is important "that we try to find options not just in technology but in a modification of humanity." [175] A complete and genuine understanding of production acknowledges that the value of all created things can not be lowered to their simple energy. Therefore, a totally human method to the stewardship of the earth declines the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which seeks to "draw out whatever possible" from the world, [176] and rejects the "myth of progress," which presumes that "environmental issues will solve themselves just with the application of brand-new technology and without any need for ethical considerations or deep modification." [177] Such a state of mind should pave the way to a more holistic approach that respects the order of creation and promotes the integral good of the human individual while securing our common home. [178]
98. The Second Vatican Council and tandme.co.uk the consistent teaching of the Popes since then have actually firmly insisted that peace is not simply the absence of war and is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers in between adversaries. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the harmony of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without safeguarding the products of individuals, free interaction, regard for the self-respect of persons and individuals, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity and can not be attained through force alone; rather, it needs to be mainly constructed through patient diplomacy, the active promo of justice, solidarity, integral human development, and respect for the dignity of all individuals. [180] In this method, the tools utilized to maintain peace ought to never ever be permitted to justify oppression, violence, or oppression. Instead, they should always be governed by a "firm decision to respect other individuals and nations, along with their dignity, as well as the deliberate practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical abilities might help countries look for peace and ensure security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can likewise be highly problematic. Pope Francis has observed that "the ability to perform military operations through push-button control systems has actually resulted in a reduced understanding of the devastation triggered by those weapon systems and the concern of obligation for their use, resulting in a a lot more cold and detached technique to the immense catastrophe of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which self-governing weapons make war more feasible militates against the concept of war as a last option in genuine self-defense, [183] possibly increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and precipitating a destabilizing arms race, with catastrophic repercussions for human rights. [184]
100. In particular, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which are capable of recognizing and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for severe ethical concern" due to the fact that they lack the "special human capability for ethical judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this reason, Pope Francis has urgently required a reconsideration of the development of these weapons and a prohibition on their use, starting with "an effective and concrete commitment to introduce ever greater and appropriate human control. No maker must ever select to take the life of a human." [186]
101. Since it is a small step from machines that can eliminate autonomously with precision to those capable of massive destruction, some AI scientists have actually expressed concerns that such technology postures an "existential danger" by having the possible to act in ways that could threaten the survival of entire areas or even of humankind itself. This danger needs serious attention, showing the enduring concern about innovations that grant war "an uncontrollable devastating power over varieties of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing children. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "carry out an examination of war with an entirely brand-new mindset" [188] is more immediate than ever.

102. At the same time, while the theoretical risks of AI are worthy of attention, the more instant and pushing concern depends on how people with destructive intents might abuse this technology. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future abilities are unpredictable, humankind's past actions offer clear cautions. The atrocities dedicated throughout history are adequate to raise deep concerns about the potential abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that "mankind now has instruments of unprecedented power: we can turn this world into a garden, or lower it to a pile of debris." [190] Given this truth, the Church advises us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are free to use our intelligence towards things progressing positively," or toward "decadence and mutual destruction." [191] To prevent humankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there must be a clear stand against all applications of technology that naturally threaten human life and dignity. This commitment needs careful discernment about making use of AI, especially in military defense applications, to make sure that it always respects human self-respect and serves the common good. The development and release of AI in weaponries ought to be subject to the greatest levels of ethical scrutiny, governed by an issue for human self-respect and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology uses amazing tools to manage and establish the world's resources. However, sometimes, humanity is progressively ceding control of these resources to devices. Within some circles of researchers and futurists, there is optimism about the capacity of artificial basic intelligence (AGI), a theoretical form of AI that would match or surpass human intelligence and cause unthinkable improvements. Some even hypothesize that AGI might attain superhuman capabilities. At the very same time, tandme.co.uk as society wanders away from a connection with the transcendent, some are lured to turn to AI in search of meaning or fulfillment-longings that can just be truly satisfied in communion with God. [194]
105. However, the presumption of substituting God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture explicitly alerts against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI might show much more seductive than traditional idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths however do not speak; eyes, but do not see; ears, however do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or at least provides the impression of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is vital 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 possess a number of the abilities specific to human life, and it is likewise fallible. By turning to AI as a perceived "Other" higher than itself, with which to share existence and duties, humankind dangers developing a replacement for God. However, it is not AI that is eventually deified and worshipped, however mankind itself-which, in this method, ends up being enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the potential to serve mankind and contribute to the typical good, it remains a creation of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and resourcefulness" (Acts 17:29). It must never be ascribed unnecessary worth. As the Book of Wisdom affirms: "For a man made them, and one whose spirit is obtained formed them; for no man can form a god which resembles himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is better than the items he worships given that he has life, but they never ever have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. On the other hand, human beings, "by their interior life, transcend the entire product universe; they experience this deep interiority when they participate in their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they decide their own fate in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis reminds us, that each individual discovers the "strange connection in between self-knowledge and openness to others, between the encounter with one's personal individuality and the determination to give oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "efficient in setting our other powers and passions, and our whole individual, in a stance of reverence and caring obedience before the Lord," [198] who "offers to treat each one of us as a 'Thou,' constantly and permanently." [199]
108. Considering the various challenges postured by advances in innovation, Pope Francis highlighted the requirement for development in "human responsibility, worths, and conscience," proportionate to the development in the capacity that this innovation brings [200] -recognizing that "with a boost in human power comes an expanding of duty on the part of people and neighborhoods." [201]
109. At the exact same time, the "essential and basic question" remains "whether in the context of this progress man, as male, is ending up being genuinely much better, that is to state, more fully grown spiritually, more familiar with the self-respect of his humanity, more accountable, more available to others, especially the neediest and the weakest, and readier to give and to aid all." [202]
110. As a result, it is crucial to know how to evaluate specific applications of AI in specific contexts to figure out whether its use promotes human self-respect, the vocation of the human individual, and the typical good. Similar to numerous innovations, the results of the various uses of AI might not always be foreseeable from their inception. As these applications and their social effects become clearer, proper reactions must be made at all levels of society, following the concept of subsidiarity. Individual users, households, civil society, corporations, organizations, federal governments, and worldwide organizations must work at their proper levels to guarantee that AI is used for the good of all.

111. A substantial difficulty and chance for the common good today lies in considering AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of individuals and communities and highlights our shared responsibility for fostering the integral wellness of others. The twentieth-century thinker Nicholas Berdyaev observed that people typically blame machines for individual and social issues; nevertheless, "this just humiliates guy and does not represent his self-respect," for "it is unworthy to transfer obligation from male to a machine." [203] Only the human person can be morally accountable, and the challenges of a technological society are eventually spiritual in nature. Therefore, dealing with those difficulties "needs a climax of spirituality." [204]
112. A further indicate think about is the call, triggered by the appearance of AI on the world stage, for a restored gratitude of all that is human. Years earlier, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos warned that "the danger is not in the reproduction of machines, however in the ever-increasing variety of males accustomed from their childhood to desire only what makers can provide." [205] This obstacle is as true today as it was then, as the quick pace of digitization risks a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable aspects of life are reserved and after that forgotten and even deemed irrelevant due to the fact that they can not be computed in formal terms. AI should be utilized just as a tool to complement human intelligence instead of replace its richness. [206] Cultivating those elements of human life that transcend computation is crucial for maintaining "a genuine humankind" that "appears to stay in the middle of our technological culture, nearly unnoticed, like a mist seeping carefully underneath a closed door." [207]
113. The huge area of the world's understanding is now available in ways that would have filled previous generations with wonder. However, to guarantee that improvements in understanding do not end up being humanly or spiritually barren, one should surpass the mere build-up of data and aim to attain real wisdom. [208]
114. This wisdom is the present that humankind needs most to deal with the extensive questions and ethical difficulties positioned by AI: "Only by embracing a spiritual method of seeing truth, just by recuperating a wisdom of the heart, can we challenge and interpret the newness of our time." [209] Such "knowledge of the heart" is "the virtue that enables us to integrate the entire and its parts, our choices and their repercussions." It "can not be sought from machines," however it "lets itself be discovered by those who seek it and be seen by those who enjoy 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 need the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "allows us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, situations, occasions and to uncover their genuine significance." [211]
116. Since a "individual's excellence is determined not by the details or knowledge they have, however by the depth of their charity," [212] how we include AI "to include the least of our siblings and siblings, the vulnerable, and those most in need, will be the real step of our humankind." [213] The "wisdom of the heart" can light up and guide the human-centered use of this innovation to assist promote the typical excellent, care for our "common home," advance the search for the fact, foster important human advancement, favor human solidarity and fraternity, and lead humanity to its ultimate goal: joy and full communion with God. [214]
117. From this perspective of knowledge, followers will have the ability to act as moral agents capable of using this innovation to promote an authentic vision of the human person and society. [215] This should be made with the understanding that technological progress becomes part of God's prepare for creation-an activity that we are called to buy toward the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the continuous search for the True and the Good.

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

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

Ex audientia die 14 ianuarii 2025 Franciscus

Contents

I. Introduction

II. What is Artificial Intelligence?

III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition

Rationality

Embodiment

Relationality

Relationship with the Truth

Stewardship of the World

An Essential Understanding of Human Intelligence

The Limits of AI

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

Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making

V. Specific Questions

AI and Society

AI and Human Relationships

AI, the Economy, and Labor

AI and Healthcare

AI and Education

AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse

AI, Privacy, and Surveillance

AI and the Protection of Our Common Home

AI and Warfare

AI and Our Relationship with God

VI. Concluding Reflections

True Wisdom

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See likewise Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. [2] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 307. Cf. Id., Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (21 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020 ), 43. [3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [5] J. McCarthy, et al., "A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence" (31 August 1955), http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024). [6] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), pars. 2-3: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [7] Terms in this file explaining the outputs or processes of AI are utilized figuratively to explain its operations and are not intended 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 allow people to overcome their biological constraints and enhance both their physical and cognitive capabilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, contend that such advances will ultimately modify human identity to the extent that humanity itself may no longer be considered truly "human." Both views rest on a fundamentally negative understanding of human corporality, which deals with the body more as a barrier than as an important part of the individual's identity and call to full awareness. Yet, this unfavorable view of the body is irregular with an appropriate understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports authentic scientific development, it verifies that human dignity is rooted in "the individual as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "self-respect is likewise fundamental in each individual's body, which participates 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 method shows a functionalist point of view, which decreases 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 functional in nature. [11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460. [12] If "believing" is credited to makers, it needs to be clarified that this describes calculative thinking rather than crucial thinking. Similarly, if machines are said to run utilizing sensible thinking, it must be defined that this is restricted to computational logic. On the other hand, by its very nature, human idea is an innovative process that eludes programs and transcends constraints. [13] On the fundamental role of language in forming understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York City 2010, 141-182). [14] For more conversation of these anthropological and doctrinal foundations, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144. [15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21. [16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram III, chessdatabase.science 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [professors] by which he transcends to the irrational animals. Now, this [professors] is reason itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it might more suitably be offered"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When considering all that they have, human beings find that they are most identified from animals exactly by the truth they possess intelligence." This is likewise restated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who states that "guy is the most best of all earthly beings enhanced with motion, and his appropriate and natural operation is intellection," by which male abstracts from things and "gets in his mind things actually intelligible" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 76). [17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, ad 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a contemporary viewpoint that echoes components of the classical and medieval distinction in between these two modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York 2011. [19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp. [20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138. [21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intelligence can investigate the reality of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and pertain to recognize because reality, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal ethical demands." [22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp. [24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "usually thinks about the human person 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 instead totally revealed its meaning and worth." [26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81. [27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and hence it is unified to the body in order that it might have a presence and an operation suitable to its nature." [29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18. [30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357. [31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54. [32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221. [33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27. [34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls also possess factor and with it they circle in discourse around the fact of things. [...] [O] n account of the manner in which they can concentrating the numerous into the one, they too, in their own style and as far as they can, are worthwhile of 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 is capable of going beyond immediate issues and grasping certain facts that are constant, as true now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, factor finds universal values obtained from that same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034. [38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last proceeding of factor is to recognize that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York 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 permits us to understand messages in any type of communication in a manner that both considers and transcends their material or empirical structures (such as computer code). Here, intelligence becomes a wisdom that "allows us to look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, circumstances, occasions and to discover their real meaning" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our imagination enables us to create brand-new content or ideas, mainly by using an original perspective on reality. Both capacities depend on the existence of a personal subjectivity for their complete awareness. [41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. [42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a dedication to the reality, is a lot more than individual sensation [...] Certainly, its close relation to fact cultivates its universality and maintains it from being 'confined to a narrow field lacking relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to reality therefore protects it from 'a fideism that denies it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643. [43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7. [44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. [46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as priced quote 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 reflecting, 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: "human beings inhabit a distinct place in deep space according to the magnificent plan: they enjoy the advantage of sharing in the magnificent governance of visible creation. [...] Since male's place as ruler remains in fact an involvement in the divine governance of production, we speak of it here as a kind of stewardship." [49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165. [50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This concept is likewise shown in the creation 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 demonstrates the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's creation. 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 excellent by noticing and relishing facts." [61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232). [62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he highest 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 developed in his knowledge and love. God has allowed guy to take part in this law of his so that, under the gentle personality of divine providence, many might have the ability to show up at a much deeper and much deeper knowledge of unchangeable truth." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. [63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016. [64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042. [66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has actually inscribed his own image and likeness on guy (cf. Gen 1:26), providing upon him an incomparable self-respect [...] In impact, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not correspond to any work he performs, but which circulation from his essential dignity as an individual." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22. [68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310. [69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is comprehended as a technical term to indicate this technology, recalling that the expression is likewise utilized to designate the field of research study and not only its applications. [71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857. [72] For instance, see the motivation of clinical exploration in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the gratitude for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These authors, amongst a long list of other Catholics participated in scientific research study and technological exploration, illustrate that "faith and science can be unified in charity, provided that science is put at the service of the males and lady of our time and not misused to damage or perhaps destroy them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87. [73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. [74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888. [77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658. [78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim. [79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293. [80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4. [81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes male an ethical topic. When he acts intentionally, guy is, so to speak, the dad of his acts." [82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776. [83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777. [84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father encouraged efforts "to guarantee that innovation remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed toward the excellent." [85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the role of human company in picking a broader aim (Ziel) that then informs the specific function (Zweck) for which each technological application is developed, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um pass away Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71. [86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a purpose and, in its influence on human society, always represents a form of order in social relations and a plan of power, hence allowing certain people to carry out specific actions while preventing others from performing various ones. In a more or less specific method, this constitutive power-dimension of innovation always consists of the worldview of those who created and developed it." [87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309. [88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Faced with the marvels of makers, which appear to understand how to choose individually, we ought to be very clear that decision-making [...] must always be left to the human person. We would condemn humanity to a future without hope if we eliminated individuals's capability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend upon the choices of devices." [92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [93] The term "predisposition" in this file describes algorithmic bias (organized and constant mistakes in computer system systems that may disproportionately prejudice certain groups in unintentional ways) or learning bias (which will lead to training on a biased data set) and not the "bias vector" in neural networks (which is a parameter used to adjust the output of "nerve cells" to adjust more properly to the information). [94] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father affirmed the development in consensus "on the requirement for development processes to respect such values as inclusion, transparency, security, equity, personal privacy and dependability," and also invited "the efforts of international organizations to manage these technologies so that they promote real progress, contributing, that is, to a much better world and an integrally greater quality of life." [95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8. [96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571. [98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For more discussion of the ethical concerns raised by AI from a Catholic point of view, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253. [99] On the significance of discussion in a pluralist society oriented toward a "robust and strong social principles," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. [104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10. [105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; 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 supplied by advanced equipment, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel tells us continuously to risk of a face-to-face encounter with others, with their physical presence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their pleasure which contaminates us in our close and continuous 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 male 'for work.' Through this conclusion one rightly pertains to recognize the pre-eminence of the subjective meaning of work over the unbiased one." [132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320. [133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502. [135] Ibid. [136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as priced quote in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8. [137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops' Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: "If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture is manifest, with its painful consequences, it is that of health care. When an ill person is not put in the center or their dignity is not thought about, this generates mindsets that can lead even to speculation on the bad luck of others. And this is really grave! [...] The application of an organization method to the health care sector, if indiscriminate [...] might run the risk of disposing of human beings." [142] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [143] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729. [144] Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on the Use of Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729; Francis, Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016), 6: AAS 108 (2016 ), 57-58. [145] Francis, Address to Members of the Global Researchers Advancing Catholic Education Project (20 April 2022): AAS 114 (2022 ), 580. [146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), par. 41: AAS 68 (1976 ), 31, estimating Id., Address to the Members of the "Consilium de Laicis" (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: "if [the contemporary person] does listen to 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 with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, pricing quote the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592. [150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167. [151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413. [152] In a 2023 policy file about using generative AI in education and research study, UNESCO notes: "Among the key concerns [of making use of generative AI (GenAI) in education and research] is whether human beings can potentially cede basic levels of thinking and skill-acquisition processes to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking skills based upon the outputs provided by AI. Writing, for instance, is often connected with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], human beings can now begin with a well-structured overview offered by GenAI. Some experts have actually defined the use of GenAI to create text in this method as 'composing without believing'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American thinker Hannah Arendt predicted such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and warned: "If it ought to turn out to be real that knowledge (in the sense of knowledge) and believed have actually parted business for excellent, then we would certainly become the defenseless slaves, not a lot 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 may assist people gain access to the "range of resources for producing higher knowledge of reality" contained in the works of approach (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8. [159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62. [160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074. [162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be truly indifferent to the concern of whether what they know is true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he composes: 'I have satisfied lots of who wished to deceive, but none who desired to be deceived'"; estimating Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794. [163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62. [164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8. [165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Media (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149. [166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24. [167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no man might with impunity violate that human self-respect which God himself treats with excellent reverence"; as quoted in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804. [168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203. [169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human dignity in the online world obliges States to also appreciate the right to personal privacy, by shielding residents from intrusive security and permitting 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 determined a list of "early promises of AI assisting to resolve climate modification" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The document observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can change data into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools may assist establish new strategies and investments to minimize emissions, affect new personal sector investments in net no, protect biodiversity, and build broad-based social durability" (ibid.). [174] "The cloud" refers to a network of physical servers throughout the world that allows users to shop, procedure, and handle their data remotely. [175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850. [176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890. [177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870. [178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852. [179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640. [180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317. [181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101. [182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), wiki.vst.hs-furtwangen.de par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310. [184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105. [185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We need to make sure and secure a space for correct human control over the choices made by artificial intelligence programs: human dignity itself depends on it." [186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The development and usage of lethal self-governing weapons systems (LAWS) that do not have the proper human control would present essential ethical issues, considered that LAWS can never be morally responsible subjects capable of abiding by global humanitarian law." [187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: "Nor can we disregard the possibility of sophisticated weapons winding up in the wrong hands, facilitating, for instance, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the institutions of genuine systems of federal government. In a word, the world does not need new innovations that add to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and as a result wind up promoting the recklessness of war." [190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565. [191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878. [192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687. [193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39. [194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661. [195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a better understanding today that the simple build-up of goods and services [...] is not enough for the awareness of human happiness. Nor, in repercussion, does the availability of the lots of real benefits supplied in recent times by science and technology, consisting of the computer sciences, bring flexibility from every kind of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the significant body of resources and possible at guy's disposal is directed by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the real good of the mankind, it quickly turns against male to oppress him." Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564. [196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6. [199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6. [200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. The End of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83). [201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288. [203] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," in C. Mitcham - R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York 19832, 212-213. [204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210. [205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829. [206] Cf. Francis, Meeting 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 higher wisdom. Wisdom is not born of fast searches on the web nor is it a mass of unproven data. That is not the method to grow in the encounter with truth." [209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [210] Ibid. [211] Ibid. [212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121. [213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124. [214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.