1. With knowledge both ancient and brand-new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to reflect on the present difficulties and chances presented by scientific and technological developments, especially by the recent advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian tradition regards the gift of intelligence as an important aspect of how human beings are created "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Beginning with an integral vision of the human individual and the scriptural calling to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church emphasizes that this present of intelligence must be revealed through the accountable usage of factor and technical abilities in the stewardship of the created world.

2. The Church motivates the development of science, innovation, the arts, and other forms of human venture, viewing them as part of the "collaboration of males and female with God in refining the noticeable development." [1] As Sirach affirms, God "gave ability to humans, that he may be glorified in his magnificent works" (Sir. 38:6). Human capabilities and imagination come from God and, when utilized rightly, glorify God by showing his wisdom and goodness. Because of this, when we ask ourselves what it implies to "be human," we can not leave out a factor to consider of our clinical and technological abilities.

3. It is within this viewpoint that today Note addresses the anthropological and ethical obstacles raised by AI-issues that are particularly considerable, as one of the objectives of this innovation is to imitate the human intelligence that designed it. For example, unlike many other human productions, AI can be trained on the outcomes of human creativity and then create new "artifacts" with a level of speed and ability that frequently rivals or surpasses what human beings can do, such as producing text or images indistinguishable from human compositions. This raises vital concerns about AI's possible role in the growing crisis of reality in the public forum. Moreover, this innovation is created to learn and make certain options autonomously, adapting to new scenarios and offering solutions not visualized by its programmers, and therefore, it raises basic questions about ethical duty and human safety, with wider ramifications for society as a whole. This brand-new circumstance has actually triggered numerous people to review what it indicates to be human and the function of humankind in the world.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad consensus that AI marks a new and substantial phase in mankind's engagement with technology, placing it at the heart of what Pope Francis has actually explained as an "epochal change." [2] Its impact is felt worldwide and in a broad variety of locations, consisting of interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, health care, law, warfare, and international relations. As AI advances quickly toward even greater accomplishments, it is seriously crucial to consider its anthropological and ethical ramifications. This includes not just mitigating risks and preventing harm but also guaranteeing that its applications are used to promote human development and the common good.

5. To contribute favorably to the discernment regarding AI, and in reaction to Pope Francis' call for a renewed "knowledge of heart," [3] the Church offers its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active role in the international dialogue on these concerns, the Church welcomes those turned over with transmitting the faith-including parents, instructors, pastors, and bishops-to commit themselves to this vital subject with care and attention. While this document is planned particularly for them, it is likewise indicated to be available to a broader audience, particularly those who share the conviction that clinical and technological advances ought to be directed toward serving the human person and the typical good. [4]
6. To this end, the file begins by comparing principles of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then explores the Christian understanding of human intelligence, providing a structure rooted in the Church's philosophical and theological tradition. Finally, the document uses standards to ensure that the development and usage of AI maintain human dignity and promote the important advancement of the human individual and society.

7. The idea of "intelligence" in AI has actually progressed over time, making use of a variety of ideas from various disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a significant turning point happened in 1956 when the American computer scientist John McCarthy arranged a summertime workshop at Dartmouth University to check out the problem of "Artificial Intelligence," which he specified as "that of making a device act in ways that would be called smart if a human were so acting." [5] This workshop launched a research program focused on designing machines capable of carrying out jobs normally connected with the human intellect and smart behavior.

8. Since then, AI research has advanced rapidly, leading to the advancement of complex systems capable of carrying out highly sophisticated tasks. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are generally created to handle particular and restricted functions, such as translating languages, predicting the trajectory of a storm, categorizing images, answering questions, or generating visual content at the user's demand. While the meaning of "intelligence" in AI research study differs, a lot of contemporary AI systems-particularly those using machine learning-rely on analytical inference instead of logical deduction. By analyzing large datasets to recognize patterns, AI can "anticipate" [7] results and propose new methods, mimicking some cognitive procedures common of human problem-solving. Such achievements have actually been made possible through advances in calculating innovation (including neural networks, not being watched artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) along with hardware innovations (such as specialized processors). Together, these technologies make it possible for AI systems to react to numerous forms of human input, adjust to brand-new situations, and even recommend novel options not anticipated by their original developers. [8]
9. Due to these rapid improvements, numerous jobs when managed solely by human beings are now delegated to AI. These systems can enhance and even supersede what human beings have the ability to carry out in numerous fields, particularly in specialized locations such as information analysis, image acknowledgment, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is designed for a specific job, lots of scientists aim to establish what is understood as "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system capable of operating across all cognitive domains and carrying out any task within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI might one day attain the state of "superintelligence," exceeding human intellectual capacities, or contribute to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, nevertheless, fear that these possibilities, even if theoretical, could one day eclipse the human individual, while still others welcome this potential transformation. [9]
10. Underlying this and numerous other perspectives on the subject is the implicit assumption that the term "intelligence" can be utilized in the very same way to refer to both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not record the full scope of the idea. In the case of people, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the person in his/her whole, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is understood functionally, often with the anticipation that the activities characteristic of the human mind can be broken down into digitized actions that makers can replicate. [10]
11. This functional point of view is exhibited by the "Turing Test," which considers a maker "smart" 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 performance of particular intellectual tasks; it does not represent the complete breadth of human experience, that includes abstraction, feelings, creativity, and the aesthetic, ethical, and religious sensibilities. Nor does it incorporate the complete variety of expressions characteristic of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the "intelligence" of a system is evaluated methodologically, but also reductively, based on its ability to produce suitable responses-in this case, those connected with the human intellect-regardless of how those reactions are generated.

12. AI's advanced features give it sophisticated capabilities to perform tasks, but not the capability to think. [12] This distinction is crucially essential, as the method "intelligence" is defined undoubtedly forms how we understand the relationship between human thought and this innovation. [13] To appreciate this, one need to recall the richness of the philosophical custom and Christian faith, which use a much deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's mentor on the nature, self-respect, and occupation of the human individual. [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 meaning of things, sets human beings apart from the animal world. [16] As thinkers, theologians, and psychologists have analyzed the specific nature of this intellectual faculty, they have actually also explored how human beings understand the world and their unique location within it. Through this exploration, the Christian custom has actually pertained to understand the human individual as a being consisting of both body and soul-deeply linked to this world and yet transcending it. [17]
14. In the classical custom, the concept of intelligence is frequently comprehended through the complementary concepts of "reason" (ratio) and "intelligence" (intellectus). These are not different faculties but, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are 2 modes in which the same intelligence runs: "The term intellect is inferred from the inward grasp of the truth, while the name reason is taken from the inquisitive and discursive process." [18] This concise description highlights the 2 fundamental and complementary measurements of human intelligence. Intellectus describes the user-friendly grasp of the truth-that is, nabbing it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and premises argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to thinking correct: the discursive, analytical procedure that results in judgment. Together, intellect and reason form the 2 aspects of the act of intelligere, "the correct operation of the human being as such." [19]
15. Explaining the human individual as a "logical" being does not minimize the person to a particular mode of idea; rather, it recognizes that the ability for intellectual understanding shapes and penetrates all elements of human activity. [20] Whether worked out well or poorly, this capability is an intrinsic aspect of human nature. In this sense, the "term 'reasonable' includes all the capacities of the human person," including those related to "knowing and comprehending, as well as those of willing, loving, picking, and desiring; it also consists of all corporeal functions carefully associated to these abilities." [21] This detailed viewpoint highlights how, in the human person, created in the "image of God," reason is incorporated in a manner that raises, shapes, and changes both the individual's will and actions. [22]
16. Christian thought thinks about the intellectual professors of the human individual within the structure of an essential sociology that sees the human being as basically embodied. In the human person, spirit and matter "are not 2 natures unified, but rather their union forms a single nature." [23] In other words, the soul is not simply the immaterial "part" of the individual contained within the body, nor is the body an outer shell real estate an intangible "core." Rather, the entire human person is simultaneously both product and spiritual. This understanding shows the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which sees the human person as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and hence, an authentically spiritual dimension) within and through this embodied presence. [24] The profound meaning of this condition is additional lit up by the secret of the Incarnation, through which God himself handled our flesh and "raised it as much as a sublime self-respect." [25]
17. Although deeply rooted in bodily presence, the human person goes beyond the material world through the soul, which is "almost on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intellect's capacity for transcendence and the self-possessed liberty of the will come from the soul, by which the human individual "shares in the light of the divine mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its typical mode of understanding without the body. [28] In this way, the intellectual faculties of the human person are an integral part of an anthropology that recognizes that the human individual 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 understand one another, to offer themselves in love, and to participate in communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not an isolated faculty but is worked out in relationships, finding its fullest expression in discussion, collaboration, and uniformity. We find out with others, and we find out through others.

19. The relational orientation of the human person is ultimately grounded in the everlasting self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is revealed in development and redemption. [31] The human person is "called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life." [32]
20. This vocation to communion with God is necessarily connected to the call to communion with others. Love of God can not be separated from love for one's next-door neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20; Mt. 22:37 -39). By the grace of sharing God's life, Christians are likewise called to imitate Christ's outpouring present (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "love one another, as I have actually loved you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the divine life of self-giving, go beyond self-interest to react more fully to the human occupation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Much more superb than understanding lots of things is the dedication to take care of one another, for if "I understand all secrets and all knowledge [...] however do not have love, I am nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2).

21. Human intelligence is eventually "God's present fashioned for the assimilation of truth." [34] In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it makes it possible for the person to explore truths that surpass simple sensory experience or energy, because "the desire for truth becomes part of humanity itself. It is a natural home of human factor to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limits of empirical information, human intelligence can "with authentic certitude attain to reality itself as knowable." [36] While truth remains just partially understood, the desire for truth "spurs factor constantly to go further; certainly, it is as if reason were overwhelmed to see that it can always go beyond what it has actually currently attained." [37] Although Truth in itself goes beyond the borders of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this destination, the human individual is led to look for "truths of a higher order." [39]
22. This inherent drive towards the pursuit of fact is particularly evident in the noticeably human capacities for semantic understanding and creativity, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "manner that is proper to the social nature and self-respect of the human person." [41] Likewise, an unfaltering orientation to the fact is important for charity to be both genuine and universal. [42]
23. The look for fact discovers its highest expression in openness to realities that go beyond the physical and produced world. In God, all truths attain their supreme and original significance. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "basic decision that engages the whole person." [44] In this way, the human individual becomes fully what he or she is contacted us to be: "the intellect and the will show their spiritual nature," making it possible for the person "to act in such a way that recognizes personal liberty to the complete." [45]
24. The Christian faith understands development as the free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, produces "not to increase his glory, but to reveal it forth and to interact it." [46] Since God produces according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), creation is imbued with an intrinsic order that reflects God's plan (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 an unique function: to cultivate and care for the world. [48]
25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, humans live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and skills to look after and establish development in accord with God's strategy. [49] In this, human intelligence reflects the Divine Intelligence that developed all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] continuously sustains them, and guides them to their supreme purpose in him. [51] Moreover, human beings are called to develop their capabilities in science and technology, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in an appropriate relationship with creation, people, on the one hand, utilize their intelligence and ability to work together with God in assisting development towards the purpose 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 comprehended as a professors that forms an essential part of how the whole person engages with reality. Authentic engagement requires accepting the full scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with truth unfolds in various methods, as everyone, in his/her diverse individuality [54], looks for to understand the world, connect to others, resolve issues, express creativity, and pursue important wellness through the unified interaction of the various measurements of the individual's intelligence. [55] This includes logical and linguistic abilities however can also incorporate other modes of engaging with reality. Consider the work of a craftsmen, who "need to understand how to recognize, in inert matter, a particular type that others can not acknowledge" [56] and bring it forth through insight and useful skill. Indigenous individuals who live near to the earth frequently possess a profound sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a pal who understands the ideal word to say or an individual 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 artificial intelligence, we can not forget that poetry and love are necessary to conserve our humanity." [59]
28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the combination of truth into the moral and spiritual life of the individual, directing his/her actions in light of God's goodness and fact. According to God's plan, intelligence, in its fullest sense, likewise consists of the ability to enjoy what is real, good, and lovely. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel expressed, "intelligence is absolutely nothing without pleasure." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the greatest paradise in Paradiso, affirms that the culmination of this intellectual pleasure is found in the "light intellectual filled with love, love of real excellent filled with joy, delight which transcends every sweet taste." [61]
29. An appropriate understanding of human intelligence, therefore, can not be reduced to the simple acquisition of facts or the capability to perform particular tasks. Instead, it involves the individual's openness to the ultimate questions of life and reflects an orientation toward the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the magnificent image within the person, human intelligence has the capability to access the totality of being, pondering existence in its fullness, which surpasses what is measurable, and understanding the significance of what has actually been understood. For believers, this capacity includes, in a particular way, the ability to grow in the understanding of the mysteries of God by utilizing reason to engage ever more profoundly with exposed truths (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is shaped by magnificent love, which "is put forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence has a necessary reflective measurement, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any practical purpose.

30. In light of the foregoing discussion, the differences between human intelligence and present AI systems become apparent. While AI is an extraordinary technological accomplishment capable of mimicing certain outputs related to human intelligence, it runs by performing jobs, attaining goals, or making choices based on quantitative data and computational logic. For example, with its analytical power, AI excels at integrating data from a variety of fields, modeling complex systems, and fostering interdisciplinary connections. In this method, it can assist professionals team up in resolving complex problems that "can not be handled from a single point of view or from a single set of interests." [64]
31. However, even as AI procedures and replicates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains essentially confined to a logical-mathematical framework, which imposes inherent constraints. Human intelligence, on the other hand, develops organically throughout the person's physical and psychological development, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although advanced AI systems can "find out" through procedures such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is essentially different from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is formed by embodied experiences, including sensory input, psychological reactions, social interactions, and the unique context of each minute. These elements shape and form people within their personal history.In contrast, AI, doing not have a physique, relies on computational thinking and knowing based upon large datasets that consist of recorded human experiences and understanding.

32. Consequently, although AI can simulate aspects of human thinking and carry out particular tasks with incredible speed and effectiveness, its computational abilities represent only a portion of the more comprehensive capabilities of the human mind. For example, AI can not presently replicate ethical discernment or the ability to develop genuine relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is situated within a personally lived history of intellectual and ethical formation that basically shapes the person's perspective, including the physical, emotional, social, ethical, and spiritual dimensions of life. Since AI can not provide this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely entirely on this technology or treat it as the main means of translating the world can result in "a loss of gratitude for the whole, for the relationships in between things, and for the broader horizon." [65]
33. Human intelligence is not mainly about finishing functional jobs however about understanding and actively engaging with reality in all its measurements; it is also efficient in unexpected insights. Since AI lacks the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to reality and goodness, its capacities-though seemingly limitless-are incomparable with the human ability to grasp reality. A lot can be gained from a health problem, an embrace of reconciliation, and even a basic sunset; certainly, lots of experiences we have as people open new horizons and use the possibility of attaining brand-new knowledge. No gadget, working solely with data, can measure up to these and countless other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an excessively close equivalence in between human intelligence and AI threats surrendering to a functionalist perspective, where people are valued based upon the work they can perform. However, an individual's worth does not depend upon having specific skills, cognitive and technological accomplishments, or specific success, but on the individual's intrinsic dignity, grounded in being created in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains intact in all scenarios, consisting of for those not able to exercise their capabilities, whether it be an unborn child, an unconscious person, or an older person who is suffering. [67] It likewise underpins the custom of human rights (and, in particular, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "an essential point of merging in the look for common ground" [68] and can, thus, function as a basic ethical guide in discussions on the accountable advancement and usage of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the really usage of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can show deceptive" [69] and dangers neglecting what is most valuable in the human individual. Due to this, AI must not be viewed as a synthetic form of human intelligence however as an item of it. [70]
36. Given these factors to consider, one can ask how AI can be comprehended within God's strategy. To address this, it is necessary to recall that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character but is a human undertaking that engages the humanistic and cultural dimensions of human creativity. [71]
37. Viewed as a fruit of the potential inscribed within human intelligence, [72] clinical questions and the advancement of technical abilities belong to the "collaboration of males and female with God in perfecting the visible production." [73] At the very same time, all clinical and technological achievements are, ultimately, presents from God. [74] Therefore, people must constantly use their abilities in view of the greater purpose for which God has approved them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how technology has "treated many evils which utilized to harm and limit humans," [76] a truth for which we must rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological developments in themselves represent authentic human development. [77] The Church is especially opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human individual. [78] Like any human endeavor, technological advancement needs to be directed to serve the human person and add to the pursuit of "higher justice, more extensive fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations," which are "more valuable than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical implications of technological development are shared not just within the Church however also among lots of scientists, technologists, and professional associations, who progressively call for ethical reflection to direct this advancement in a responsible way.

39. To attend to these obstacles, it is necessary to highlight the importance of ethical responsibility grounded in the dignity and occupation of the human person. This directing concept also applies to questions concerning AI. In this context, the ethical dimension handles main value due to the fact that it is people who develop systems and determine the purposes for which they are utilized. [80] Between a device and a human, just the latter is genuinely an ethical agent-a topic of moral duty who works out liberty in his/her choices and accepts their effects. [81] It is not the maker however the human who remains in relationship with reality and goodness, directed by a moral conscience that calls the individual "to like and to do what is great and to avoid wicked," [82] bearing witness to "the authority of truth in referral to the supreme Good to which the human individual is drawn." [83] Likewise, between a device and a human, just the human can be sufficiently self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, discerning with prudence, and seeking the great that is possible in every situation. [84] In fact, all of this also belongs to the individual's workout of .

40. Like any item of human creativity, AI can be directed toward favorable or unfavorable ends. [85] When used in manner ins which respect human self-respect and promote the wellness of people and communities, it can contribute favorably to the human occupation. Yet, as in all areas where people are contacted us to make choices, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human freedom permits the possibility of choosing what is incorrect, the moral assessment of this technology will require to take into account how it is directed and used.

41. At the same time, it is not just the ends that are fairly considerable however also the means employed to attain them. Additionally, the overall vision and understanding of the human individual ingrained within these systems are necessary to consider as well. Technological products reflect the worldview of their developers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to "form the world and engage consciences on the level of values." [87] On a societal level, some technological developments might also enhance relationships and power dynamics that are inconsistent with an appropriate understanding of the human individual and society.

42. Therefore, completions and the ways utilized in an offered application of AI, as well as the general vision it incorporates, must all be evaluated to ensure they appreciate human self-respect and promote the typical good. [88] As Pope Francis has mentioned, "the intrinsic self-respect of every man and every woman" must be "the key requirement in examining emerging technologies; these will show fairly sound to the extent that they assist regard that dignity and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] including in the social and economic spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays an important function not just in designing and producing innovation however likewise in directing its use in line with the genuine good of the human individual. [90] The obligation for handling this wisely pertains to every level of society, assisted by the principle of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The commitment to ensuring that AI always supports and promotes the supreme value of the self-respect of every person and the fullness of the human vocation acts as a requirement of discernment for designers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, as well as to its users. It remains legitimate for every application of the technology at every level of its usage.

44. An examination of the ramifications of this directing principle could start by thinking about the significance of moral duty. Since complete moral causality belongs only to personal agents, not synthetic ones, it is vital to be able to recognize and specify who bears duty for the procedures involved in AI, especially those capable of learning, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up techniques and extremely deep neural networks make it possible for AI to resolve complicated issues, they make it challenging to comprehend the processes that lead to the options they adopted. This complicates responsibility since if an AI application produces undesirable results, determining who is accountable becomes tough. To address this problem, attention needs to be provided to the nature of responsibility procedures in complex, extremely automated settings, where results may only become obvious in the medium to long term. For this, it is necessary that supreme responsibility for decisions used AI rests with the human decision-makers which there is responsibility for using AI at each phase of the decision-making process. [91]
45. In addition to identifying who is responsible, it is important to identify the objectives offered to AI systems. Although these systems may utilize not being watched autonomous knowing mechanisms and sometimes follow courses that humans can not reconstruct, they ultimately pursue goals that people have actually designated to them and are governed by processes established by their designers and developers. Yet, this provides a challenge due to the fact that, as AI designs end up being increasingly efficient in independent knowing, the ability to maintain control over them to guarantee that such applications serve human purposes may successfully reduce. This raises the vital concern of how to guarantee that AI systems are purchased for the good of people and not against them.

46. While duty for the ethical usage of AI systems begins with those who establish, produce, manage, and manage such systems, it is likewise shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis kept in mind, the maker "makes a technical choice among numerous possibilities based either on well-defined criteria or on statistical inferences. Human beings, nevertheless, not only choose, however in their hearts can choosing." [92] Those who use AI to accomplish a job and follow its results create a context in which they are ultimately responsible for the power they have entrusted. Therefore, insofar as AI can help humans in making choices, the algorithms that govern it should be trustworthy, safe and secure, robust enough to manage disparities, and transparent in their operation to reduce biases and unintentional negative effects. [93] Regulatory structures need to ensure that all legal entities remain liable for using AI and all its consequences, with proper safeguards for transparency, personal privacy, and accountability. [94] Moreover, those utilizing AI should beware not to become overly dependent on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases contemporary society's currently high dependence on innovation.

47. The Church's ethical and social teaching provides resources to help ensure that AI is used in a way that maintains human firm. Considerations about justice, for example, need to also deal with problems such as cultivating simply social characteristics, maintaining global security, and promoting peace. By exercising prudence, people and communities can determine ways to use AI to benefit humanity while avoiding applications that could degrade human self-respect or damage the environment. In this context, the concept of obligation should be comprehended not just in its most restricted sense however as a "duty for the care for others, which is more than simply accounting for results attained." [95]
48. Therefore, AI, like any technology, can be part of a mindful and accountable response to mankind's vocation to the great. However, as previously discussed, AI must be directed by human intelligence to align with this occupation, ensuring it appreciates the self-respect of the human individual. Recognizing this "exalted dignity," the Second Vatican Council verified that "the social order and its advancement should invariably work to the advantage of the human individual." [96] Due to this, the use of AI, as Pope Francis said, should be "accompanied by an ethic inspired by a vision of the common good, an ethic of freedom, responsibility, and fraternity, efficient in cultivating the full development of people in relation to others and to the entire of development." [97]
49. Within this basic viewpoint, some observations follow below to show how the preceding arguments can help offer an ethical orientation in useful circumstances, in line with the "knowledge of heart" that Pope Francis has proposed. [98] While not extensive, this discussion is offered in service of the dialogue that thinks about how AI can be utilized to maintain the dignity of the human individual and promote the typical good. [99]
50. As Pope Francis observed, "the inherent dignity of each person and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human household should support the advancement of new innovations and act as unassailable requirements for examining them before they are utilized." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI might "introduce crucial innovations in farming, education and culture, a better level of life for whole countries and individuals, and the growth of human fraternity and social relationship," and hence be "used to promote essential human development." [101] AI might likewise assist organizations identify those in need and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other comparable applications of this technology might add to human development and the typical good. [102]
52. However, while AI holds numerous possibilities for promoting the good, it can also prevent or even counter human advancement and the common good. Pope Francis has actually noted that "evidence to date suggests that digital innovations have increased inequality in our world. Not just differences in product wealth, which are also significant, however likewise differences in access to political and social influence." [103] In this sense, AI might be utilized to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, develop new kinds of poverty, widen the "digital divide," and get worse existing social inequalities. [104]
53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a couple of powerful companies raises considerable ethical issues. Exacerbating this problem is the intrinsic nature of AI systems, where no single person can exercise complete oversight over the large and complicated datasets used for calculation. This absence of well-defined accountability develops the threat that AI could be controlled for individual or business gain or to direct public viewpoint for the benefit of a particular market. Such entities, encouraged by their own interests, have the capacity to work out "forms of control as subtle as they are invasive, developing mechanisms for the manipulation of consciences and of the democratic process." [105]
54. Furthermore, there is the risk of AI being utilized to promote what Pope Francis has actually called the "technocratic paradigm," which views all the world's problems as understandable through technological ways alone. [106] In this paradigm, human dignity and fraternity are often reserved in the name of performance, "as if truth, goodness, and reality instantly stream from technological and economic power as such." [107] Yet, human dignity and the common good must never ever be violated for the sake of effectiveness, [108] for "technological advancements that do not lead to an enhancement in the lifestyle of all mankind, but on the contrary, intensify inequalities and conflicts, can never count as real progress. " [109] Instead, AI needs to be put "at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral." [110]
55. Attaining this objective requires a much deeper reflection on the relationship between autonomy and responsibility. Greater autonomy increases each individual's responsibility throughout numerous aspects of common life. For Christians, the structure of this duty depends on the acknowledgment that all human capabilities, including the person'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 ought to serve "the common good of the entire human family," which is "the sum overall of social conditions that enable people, either as groups or as people, to reach their satisfaction more completely and more quickly." [112]
56. The Second Vatican Council observed that "by his innermost nature male is a social being; and if he does not participate in relations with others, he can neither live nor develop his gifts." [113] This conviction highlights that residing in society is intrinsic to the nature and occupation of the human person. [114] As social beings, we seek relationships that involve shared exchange and the pursuit of fact, in the course of which, people "show each other the fact they have found, or believe they have found, in such a way that they help one another in the search for reality." [115]
57. Such a quest, together with other elements of human communication, presupposes encounters and shared exchange in between people formed by their distinct histories, ideas, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a diverse, complex, and complicated reality: specific and social, reasonable and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis underscores this dynamic, noting that "together, we can seek the reality in discussion, in unwinded discussion or in enthusiastic debate. To do so requires determination; it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently accept the wider experience of individuals and peoples. [...] The process of building fraternity, be it regional or universal, can only be undertaken by spirits that are complimentary and available to genuine encounters." [116]
58. It remains in this context that one can think about the challenges AI postures to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the possible to cultivate connections within the human family. However, it could likewise impede a true encounter with truth and, ultimately, lead individuals to "a deep and melancholic dissatisfaction with social relations, or a harmful sense of seclusion." [117] Authentic human relationships require the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their delight. [118] Since human intelligence is revealed and enriched likewise in social and embodied ways, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are essential for engaging with truth in its fullness.

59. Because "true knowledge demands an encounter with reality," [119] the increase of AI presents another challenge. Since AI can successfully mimic the products of human intelligence, the capability to understand when one is interacting with a human or a machine can no longer be taken for approved. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other innovative outputs that are generally related to people. Yet, it must be understood for what it is: a tool, not an individual. [120] This distinction is frequently obscured by the language utilized by specialists, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and thus blurs the line between human and device.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI likewise poses particular difficulties for the development of children, possibly encouraging them to establish patterns of interaction that treat human relationships in a transactional way, as one would connect to a chatbot. Such habits could lead youths to see teachers as simple dispensers of details instead of as mentors who guide and nurture their intellectual and moral development. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and a steadfast dedication to the good of the other, are important and irreplaceable in promoting the complete advancement of the human person.

61. In this context, it is important to clarify that, regardless of the use of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can genuinely experience empathy. Emotions can not be reduced to facial expressions or phrases produced in reaction to triggers; they reflect the method a person, as a whole, connects to the world and to his or her own life, with the body playing a main function. True compassion needs the capability to listen, recognize another's irreducible uniqueness, invite their otherness, and grasp the meaning 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 apprehending the lived experiences of another while maintaining the difference in between self and other. [122] While AI can replicate empathetic actions, it can not replicate the incomparably individual and relational nature of authentic empathy. [123]
62. In light of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as an individual ought to constantly be prevented; doing so for fraudulent functions is a serious ethical violation that might erode social trust. Similarly, utilizing AI to deceive in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, consisting of the sphere of sexuality-is also to be considered unethical and needs cautious oversight to avoid harm, maintain openness, and make sure the dignity of all people. [124]
63. In a significantly separated world, some individuals have actually turned to AI looking for deep human relationships, easy companionship, or even emotional bonds. However, while people are meant to experience genuine relationships, AI can only replicate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an important part of how a person grows to become who he or she is meant to be. If AI is used to assist individuals foster genuine connections between individuals, it can contribute favorably to the full awareness of the individual. Conversely, if we change relationships with God and with others with interactions with innovation, we run the risk of changing genuine relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of pulling back into artificial worlds, we are contacted us to engage in a dedicated and deliberate way with truth, especially by determining with the poor and suffering, consoling those in sorrow, and creating bonds of communion with all.

64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being increasingly incorporated into financial and monetary systems. Significant financial investments are currently being made not just in the innovation sector however also in energy, finance, and media, particularly in the locations of marketing and sales, logistics, technological development, compliance, and threat management. At the very same time, AI's applications in these locations have likewise highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of significant opportunities however also profound dangers. A very first real critical point in this location concerns the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a couple of corporations-only those big companies would gain from the worth created by AI rather than business that use it.

65. Other wider aspects of AI's effect on the economic-financial sphere must also be thoroughly analyzed, especially concerning the interaction between concrete reality and the digital world. One important consideration in this regard involves the coexistence of diverse and alternative kinds of financial and banks within a provided context. This factor needs to be encouraged, as it can bring advantages in how it supports the genuine economy by cultivating its advancement and stability, specifically throughout times of crisis. Nevertheless, it needs to be worried that digital realities, not restricted by any spatial bonds, tend to be more uniform and impersonal than communities rooted in a specific location and a specific history, with a typical journey identified by shared values and hopes, however also by inevitable disputes and divergences. This diversity is an undeniable property to a neighborhood's financial life. Turning over the economy and finance completely to digital innovation would decrease this range and richness. As a result, lots of options to economic issues that can be reached through natural discussion between the involved celebrations might no longer be attainable in a world controlled by treatments and just the appearance of proximity.

66. Another location where AI is currently having a profound impact is the world of work. As in lots of other fields, AI is driving essential changes across numerous occupations, with a series of impacts. On the one hand, it has the potential to improve proficiency and performance, create brand-new jobs, enable workers to focus on more innovative tasks, and open brand-new horizons for imagination and innovation.

67. However, while AI assures to improve performance by taking control of mundane tasks, it often requires employees to adjust to the speed and needs of machines rather than devices being designed to support those who work. As an outcome, contrary to the marketed benefits of AI, existing approaches to the technology can paradoxically deskill employees, subject them to automated monitoring, and relegate them to stiff and repetitive jobs. The requirement to keep up with the rate of technology can deteriorate workers' sense of company and suppress the innovative capabilities they are anticipated to bring to their work. [125]
68. AI is presently getting rid of the need for some jobs that were when carried out by humans. If AI is used to change human workers rather than complement them, there is a "substantial threat of out of proportion benefit for the couple of at the cost of the impoverishment of lots of." [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more effective, there is an associated threat that human labor might lose its worth in the economic world. This is the sensible consequence of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humanity oppressed to performance, where, eventually, the expense of mankind should be cut. Yet, human lives are intrinsically important, independent of their financial output. Nevertheless, the "current design," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to prefer a financial investment in efforts to help the sluggish, the weak, or the less talented to find chances in life." [127] Due to this, "we can not permit a tool as powerful and essential as Artificial Intelligence to reinforce such a paradigm, but rather, we should make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its growth." [128]
69. It is necessary to remember that "the order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other method around." [129] Human work must not only be at the service of profit however at "the service of the entire human person [...] considering the person's material requirements and the requirements of his/her intellectual, moral, spiritual, and spiritual life." [130] In this context, the Church recognizes that work is "not just a way of earning one's daily bread" however is also "an important dimension of social life" and "a way [...] of individual development, the building of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of gifts. Work provides us a sense of shared duty for the development of the world, and ultimately, for our life as a people." [131]
70. Since work is a "part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to development, human development and personal fulfillment," "the goal must not be that technological progress increasingly replaces human work, for this would be harmful to mankind" [132] -rather, it should promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI should help, not replace, human judgment. Similarly, it needs to never deteriorate creativity or reduce employees to simple "cogs in a device." Therefore, "respect for the self-respect of workers and the value of employment for the financial well-being of people, families, and societies, for task security and just incomes, should be a high top priority for the international neighborhood as these types of technology penetrate more deeply into our workplaces." [133]
71. As individuals in God's healing work, health care professionals have the occupation and duty to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the health care occupation brings an "intrinsic and undeniable ethical measurement," acknowledged by the Hippocratic Oath, which requires doctors and health care experts to dedicate themselves to having "absolute respect for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Good Samaritan, this commitment is to be carried out by guys and ladies "who decline the production of a society of exemption, and act rather as next-door neighbors, raising up and restoring the succumbed to the sake of the typical good." [136]
72. Seen in this light, AI seems to hold tremendous capacity in a variety of applications in the medical field, such as helping the diagnostic work of health care service providers, facilitating relationships between patients and medical personnel, using new treatments, and broadening access to quality care also for those who are separated or marginalized. In these ways, the technology might boost the "thoughtful and loving closeness" [137] that doctor are called to reach the sick and suffering.

73. However, if AI is used not to enhance however to change the relationship between clients and health care providers-leaving clients to communicate with a device instead of a human being-it would lower a most importantly crucial human relational structure to a centralized, impersonal, and unequal structure. Instead of motivating uniformity with the sick and suffering, such applications of AI would risk intensifying the solitude that typically accompanies illness, especially in the context of a culture where "individuals are no longer seen as a vital value to be cared for and respected." [138] This abuse of AI would not align with respect for the self-respect of the human individual and solidarity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the wellness of clients and the decisions that discuss their lives are at the heart of the healthcare occupation. This responsibility requires doctor to work out all their skill and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options concerning those delegated to their care, always respecting the inviolable self-respect of the clients and the need for notified permission. As an outcome, decisions regarding patient treatment and the weight of obligation they entail must always remain with the human individual and needs to never ever be delegated to AI. [139]
75. In addition, using AI to determine who ought to get treatment based mainly on financial procedures or metrics of effectiveness represents a particularly problematic circumstances of the "technocratic paradigm" that must be rejected. [140] For, "optimizing resources indicates utilizing them in an ethical and fraternal way, and not punishing the most vulnerable." [141] Additionally, AI tools in health care are "exposed to types of predisposition and discrimination," where "systemic errors can easily multiply, producing not just injustices in individual cases but also, due to the cause and effect, genuine forms of social inequality." [142]
76. The combination of AI into healthcare likewise positions the risk of enhancing other existing disparities in access to treatment. As health care becomes increasingly oriented towards prevention and lifestyle-based techniques, AI-driven services may unintentionally favor more upscale populations who currently take pleasure in much better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This pattern threats strengthening a "medicine for the rich" model, where those with monetary means gain from sophisticated preventative tools and personalized health details while others struggle to gain access to even basic services. To avoid such injustices, fair structures are required to ensure that using AI in healthcare does not worsen existing healthcare inequalities but rather serves the common good.

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

78. This approach involves a dedication to cultivating the mind, but always as a part of the important development of the person: "We must break that concept of education which holds that educating means filling one's head with concepts. That is the way we educate automatons, cerebral minds, not people. Educating is taking a danger in the stress in between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]
79. At the center of this work of forming the whole human person is the essential relationship in between teacher and trainee. Teachers do more than convey knowledge; they model vital human qualities and motivate the joy of discovery. [146] Their presence inspires trainees both through the material they teach and the care they demonstrate for their trainees. This bond cultivates trust, mutual understanding, and the capacity to deal with each individual's special dignity and potential. On the part of the trainee, this can produce an authentic desire to grow. The physical existence of a teacher creates a relational dynamic that AI can not replicate, one that deepens engagement and nurtures the trainee's important advancement.

80. In this context, AI presents both chances and challenges. If used in a sensible manner, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and ordered to the genuine goals of education, AI can become an important academic resource by enhancing access to education, offering tailored support, and supplying instant feedback to trainees. These benefits could boost the learning experience, especially in cases where individualized attention is required, or educational resources are otherwise limited.

81. Nevertheless, an important part of education is forming "the intellect to reason well in all matters, to connect towards reality, 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 all the more crucial in an age marked by innovation, in which "it is no longer merely a concern of 'using' instruments of communication, but of living in an extremely digitalized culture that has actually had an extensive influence on [...] our ability to communicate, discover, be informed and get in into relationship with others." [149] However, instead of cultivating "a cultivated intellect," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and occupation that it carries out," [150] the substantial use of AI in education might cause the trainees' increased dependence on technology, eroding their capability to perform some abilities individually and intensifying their dependence on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are designed to assist people develop their important thinking capabilities and analytical abilities, lots of others merely provide answers instead of prompting trainees to get to responses themselves or write text for themselves. [152] Instead of training young people how to generate details and generate quick actions, education must encourage "the responsible usage of flexibility to deal with concerns with good sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in the use of types of synthetic intelligence must aim above all at promoting crucial thinking. Users of any ages, however particularly the young, need to develop a discerning approach to using data and content gathered on the internet or produced by expert system systems. Schools, universities, and scientific societies are challenged to help trainees and professionals to grasp the social and ethical elements of the development and usages of innovation." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II remembered, "worldwide today, identified by such rapid advancements in science and innovation, the tasks of a Catholic University assume an ever greater value and urgency." [155] In a specific method, Catholic universities are urged to be present as fantastic laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary key, they are advised to engage "with wisdom and imagination" [156] in careful research on this phenomenon, assisting to draw out the salutary potential within the various fields of science and truth, and assisting them always towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the typical good, reaching brand-new frontiers in the discussion in between faith and factor.

84. Moreover, it must be noted that present AI programs have been known to supply biased or made details, which can lead trainees to trust unreliable content. This issue "not just runs the threat of legitimizing fake news and strengthening a dominant culture's benefit, however, in brief, it likewise weakens the academic process itself." [157] With time, clearer differences may emerge between correct and incorrect uses of AI in education and research. Yet, a definitive standard is that using AI should always be transparent and never misrepresented.

85. AI could be used as an aid to human dignity if it helps individuals comprehend intricate principles or directs them to sound resources that support their search for the reality. [158]
86. However, AI also provides a serious risk of producing manipulated content and incorrect details, which can easily mislead individuals due to its resemblance to the truth. Such misinformation may happen accidentally, as when it comes to AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear real but are not. Since generating content that simulates human artifacts is main to AI's performance, mitigating these risks proves challenging. Yet, the repercussions of such aberrations and incorrect details can be rather severe. For this factor, all those involved in producing and using AI systems must be devoted to the truthfulness and precision of the details processed by such systems and shared to the general public.

87. While AI has a latent potential to create incorrect details, a a lot more unpleasant problem depends on the deliberate misuse of AI for manipulation. This can take place when individuals or organizations intentionally create and spread false material with the aim to trick or trigger harm, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to a false depiction of a person, modified or produced by an AI algorithm. The risk of deepfakes is especially evident when they are used to target or damage others. While the images or videos themselves might be synthetic, the damage they trigger is genuine, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "real injuries in their human self-respect." [159]
88. On a more comprehensive scale, by distorting "our relationship with others and with truth," [160] AI-generated phony media can gradually weaken the foundations of society. This problem needs careful policy, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or affected media-can spread inadvertently, sustaining political polarization and social unrest. When society ends up being indifferent to the fact, different groups build their own variations of "realities," damaging the "mutual ties and mutual dependences" [161] that underpin the material of social life. As deepfakes cause people to question everything and AI-generated incorrect content wears down rely on what they see and hear, polarization and conflict will just grow. Such widespread deception is no unimportant matter; it strikes at the core of mankind, dismantling the fundamental trust on which societies are built. [162]
89. Countering AI-driven frauds is not just the work of market experts-it requires the efforts of all individuals of goodwill. "If technology is to serve human self-respect and not hurt it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human community needs to be proactive in attending to these trends with respect to human self-respect and the promotion of the excellent." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated material needs to always exercise diligence in confirming the reality of what they distribute and, in all cases, ought to "avoid the sharing of words and images that are degrading of people, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that exploit the weak and vulnerable." [164] This calls for the continuous vigilance and mindful discernment of all users concerning their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are naturally relational, and the information each person generates in the digital world can be seen as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data communicates not only details but likewise individual and relational understanding, which, in a significantly digitized context, can total up to power over the individual. Moreover, while some kinds of data might pertain to public aspects of an individual's life, others may touch upon the person's interiority, maybe even their conscience. Seen in this way, privacy plays an essential function in safeguarding the limits of an individual's inner life, maintaining their flexibility to associate with others, reveal themselves, and make choices without excessive control. This protection is also tied to the defense of religious freedom, as surveillance can likewise be misused to apply control over the lives of followers and how they reveal their faith.

91. It is suitable, for that reason, to attend to the issue of personal privacy from a concern for the genuine liberty and inalienable dignity of the human individual "in all scenarios." [166] The Second Vatican Council included the right "to safeguard personal privacy" among the essential rights "needed for living a truly human life," a right that needs to be reached all individuals on account of their "sublime dignity." [167] Furthermore, the Church has likewise affirmed the right to the genuine regard for a personal life in the context of affirming the person's right to an excellent track record, defense of their physical and mental stability, and flexibility from damage or excessive intrusion [168] -vital components of the due respect for the intrinsic self-respect of the human person. [169]
92. Advances in AI-powered data processing and analysis now make it possible to infer patterns in an individual's behavior and thinking from even a little amount of details, making the role of information personal privacy much more essential as a protect 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 diminishing or vanishing to the point that the right to personal privacy scarcely exists. Everything has actually ended up being a type of phenomenon to be analyzed and checked, and people's lives are now under constant monitoring." [170]
93. While there can be legitimate and proper ways to utilize AI in keeping with human self-respect and the typical excellent, utilizing it for monitoring aimed at making use of, limiting others' liberty, or benefitting a few at the expenditure of the numerous is unjustifiable. The threat of security overreach must be kept an eye on by appropriate regulators to guarantee openness and public responsibility. Those responsible for security should never surpass their authority, which need to always prefer the self-respect and flexibility of everyone as the essential basis of a simply and gentle society.

94. Furthermore, "fundamental respect for human self-respect demands that we refuse to allow the uniqueness of the person to be recognized with a set of data." [171] This specifically applies when AI is utilized to evaluate individuals or groups based upon their behavior, characteristics, or history-a practice understood as "social scoring": "In social and economic decision-making, we must be mindful about delegating judgments to algorithms that process information, typically gathered surreptitiously, on an individual's makeup and previous habits. Such information can be contaminated by societal prejudices and prejudgments. An individual's previous habits must not be utilized to deny him or her the chance to change, grow, and add to society. We can not permit algorithms to restrict or condition regard for human dignity, or to exclude compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people have the ability to change." [172]
95. AI has lots of promising applications for enhancing our relationship with our "typical home," such as developing models to forecast severe climate occasions, proposing engineering services to minimize their effect, managing relief operations, and anticipating 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 possible to enhance resilience against climate-related obstacles and promote more sustainable advancement.

96. At the exact same time, present AI designs and the hardware required to support them take in large amounts of energy and water, significantly contributing to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This truth is frequently obscured by the method this technology is provided in the popular imagination, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can give the impression that data is saved and processed in an intangible realm, separated from the real world. However, "the cloud" is not an ethereal domain separate from the physical world; as with all calculating innovations, it relies on physical devices, cable televisions, and energy. The exact same holds true of the innovation behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, specifically large language models (LLMs), they require ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and higher storage infrastructure. Considering the heavy toll these technologies take on the environment, it is crucial to develop sustainable services that minimize their effect on our common home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is necessary "that we try to find services not only in innovation but in a modification of humanity." [175] A complete and authentic understanding of development recognizes that the worth of all created things can not be lowered to their simple energy. Therefore, a fully human approach to the stewardship of the earth declines the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which seeks to "extract whatever possible" from the world, [176] and rejects the "myth of progress," which presumes that "eco-friendly issues will resolve themselves just with the application of new innovation and with no requirement for ethical considerations or deep change." [177] Such a frame of mind needs to provide way to a more holistic method that appreciates the order of creation and promotes the essential good of the human individual while safeguarding our common home. [178]
98. The Second Vatican Council and the consistent mentor of the Popes because then have actually insisted that peace is not simply the lack of war and is not restricted to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the tranquility of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without safeguarding the items of persons, free communication, regard for the dignity of individuals and individuals, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the impact of charity and can not be attained through force alone; instead, it needs to be mainly built through client diplomacy, the active promo of justice, uniformity, essential human advancement, and respect for the dignity of all individuals. [180] In this method, the tools used to maintain peace needs to never be enabled to validate oppression, violence, or oppression. Instead, they ought to always be governed by a "firm determination to respect other individuals and nations, along with their self-respect, along with the deliberate practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical abilities might assist nations look for peace and guarantee security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can likewise be highly troublesome. Pope Francis has observed that "the ability to conduct military operations through remote control systems has actually resulted in a reduced understanding of the devastation triggered by those weapon systems and the burden of responsibility for their use, resulting in a much more cold and separated method to the tremendous tragedy of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which self-governing weapons make war more viable militates against the concept of war as a last resort in legitimate self-defense, [183] potentially increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and speeding up a destabilizing arms race, with catastrophic effects for human rights. [184]
100. In particular, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which can recognizing and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for severe ethical issue" because they lack the "distinct human capacity for ethical judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this factor, Pope Francis has urgently called for a reconsideration of the development of these weapons and a prohibition on their usage, starting with "an effective and concrete dedication to introduce ever greater and correct human control. No maker needs to ever select to take the life of a human." [186]
101. Since it is a small step from devices that can eliminate autonomously with accuracy to those efficient in large-scale damage, some AI scientists have expressed concerns that such innovation positions an "existential risk" by having the potential to act in manner ins which might threaten the survival of entire areas or even of humankind itself. This danger needs serious attention, reflecting the enduring issue about technologies that approve war "an unmanageable devastating power over multitudes of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing kids. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "carry out an assessment of war with an entirely brand-new attitude" [188] is more urgent than ever.

102. At the exact same time, while the theoretical threats of AI deserve attention, the more immediate and pressing concern lies in how individuals with malicious objectives might abuse this innovation. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future capabilities are unpredictable, humanity's previous actions offer clear cautions. The atrocities devoted throughout history are enough to raise deep concerns about the prospective abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that "humanity now has instruments of unmatched power: we can turn this world into a garden, or minimize it to a pile of rubble." [190] Given this truth, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are free to apply our intelligence towards things developing favorably," or towards "decadence and mutual damage." [191] To avoid mankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there must be a clear stand against all applications of technology that inherently threaten human life and self-respect. This dedication needs careful discernment about making use of AI, particularly in military defense applications, to ensure that it constantly respects human self-respect and serves the common good. The development and deployment of AI in weaponries must be subject to the highest levels of ethical scrutiny, governed by a concern for human self-respect and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology offers amazing tools to oversee and establish the world's resources. However, in many cases, humankind is increasingly delivering control of these resources to devices. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, there is optimism about the capacity of synthetic general intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical form of AI that would match or surpass human intelligence and produce inconceivable developments. Some even speculate that AGI might attain superhuman capabilities. At the exact same time, as society wanders away from a connection with the transcendent, some are lured to turn to AI in search of significance or fulfillment-longings that can only be really pleased in communion with God. [194]
105. However, the presumption of substituting God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture explicitly cautions against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI may show a lot more sexy than standard idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths but do not speak; eyes, however do not see; ears, however do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or at least gives the impression of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is crucial to keep in mind that AI is but a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated product, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not possess a number of the abilities specific to human life, and it is also fallible. By turning to AI as a perceived "Other" greater than itself, with which to share presence and obligations, humankind risks creating a replacement for God. However, it is not AI that is eventually deified and worshipped, but humankind itself-which, in this way, ends up being enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the prospective to serve humanity and contribute to the common good, it remains a production of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and ingenuity" (Acts 17:29). It should never ever be ascribed undue worth. As the Book of Wisdom affirms: "For a guy made them, and one whose spirit is obtained formed them; for no male can form a god which is like himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is much better than the things he worships considering that he has life, however they never have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. On the other hand, humans, "by their interior life, transcend the whole product universe; they experience this deep interiority when they participate in their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they choose their own destiny in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis advises us, that each private finds the "mystical connection between self-knowledge and openness to others, between the encounter with one's personal originality and the willingness to offer oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "capable of setting our other powers and enthusiasms, and our whole person, in a stance of respect and caring obedience before the Lord," [198] who "offers to treat every one of us as a 'Thou,' constantly and forever." [199]
108. Considering the different difficulties postured by advances in innovation, Pope Francis highlighted the need for growth in "human responsibility, worths, and conscience," proportionate to the growth in the potential that this technology brings [200] -acknowledging that "with an increase in human power comes an expanding of obligation on the part of individuals and neighborhoods." [201]
109. At the same time, the "important and fundamental concern" remains "whether in the context of this development man, as male, is ending up being genuinely much better, that is to say, more fully grown spiritually, more aware of the dignity of his mankind, more responsible, more available to others, particularly the neediest and the weakest, and readier to provide and to aid all." [202]
110. As a result, it is vital to know how to assess individual applications of AI in specific contexts to figure out whether its usage promotes human dignity, the occupation of the human person, and the typical good. As with numerous innovations, the effects of the different uses of AI might not always be predictable from their creation. As these applications and their social effects end up being clearer, appropriate actions should be made at all levels of society, following the concept of subsidiarity. Individual users, families, civil society, corporations, institutions, federal governments, and worldwide companies need to operate at their correct levels to guarantee that AI is utilized for the good of all.

111. A considerable difficulty and opportunity for the common good today lies in considering AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which highlights the interconnectedness of individuals and communities and highlights our shared obligation for fostering the essential wellness of others. The twentieth-century philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev observed that individuals often blame makers for personal and social issues; nevertheless, "this just humiliates male and does not represent his self-respect," for "it is unworthy to transfer obligation from man to a device." [203] Only the human person can be ethically responsible, and the obstacles of a technological society are ultimately spiritual in nature. Therefore, facing those obstacles "demands an increase of spirituality." [204]
112. A more indicate think about is the call, prompted by the appearance of AI on the world stage, for a restored gratitude of all that is human. Years back, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos alerted that "the threat is not in the multiplication of makers, however in the ever-increasing variety of males accustomed from their childhood to desire only what machines can give." [205] This obstacle is as true today as it was then, as the quick rate of digitization risks a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable aspects of life are set aside and after that forgotten or even deemed unimportant due to the fact that they can not be computed in formal terms. AI ought to be used only as a tool to match human intelligence rather than replace its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that transcend calculation is important for maintaining "an authentic humanity" that "appears to dwell in the midst of our technological culture, practically unnoticed, like a mist leaking gently below a closed door." [207]
113. The huge stretch of the world's knowledge is now available in ways that would have filled previous generations with awe. However, to guarantee that improvements in knowledge do not become humanly or spiritually barren, one must exceed the simple build-up of information and aim to attain real wisdom. [208]
114. This knowledge is the gift that humanity requires most to attend to the extensive concerns and ethical obstacles presented by AI: "Only by adopting a spiritual method of seeing reality, just by recuperating a wisdom of the heart, can we face and translate the newness of our time." [209] Such "knowledge of the heart" is "the virtue that enables us to integrate the whole and its parts, our choices and their effects." It "can not be looked for from devices," however it "lets itself be discovered by those who seek it and be seen by those who enjoy it; it prepares for those who desire it, and it enters search of those who are worthy of it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]
115. In a world marked by AI, we require the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "enables us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, scenarios, events and to reveal their real significance." [211]
116. Since a "person's perfection is measured not by the details or knowledge they possess, however by the depth of their charity," [212] how we include AI "to consist of the least of our bros and sis, the vulnerable, and those most in requirement, will be the true measure of our humankind." [213] The "wisdom of the heart" can illuminate and guide the human-centered usage of this innovation to assist promote the typical excellent, take care of our "common home," advance the look for the truth, foster important human development, prefer human uniformity and fraternity, and lead humanity to its ultimate objective: happiness and full communion with God. [214]
117. From this point of view of wisdom, believers will be able to function as moral representatives capable of using this innovation to promote a genuine vision of the human individual and society. [215] This must be done with the understanding that technological development belongs to God's strategy for creation-an activity that we are contacted us to order toward the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the consistent search for the True and the Good.

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

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

Ex audientia pass away 14 ianuarii 2025 Franciscus

Contents

I. Introduction

II. What is Artificial Intelligence?

III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition

Rationality

Embodiment

Relationality

Relationship with the Truth

Stewardship of the World

An Integral Understanding of Human Intelligence

The Limits of AI

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

Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making

V. Specific Questions

AI and Society

AI and Human Relationships

AI, the Economy, and Labor

AI and Healthcare

AI and Education

AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse

AI, Privacy, and Surveillance

AI and the Protection of Our Common Home

AI and Warfare

AI and Our Relationship with God

VI. Concluding Reflections

True Wisdom

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See also Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. [2] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 307. Cf. Id., Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (21 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020 ), 43. [3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [5] J. McCarthy, et al., "A Proposition for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence" (31 August 1955), http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024). [6] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), pars. 2-3: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [7] Terms in this file explaining the outputs or processes of AI are used figuratively to explain its operations and are not meant to anthropomorphize the maker. [8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [9] Here, one can see the main positions of the "transhumanists" and the "posthumanists." Transhumanists argue that technological improvements will enable humans to conquer their biological constraints and enhance both their physical and cognitive abilities. Posthumanists, wolvesbaneuo.com on the other hand, contend that such advances will eventually alter human identity to the level that mankind itself might no longer be considered genuinely "human." Both views rest on a fundamentally unfavorable understanding of human corporality, which deals with the body more as an obstacle than as an integral part of the individual's identity and contact us to full realization. Yet, this negative view of the body is irregular with a proper understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports genuine clinical progress, it affirms that human dignity is rooted in "the individual as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "dignity is also 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 approach reflects a functionalist viewpoint, which reduces the human mind to its functions and assumes that its functions can be totally quantified in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear genuinely intelligent, it would still remain functional in nature. [11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460. [12] If "thinking" is credited to machines, it should be clarified that this describes calculative thinking rather than critical thinking. Similarly, if machines are said to operate using rational thinking, it must be specified that this is restricted to computational reasoning. On the other hand, by its very nature, human idea is an imaginative procedure that avoids shows and transcends constraints. [13] On the foundational function of language in shaping understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York 2010, 141-182). [14] For more conversation of these anthropological and doctrinal structures, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144. [15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21. [16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [faculty] by which he is superior to the irrational animals. Now, this [professors] is reason itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it might more appropriately be provided"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When considering all that they have, people discover that they are most identified from animals specifically by the truth they have intelligence." This is likewise repeated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who states that "male is the most best of all earthly beings endowed with motion, and his correct and natural operation is intellection," by which guy abstracts from things and "receives in his mind things really intelligible" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 76). [17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, advertisement 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a contemporary point of view that echoes elements of the classical and medieval difference between these two modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York City 2011. [19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp. [20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138. [21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intellect can investigate the truth of things through reflection, experience and discussion, and pertain to acknowledge in that truth, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal moral needs." [22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp. [24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "usually thinks about the human individual as a being who exists in the body and is unthinkable beyond it" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Che cosa è l'uomo?" (Sal 8,5): Un itinerario di antropologia biblica [30 September 2019], par. 19). Cf. ibid., pars. 20-21, 43-44, 48. [25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100 (2008 ), 863: "Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, but instead fully divulged its meaning and value." [26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81. [27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and thus it is united to the body in order that it might have a presence and an operation appropriate to its nature." [29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18. [30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357. [31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54. [32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221. [33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27. [34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls likewise possess reason and with it they circle in discourse around the reality of things. [...] [O] n account of the manner in which they are capable of concentrating the lots of into the one, they too, in their own fashion 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 City - Mahwah 1987, 106-107). [35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 3: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7. [36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 42: AAS 91 (1999 ), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1043: "the human mind is capable of transcending immediate issues and understanding certain truths that are changeless, as real now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, reason discovers 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 acknowledge that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York 1958, 77). [39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [40] Our semantic capability enables us to comprehend messages in any kind of communication in a manner that both takes into consideration and transcends their product or empirical structures (such as computer system code). Here, intelligence becomes a knowledge that "enables us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, circumstances, occasions and to reveal their genuine significance" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our imagination allows us to create brand-new content or ideas, mainly by providing an initial perspective on reality. Both capacities depend upon the presence of an individual subjectivity for their complete awareness. [41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. [42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a dedication to the fact, is a lot more than individual sensation [...] Certainly, its close relation to reality promotes its universality and maintains it from being 'confined to a narrow field without relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to fact therefore safeguards it from 'a fideism that deprives it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643. [43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7. [44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. [46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as priced estimate in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294. [47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure likens deep space to "a book reflecting, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who approves existence to all things (Breviloquium 2.12.1). Cf. Alain de Lille, De Incarnatione Christi, PL 210, 579a: "Omnis mundi creatura quasi liber et pictura nobis est et speculum." [48] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 67: AAS 107 (2015 ), 874; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589-592; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 57: "human beings inhabit a special location in the universe according to the divine plan: they enjoy the benefit of sharing in the magnificent governance of noticeable production. [...] Since male's place as ruler remains in truth a participation in the divine governance of creation, we speak of it here as a form of stewardship." [49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165. [50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This concept is likewise reflected in the production account, where God brings animals to Adam "to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living creature, that was its name" (Gen. 2:19), an action that shows the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's production. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117. [51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301. [52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302. [53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2. [54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7. [55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8. [57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906. [58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987. [59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: "L'intelligence n'est rien sans la délectation." Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: "The mind and the will are put at the service of the greater excellent by picking up 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 magnificent 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 strategy conceived in his knowledge and love. God has actually made it possible for guy to participate in this law of his so that, under the mild disposition of divine providence, numerous may be able to get here at a much deeper and much deeper knowledge of unchangeable reality." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. [63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016. [64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042. [66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has imprinted his own image and likeness on man (cf. Gen 1:26), giving upon him a matchless dignity [...] In impact, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not correspond to any work he carries out, but which circulation from his necessary self-respect as a person." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22. [68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310. [69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is comprehended as a technical term to indicate this innovation, remembering that the expression is likewise used to designate the discipline and not only its applications. [71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857. [72] For example, see the encouragement 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, among a long list of other Catholics engaged in scientific research study and technological exploration, highlight that "faith and science can be united in charity, provided that science is put at the service of the males and woman of our time and not misused to damage or even damage them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87. [73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. [74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888. [77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658. [78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim. [79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293. [80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4. [81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes guy a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, guy is, so to speak, the daddy of his acts." [82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776. [83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777. [84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father encouraged efforts "to make sure that technology remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed toward the good." [85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the function of human firm in choosing a broader aim (Ziel) that then notifies the particular purpose (Zweck) for which each technological application is developed, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um die Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71. [86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a purpose and, in its effect on human society, constantly represents a form of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, hence enabling certain people to perform specific actions while avoiding others from carrying out various ones. In a more or less specific way, this constitutive power-dimension of innovation always consists of the worldview of those who developed and developed it." [87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309. [88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Faced with the marvels of devices, which appear to know how to pick independently, we must be extremely clear that decision-making [...] need to always be delegated the human individual. We would condemn mankind to a future without hope if we took away individuals's capability to make choices about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend upon the options 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 predisposition (systematic and constant errors in computer system systems that might disproportionately prejudice certain groups in unexpected ways) or finding out predisposition (which will result in training on a prejudiced data set) and not the "bias vector" in neural networks (which is a criterion utilized to adjust the output of "nerve cells" to change more accurately to the information). [94] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father affirmed the growth in agreement "on the need for development processes to appreciate such worths as inclusion, transparency, security, equity, privacy and reliability," and also welcomed "the efforts of global organizations to manage these technologies so that they promote real progress, contributing, that is, to a better world and an integrally higher quality of life." [95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8. [96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571. [98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For additional conversation of the ethical concerns raised by AI from a Catholic perspective, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253. [99] On the importance of discussion in a pluralist society oriented toward a "robust and solid social principles," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. [104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10. [105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; pricing quote the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245. [106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050. [107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047. [108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309. [109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027. [112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123. [113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034. [114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149. [115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414. [118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057. [119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985. [120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989). [123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Lots of people] desire their social relationships supplied by sophisticated devices, by screens and systems which can be turned on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel informs us continuously to run the danger of an in person encounter with others, with their physical existence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their pleasure which contaminates us in our close and constant interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from membership in the neighborhood, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045. [124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1. [125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899. [126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107. [128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' mentor about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893. [129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as estimated in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453. [130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: "work is 'for male' and not man '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 estimate in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8. [137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for asteroidsathome.net 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 healthcare. When a sick individual is not put in the center or their dignity is not considered, this provides increase to attitudes that can lead even to speculation on the misfortune of others. And this is really grave! [...] The application of a service method to the healthcare sector, if indiscriminate [...] may run the risk of disposing of people." [142] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [143] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729. [144] Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on making use of Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729; Francis, Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016), 6: AAS 108 (2016 ), 57-58. [145] Francis, Address to Members of the Global Researchers Advancing Catholic Education Project (20 April 2022): AAS 114 (2022 ), 580. [146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), par. 41: AAS 68 (1976 ), 31, pricing estimate Id., Address to the Members of the "Consilium de Laicis" (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: "if [the modern person] does listen to instructors, it is due to the fact that they are witnesses." [147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126. [148] Francis, Meeting the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, estimating the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592. [150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167. [151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413. [152] In a 2023 policy document about the use of generative AI in education and research study, UNESCO notes: "Among the essential concerns [of making use of generative AI (GenAI) in education and research] is whether human beings can perhaps cede standard levels of thinking and skill-acquisition processes to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking abilities based upon the outputs offered by AI. Writing, for example, is frequently associated with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], humans can now begin with a well-structured overview supplied by GenAI. Some experts have actually defined the use of GenAI to generate text in this method as 'composing without believing'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American theorist Hannah Arendt foresaw such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and cautioned: "If it ought to end up being real that knowledge (in the sense of know-how) and thought have parted company for excellent, then we would certainly become the defenseless slaves, not so much of our devices as of our know-how" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3). [153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417. [154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914. [155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479. [156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10. [157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3. [158] For example, it might help people gain access to the "variety of resources for producing greater knowledge of truth" contained in the works of philosophy (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 understand is true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he composes: 'I have satisfied numerous who wanted to deceive, however none who wished to be deceived'"; quoting Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794. [163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62. [164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8. [165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Media (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149. [166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24. [167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no male may with impunity violate that human dignity which God himself treats with fantastic respect"; 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 requires States to also appreciate the right to privacy, by shielding people from intrusive surveillance and enabling them to protect their individual details from unapproved gain access to." [170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984. [171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body determined a list of "early guarantees of AI helping to resolve environment modification" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The file observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can transform information into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools might help develop brand-new methods and financial investments to decrease emissions, affect brand-new personal sector financial investments in net no, protect biodiversity, and build broad-based social strength" (ibid.). [174] "The cloud" describes a network of physical servers throughout the world that makes it possible for users to shop, process, and manage their data remotely. [175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850. [176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890. [177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870. [178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852. [179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640. [180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317. [181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101. [182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310. [184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105. [185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We require to guarantee and protect a space for appropriate human control over the options made by synthetic 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 use of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) that do not have the appropriate human control would pose fundamental ethical issues, considered that LAWS can never ever be ethically responsible subjects efficient in complying with 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 ignore the possibility of advanced weapons ending up in the wrong hands, helping with, for example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the institutions of legitimate systems of federal government. In a word, the world does not need brand-new innovations that contribute to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and consequently wind up promoting the folly of war." [190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565. [191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878. [192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687. [193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39. [194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661. [195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a better understanding today that the simple accumulation of goods and services [...] is inadequate for the awareness of human happiness. Nor, in consequence, does the availability of the many genuine advantages provided in recent times by science and technology, including the computer technology, bring flexibility from every form of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the substantial body of resources and potential at male's disposal is assisted by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the true good of the mankind, it easily turns against man to oppress him." Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564. [196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6. [199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6. [200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. 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, Consulting With the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023). [207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: "The flood of details at our fingertips does not make for greater knowledge. Wisdom is not born of quick searches on the web nor is it a mass of unproven data. That is not the way to grow in the encounter with reality." [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.