1. With knowledge both ancient and new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to review the current difficulties and chances presented by clinical and technological improvements, particularly by the recent development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian tradition regards the gift of intelligence as an important aspect of how human beings are developed "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Beginning with an essential vision of the human person and the biblical contacting us to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church highlights that this present of intelligence need to be revealed through the accountable usage of factor and technical capabilities in the stewardship of the created world.

2. The Church encourages the development of science, innovation, the arts, and other kinds of human endeavor, viewing them as part of the "cooperation of guy and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation." [1] As Sirach affirms, God "provided skill to human beings, that he might be glorified in his magnificent works" (Sir. 38:6). Human capabilities and imagination originate from God and, when utilized rightly, glorify God by reflecting his knowledge and goodness. Because of this, when we ask ourselves what it means to "be human," we can not omit a consideration of our scientific and technological capabilities.

3. It is within this viewpoint that the present Note addresses the anthropological and ethical challenges raised by AI-issues that are especially substantial, as one of the goals of this innovation is to mimic the human intelligence that developed it. For instance, unlike lots of other human creations, AI can be trained on the results of human imagination and then produce new "artifacts" with a level of speed and ability that frequently equals or surpasses what humans can do, such as producing text or images identical from human structures. This raises critical concerns about AI's possible function in the growing crisis of fact in the public online forum. Moreover, this technology is created to discover and make certain choices autonomously, adjusting to brand-new circumstances and providing options not predicted by its programmers, and therefore, it raises basic concerns about ethical obligation and human security, with broader implications for society as a whole. This brand-new circumstance has actually triggered lots of individuals to assess what it implies to be human and the role of humanity in the world.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad consensus that AI marks a brand-new and considerable stage in humanity's engagement with innovation, putting it at the heart of what Pope Francis has explained as an "epochal modification." [2] Its impact is felt worldwide and in a large variety of locations, including interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, health care, law, warfare, and international relations. As AI advances quickly towards even higher accomplishments, it is seriously essential to consider its anthropological and ethical implications. This includes not only mitigating dangers and preventing damage but also making sure that its applications are used to promote human development and the common good.

5. To contribute positively to the discernment concerning AI, and in action to Pope Francis' require a restored "wisdom of heart," [3] the Church uses 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 invites those delegated with sending the faith-including parents, instructors, pastors, and bishops-to commit themselves to this crucial subject with care and attention. While this file is intended especially for them, it is likewise suggested to be available to a broader audience, especially those who share the conviction that clinical and technological advances need to be directed toward serving the human person and the common good. [4]
6. To this end, the file starts by comparing ideas of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then explores the Christian understanding of human intelligence, offering a structure rooted in the Church's philosophical and doctrinal tradition. Finally, the document offers standards to make sure that the advancement and use of AI maintain human self-respect and promote the integral 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 different disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a significant turning point happened in 1956 when the American computer researcher John McCarthy arranged a summer season workshop at Dartmouth University to explore the issue of "Artificial Intelligence," which he defined as "that of making a machine act in methods that would be called smart if a human were so acting." [5] This workshop released a research study program concentrated on developing machines capable of carrying out jobs normally associated with the human intelligence and smart behavior.

8. Since then, AI research study has actually advanced quickly, resulting in the development of complex systems efficient in performing highly sophisticated tasks. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are normally created to handle specific and minimal functions, such as equating languages, forecasting the trajectory of a storm, categorizing images, answering concerns, or creating visual content at the user's request. While the definition of "intelligence" in AI research study varies, the majority of contemporary AI systems-particularly those using machine learning-rely on statistical inference rather than rational reduction. By examining large datasets to determine patterns, AI can "forecast" [7] outcomes and propose brand-new techniques, imitating some cognitive procedures common of human analytical. Such accomplishments have actually been made possible through advances in computing technology (including neural networks, not being watched artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) as well as hardware innovations (such as specialized processors). Together, these innovations allow AI systems to react to different types of human input, adjust to new circumstances, and even suggest novel solutions not prepared for by their initial developers. [8]
9. Due to these rapid developments, lots of jobs as soon as managed solely by humans are now entrusted to AI. These systems can augment or even supersede what people have the ability to perform in lots of fields, especially in specialized locations such as information analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is developed for a particular task, numerous researchers aim to establish what is called "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system capable of running throughout all cognitive domains and carrying out any job within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI might one day attain the state of "superintelligence," surpassing human intellectual capabilities, or contribute to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, nevertheless, fear that these possibilities, even if hypothetical, might one day eclipse the human person, while still others welcome this possible improvement. [9]
10. Underlying this and lots of other point of views on the topic is the implicit presumption that the term "intelligence" can be used in the exact same method to describe both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not record the full scope of the principle. When it comes to human beings, intelligence is a professors that pertains to the individual in his or her totality, 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 devices can replicate. [10]
11. This functional viewpoint is exhibited by the "Turing Test," which thinks about a machine "intelligent" if an individual can not identify its habits from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "habits" refers only to the performance of specific intellectual jobs; it does not represent the full breadth of human experience, that includes abstraction, feelings, creativity, and the visual, moral, and spiritual sensibilities. Nor does it include the complete variety of expressions particular of the human mind. Instead, when it comes to AI, the "intelligence" of a system is assessed methodologically, but likewise reductively, based upon its capability to produce appropriate responses-in this case, those associated with the human intellect-regardless of how those actions are created.

12. AI's sophisticated features provide it sophisticated abilities to carry out tasks, however not the capability to think. [12] This difference is crucially essential, as the method "intelligence" is defined undoubtedly forms how we comprehend the relationship in between human thought and this innovation. [13] To appreciate this, one should remember the richness of the philosophical custom and Christian faith, which use a deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's mentor on the nature, self-respect, and vocation of the human person. [14]
13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has actually played a main role in understanding what it implies to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all individuals by nature desire to know." [15] This understanding, with its capacity for abstraction that understands the nature and significance of things, sets people apart from the animal world. [16] As philosophers, theologians, and psychologists have actually examined the exact nature of this intellectual faculty, valetinowiki.racing they have likewise checked out how human beings comprehend the world and their distinct location within it. Through this exploration, the Christian tradition has actually pertained to comprehend the human individual as a being consisting of both body and soul-deeply connected to this world and yet transcending it. [17]
14. In the classical tradition, the concept of intelligence is often understood through the complementary principles of "reason" (ratio) and "intellect" (intellectus). These are not different professors however, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are two modes in which the same intelligence runs: "The term intellect is presumed from the inward grasp of the fact, while the name reason is drawn from the curious and discursive procedure." [18] This concise description highlights the 2 fundamental and complementary dimensions of human intelligence. Intellectus refers to the user-friendly grasp of the truth-that is, capturing it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and grounds argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to thinking appropriate: the discursive, analytical process that causes judgment. Together, intelligence and factor form the two elements of the act of intelligere, "the correct operation of the human being as such." [19]
15. Explaining the human individual as a "rational" being does not minimize the person to a specific mode of thought; rather, it recognizes that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and permeates all elements of human activity. [20] Whether exercised well or poorly, this capability is an intrinsic element of human nature. In this sense, the "term 'rational' incorporates all the capacities of the human individual," consisting of those related to "knowing and understanding, along with those of prepared, loving, picking, and wanting; it likewise includes all corporeal functions carefully related to these capabilities." [21] This detailed perspective highlights how, in the human person, produced in the "image of God," reason is incorporated in a method that raises, shapes, and transforms both the person's will and actions. [22]
16. Christian believed considers the intellectual professors of the human individual within the structure of an essential sociology that sees the human being as essentially embodied. In the human individual, spirit and matter "are not 2 natures joined, however rather their union forms a single nature." [23] Simply put, the soul is not merely the immaterial "part" of the person contained within the body, nor is the body an outer shell real estate an intangible "core." Rather, the entire human person is simultaneously both material and spiritual. This understanding shows the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which sees the human individual as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and therefore, an authentically spiritual measurement) within and through this embodied presence. [24] The profound significance of this condition is more illuminated by the secret of the Incarnation, through which God himself handled our flesh and "raised it approximately 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 "nearly on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intelligence's capability for transcendence and the self-possessed liberty of the will belong to the soul, by which the human individual "shares in the light of the magnificent mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of knowledge without the body. [28] In this method, the intellectual professors of the human person are an essential part of an anthropology that acknowledges that the human person is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further elements of this understanding will be established in what follows.

18. Human beings are "bought by their very nature to interpersonal communion," [30] having the capability to know one another, to provide themselves in love, and to enter into communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not an isolated professors but is exercised in relationships, discovering its maximum expression in dialogue, partnership, and uniformity. We discover with others, and we discover through others.

19. The relational orientation of the human individual is eventually grounded in the everlasting self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is revealed in production and redemption. [31] The human individual is "called to share, by understanding and love, in God's own life." [32]
20. This vocation to communion with God is always tied to the call to communion with others. Love of God can not be separated from love for one's 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 mimic Christ's outpouring gift (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "like one another, as I have actually loved you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the magnificent life of self-giving, transcend self-interest to respond more completely to the human vocation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). A lot more sublime than knowing numerous things is the dedication to care for one another, for if "I comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge [...] but do not have love, I am absolutely nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2).

21. Human intelligence is eventually "God's present made for the assimilation of fact." [34] In the double sense of intellectus-ratio, it makes it possible for the individual to check out truths that surpass simple sensory experience or energy, given that "the desire for truth is part of human nature itself. It is an inherent property of human reason to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limits of empirical information, human intelligence can "with authentic certitude attain to truth itself as knowable." [36] While reality remains only partially known, the desire for fact "spurs factor always to go even more; certainly, it is as if reason were overwhelmed to see that it can constantly surpass what it has currently attained." [37] Although Truth in itself transcends the limits of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this destination, the human individual is caused look for "truths of a higher order." [39]
22. This innate drive toward the pursuit of truth is specifically obvious in the distinctly human capacities for semantic understanding and creativity, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "manner that is proper to the social nature and dignity of the human individual." [41] Likewise, a steadfast orientation to the truth is essential for charity to be both genuine and universal. [42]
23. The look for fact discovers its highest expression in openness to truths that go beyond the physical and produced world. In God, all realities attain their supreme and initial significance. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "fundamental decision that engages the whole individual." [44] In this way, the human individual ends up being completely what he or she is contacted us to be: "the intellect and the will display their spiritual nature," making it possible for the person "to act in a manner that understands personal flexibility to the complete." [45]
24. The Christian faith understands production 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 communicate it." [46] Since God develops according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), production is imbued with an intrinsic order that shows God's plan (cf. Gen. 1; Dan. 2:21 -22; Is. 45:18; Ps. 74:12 -17; 104), [47] within which God has actually called people to assume an unique function: to cultivate and look after the world. [48]
25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, people live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their and skills to care for and develop production in accord with God's plan. [49] In this, human intelligence reflects the Divine Intelligence that developed all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] constantly sustains them, and guides them to their supreme purpose in him. [51] Moreover, human beings are contacted us to develop their abilities in science and technology, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in a correct relationship with development, humans, on the one hand, utilize their intelligence and ability to cooperate with God in guiding development toward the function to which he has actually called it. [52] On the other hand, creation itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, assists the human mind to "ascend slowly to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]
26. In this context, human intelligence becomes more plainly understood as a faculty that forms an important part of how the whole person engages with reality. Authentic engagement requires embracing the complete scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with reality unfolds in numerous ways, as everyone, in his/her multifaceted uniqueness [54], seeks to understand the world, associate with others, fix problems, reveal creativity, and pursue essential well-being through the harmonious interplay of the numerous dimensions of the person's intelligence. [55] This includes rational and linguistic capabilities however can also encompass other modes of interacting with truth. Consider the work of an artisan, who "should know how to discern, in inert matter, a specific type that others can not acknowledge" [56] and bring it forth through insight and useful skill. Indigenous peoples who live near to the earth frequently have a profound sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a pal who understands the ideal word to state or an individual adept at managing human relationships exemplifies an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, dialogue and generous encounter between individuals." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of synthetic intelligence, we can not forget that poetry and love are needed to save our humankind." [59]
28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the combination of truth into the ethical and spiritual life of the person, guiding his or her actions because of God's goodness and reality. According to God's plan, intelligence, in its max sense, likewise includes the ability to relish what holds true, great, and stunning. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel revealed, "intelligence is nothing without delight." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the greatest heaven in Paradiso, testifies that the culmination of this intellectual pleasure is found in the "light intellectual complete of love, love of real excellent filled with pleasure, pleasure which transcends every sweetness." [61]
29. A proper understanding of human intelligence, for that reason, can not be decreased to the simple acquisition of realities or the capability to perform particular jobs. Instead, it includes the individual's openness to the ultimate questions of life and reflects an orientation toward the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the divine image within the individual, human intelligence has the capability to access the totality of being, contemplating presence in its fullness, which exceeds what is quantifiable, and grasping the meaning of what has actually been comprehended. For believers, this capacity includes, in a particular way, the capability to grow in the knowledge of the mysteries of God by utilizing reason to engage ever more profoundly with exposed truths (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is formed by magnificent love, which "is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence has an important contemplative measurement, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian function.

30. In light of the foregoing discussion, the distinctions in between human intelligence and existing AI systems become evident. While AI is a remarkable technological accomplishment capable of mimicing certain outputs related to human intelligence, it runs by carrying out tasks, attaining objectives, or making choices based on quantitative information and computational logic. For instance, with its analytical power, AI excels at integrating data from a range of fields, modeling complex systems, and experienciacortazar.com.ar cultivating interdisciplinary connections. In this method, it can help professionals team up in solving intricate issues that "can not be dealt with from a single point of view or from a single set of interests." [64]
31. However, even as AI procedures and replicates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains fundamentally confined to a logical-mathematical framework, which imposes fundamental constraints. Human intelligence, on the other hand, establishes organically throughout the person's physical and psychological development, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although sophisticated AI systems can "discover" through processes such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is basically different from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional reactions, social interactions, and the special context of each moment. These components shape and kind individuals within their individual history.In contrast, AI, lacking a physical body, relies on computational thinking and knowing based upon huge datasets that consist of tape-recorded human experiences and understanding.

32. Consequently, although AI can imitate aspects of human thinking and perform particular jobs with extraordinary speed and effectiveness, its computational abilities represent only a fraction of the wider capacities of the human mind. For example, AI can not presently replicate ethical discernment or the capability to establish genuine relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is positioned within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral formation that basically forms the person's point of view, encompassing the physical, emotional, social, ethical, and spiritual dimensions of life. Since AI can not provide this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely exclusively on this innovation or treat it as the main ways of translating the world can cause "a loss of appreciation for the entire, for the relationships in between things, and for the broader horizon." [65]
33. Human intelligence is not mainly about finishing functional jobs but about understanding and actively engaging with truth in all its dimensions; it is also efficient in surprising insights. Since AI does not have the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to fact and goodness, its capacities-though seemingly limitless-are matchless with the human capability to grasp reality. So much can be gained from an illness, a welcome of reconciliation, and even a simple sunset; certainly, lots of experiences we have as people open brand-new horizons and offer the possibility of attaining new knowledge. No device, working solely with data, can determine up to these and countless other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an overly close equivalence between human intelligence and AI risks catching a functionalist perspective, where people are valued based on the work they can perform. However, an individual's worth does not depend on possessing particular abilities, cognitive and technological achievements, or specific success, but on the individual's fundamental dignity, grounded in being produced in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains undamaged in all situations, including for those not able to exercise their capabilities, whether it be an unborn child, an unconscious person, or an older individual who is suffering. [67] It also underpins the custom of human rights (and, in specific, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "an important point of convergence in the search for commonalities" [68] and can, therefore, work as a fundamental ethical guide in discussions on the responsible advancement and usage of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the extremely usage of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can prove deceptive" [69] and risks overlooking what is most valuable in the human person. Due to this, AI must not be seen as an artificial type of human intelligence but as a product 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 remember that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character however is a human venture that engages the humanistic and cultural measurements of human creativity. [71]
37. Seen as a fruit of the prospective inscribed within human intelligence, [72] scientific query and the advancement of technical abilities are part of the "partnership of males and female with God in improving the noticeable creation." [73] At the very same time, all clinical and technological achievements are, ultimately, gifts from God. [74] Therefore, people need to always use their capabilities in view of the higher function for which God has given them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has actually "corrected countless evils which used to harm and limit people," [76] a reality for which we need to rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological advancements in themselves represent real human progress. [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 gentle order of social relations," which are "better than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical ramifications of technological advancement are shared not just within the Church but also among lots of scientists, technologists, and expert associations, who progressively require ethical reflection to guide this development in an accountable way.

39. To address these difficulties, it is vital to highlight the importance of ethical responsibility grounded in the self-respect and occupation of the human person. This assisting principle also applies to concerns concerning AI. In this context, the ethical measurement handles main significance since it is individuals who create systems and determine the purposes for which they are utilized. [80] Between a maker and a human being, just the latter is genuinely an ethical agent-a subject of ethical obligation who works out freedom in his or her decisions and accepts their consequences. [81] It is not the machine but 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 prevent evil," [82] bearing witness to "the authority of truth in recommendation to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn." [83] Likewise, in between a maker and a human, just the human can be adequately self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, critical with vigilance, and seeking the great that is possible in every circumstance. [84] In fact, all of this likewise belongs to the individual's workout of intelligence.

40. Like any item of human creativity, AI can be directed toward positive or unfavorable ends. [85] When used in ways that appreciate human dignity and promote the wellness of individuals and neighborhoods, it can contribute favorably to the human occupation. Yet, as in all areas where people are contacted us to make decisions, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human liberty permits the possibility of choosing what is incorrect, the moral examination of this technology will need to take into account how it is directed and used.

41. At the very same time, it is not just the ends that are fairly considerable however also the means employed to attain them. Additionally, the general vision and understanding of the human person ingrained within these systems are necessary to think about 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 worths." [87] On a social level, some technological advancements could also enhance relationships and power dynamics that are irregular with a proper understanding of the human person and society.

42. Therefore, the ends and the ways used in a given application of AI, as well as the overall vision it incorporates, need to all be examined to guarantee they respect human dignity and promote the common good. [88] As Pope Francis has actually specified, "the intrinsic dignity of every male and every woman" should be "the essential requirement in assessing emerging technologies; these will prove fairly sound to the degree that they assist respect that dignity and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] consisting of in the social and economic spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays a vital function not only in developing and producing innovation but also in directing its use in line with the genuine good of the human person. [90] The obligation for handling this wisely pertains to every level of society, guided by the principle of subsidiarity and other concepts of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The dedication to guaranteeing that AI always supports and promotes the supreme worth of the self-respect of every person and the fullness of the human vocation serves as a requirement of discernment for designers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, as well as to its users. It remains valid for every single application of the technology at every level of its use.

44. An examination of the ramifications of this guiding concept might start by thinking about the significance of moral obligation. Since complete moral causality belongs just to personal agents, not artificial ones, it is important to be able to determine and specify who bears duty for the procedures associated with AI, particularly those capable of finding out, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up approaches and really deep neural networks enable AI to resolve complicated issues, they make it tough to understand the processes that result in the services they adopted. This complicates responsibility because if an AI application produces unwanted outcomes, determining who is accountable ends up being difficult. To resolve this problem, attention requires to be offered to the nature of accountability processes in complex, highly automated settings, where results might just end up being apparent in the medium to long term. For this, it is necessary that ultimate duty for choices made utilizing AI rests with the human decision-makers which there is accountability for making use of AI at each phase of the decision-making procedure. [91]
45. In addition to identifying who is responsible, it is vital to identify the objectives provided to AI systems. Although these systems may use unsupervised autonomous knowing mechanisms and in some cases follow courses that humans can not reconstruct, they eventually pursue goals that people have designated to them and are governed by procedures established by their designers and programmers. Yet, this presents a difficulty because, as AI models end up being increasingly efficient in independent knowing, the ability to maintain control over them to make sure that such applications serve human purposes may effectively lessen. This raises the crucial concern of how to guarantee that AI systems are ordered for the good of individuals and not against them.

46. While duty for the ethical use of AI systems starts with those who develop, produce, manage, and supervise such systems, it is also shared by those who utilize them. As Pope Francis kept in mind, the machine "makes a technical option amongst several possibilities based either on distinct requirements or on statistical reasonings. Human beings, nevertheless, not only choose, but in their hearts can choosing." [92] Those who use AI to achieve a task and follow its outcomes produce a context in which they are ultimately accountable for the power they have actually entrusted. Therefore, insofar as AI can help humans in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it needs to be trustworthy, protected, robust enough to manage inconsistencies, and transparent in their operation to reduce predispositions and unintentional negative effects. [93] Regulatory frameworks need to ensure that all legal entities remain liable for using AI and all its effects, with suitable safeguards for openness, privacy, and responsibility. [94] Moreover, those utilizing AI needs to beware not to become overly depending on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases modern society's already high dependence on technology.

47. The Church's moral and social teaching provides resources to help make sure that AI is utilized in a manner that maintains human agency. Considerations about justice, for instance, need to also address concerns such as cultivating just social dynamics, maintaining international security, and promoting peace. By exercising vigilance, people and communities can recognize methods to use AI to benefit humanity while avoiding applications that might break down human self-respect or damage the environment. In this context, the concept of responsibility ought to be understood not only in its most restricted sense however as a "duty for the care for others, which is more than just accounting for results attained." [95]
48. Therefore, AI, like any innovation, can be part of a conscious and responsible answer to humankind's vocation to the good. However, as previously talked about, AI needs to be directed by human intelligence to line up with this vocation, ensuring it respects the self-respect of the human individual. Recognizing this "exalted self-respect," the Second Vatican Council affirmed that "the social order and its development need to invariably work to the advantage of the human person." [96] In light of this, making use of AI, as Pope Francis said, should be "accompanied by an ethic influenced by a vision of the typical excellent, an ethic of freedom, responsibility, and fraternity, capable of cultivating the complete development of people in relation to others and to the entire of creation." [97]
49. Within this basic viewpoint, some observations follow below to highlight how the preceding arguments can assist offer an ethical orientation in practical circumstances, in line with the "wisdom of heart" that Pope Francis has proposed. [98] While not exhaustive, this discussion is offered in service of the discussion that thinks about how AI can be utilized to maintain the self-respect of the human person and promote the common good. [99]
50. As Pope Francis observed, "the fundamental dignity of each human being and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human household must support the development of new innovations and serve as unassailable criteria for assessing them before they are employed." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI could "present essential developments in farming, education and culture, an improved level of life for whole nations and peoples, and the growth of human fraternity and social friendship," and thus be "used to promote important human advancement." [101] AI could also help organizations identify those in requirement and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other similar applications of this technology could add to human advancement and the typical good. [102]
52. However, while AI holds numerous possibilities for promoting the great, it can likewise hinder or even counter human development and the common good. Pope Francis has kept in mind that "evidence to date suggests that digital technologies have increased inequality in our world. Not simply distinctions in material wealth, which are likewise significant, but also distinctions in access to political and social impact." [103] In this sense, AI might be utilized to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, develop brand-new kinds of hardship, expand the "digital divide," and intensify existing social inequalities. [104]
53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a few effective companies raises substantial ethical concerns. Exacerbating this issue is the fundamental nature of AI systems, where no single person can exercise complete oversight over the large and complex datasets used for computation. This absence of well-defined accountability develops the risk that AI might be manipulated for individual or corporate gain or to direct popular opinion for the advantage of a specific industry. Such entities, motivated by their own interests, possess the capacity to exercise "forms of control as subtle as they are intrusive, creating mechanisms for the control of consciences and of the democratic procedure." [105]
54. Furthermore, there is the danger of AI being utilized to promote what Pope Francis has called the "technocratic paradigm," which perceives all the world's issues as solvable through technological ways alone. [106] In this paradigm, human self-respect and fraternity are typically reserved in the name of effectiveness, "as if reality, goodness, and truth immediately flow from technological and economic power as such." [107] Yet, human dignity and the typical excellent must never be breached for the sake of efficiency, [108] for "technological advancements that do not result in an enhancement in the quality of life of all humanity, however on the contrary, exacerbate inequalities and conflicts, can never count as real development. " [109] Instead, AI must be put "at the service of another type of development, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more important." [110]
55. Attaining this goal requires a deeper reflection on the relationship in between autonomy and duty. Greater autonomy increases each person's responsibility throughout different aspects of communal life. For Christians, the structure of this responsibility lies in the acknowledgment that all human capabilities, consisting of the individual's autonomy, come from God and are suggested to be utilized in the service of others. [111] Therefore, instead of simply pursuing financial or technological objectives, AI ought to serve "the typical good of the whole human family," which is "the amount total of social conditions that enable people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more totally and more quickly." [112]
56. The Second Vatican Council observed that "by his inner nature male is a social being; and if he does not participate in relations with others, he can neither live nor establish his presents." [113] This conviction highlights that living in society is intrinsic to the nature and vocation of the human person. [114] As social beings, we look for relationships that involve mutual exchange and the pursuit of truth, in the course of which, people "share with each other the fact they have actually discovered, or think they have actually found, in such a way that they help one another in the search for reality." [115]
57. Such a quest, in addition to other elements of human interaction, presupposes encounters and mutual exchange in between people shaped by their special histories, ideas, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a varied, complex, and intricate reality: individual and social, logical and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis highlights this dynamic, noting that "together, we can seek the reality in discussion, in relaxed discussion or in enthusiastic argument. To do so requires determination; it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently accept the broader experience of individuals and individuals. [...] The process of building fraternity, be it local 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 obstacles AI poses to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the possible to promote connections within the human family. However, it could also impede a real encounter with truth and, eventually, lead individuals to "a deep and melancholic frustration with social relations, or a hazardous sense of isolation." [117] Authentic human relationships need the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their pleasure. [118] Since human intelligence is expressed and enriched likewise in social and embodied methods, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are vital for engaging with reality in its fullness.

59. Because "true wisdom requires an encounter with truth," [119] the increase of AI introduces another difficulty. Since AI can effectively mimic the products of human intelligence, the ability to know when one is connecting with a human or a maker can no longer be taken for given. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other sophisticated outputs that are usually related to humans. Yet, it must be understood for what it is: a tool, not an individual. [120] This difference is typically obscured by the language used by professionals, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and therefore blurs the line in between human and device.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI also presents specific obstacles for the development of kids, possibly encouraging them to develop patterns of interaction that treat human relationships in a transactional way, as one would connect to a chatbot. Such habits could lead young people to see teachers as simple dispensers of details instead of as coaches who direct and nurture their intellectual and ethical growth. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and a steadfast dedication to the good of the other, are necessary and irreplaceable in cultivating the full development of the human individual.

61. In this context, it is very important to clarify that, regardless of using anthropomorphic language, no AI application can truly experience compassion. Emotions can not be decreased to facial expressions or phrases generated in action to triggers; they show the way a person, as an entire, connects to the world and to his or her own life, with the body playing a main role. True empathy needs the ability to listen, recognize another's irreducible uniqueness, welcome their otherness, and comprehend the significance behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the realm of analytical judgment in which AI excels, real 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 understanding actions, it can not duplicate the eminently personal and relational nature of authentic compassion. [123]
62. In light of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as a person ought to constantly be prevented; doing so for deceitful functions is a severe ethical infraction that could deteriorate social trust. Similarly, using AI to deceive in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, consisting of the sphere of sexuality-is likewise to be considered immoral and needs cautious oversight to avoid harm, maintain openness, and make sure the dignity of all individuals. [124]
63. In an increasingly separated world, some people have turned to AI in search of deep human relationships, simple companionship, or perhaps psychological bonds. However, while people are implied to experience authentic relationships, AI can just simulate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an integral part of how a person grows to become who she or he is implied to be. If AI is utilized to help people foster genuine connections between people, it can contribute favorably to the complete awareness of the person. Conversely, if we change relationships with God and with others with interactions with technology, we run the risk of replacing genuine relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of retreating into synthetic worlds, we are contacted us to take part in a dedicated and deliberate method with truth, particularly by recognizing with the poor and suffering, consoling those in grief, and forging bonds of communion with all.

64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being significantly incorporated into financial and monetary systems. Significant financial investments are currently being made not only in the technology sector however likewise in energy, finance, and media, particularly in the locations of marketing and sales, logistics, technological innovation, compliance, and risk management. At the exact same time, AI's applications in these areas have likewise highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of tremendous chances however likewise extensive threats. A very first real crucial 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 business would gain from the value developed by AI rather than the organizations that utilize it.

65. Other more comprehensive elements of AI's effect on the economic-financial sphere must likewise be carefully examined, especially worrying the interaction in between concrete reality and the digital world. One essential consideration in this regard includes the coexistence of varied and alternative forms of financial and monetary institutions within a provided context. This aspect should be motivated, as it can bring benefits in how it supports the genuine economy by promoting its development and stability, particularly throughout times of crisis. Nevertheless, it ought to be worried that digital realities, not limited 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 worths and hopes, but also by unavoidable disputes and divergences. This diversity is an indisputable asset to a neighborhood's financial life. Turning over the economy and financing completely to digital innovation would lower this range and richness. As a result, numerous solutions to financial problems that can be reached through natural discussion in between the involved parties might no longer be attainable in a world dominated by procedures and only the appearance of nearness.

66. Another area where AI is already having a profound impact is the world of work. As in many other fields, AI is driving basic changes across many occupations, with a series of effects. On the one hand, it has the prospective to enhance expertise and productivity, create new jobs, allow employees to focus on more ingenious tasks, and open new horizons for creativity and innovation.

67. However, while AI guarantees to boost performance by taking control of mundane jobs, it regularly requires employees to adjust to the speed and needs of devices instead of devices being created to support those who work. As an outcome, contrary to the marketed benefits of AI, present methods to the innovation can paradoxically deskill workers, subject them to automated monitoring, and relegate them to rigid and recurring jobs. The need to keep up with the rate of technology can wear down workers' sense of firm and suppress the ingenious abilities they are expected to give 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 replace human employees rather than complement them, there is a "considerable risk of disproportionate benefit for the few at the price of the impoverishment of many." [126] Additionally, as AI becomes more powerful, there is an associated danger that human labor might lose its value in the economic realm. This is the sensible repercussion of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humankind enslaved to efficiency, where, eventually, the expense of humankind need to be cut. Yet, human lives are fundamentally valuable, independent of their financial output. Nevertheless, the "current design," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to favor an investment in efforts to help the sluggish, the weak, or the less gifted to find chances in life." [127] In light of this, "we can not permit a tool as effective and essential as Artificial Intelligence to enhance such a paradigm, however rather, we should make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its expansion." [128]
69. It is important to bear in mind that "the order of things should be subordinate to the order of individuals, and not the other way around." [129] Human work needs to not only be at the service of revenue but at "the service of the whole human person [...] taking into account the individual's material requirements and the requirements of his or her intellectual, moral, spiritual, and spiritual life." [130] In this context, the Church acknowledges that work is "not just a way of earning one's daily bread" but is also "a vital measurement of social life" and "a method [...] of individual development, the structure of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of gifts. Work gives us a sense of shared obligation for the advancement of the world, and eventually, for our life as a people." [131]
70. Since work is a "part of the significance of life on this earth, a course to development, human advancement and individual satisfaction," "the objective must not be that technological development increasingly changes human work, for this would be damaging to humankind" [132] -rather, it needs to promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI needs to help, not replace, human judgment. Similarly, it should never ever degrade imagination or reduce workers to mere "cogs in a machine." Therefore, "regard for the self-respect of workers and the value of employment for the economic well-being of people, families, and societies, for job security and just incomes, ought to be a high concern for the international neighborhood as these types of innovation penetrate more deeply into our workplaces." [133]
71. As participants in God's healing work, health care specialists have the vocation and responsibility to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the health care occupation carries an "intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension," acknowledged by the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges doctors and health care specialists to dedicate themselves to having "outright respect for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Good Samaritan, this dedication is to be performed by guys and women "who reject the development of a society of exclusion, and act instead as next-door neighbors, raising up and restoring the succumbed to the sake of the typical good." [136]
72. Seen in this light, AI appears to hold immense capacity in a variety of applications in the medical field, such as assisting the diagnostic work of healthcare service providers, facilitating relationships between clients and medical personnel, providing brand-new treatments, and expanding access to quality care also for those who are isolated or marginalized. In these methods, the technology might boost the "thoughtful and loving nearness" [137] that health care companies are contacted us to reach the sick and suffering.

73. However, if AI is utilized not to boost however to replace the relationship between clients and healthcare providers-leaving clients to communicate with a machine rather than a human being-it would decrease a crucially crucial human relational structure to a central, impersonal, and unequal structure. Instead of motivating uniformity with the ill and suffering, such applications of AI would risk intensifying the loneliness that often accompanies disease, specifically in the context of a culture where "individuals are no longer viewed as a critical value to be cared for and appreciated." [138] This misuse of AI would not line up with regard for the dignity of the human individual and uniformity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the well-being of patients and the choices that discuss their lives are at the heart of the healthcare occupation. This accountability requires doctor to exercise all their skill and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options concerning those turned over to their care, constantly appreciating the inviolable dignity of the clients and the requirement for informed permission. As an outcome, decisions regarding patient treatment and the weight of obligation they entail must constantly remain with the human individual and must never be entrusted to AI. [139]
75. In addition, utilizing AI to identify who must receive treatment based mainly on financial procedures or metrics of performance represents a particularly problematic instance of the "technocratic paradigm" that should be declined. [140] For, "optimizing resources implies utilizing them in an ethical and fraternal way, and not punishing the most fragile." [141] Additionally, AI tools in health care are "exposed to forms of bias and discrimination," where "systemic errors can quickly multiply, producing not just oppressions in individual cases however likewise, due to the domino impact, genuine types of social inequality." [142]
76. The combination of AI into healthcare likewise postures the danger of amplifying other existing disparities in access to healthcare. As health care becomes increasingly oriented toward avoidance and lifestyle-based approaches, AI-driven solutions may accidentally favor more wealthy populations who currently take pleasure in better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This pattern risks reinforcing a "medicine for the abundant" model, where those with financial methods gain from advanced preventative tools and individualized health details while others struggle to gain access to even standard services. To prevent such inequities, fair frameworks are needed to ensure that making use of AI in healthcare does not worsen existing health care inequalities but rather serves the common good.

77. The words of the Second Vatican Council remain completely relevant today: "True education aims to form people with a view towards their last end and the good of the society to which they belong." [143] As such, education is "never a simple procedure of handing down facts and intellectual abilities: rather, its aim is to contribute to the individual's holistic development in its numerous aspects (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, etc), including, for example, neighborhood life and relations within the academic neighborhood," [144] in keeping with the nature and dignity of the human individual.

78. This approach involves a dedication to cultivating the mind, however constantly as a part of the essential advancement of the individual: "We must break that idea of education which holds that informing methods filling one's head with concepts. That is the way we inform automatons, cerebral minds, not individuals. Educating is taking a danger in the tension in between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]
79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human individual is the vital relationship in between teacher and trainee. Teachers do more than communicate understanding; they model essential human qualities and motivate the pleasure of discovery. [146] Their existence inspires trainees both through the material they teach and the care they demonstrate for their trainees. This bond cultivates trust, shared understanding, and the capacity to address everyone's unique dignity and potential. On the part of the trainee, this can generate a genuine desire to grow. The physical existence of an instructor develops a relational dynamic that AI can not reproduce, one that deepens engagement and supports the trainee's important development.

80. In this context, AI provides both opportunities and difficulties. If utilized in a sensible way, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and bought to the genuine goals of education, AI can end up being an important instructional resource by enhancing access to education, using tailored support, and providing instant feedback to trainees. These benefits might enhance the knowing experience, particularly in cases where individualized attention is needed, or instructional resources are otherwise limited.

81. Nevertheless, a vital part of education is forming "the intellect to factor well in all matters, to reach out towards fact, and to comprehend it," [147] while helping the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is all the more important in an age marked by technology, in which "it is no longer simply a question of 'utilizing' instruments of interaction, however of living in a highly digitalized culture that has actually had an extensive effect on [...] our ability to interact, discover, be informed and enter into relationship with others." [149] However, rather of fostering "a cultivated intellect," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and profession that it carries out," [150] the substantial use of AI in education could lead to the trainees' increased dependence on technology, deteriorating their ability to carry out some skills separately and aggravating their dependence on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are developed to assist individuals develop their critical thinking capabilities and analytical skills, lots of others simply offer answers instead of triggering trainees to come to responses themselves or compose text for themselves. [152] Instead of training youths how to collect details and generate fast reactions, education ought to motivate "the accountable usage of flexibility to face problems with common sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in making use of types of synthetic intelligence need to aim above all at promoting important thinking. Users of all ages, however especially the young, require to develop a critical method 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 experts to grasp the social and ethical aspects of the advancement and usages of technology." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II remembered, "on the planet today, characterized by such quick advancements in science and technology, the tasks of a Catholic University assume an ever higher significance and seriousness." [155] In a specific way, Catholic universities are urged to be present as great labs of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary key, they are prompted to engage "with wisdom and imagination" [156] in mindful research study 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 common good, reaching brand-new frontiers in the dialogue in between faith and factor.

84. Moreover, it must be noted that present AI programs have been known to supply biased or fabricated details, which can lead trainees to rely on unreliable content. This issue "not only risks of legitimizing phony news and strengthening a dominant culture's benefit, however, simply put, it also weakens the academic process itself." [157] With time, clearer distinctions might emerge between appropriate and inappropriate uses of AI in education and research study. Yet, a decisive standard is that making use of AI should always be transparent and never misrepresented.

85. AI might be used as an aid to human dignity if it helps individuals comprehend complex ideas or directs them to sound resources that support their look for the reality. [158]
86. However, AI also provides a major threat of producing manipulated content and incorrect details, which can quickly deceive individuals due to its similarity to the fact. Such false information might happen accidentally, as when it comes to AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine however are not. Since generating content that mimics human artifacts is main to AI's performance, alleviating these dangers shows difficult. Yet, the consequences of such aberrations and incorrect details can be rather severe. For this reason, all those included in producing and using AI systems ought to be devoted to the truthfulness and precision of the details processed by such systems and disseminated to the general public.

87. While AI has a hidden capacity to create incorrect details, a a lot more troubling issue depends on the deliberate abuse of AI for control. This can happen when people or organizations deliberately create and spread out incorrect content with the aim to deceive or trigger harm, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to a false depiction of an individual, edited or created by an AI algorithm. The risk of deepfakes is especially evident when they are utilized to target or damage others. While the images or videos themselves may be synthetic, the damage they cause is real, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "real injuries in their human self-respect." [159]
88. On a broader scale, by distorting "our relationship with others and with reality," [160] AI-generated fake media can gradually undermine the foundations of society. This concern requires cautious policy, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or influenced media-can spread inadvertently, sustaining political polarization and social discontent. When society becomes indifferent to the truth, different groups construct their own variations of "truths," damaging the "mutual ties and shared dependencies" [161] that underpin the material of social life. As deepfakes cause people to question whatever and AI-generated incorrect material erodes rely on what they see and hear, polarization and dispute will just grow. Such widespread deception is no minor matter; it strikes at the core of mankind, taking apart the foundational trust on which societies are built. [162]
89. Countering AI-driven frauds is not only the work of industry experts-it needs the efforts of all individuals of goodwill. "If innovation is to serve human self-respect and not damage it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human neighborhood must be proactive in addressing these patterns with regard to human dignity and the promo of the excellent." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated content must constantly work out diligence in confirming the truth of what they disseminate and, in all cases, need to "prevent 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 careful discernment of all users regarding their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are naturally relational, and the data each person creates in the digital world can be seen as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data communicates not just details however likewise personal and relational understanding, which, in an increasingly digitized context, can total up to power over the person. Moreover, while some types of information might pertain to public elements of a person's life, others might touch upon the person's interiority, maybe even their conscience. Seen in this method, personal privacy plays a necessary role in securing the borders of an individual's inner life, maintaining their liberty to connect to others, reveal themselves, and make decisions without undue control. This protection is also connected to the defense of religious flexibility, as surveillance can also be misused to apply control over the lives of believers and how they reveal their faith.

91. It is suitable, therefore, to deal with the problem of privacy from a concern for the legitimate liberty and inalienable dignity of the human person "in all circumstances." [166] The Second Vatican Council consisted of the right "to secure privacy" amongst the basic rights "needed for living a genuinely human life," a right that should be reached all people on account of their "superb dignity." [167] Furthermore, the Church has actually also affirmed the right to the genuine respect for a personal life in the context of affirming the person's right to a good track record, defense of their physical and mental stability, and freedom from harm or unnecessary intrusion [168] -vital parts of the due respect for the intrinsic dignity of the human person. [169]
92. Advances in AI-powered information processing and analysis now make it possible to infer patterns in an individual's habits and thinking from even a small quantity of details, making the role of data privacy much more vital as a secure 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, ranges are otherwise diminishing or vanishing to the point that the right to privacy scarcely exists. Everything has ended up being a sort of phenomenon to be analyzed and examined, and individuals's lives are now under constant security." [170]
93. While there can be legitimate and correct methods to utilize AI in keeping with human dignity and the common good, utilizing it for monitoring aimed at exploiting, limiting others' freedom, or benefitting a few at the expenditure of the numerous is unjustifiable. The threat of security overreach should be kept an eye on by appropriate regulators to ensure transparency and public accountability. Those responsible for security needs to never exceed their authority, which must always favor the dignity and freedom of every person as the important basis of a simply and humane society.

94. Furthermore, "fundamental regard for human self-respect demands that we decline to permit the uniqueness of the person to be related to a set of information." [171] This particularly uses when AI is used to assess people or groups based on their behavior, attributes, or history-a practice known as "social scoring": "In social and financial decision-making, we need to beware about entrusting judgments to algorithms that process information, typically gathered surreptitiously, on a person's makeup and prior habits. Such data can be contaminated by societal prejudices and preconceptions. An individual's previous behavior must not be used to deny him or her the chance to change, grow, and add to society. We can not permit algorithms to limit or condition respect for human self-respect, or to omit empathy, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that individuals have the ability to change." [172]
95. AI has many promising applications for enhancing our relationship with our "typical home," such as developing designs to forecast extreme environment occasions, proposing engineering options to minimize their effect, managing relief operations, and anticipating population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable farming, optimize energy usage, and offer early caution systems for public health emergencies. These advancements have the possible to strengthen strength against climate-related challenges and promote more sustainable development.

96. At the exact same time, present AI models and the hardware needed to support them consume huge quantities of energy and water, significantly contributing to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This reality is frequently obscured by the way this innovation exists in the popular creativity, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can give the impression that data is kept and processed in an intangible realm, detached from the real world. However, "the cloud" is not a heavenly domain different from the physical world; just like all computing innovations, it counts on physical devices, cables, and energy. The same holds true of the innovation behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, especially big language models (LLMs), they need ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and greater storage infrastructure. Considering the heavy toll these technologies handle the environment, it is essential to develop sustainable services that reduce their effect on our typical home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is essential "that we try to find services not only in technology however in a modification of humanity." [175] A complete and genuine understanding of creation acknowledges that the worth of all created things can not be reduced to their simple energy. Therefore, a fully human technique to the stewardship of the earth turns down the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which looks for to "extract everything possible" from the world, [176] and turns down the "misconception of development," which presumes that "ecological problems will fix themselves just with the application of brand-new innovation and without any need for ethical considerations or deep modification." [177] Such a frame of mind must provide way to a more holistic method that appreciates the order of creation and promotes the important good of the human individual while safeguarding our typical home. [178]
98. The Second Vatican Council and the constant mentor of the Popes because then have actually insisted that peace is not merely the absence 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 protecting the goods of individuals, totally free interaction, respect for the self-respect of individuals and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the result of charity and can not be attained through force alone; instead, it should be mainly developed through patient diplomacy, the active promo of justice, solidarity, important human development, and respect for the dignity of all people. [180] In this method, the tools used to maintain peace needs to never ever be permitted to validate oppression, violence, or injustice. Instead, they ought to always be governed by a "firm decision to respect other individuals and countries, along with their self-respect, as well as the purposeful practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical abilities might assist countries seek peace and make sure security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can likewise be highly bothersome. Pope Francis has actually observed that "the capability to conduct military operations through remote control systems has resulted in a lessened perception of the destruction triggered by those weapon systems and the concern of duty for their use, leading to an even more cold and detached technique to the tremendous disaster of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which autonomous weapons make war more practical militates against the principle of war as a last resort in genuine self-defense, [183] possibly increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and speeding up a destabilizing arms race, with catastrophic effects for human rights. [184]
100. In specific, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which are capable of recognizing and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for serious ethical concern" due to the fact that they lack the "special human capability for ethical judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this reason, Pope Francis has urgently required a reconsideration of the development of these weapons and a prohibition on their use, starting with "a reliable and concrete commitment to introduce ever higher and appropriate human control. No device must ever choose to take the life of a human." [186]
101. Since it is a small action from makers that can kill autonomously with precision to those capable of massive destruction, some AI scientists have expressed concerns that such innovation poses an "existential danger" by having the prospective to act in methods that could threaten the survival of whole areas or even of mankind itself. This threat needs serious attention, showing the enduring issue about innovations that give war "an uncontrollable damaging power over multitudes of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing kids. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "undertake an assessment of war with a completely new mindset" [188] is more immediate than ever.

102. At the very same time, while the theoretical risks of AI deserve attention, the more immediate and pushing issue depends on how individuals with malicious intentions may misuse this technology. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future capabilities are unpredictable, humankind's previous actions supply clear warnings. The atrocities dedicated throughout history suffice to raise deep concerns about the prospective abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that "humankind now has instruments of unmatched power: we can turn this world into a garden, or minimize it to a stack of debris." [190] Given this truth, the Church advises us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are complimentary to use our intelligence towards things developing favorably," or toward "decadence and shared damage." [191] To prevent humankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there need to be a clear stand against all applications of technology that inherently threaten human life and self-respect. This commitment needs careful discernment about using AI, especially in military defense applications, to make sure that it constantly appreciates human self-respect and serves the common good. The advancement and deployment of AI in weaponries need to be subject to the greatest levels of ethical analysis, governed by a concern for human self-respect and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology provides amazing tools to supervise and establish the world's resources. However, in some cases, mankind is progressively delivering control of these resources to devices. Within some circles of researchers and futurists, there is optimism about the capacity of synthetic general intelligence (AGI), a theoretical type of AI that would match or exceed human intelligence and bring about unthinkable advancements. Some even hypothesize that AGI might attain superhuman capabilities. At the very same time, as society drifts away from a connection with the transcendent, some are tempted to turn to AI searching for significance or fulfillment-longings that can only be truly satisfied in communion with God. [194]
105. However, the presumption of replacing God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture explicitly alerts against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI might show a lot more seductive than standard idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths however do not speak; eyes, however do not see; ears, however do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or at least offers the impression of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is important to keep in mind that AI is however a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated product, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not have numerous of the capabilities particular to human life, and it is also fallible. By turning to AI as a perceived "Other" higher than itself, with which to share existence and duties, humankind dangers producing a replacement for God. However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, but humankind itself-which, in this method, becomes enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the potential to serve humanity and add to the typical great, it remains a creation of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and ingenuity" (Acts 17:29). It should never ever be ascribed excessive worth. As the Book of Wisdom affirms: "For a male 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 objects he worships considering that he has life, but they never have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. In contrast, human beings, "by their interior life, go beyond the whole product universe; they experience this deep interiority when they participate in their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they choose their own destiny in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis advises us, that each specific finds the "mystical connection in between self-knowledge and openness to others, between the encounter with one's personal uniqueness and the determination to provide 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 position of respect and caring obedience before the Lord," [198] who "uses to deal with every one of us as a 'Thou,' always and forever." [199]
108. Considering the different challenges positioned by advances in innovation, Pope Francis emphasized the requirement for development in "human responsibility, worths, and conscience," proportionate to the development in the capacity that this technology brings [200] -acknowledging that "with an increase in human power comes a widening of responsibility on the part of individuals and communities." [201]
109. At the exact same time, the "necessary and basic concern" remains "whether in the context of this development man, as man, is becoming genuinely much better, that is to say, more fully grown spiritually, more knowledgeable about the dignity of his humanity, more accountable, more available to others, especially the neediest and the weakest, and readier to provide and to aid all." [202]
110. As a result, it is important to understand how to evaluate private applications of AI in particular contexts to determine whether its usage promotes human self-respect, the occupation of the human person, and the common good. Similar to many technologies, the effects of the numerous usages of AI may not constantly be foreseeable from their inception. As these applications and their social effects end up being clearer, suitable reactions must be made at all levels of society, following the concept of subsidiarity. Individual users, households, civil society, corporations, organizations, federal governments, and global companies must work at their proper levels to make sure that AI is utilized for the good of all.

111. A considerable obstacle and opportunity for the typical good today lies in considering AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of individuals and neighborhoods and highlights our shared duty for cultivating the integral well-being of others. The twentieth-century philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev observed that people typically blame devices for personal and social problems; nevertheless, "this only embarrasses male and does not represent his dignity," for "it is not worthy to move duty from guy to a machine." [203] Only the human person can be morally accountable, and the challenges of a technological society are eventually spiritual in nature. Therefore, facing those obstacles "needs an intensification of spirituality." [204]
112. An additional indicate think about is the call, triggered by the appearance of AI on the world phase, for a renewed gratitude of all that is human. Years back, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos cautioned that "the danger is not in the multiplication of machines, but in the ever-increasing number of males accustomed from their youth to desire only what makers can provide." [205] This challenge is as true today as it was then, as the fast speed of digitization risks a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable elements of life are reserved and then forgotten or even deemed irrelevant since they can not be calculated in official terms. AI should be used just as a tool to complement human intelligence instead of change its richness. [206] Cultivating those elements of human life that go beyond calculation is essential for maintaining "an authentic mankind" that "seems to stay in the midst of our technological culture, nearly unnoticed, like a mist leaking gently beneath a closed door." [207]
113. The huge expanse of the world's understanding is now available in manner ins which would have filled previous generations with awe. However, to make sure that improvements in understanding do not become humanly or spiritually barren, one should surpass the simple build-up of information and aim to attain true wisdom. [208]
114. This wisdom is the gift that humankind requires most to attend to the extensive concerns and ethical difficulties positioned by AI: "Only by adopting a spiritual way of viewing truth, only by recuperating a wisdom of the heart, can we challenge and translate the newness of our time." [209] Such "wisdom of the heart" is "the virtue that allows us to incorporate the whole and its parts, our choices and their effects." It "can not be looked for from machines," but it "lets itself be discovered by those who seek it and be seen by those who love it; it anticipates those who desire it, and it goes in search of those who deserve it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]
115. In a world marked by AI, we need the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "enables us to look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, scenarios, events and to reveal their genuine significance." [211]
116. Since a "individual's perfection is measured not by the details or knowledge they have, but by the depth of their charity," [212] how we include AI "to include the least of our bros and siblings, the vulnerable, and those most in need, will be the real step of our humanity." [213] The "knowledge of the heart" can brighten and assist the human-centered usage of this technology to assist promote the common great, look after our "typical home," advance the search for the reality, foster important human development, prefer human uniformity and fraternity, and lead humankind to its supreme goal: joy and full communion with God. [214]
117. From this perspective of wisdom, followers will have the ability to serve as ethical representatives efficient in using this innovation to promote an authentic vision of the human person and society. [215] This ought to be finished with the understanding that technological progress belongs to God's prepare for creation-an activity that we are called to buy towards the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the continual look for the True and the Good.

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

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

Ex audientia pass away 14 ianuarii 2025 Franciscus

Contents

I. Introduction

II. What is Artificial Intelligence?

III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition

Rationality

Embodiment

Relationality

Relationship with the Truth

Stewardship of the World

An Essential Understanding of Human Intelligence

The Limits of AI

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

Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making

V. Specific Questions

AI and Society

AI and Human Relationships

AI, the Economy, and Labor

AI and Healthcare

AI and Education

AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse

AI, Privacy, and Surveillance

AI and the Protection of Our Common Home

AI and Warfare

AI and Our Relationship with God

VI. Concluding Reflections

True Wisdom

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See also Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. [2] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 307. Cf. Id., Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (21 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020 ), 43. [3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [5] J. McCarthy, et al., "A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence" (31 August 1955), http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024). [6] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), pars. 2-3: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [7] Terms in this file explaining the outputs or procedures of AI are used figuratively to explain its operations and are not planned 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 allow people to conquer their biological constraints and boost both their physical and cognitive capabilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, compete that such advances will ultimately modify human identity to the level that mankind itself may no longer be considered truly "human." Both views rest on a fundamentally negative perception of human corporality, which deals with the body more as an obstacle than as an integral part of the person's identity and call to full realization. Yet, this unfavorable view of the body is irregular with an appropriate understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports authentic scientific development, it verifies that human self-respect is rooted in "the individual as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "dignity is likewise inherent in everyone's body, which takes part in its own way in remaining in imago Dei" (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18). [10] This method shows a functionalist point of view, which decreases the human mind to its functions and assumes that its functions can be entirely quantified in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear really smart, it would still remain functional in nature. [11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460. [12] If "believing" is associated to devices, it needs to be clarified that this describes calculative thinking rather than critical thinking. Similarly, if makers are said to operate using abstract thought, it needs to be defined that this is restricted to computational logic. On the other hand, by its very nature, human idea is an imaginative process that eludes shows and goes beyond constraints. [13] On the fundamental function of language in shaping understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York City 2010, 141-182). [14] For more discussion of these anthropological and doctrinal foundations, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144. [15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21. [16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram III, 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 illogical animals. Now, this [faculty] is reason itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it may more appropriately be given"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When thinking about all that they have, humans discover that they are most identified from animals precisely by the reality they possess intelligence." This is likewise reiterated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who specifies that "man is the most ideal of all earthly beings enhanced with movement, and his correct and natural operation is intellection," by which male abstracts from things and "gets in his mind things really intelligible" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 76). [17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, advertisement 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a contemporary point of view that echoes components of the classical and medieval difference in 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 intelligence can investigate the truth of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and pertain to acknowledge because truth, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal moral demands." [22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp. [24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "generally thinks about the human person as a being who exists in the body and is unimaginable beyond it" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Che cosa è l'uomo?" (Sal 8,5): Un itinerario di antropologia biblica [30 September 2019], par. 19). Cf. ibid., pars. 20-21, 43-44, 48. [25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100 (2008 ), 863: "Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, but instead totally revealed its significance and worth." [26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81. [27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and for this reason it is unified to the body in order that it might have an existence and an operation suitable to its nature." [29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18. [30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357. [31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54. [32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221. [33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27. [34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls likewise possess reason and with it they circle in discourse around the reality of things. [...] [O] n account of the manner in which they can focusing the many into the one, they too, in their own style and as far as they can, are deserving of conceptions like those of the angels" (en. tr. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York City - Mahwah 1987, 106-107). [35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 3: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7. [36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 42: AAS 91 (1999 ), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1043: "the human mind can transcending instant issues and comprehending certain truths that are changeless, as true now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, factor finds universal worths obtained from that same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034. [38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last case of reason is to acknowledge that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York City 1958, 77). [39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [40] Our semantic capability allows us to comprehend messages in any form of interaction in a way that both considers and transcends their product or empirical structures (such as computer system code). Here, intelligence becomes a wisdom that "allows us to look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, circumstances, events and to reveal their real meaning" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our creativity allows us to produce new material or ideas, mainly by providing an original viewpoint on truth. Both capacities depend on the presence of a personal subjectivity for their full awareness. [41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. [42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a commitment to the reality, is far more than personal sensation [...] Certainly, its close relation to truth cultivates its universality and maintains it from being 'confined to a narrow field devoid of 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 quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294. [47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure compares the universe to "a book reflecting, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who grants 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: "people occupy an unique location in deep space according to the divine plan: they enjoy the benefit of sharing in the divine governance of visible development. [...] Since man's place as ruler remains in truth a participation in the divine governance of production, 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 idea is likewise reflected in the development account, where God brings creatures to Adam "to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living creature, that was its name" (Gen. 2:19), an action that shows the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's creation. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117. [51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301. [52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302. [53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2. [54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7. [55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8. [57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906. [58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987. [59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: "L'intelligence n'est rien sans la délectation." Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: "The mind and the will are put at the service of the greater excellent by picking up and savoring truths." [61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232). [62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he highest standard of human life is the magnificent law itself-eternal, unbiased and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the whole world and the methods of the human neighborhood according to a strategy conceived in his wisdom and love. God has actually made it possible for man to get involved in this law of his so that, under the gentle personality of divine providence, numerous might be able to get here at a much deeper and deeper knowledge of unchangeable truth." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. [63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016. [64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042. [66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has actually imprinted his own image and likeness on male (cf. Gen 1:26), providing upon him an unparalleled dignity [...] In effect, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not correspond to any work he carries out, however which flow from his necessary self-respect as an individual." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22. [68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310. [69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is understood as a technical term to suggest this innovation, recalling that the expression is likewise utilized to designate the discipline and not only its applications. [71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857. [72] For instance, see the encouragement of clinical expedition in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the gratitude for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These writers, among a long list of other Catholics took part in scientific research and technological expedition, illustrate that "faith and science can be unified in charity, provided that science is put at the service of the guys and lady of our time and not misused to harm 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 male an ethical subject. When he acts intentionally, male is, so to speak, the daddy of his acts." [82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776. [83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777. [84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father motivated efforts "to guarantee that innovation remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed toward the excellent." [85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the function of human company in picking a wider aim (Ziel) that then informs 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 function and, in its effect on human society, always represents a form of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, hence allowing certain individuals to perform specific actions while preventing others from carrying out various ones. In a more or less specific method, this constitutive power-dimension of innovation always includes the worldview of those who developed and established it." [87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309. [88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Faced with the marvels of machines, which appear to know how to choose separately, we should be really clear that decision-making [...] need to constantly be delegated the human individual. We would condemn mankind to a future without hope if we eliminated people's ability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend on the options of makers." [92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [93] The term "bias" in this document refers to algorithmic bias (systematic and constant errors in computer system systems that might disproportionately bias certain groups in unintended ways) or learning predisposition (which will result in training on a prejudiced information set) and not the "predisposition vector" in neural networks (which is a criterion utilized to change the output of "neurons" to change more properly to the data). [94] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father verified the development in agreement "on the requirement for development procedures to respect such values as inclusion, openness, security, equity, personal privacy and reliability," and also welcomed "the efforts of international companies to manage these technologies so that they promote authentic development, 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 more 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 significance of discussion in a pluralist society oriented toward a "robust and strong social ethics," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. [104] Cf. Pontifical Council for hb9lc.org 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 estimate the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245. [106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050. [107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047. [108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309. [109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027. [112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123. [113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034. [114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149. [115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414. [118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057. [119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985. [120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989). [123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Many individuals] desire their interpersonal relationships offered by advanced devices, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel tells us constantly to risk of a face-to-face encounter with others, with their physical presence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their pleasure which contaminates us in our close and continuous interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from membership in the community, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045. [124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1. [125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899. [126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107. [128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' teaching about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893. [129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453. [130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: "work is 'for male' and not man 'for work.' Through this conclusion one rightly pertains to recognize the pre-eminence of the subjective meaning of work over the objective one." [132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320. [133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502. [135] Ibid. [136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as quoted in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8. [137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops' Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: "If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture is manifest, with its painful effects, it is that of health care. When an ill person is not put in the center or their dignity is ruled out, this generates attitudes that can lead even to speculation on the misfortune of others. And this is extremely severe! [...] The application of a company approach to the health care sector, if indiscriminate [...] may risk discarding people." [142] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [143] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729. [144] Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on the Use of Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729; Francis, Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016), 6: AAS 108 (2016 ), 57-58. [145] Francis, Address to Members of the Global Researchers Advancing Catholic Education Project (20 April 2022): AAS 114 (2022 ), 580. [146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), par. 41: AAS 68 (1976 ), 31, estimating Id., Address to the Members of the "Consilium de Laicis" (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: "if [the contemporary individual] does listen to teachers, it is since they are witnesses." [147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126. [148] Francis, Meeting with the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, pricing quote the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592. [150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167. [151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413. [152] In a 2023 policy document about making use of generative AI in education and research study, UNESCO notes: "One of the key concerns [of the usage of generative AI (GenAI) in education and research] is whether people can potentially cede basic levels of thinking and skill-acquisition processes to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking abilities based on the outputs offered by AI. Writing, for instance, is typically connected with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], human beings can now start with a well-structured overview offered by GenAI. Some experts have characterized using GenAI to produce text in this method as 'writing 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 turn out to be real that understanding (in the sense of knowledge) and believed have parted business for excellent, then we would certainly become the powerless servants, not a lot of our devices since our knowledge" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3). [153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417. [154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914. [155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479. [156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10. [157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3. [158] For instance, it may help individuals gain access to the "range of resources for creating higher knowledge of reality" contained in the works of approach (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8. [159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62. [160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074. [162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be really indifferent to the question of whether what they know holds true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he composes: 'I have actually met many who wished to trick, however none who wished to be deceived'"; estimating Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794. [163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62. [164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8. [165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Media (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149. [166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24. [167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no guy may with impunity breach that human dignity which God himself treats with great respect"; as priced quote in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804. [168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203. [169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human dignity in cyberspace obliges States to also appreciate the right to personal privacy, by protecting residents from invasive monitoring and enabling them to safeguard their personal details from unauthorized gain access to." [170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984. [171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body recognized a list of "early promises of AI helping to resolve climate change" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The document observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can transform data into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools may help develop brand-new methods and investments to lower emissions, influence brand-new economic sector investments in net no, secure biodiversity, and construct broad-based social durability" (ibid.). [174] "The cloud" refers to a network of physical servers throughout the world that makes it possible for users to shop, procedure, and manage their information from another location. [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 ), users.atw.hu 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 need to guarantee and safeguard a space for correct human control over the options made by artificial intelligence programs: human dignity itself depends on it." [186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The advancement and use of deadly autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) that do not have the suitable human control would pose essential ethical concerns, offered that LAWS can never ever be ethically accountable subjects capable of abiding by global humanitarian law." [187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: "Nor can we overlook the possibility of sophisticated weapons ending up in the wrong hands, assisting in, for example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the organizations of genuine systems of federal government. In a word, the world does not need new technologies that add to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and subsequently end up promoting the recklessness of war." [190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565. [191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878. [192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687. [193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39. [194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661. [195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a much better understanding today that the simple accumulation of goods and services [...] is insufficient for the awareness of human joy. Nor, in consequence, does the availability of the lots of real advantages provided in recent times by science and innovation, including the computer technology, bring freedom from every type of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the considerable body of resources and possible at guy's disposal is directed by an ethical understanding and by an orientation towards the true good of the mankind, it easily turns against guy to oppress him." Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564. [196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6. [199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6. [200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. Completion of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83). [201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288. [203] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," in C. Mitcham - R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York City 19832, 212-213. [204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210. [205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829. [206] Cf. Francis, 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 produce higher knowledge. Wisdom is not born of quick searches on the internet nor is it a mass of unproven information. That is not the way to develop in the encounter with truth." [209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [210] Ibid. [211] Ibid. [212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121. [213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124. [214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.