1. With wisdom both ancient and brand-new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to assess the existing obstacles and opportunities presented by scientific and technological developments, especially by the recent advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian custom relates to the present of intelligence as an important aspect of how human beings are developed "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Starting from an essential vision of the human person and the scriptural contacting us to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church stresses that this present of intelligence need to be revealed through the accountable usage of reason and technical abilities in the stewardship of the produced world.

2. The Church encourages the advancement of science, innovation, the arts, and other kinds of human endeavor, viewing them as part of the "collaboration of male and lady with God in improving the noticeable production." [1] As Sirach affirms, God "provided ability to people, that he may be glorified in his splendid works" (Sir. 38:6). Human capabilities and imagination come from God and, when utilized rightly, glorify God by showing his wisdom and goodness. In light of this, when we ask ourselves what it suggests to "be human," we can not omit a factor to consider of our scientific and technological abilities.

3. It is within this viewpoint that the present Note addresses the anthropological and ethical difficulties raised by AI-issues that are particularly significant, as one of the objectives of this technology is to mimic the human intelligence that designed it. For example, unlike numerous other human developments, AI can be trained on the outcomes of human creativity and then generate new "artifacts" with a level of speed and skill that often rivals or exceeds what people can do, such as producing text or images equivalent from human compositions. This raises important concerns about AI's potential role in the growing crisis of truth in the public online forum. Moreover, this innovation is created to discover and make certain options autonomously, adjusting to new scenarios and providing services not predicted by its programmers, and thus, it raises fundamental concerns about ethical responsibility and human security, with wider implications for society as a whole. This brand-new circumstance has prompted numerous individuals to review what it indicates to be human and the function of mankind in the world.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad agreement that AI marks a new and significant phase in humanity's engagement with technology, putting it at the heart of what Pope Francis has explained as an "epochal change." [2] Its effect is felt worldwide and in a vast array of locations, including social relationships, education, work, art, healthcare, law, warfare, and international relations. As AI advances quickly toward even greater achievements, it is critically important to consider its anthropological and ethical implications. This involves not only mitigating risks and avoiding harm however also ensuring that its applications are utilized to promote human progress and the common good.

5. To contribute positively to the discernment relating to AI, and in response to Pope Francis' call for prawattasao.awardspace.info a renewed "knowledge of heart," [3] the Church provides its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active function in the global discussion on these concerns, the Church invites those entrusted with transmitting the faith-including parents, teachers, pastors, and bishops-to dedicate themselves to this important topic with care and attention. While this document is planned especially for them, it is likewise implied to be available to a more comprehensive audience, especially those who share the conviction that clinical and technological advances should be directed toward serving the human person and the typical good. [4]
6. To this end, the file begins by distinguishing in between ideas of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then checks out the Christian understanding of human intelligence, offering a framework rooted in the Church's philosophical and doctrinal custom. Finally, the document offers guidelines to ensure that the advancement and use of AI maintain human dignity and promote the important development of the human individual and society.

7. The principle of "intelligence" in AI has progressed in time, making use of a variety of ideas from different disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a considerable turning point occurred in 1956 when the American computer system scientist John McCarthy organized a summer workshop at Dartmouth University to explore the problem of "Artificial Intelligence," which he defined as "that of making a maker behave in manner ins which would be called intelligent if a human were so behaving." [5] This workshop launched a research study program concentrated on developing makers efficient in carrying out jobs usually associated with the human intelligence and smart habits.

8. Ever since, AI research has advanced quickly, leading to the advancement of complex systems efficient in carrying out extremely sophisticated tasks. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are typically created to handle particular and restricted functions, such as translating languages, forecasting the trajectory of a storm, classifying images, answering concerns, or generating visual material at the user's demand. While the definition of "intelligence" in AI research differs, most contemporary AI systems-particularly those using machine learning-rely on statistical reasoning instead of rational reduction. By analyzing large datasets to recognize patterns, AI can "forecast" [7] outcomes and propose new techniques, imitating some cognitive procedures common of human problem-solving. Such achievements have been enabled through advances in calculating technology (consisting of neural networks, unsupervised artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) in addition to hardware developments (such as specialized processors). Together, these innovations make it possible for AI systems to react to various kinds of human input, adapt to new scenarios, and even suggest novel services not anticipated by their initial developers. [8]
9. Due to these quick advancements, lots of tasks when handled specifically by humans are now entrusted to AI. These systems can enhance and even supersede what people are able to do in numerous fields, especially in specialized areas such as information analysis, image acknowledgment, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is developed for a particular task, many researchers aim to establish what is called "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system capable of running across all cognitive domains and performing any task within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI might one day attain the state of "superintelligence," going beyond human intellectual capacities, or add to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, nevertheless, fear that these possibilities, even if theoretical, might one day eclipse the human person, while still others invite this potential transformation. [9]
10. Underlying this and lots of other perspectives on the subject is the implicit assumption that the term "intelligence" can be utilized in the same method to describe both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not record the complete scope of the principle. In the case of people, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the individual in his/her totality, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is understood functionally, typically with the anticipation that the activities characteristic of the human mind can be broken down into digitized steps that makers can reproduce. [10]
11. This functional point of view is exhibited by the "Turing Test," which considers a maker "intelligent" if a person can not identify its habits from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "behavior" refers only to the efficiency of particular intellectual tasks; it does not account for the complete breadth of human experience, which consists of abstraction, emotions, creativity, and the aesthetic, moral, and spiritual perceptiveness. Nor does it incorporate the complete series of expressions particular of the human mind. Instead, when it comes to AI, the "intelligence" of a system is evaluated methodologically, but also reductively, based on its ability to produce appropriate responses-in this case, those connected with the human intellect-regardless of how those responses are generated.

12. AI's advanced functions provide it advanced abilities to carry out jobs, however not the capability to think. [12] This difference is crucially important, as the method "intelligence" is defined inevitably shapes how we understand the relationship in between human idea and this technology. [13] To appreciate this, one should recall the richness of the philosophical tradition and Christian faith, which offer a much deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's mentor on the nature, self-respect, and occupation of the human individual. [14]
13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has played a main role in understanding what it implies to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all individuals by nature desire to know." [15] This understanding, with its capability for abstraction that understands the nature and meaning of things, sets human beings apart from the animal world. [16] As theorists, theologians, and psychologists have actually taken a look at the precise nature of this intellectual faculty, they have actually likewise explored how human beings comprehend the world and their special location within it. Through this exploration, the Christian custom has pertained to comprehend the human person as a being including both body and soul-deeply linked to this world and yet transcending it. [17]
14. In the classical custom, the idea of intelligence is frequently comprehended through the complementary concepts of "factor" (ratio) and "intelligence" (intellectus). These are not different faculties but, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are 2 modes in which the very same intelligence operates: "The term intelligence is inferred from the inward grasp of the truth, while the name reason is drawn from the inquisitive and discursive process." [18] This concise description highlights the 2 essential and complementary measurements 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 premises argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to reasoning appropriate: the discursive, analytical procedure that results in 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 reduce the person to a particular mode of idea; rather, it acknowledges that the ability for intellectual understanding shapes and penetrates all aspects of human activity. [20] Whether worked out well or poorly, this capacity is an intrinsic element of humanity. In this sense, the "term 'rational' incorporates all the capabilities of the human individual," including those associated to "knowing and understanding, as well as those of willing, caring, selecting, and desiring; it also consists of all corporeal functions carefully associated to these capabilities." [21] This detailed viewpoint underscores how, in the human person, created in the "image of God," reason is incorporated in a way that raises, shapes, and transforms both the individual's will and actions. [22]
16. Christian thought considers the intellectual professors of the human individual within the structure of an integral anthropology that sees the human being as essentially embodied. In the human individual, spirit and matter "are not 2 natures joined, but rather their union forms a single nature." [23] Simply put, the soul is not simply the immaterial "part" of the individual contained within the body, nor is the body an external shell real estate an intangible "core." Rather, the whole human person is all at once both material and spiritual. This understanding reflects the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which views the human individual as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and hence, an authentically spiritual dimension) within and through this embodied existence. [24] The extensive meaning of this condition is more illuminated by the mystery of the Incarnation, through which God himself handled our flesh and "raised it as much as a sublime dignity." [25]
17. Although deeply rooted in bodily presence, the human individual transcends the material world through the soul, which is "almost on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intelligence's capacity for transcendence and the self-possessed flexibility of the will come from the soul, by which the human individual "shares in the light of the divine mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of knowledge without the body. [28] In this method, the intellectual faculties of the human person are an integral part of an anthropology that recognizes that the human individual is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further elements of this understanding will be developed in what follows.

18. People are "purchased by their very nature to social communion," [30] possessing the capability to know one another, to provide themselves in love, and to enter into communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not a separated professors however is worked out in relationships, finding 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 ultimately grounded in the eternal self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is revealed in production and redemption. [31] The human individual is "called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life." [32]
20. This occupation to communion with God is necessarily connected to the call to communion with others. Love of God can not be separated from love for one's next-door neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20; Mt. 22:37 -39). By the grace of sharing God's life, Christians are also called to mimic Christ's outpouring gift (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "enjoy one another, as I have enjoyed you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the magnificent life of self-giving, transcend self-interest to react more completely to the human occupation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Even more sublime than understanding lots of things is the dedication to take care of one another, for if "I comprehend all secrets and all understanding [...] but do not have love, I am nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2).

21. Human intelligence is ultimately "God's present fashioned for the assimilation of reality." [34] In the double sense of intellectus-ratio, it makes it possible for the person to check out truths that go beyond simple sensory experience or energy, since "the desire for fact becomes part of human nature itself. It is an inherent residential or commercial 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 reality itself as knowable." [36] While truth remains only partly understood, the desire for fact "stimulates reason constantly to go further; certainly, it is as if reason were overwhelmed to see that it can always go beyond what it has already 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 resulted in look for "truths of a greater order." [39]
22. This inherent drive toward the pursuit of fact is specifically apparent in the clearly human capabilities for semantic understanding and imagination, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "manner that is suitable to the social nature and dignity of the human individual." [41] Likewise, a steadfast orientation to the reality is essential for charity to be both authentic and universal. [42]
23. The search for truth discovers its greatest expression in openness to truths that transcend the physical and developed world. In God, all truths attain their ultimate and original significance. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "fundamental decision that engages the entire individual." [44] In this method, the human individual ends up being completely what she or he is contacted us to be: "the intellect and the will show their spiritual nature," making it possible for the person "to act in a manner that recognizes individual liberty to the complete." [45]
24. The Christian faith understands creation as the free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, produces "not to increase his splendor, however to reveal it forth and to interact it." [46] Since God develops according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), development is imbued with an intrinsic order that shows God's strategy (cf. Gen. 1; Dan. 2:21 -22; Is. 45:18; Ps. 74:12 -17; 104), [47] within which God has called humans to presume a distinct function: to cultivate and take care of the world. [48]
25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, human beings live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and skills to look after and develop production in accord with God's plan. [49] In this, human intelligence reflects the Divine Intelligence that produced all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] continuously sustains them, and guides them to their ultimate purpose in him. [51] Moreover, people are contacted us to develop their capabilities in science and innovation, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in an appropriate relationship with creation, humans, on the one hand, utilize their intelligence and skill to cooperate with God in guiding production towards the purpose to which he has actually called it. [52] On the other hand, creation itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, assists the human mind to "ascend gradually to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]
26. In this context, human intelligence ends up being more plainly understood as a faculty that forms an essential part of how the entire person engages with truth. Authentic engagement needs welcoming the complete scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with truth unfolds in different ways, as everyone, in his or her complex uniqueness [54], seeks to comprehend the world, relate to others, fix issues, express creativity, and pursue essential well-being through the unified interplay of the different measurements of the individual's intelligence. [55] This includes logical and linguistic abilities however can also include other modes of connecting with reality. Consider the work of an artisan, who "must understand how to determine, in inert matter, a specific kind that others can not recognize" [56] and bring it forth through insight and useful ability. Indigenous individuals who live near the earth often have a profound sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a pal who understands the ideal word to state or an individual skilled at handling human relationships exhibits 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 necessary to save our humanity." [59]
28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the integration of reality into the moral and spiritual life of the person, guiding his/her actions because of God's goodness and fact. According to God's plan, intelligence, in its max sense, likewise consists of the ability to appreciate what is real, good, and gorgeous. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel expressed, "intelligence is nothing without delight." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the greatest paradise in Paradiso, affirms that the conclusion of this intellectual delight is discovered in the "light intellectual loaded with love, love of true great filled with joy, joy which transcends every sweet taste." [61]
29. A proper understanding of human intelligence, therefore, can not be lowered to the simple acquisition of facts or the capability to perform particular tasks. Instead, it includes the individual's openness to the ultimate questions of life and reflects an orientation towards the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the magnificent image within the individual, human intelligence has the ability to access the totality of being, pondering presence in its fullness, which surpasses what is quantifiable, and grasping the meaning of what has actually been understood. For followers, this capability consists of, in a specific method, the ability to grow in the knowledge of the secrets of God by using reason to engage ever more profoundly with revealed facts (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is formed by divine love, which "is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence has a necessary reflective dimension, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian purpose.

30. In light of the foregoing conversation, the differences in between human intelligence and existing AI systems end up being obvious. While AI is an amazing technological accomplishment efficient in imitating certain outputs related to human intelligence, it runs by performing jobs, attaining goals, or making decisions based on quantitative information and computational reasoning. For instance, with its analytical power, AI stands out at integrating data from a range of fields, modeling complex systems, and cultivating interdisciplinary connections. In this method, it can assist experts work together in resolving complicated 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 simulates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains basically restricted to a logical-mathematical structure, which enforces inherent constraints. Human intelligence, in contrast, develops organically throughout the individual's physical and psychological development, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although advanced AI systems can "find out" through processes such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is basically various from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, consisting of sensory input, psychological responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment. These components shape and kind people within their individual history.In contrast, AI, doing not have a physique, counts on computational thinking and knowing based upon huge datasets that consist of tape-recorded human experiences and knowledge.

32. Consequently, although AI can imitate aspects of human thinking and carry out particular tasks with extraordinary speed and effectiveness, its computational capabilities represent just a portion of the more comprehensive capabilities of the human mind. For example, AI can not currently replicate moral discernment or the capability to establish authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is positioned within a personally lived history of intellectual and ethical formation that basically forms the person's point of view, encompassing the physical, psychological, social, moral, and spiritual measurements of life. Since AI can not offer this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely exclusively on this innovation or treat it as the main means of interpreting the world can cause "a loss of gratitude for the entire, for the relationships in between things, and for the more comprehensive horizon." [65]
33. Human intelligence is not mainly about completing practical tasks but about understanding and actively engaging with truth in all its measurements; it is also efficient in unexpected insights. Since AI does not have the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to reality and goodness, its capacities-though apparently limitless-are unparalleled with the human capability to grasp truth. A lot can be gained from an illness, an embrace of reconciliation, and even a simple sunset; certainly, lots of experiences we have as humans open brand-new horizons and offer the possibility of attaining new knowledge. No device, working entirely with data, can determine up to these and many other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an excessively close equivalence in between human intelligence and AI dangers yielding to a functionalist point of view, where individuals are valued based on the work they can carry out. However, a person's worth does not depend upon possessing specific abilities, cognitive and technological achievements, or private success, but on the individual's inherent self-respect, grounded in being created in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains intact in all situations, consisting of for those not able to exercise their capabilities, whether it be a coming child, an unconscious person, or an older individual who is suffering. [67] It also underpins the custom of human rights (and, in particular, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "an essential point of merging in the look for commonalities" [68] and can, hence, function as a fundamental ethical guide in discussions on the accountable development and use of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the very usage of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can prove misleading" [69] and risks overlooking what is most valuable in the human individual. Due to this, AI should not be viewed as an artificial kind of human intelligence however as a product of it. [70]
36. Given these factors to consider, one can ask how AI can be understood within God's plan. To answer this, it is essential to remember that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character but is a human endeavor that engages the humanistic and cultural dimensions of human imagination. [71]
37. Seen as a fruit of the possible inscribed within human intelligence, [72] clinical questions and the advancement of technical abilities belong to the "cooperation of guy and lady with God in perfecting the visible creation." [73] At the same time, all scientific and technological accomplishments are, ultimately, presents from God. [74] Therefore, people must always use their abilities in view of the greater purpose for which God has given them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has "corrected numerous evils which used to hurt and limit humans," [76] a fact for which we must rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological developments in themselves represent real human development. [77] The Church is particularly opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human person. [78] Like any human venture, technological development should be directed to serve the human individual and contribute to the pursuit of "greater justice, more comprehensive fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations," which are "more important than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical implications of technological development are shared not just within the Church but also amongst lots of researchers, technologists, and expert associations, who significantly require ethical reflection to guide this advancement in a responsible method.

39. To deal with these difficulties, it is important to highlight the value of moral duty grounded in the dignity and occupation of the human individual. This directing concept likewise applies to concerns worrying AI. In this context, the ethical dimension handles main value since it is people who create systems and identify the purposes for which they are used. [80] Between a maker and a human, only the latter is genuinely an ethical agent-a topic of ethical obligation who exercises flexibility in his or her choices and accepts their effects. [81] It is not the machine but the human who remains in relationship with reality and goodness, assisted by an ethical conscience that calls the person "to like and to do what is good and to avoid evil," [82] attesting to "the authority of fact in recommendation to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn." [83] Likewise, between a machine and a human, only the human can be adequately self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, critical with prudence, and seeking the excellent that is possible in every situation. [84] In reality, all of this also 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 utilized in ways that appreciate human self-respect and promote the well-being of individuals and neighborhoods, it can contribute favorably to the human vocation. Yet, as in all locations where human beings are contacted us to make choices, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human flexibility enables the possibility of choosing what is incorrect, the moral examination of this technology will require to consider how it is directed and used.

41. At the very same time, it is not just completions that are fairly considerable but also the means used to attain them. Additionally, the overall vision and understanding of the human person ingrained within these systems are very important to consider also. Technological products show the worldview of their designers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to "form the world and engage consciences on the level of worths." [87] On a societal level, some technological developments might likewise reinforce relationships and power characteristics that are inconsistent with an appropriate understanding of the human person and society.

42. Therefore, the ends and the means used in a provided application of AI, along with the total vision it incorporates, need to all be evaluated to ensure they respect human self-respect and promote the typical good. [88] As Pope Francis has actually stated, "the intrinsic self-respect of every male and every female" should be "the crucial criterion in assessing emerging innovations; these will show fairly sound to the degree that they assist respect that self-respect and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] including in the social and economic spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays an important function not just in designing and producing innovation however likewise in directing its usage in line with the genuine good of the human person. [90] The duty for managing this wisely pertains to every level of society, guided by the concept of subsidiarity and other concepts of Catholic Social Teaching.

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

44. An evaluation of the implications of this directing concept might start by thinking about the importance of moral responsibility. Since full ethical causality belongs just to personal representatives, not artificial ones, it is vital to be able to determine and specify who bears responsibility for the processes included in AI, particularly those capable of discovering, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up methods and very deep neural networks allow AI to solve intricate problems, they make it difficult to comprehend the procedures that result in the options they adopted. This complicates responsibility considering that if an AI application produces unwanted results, identifying who is responsible becomes hard. To address this issue, attention needs to be offered to the nature of responsibility processes in complex, highly automated settings, where results may only become obvious in the medium to long term. For this, it is very important that ultimate obligation for choices made using AI rests with the human decision-makers which there is responsibility for the use of AI at each phase of the decision-making procedure. [91]
45. In addition to identifying who is responsible, it is important to determine the goals provided to AI systems. Although these systems might use unsupervised autonomous knowing mechanisms and often follow paths that human beings can not reconstruct, they ultimately pursue objectives that human beings have actually designated to them and are governed by procedures established by their designers and programmers. Yet, this presents an obstacle since, as AI models end up being increasingly efficient in independent knowing, the ability to maintain control over them to ensure that such applications serve human purposes might successfully diminish. This raises the critical question of how to ensure that AI systems are ordered for the good of individuals and not against them.

46. While obligation for the ethical usage of AI systems begins with those who develop, produce, manage, and manage such systems, it is also shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis kept in mind, the machine "makes a technical option among several possibilities based either on distinct criteria or on statistical inferences. People, however, not only pick, but in their hearts can deciding." [92] Those who use AI to accomplish a task and follow its results develop a context in which they are eventually responsible for the power they have entrusted. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist people in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it ought to be trustworthy, safe, robust enough to manage inconsistencies, and transparent in their operation to mitigate predispositions and unexpected side results. [93] Regulatory frameworks should guarantee that all legal entities remain responsible for making use of AI and all its effects, with suitable safeguards for transparency, personal privacy, and accountability. [94] Moreover, those using AI should take care not to become overly depending on it for their decision-making, a pattern that increases contemporary society's currently high reliance on technology.

47. The Church's ethical and social mentor provides resources to help guarantee that AI is used in such a way that maintains human company. Considerations about justice, for example, ought to also address issues such as cultivating simply social dynamics, maintaining worldwide security, and promoting peace. By working out vigilance, people and neighborhoods can discern ways to use AI to benefit humanity while avoiding applications that could degrade human self-respect or damage the environment. In this context, the principle of responsibility should be understood not only in its most restricted sense however as a "duty for the take care of others, which is more than simply accounting for outcomes attained." [95]
48. Therefore, AI, like any innovation, can be part of a conscious and responsible response to humanity's occupation to the great. However, as formerly discussed, AI needs to be directed by human intelligence to line up with this vocation, ensuring it respects the dignity of the human individual. Recognizing this "exalted self-respect," the Second Vatican Council verified that "the social order and its advancement should inevitably work to the benefit of the human individual." [96] Because of this, using AI, as Pope Francis said, need to be "accompanied by an ethic influenced by a vision of the common excellent, an ethic of liberty, duty, and fraternity, efficient in promoting the full development of people in relation to others and to the whole of creation." [97]
49. Within this basic viewpoint, some observations follow below to illustrate how the preceding arguments can help provide an ethical orientation in practical circumstances, in line with the "wisdom of heart" that Pope Francis has actually proposed. [98] While not extensive, this discussion is offered in service of the discussion that considers 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 intrinsic self-respect of each human and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human household must undergird the development of brand-new innovations and act as unassailable requirements for examining them before they are utilized." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI could "introduce important developments in agriculture, education and culture, an improved level of life for entire nations and individuals, and the development of human fraternity and social relationship," and hence be "used to promote essential human advancement." [101] AI might also help organizations recognize those in requirement and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other similar applications of this technology might add to human advancement and the common good. [102]
52. However, while AI holds many possibilities for promoting the good, it can also hinder and even counter human development and the common good. Pope Francis has noted that "evidence to date recommends that digital innovations have increased inequality in our world. Not just distinctions in product wealth, which are also significant, however also differences in access to political and social influence." [103] In this sense, AI could be used to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, produce brand-new forms of hardship, expand the "digital divide," and worsen existing social inequalities. [104]
53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a couple of powerful companies raises considerable ethical concerns. Exacerbating this problem is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single person can work out complete oversight over the vast and intricate datasets utilized for computation. This absence of distinct accountability develops the danger that AI might be manipulated for individual or business gain or to direct public viewpoint for the benefit of a particular market. Such entities, inspired by their own interests, possess the capability to work out "kinds of control as subtle as they are invasive, creating mechanisms for the control of consciences and of the democratic process." [105]
54. Furthermore, there is the danger of AI being used to promote what Pope Francis has called the "technocratic paradigm," which views all the world's issues as solvable through technological methods alone. [106] In this paradigm, human self-respect and fraternity are typically set aside in the name of performance, "as if truth, goodness, and reality instantly flow from technological and financial power as such." [107] Yet, human dignity and the common great should never be violated for the sake of performance, [108] for "technological developments that do not cause an improvement in the lifestyle of all humankind, however on the contrary, aggravate inequalities and conflicts, can never count as true development. " [109] Instead, AI needs to be put "at the service of another kind of development, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more important." [110]
55. Attaining this goal requires a much deeper reflection on the relationship between autonomy and duty. Greater autonomy increases each person's obligation across various aspects of common life. For Christians, the structure of this duty lies in the acknowledgment that all human capabilities, consisting of the individual's autonomy, originated from God and are meant to be used in the service of others. [111] Therefore, rather than merely pursuing economic or technological objectives, AI needs to serve "the typical good of the entire human household," which is "the amount total of social conditions that allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their satisfaction more totally and more quickly." [112]
56. The Second Vatican Council observed that "by his innermost nature guy is a social being; and if he does not get in into relations with others, he can neither live nor develop his gifts." [113] This conviction highlights that living in society is intrinsic to the nature and vocation of the human person. [114] As social beings, we seek relationships that include shared exchange and the pursuit of truth, in the course of which, individuals "show each other the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in such a method that they help one another in the look for reality." [115]
57. Such a mission, along with other elements of human communication, presupposes encounters and shared exchange between individuals formed by their distinct histories, ideas, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a diverse, diverse, and complex truth: individual and social, rational and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis highlights this vibrant, keeping in mind that "together, we can look for the reality in discussion, in unwinded conversation or in enthusiastic argument. To do so calls for determination; it entails minutes of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently accept the wider experience of individuals and individuals. [...] The procedure of building fraternity, be it regional or universal, can just be carried out by spirits that are totally free and available to authentic encounters." [116]
58. It remains in this context that one can think about the challenges AI postures to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the possible to foster connections within the human household. However, it could also hinder a real encounter with reality and, eventually, lead people to "a deep and melancholic discontentment with interpersonal relations, or a harmful sense of seclusion." [117] Authentic human relationships require the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their happiness. [118] Since human intelligence is expressed and enhanced also in interpersonal and embodied methods, genuine and spontaneous encounters with others are vital for engaging with truth in its fullness.

59. Because "true wisdom requires an encounter with truth," [119] the rise of AI introduces another obstacle. Since AI can effectively imitate the products of human intelligence, the ability to know when one is interacting with a human or a machine can no longer be taken for approved. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other advanced outputs that are normally related to human beings. Yet, it needs to be understood for what it is: a tool, not an individual. [120] This difference is frequently obscured by the language used by professionals, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and thus blurs the line between human and machine.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI likewise positions particular obstacles for the advancement of children, potentially motivating them to establish patterns of interaction that deal with human relationships in a transactional manner, as one would connect to a chatbot. Such habits might lead youths to see teachers as simple dispensers of details instead of as coaches who guide and nurture their intellectual and ethical growth. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and a steadfast commitment to the good of the other, are essential and irreplaceable in fostering the complete development of the human individual.

61. In this context, it is very important to clarify that, regardless of making use of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can genuinely experience empathy. Emotions can not be minimized to facial expressions or expressions created in response to triggers; they show the method a person, as an entire, relates to the world and to his/her own life, with the body playing a main role. True compassion requires the capability to listen, acknowledge another's irreducible individuality, welcome their otherness, and grasp the meaning behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the realm of analytical judgment in which AI stands out, true empathy comes from the relational sphere. It includes intuiting and nabbing the lived experiences of another while maintaining the distinction in between self and other. [122] While AI can mimic understanding responses, it can not duplicate the eminently individual and relational nature of genuine empathy. [123]
62. Due to the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as an individual ought to always be avoided; doing so for deceitful purposes is a grave ethical infraction that might erode 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 also to be thought about unethical and requires cautious oversight to prevent harm, maintain transparency, and make sure the self-respect of all people. [124]
63. In a progressively isolated world, some people have turned to AI searching for deep human relationships, easy friendship, and even psychological bonds. However, while humans are indicated to experience authentic relationships, AI can only replicate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an essential part of how a person grows to become who he or she is suggested to be. If AI is utilized to assist individuals foster genuine connections in between people, it can contribute positively to the complete awareness of the individual. 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 pulling away into artificial worlds, we are contacted us to engage in a committed and deliberate method with reality, especially by recognizing with the bad and suffering, consoling those in grief, and creating bonds of communion with all.

64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being progressively integrated into financial and financial systems. Significant financial investments are currently being made not only in the innovation sector however likewise in energy, financing, and media, especially in the areas of marketing and sales, logistics, technological development, compliance, and risk management. At the same time, AI's applications in these locations have actually also highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of incredible chances but also extensive threats. A first genuine 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 companies would gain from the value produced by AI rather than the services that utilize it.

65. Other broader elements of AI's effect on the economic-financial sphere need to also be carefully taken a look at, especially concerning the interaction in between concrete reality and the digital world. One essential factor to consider in this regard includes the coexistence of varied and alternative kinds of economic and monetary organizations within a given context. This aspect should be motivated, as it can bring benefits in how it supports the genuine economy by cultivating its development and stability, specifically 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 neighborhoods rooted in a particular place and a specific history, with a typical journey identified by shared values and hopes, but likewise by inescapable differences and divergences. This diversity is an undeniable possession to a neighborhood's economic life. Turning over the economy and finance entirely to digital technology would lower this variety and richness. As a result, many services to financial issues that can be reached through natural dialogue in between the included celebrations may no longer be attainable in a world dominated by treatments and only the appearance of nearness.

66. Another area where AI is already having a profound effect is the world of work. As in numerous other fields, AI is driving fundamental transformations across numerous professions, with a variety of impacts. On the one hand, it has the possible to improve knowledge and performance, produce new jobs, enable employees to focus on more innovative tasks, and open new horizons for imagination and development.

67. However, while AI assures to enhance performance by taking over ordinary jobs, it regularly requires workers to adjust to the speed and needs of devices instead of machines being created to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the marketed benefits of AI, existing approaches to the technology can paradoxically deskill workers, subject them to automated monitoring, and relegate them to stiff and repetitive jobs. The need to keep up with the rate of technology can erode workers' sense of firm and stifle the ingenious capabilities they are anticipated to give their work. [125]
68. AI is presently eliminating the requirement for some tasks that were when performed by humans. If AI is used to replace human workers rather than match them, there is a "considerable threat of out of proportion advantage for the couple of at the cost of the impoverishment of lots of." [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more effective, there is an involved threat that human labor might lose its worth in the economic world. This is the rational repercussion of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humanity enslaved to performance, where, ultimately, the cost of humankind must be cut. Yet, human lives are intrinsically valuable, independent of their economic output. Nevertheless, the "existing model," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to favor an investment in efforts to help the slow, the weak, or the less talented to find chances in life." [127] Due to this, "we can not permit a tool as powerful and vital as Artificial Intelligence to enhance such a paradigm, but rather, we should make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its expansion." [128]
69. It is very important to remember that "the order of things should be secondary to the order of persons, and not the other method around." [129] Human work should not just be at the service of revenue however at "the service of the entire human individual [...] considering the individual's material requirements and the requirements of his/her intellectual, moral, spiritual, and spiritual life." [130] In this context, the Church recognizes that work is "not only a method of earning one's daily bread" but is likewise "a necessary dimension of social life" and "a means [...] of individual growth, the building of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of gifts. Work provides us a sense of shared obligation for the advancement of the world, and eventually, for our life as an individuals." [131]
70. Since work is a "part of the meaning of life on this earth, a course to development, human development and individual satisfaction," "the goal should not be that technological progress progressively changes human work, for this would be detrimental to humankind" [132] -rather, it should promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI needs to help, not change, human judgment. Similarly, it needs to never ever degrade creativity or reduce employees to simple "cogs in a maker." Therefore, "respect for the dignity of laborers and the value of work for the economic wellness of people, households, and societies, for task security and just incomes, ought to be a high concern for the international community as these kinds of technology permeate more deeply into our work environments." [133]
71. As individuals in God's recovery work, healthcare professionals have the occupation and obligation to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the healthcare profession carries an "intrinsic and indisputable ethical measurement," acknowledged by the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges physicians and health care professionals to dedicate themselves to having "outright regard for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Good Samaritan, this commitment is to be brought out by males and females "who reject the production of a society of exclusion, and act instead as neighbors, raising up and restoring the fallen for the sake of the typical good." [136]
72. Seen in this light, AI appears to hold immense potential in a range of applications in the medical field, such as assisting the diagnostic work of doctor, assisting in relationships between clients and medical staff, using new treatments, and expanding access to quality care likewise for those who are separated or marginalized. In these methods, the technology might boost the "thoughtful and caring nearness" [137] that doctor are contacted us to extend to the sick and suffering.

73. However, if AI is utilized not to enhance but to change the relationship in between patients and healthcare providers-leaving clients to communicate with a machine instead of a human being-it would reduce a crucially essential human relational structure to a centralized, impersonal, and unequal structure. Instead of motivating solidarity with the ill and suffering, such applications of AI would risk intensifying the loneliness that frequently accompanies health problem, especially in the context of a culture where "persons are no longer viewed as a vital value to be cared for and appreciated." [138] This abuse of AI would not align with regard for the self-respect of the human individual and solidarity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the wellness of clients and the decisions that discuss their lives are at the heart of the healthcare occupation. This accountability needs medical professionals to work out all their skill and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options relating to those delegated to their care, constantly appreciating the inviolable dignity of the patients and the requirement for informed consent. As a result, decisions relating to patient treatment and the weight of responsibility they entail should always remain with the human individual and ought to never be entrusted to AI. [139]
75. In addition, utilizing AI to determine who should receive treatment based mainly on financial procedures or metrics of performance represents a particularly problematic instance of the "technocratic paradigm" that must be declined. [140] For, "optimizing resources implies using them in an ethical and fraternal way, and not penalizing the most delicate." [141] Additionally, AI tools in health care are "exposed to forms of bias and discrimination," where "systemic errors can quickly multiply, producing not just injustices in private cases however likewise, due to the domino impact, genuine types of social inequality." [142]
76. The integration of AI into healthcare likewise positions the danger of enhancing other existing variations in access to healthcare. As health care ends up being significantly oriented towards avoidance and lifestyle-based techniques, AI-driven solutions might accidentally favor more upscale populations who currently enjoy better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This pattern risks reinforcing a "medicine for the rich" design, where those with monetary ways gain from sophisticated preventative tools and individualized health details while others battle to gain access to even basic services. To avoid such injustices, fair structures are needed to make sure that the use of AI in health care does not intensify existing health care inequalities but rather serves the common good.

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

78. This method includes a commitment to cultivating the mind, however always as a part of the important advancement of the individual: "We should break that idea of education which holds that informing ways filling one's head with ideas. That is the way we inform automatons, cerebral minds, not people. 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 essential relationship in between instructor and trainee. Teachers do more than convey understanding; they model vital human qualities and motivate the happiness of discovery. [146] Their existence motivates trainees both through the material they teach and the care they demonstrate for their trainees. This bond fosters trust, good understanding, and the capacity to resolve everyone's unique self-respect and capacity. On the part of the trainee, this can create a real desire to grow. The physical presence of a teacher develops a relational dynamic that AI can not replicate, one that deepens engagement and supports the trainee's essential advancement.

80. In this context, AI provides both opportunities and challenges. If utilized in a prudent way, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and bought to the genuine objectives of education, AI can end up being a valuable educational resource by enhancing access to education, offering tailored support, and providing immediate feedback to trainees. These advantages could enhance the knowing experience, specifically in cases where personalized attention is required, or academic resources are otherwise limited.

81. Nevertheless, smfsimple.com a necessary part of education is forming "the intellect to reason well in all matters, to reach out towards truth, and to comprehend it," [147] while assisting the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is all the more vital in an age marked by technology, in which "it is no longer simply a question of 'utilizing' instruments of communication, however of living in a highly digitalized culture that has had an extensive impact on [...] our ability to communicate, discover, be notified and participate in 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 comprehensive usage of AI in education might result in the trainees' increased dependence on technology, deteriorating their ability to carry out some abilities independently and intensifying their dependence on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are created to assist people develop their important believing abilities and problem-solving abilities, lots of others merely offer responses instead of triggering trainees to reach responses themselves or compose text for themselves. [152] Instead of training young individuals how to accumulate details and create fast reactions, education ought to encourage "the responsible use of liberty to face issues with excellent sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in using kinds of expert system need to aim above all at promoting crucial thinking. Users of any ages, however particularly the young, need to establish a critical approach to the usage of information and content gathered online or produced by artificial intelligence systems. Schools, universities, and scientific societies are challenged to assist trainees and specialists to understand the social and ethical elements of the advancement and uses of technology." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II remembered, "on the planet today, characterized by such fast developments in science and innovation, the jobs of a Catholic University assume an ever greater value and seriousness." [155] In a particular method, Catholic universities are prompted to be present as terrific laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary secret, they are advised to engage "with wisdom and imagination" [156] in cautious research study on this phenomenon, assisting to draw out the salutary capacity within the various fields of science and reality, and directing them always towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the typical good, reaching new frontiers in the dialogue between faith and reason.

84. Moreover, it should be noted that current AI programs have actually been understood to provide prejudiced or produced details, which can lead trainees to rely on unreliable content. This problem "not only risks of legitimizing phony news and reinforcing a dominant culture's advantage, but, simply put, it also weakens the instructional procedure itself." [157] With time, clearer differences may emerge between correct and improper usages of AI in education and research study. Yet, a decisive guideline is that making use of AI ought to constantly be transparent and never ever misrepresented.

85. AI could be used as an aid to human dignity if it assists people comprehend intricate principles or directs them to sound resources that support their search for the fact. [158]
86. However, AI likewise presents a major danger of creating manipulated material and incorrect details, which can quickly mislead people due to its similarity to the reality. Such false information may occur unintentionally, as when it comes to AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear real but are not. Since producing material that imitates human artifacts is main to AI's functionality, mitigating these dangers shows difficult. Yet, the consequences of such aberrations and incorrect details can be rather severe. For this factor, all those involved in producing and utilizing AI systems should be dedicated to the truthfulness and precision of the details processed by such systems and distributed to the general public.

87. While AI has a hidden potential to create false details, a a lot more unpleasant issue lies in the intentional misuse of AI for manipulation. This can occur when people or organizations intentionally generate and spread out false content with the aim to trick or trigger damage, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to a false representation of a person, edited or produced by an AI algorithm. The danger of deepfakes is particularly obvious when they are utilized to target or harm others. While the images or videos themselves may be synthetic, the damage they cause is genuine, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "genuine wounds in their human dignity." [159]
88. On a more comprehensive scale, by distorting "our relationship with others and with reality," [160] AI-generated phony media can gradually weaken the structures of society. This concern requires mindful regulation, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or affected media-can spread unintentionally, sustaining political polarization and social unrest. When society ends up being indifferent to the fact, different groups construct their own variations of "truths," weakening the "reciprocal ties and mutual dependencies" [161] that underpin the material of social life. As deepfakes cause individuals to question everything and AI-generated incorrect material deteriorates trust in what they see and hear, polarization and conflict will just grow. Such widespread deceptiveness is no unimportant matter; it strikes at the core of humanity, taking apart the fundamental trust on which societies are built. [162]
89. Countering AI-driven fallacies is not just the work of industry experts-it needs the efforts of all people of goodwill. "If innovation is to serve human dignity and not harm it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human neighborhood should be proactive in dealing with these trends with respect to human dignity and the promotion of the excellent." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated material should constantly exercise diligence in validating the fact of what they share and, in all cases, need to "prevent the sharing of words and images that are degrading of human beings, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that exploit the weak and susceptible." [164] This requires the continuous prudence and careful discernment of all users regarding their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are naturally relational, and the information each person creates in the digital world can be viewed as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data conveys not just details however also personal and relational knowledge, which, in an increasingly digitized context, can amount to power over the person. Moreover, while some types of information might pertain to public elements of an individual's life, others may touch upon the individual's interiority, maybe even their conscience. Seen in this way, privacy plays an important function in securing the limits of a person's inner life, maintaining their flexibility to associate with others, reveal themselves, and make decisions without excessive control. This security is also tied to the defense of spiritual flexibility, as monitoring can also be misused to apply control over the lives of believers and how they express their faith.

91. It is appropriate, therefore, to deal with the problem of personal privacy from an issue for the legitimate liberty and inalienable dignity of the human individual "in all scenarios." [166] The Second Vatican Council included the right "to secure personal privacy" among the essential rights "needed for living a really human life," a right that ought to be reached all people on account of their "sublime dignity." [167] Furthermore, the Church has actually likewise verified the right to the legitimate respect for a personal life in the context of affirming the individual's right to an excellent track record, defense of their physical and mental stability, and liberty from damage or excessive intrusion [168] -essential parts of the due regard for the intrinsic self-respect of the human person. [169]
92. Advances in AI-powered data processing and analysis now make it possible to presume patterns in a person's behavior and thinking from even a little amount of details, making the role of information privacy much more vital as a protect for the dignity and relational nature of the human individual. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant mindsets towards others are on the increase, ranges are otherwise diminishing or vanishing to the point that the right to privacy hardly exists. Everything has ended up being a kind of phenomenon to be taken a look at and inspected, and individuals's lives are now under consistent monitoring." [170]
93. While there can be genuine and correct ways to utilize AI in keeping with human dignity and the common excellent, using it for surveillance aimed at making use of, restricting others' freedom, or benefitting a couple of at the expenditure of the many is unjustifiable. The threat of monitoring overreach should be monitored by suitable regulators to ensure transparency and public responsibility. Those responsible for monitoring should never ever exceed their authority, which need to always favor the dignity and liberty of everyone as the important basis of a just and gentle society.

94. Furthermore, "basic respect for human dignity demands that we decline to allow the individuality of the person to be identified with a set of information." [171] This especially applies when AI is utilized to assess individuals or groups based upon their behavior, qualities, or history-a practice known as "social scoring": "In social and financial decision-making, we ought to be careful about handing over judgments to algorithms that process information, often gathered surreptitiously, on a person's makeup and previous behavior. Such data can be contaminated by societal bias and preconceptions. A person's past habits should not be used to deny him or her the chance to change, grow, and add to society. We can not enable algorithms to limit or condition respect for human self-respect, or to omit empathy, grace, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able to alter." [172]
95. AI has lots of appealing applications for enhancing our relationship with our "common home," such as developing designs to forecast severe environment occasions, proposing engineering solutions to minimize their effect, handling relief operations, and anticipating population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable farming, optimize energy usage, and offer early caution systems for public health emergency situations. These improvements have the possible to strengthen durability against climate-related difficulties and promote more sustainable development.

96. At the same time, existing AI models and the hardware needed to support them take in large amounts of energy and water, substantially contributing to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This reality is often obscured by the way this technology exists in the popular imagination, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can offer the impression that information is stored and processed in an intangible world, separated from the physical world. However, "the cloud" is not an ethereal domain different from the real world; similar to all calculating technologies, it relies on physical devices, cable televisions, and energy. The exact same holds true of the technology behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, especially large language models (LLMs), they require ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and higher storage facilities. Considering the heavy toll these technologies handle the environment, it is crucial to establish sustainable services that minimize their effect on our typical home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is necessary "that we try to find services not just in innovation however in a change of humankind." [175] A total and genuine understanding of development acknowledges that the worth of all produced things can not be decreased to their simple utility. Therefore, a fully human approach to the stewardship of the earth rejects the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which seeks to "draw out whatever possible" from the world, [176] and declines the "myth of development," which presumes that "ecological problems will solve themselves merely with the application of new technology and with no requirement for ethical factors to consider or deep modification." [177] Such a frame of mind must provide method to a more holistic method that respects the order of production and promotes the essential good of the human person while protecting our typical home. [178]
98. The Second Vatican Council and the consistent mentor of the Popes ever since have actually insisted that peace is not simply the lack of war and is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers in between adversaries. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the serenity of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without securing the goods of persons, totally free interaction, respect for the self-respect of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity and can not be attained through force alone; instead, it needs to be mainly developed through client diplomacy, the active promotion of justice, uniformity, essential human advancement, and regard for the self-respect of all individuals. [180] In this way, the tools used to maintain peace should never be allowed to justify injustice, violence, or oppression. Instead, they need to constantly be governed by a "firm decision to respect other individuals and countries, in addition to their self-respect, as well as the intentional practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical abilities might help nations look for peace and make sure security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can also be highly problematic. Pope Francis has observed that "the ability to conduct military operations through push-button control systems has led to a decreased perception of the devastation caused by those weapon systems and the concern of responsibility for their usage, resulting in a a lot more cold and detached approach to the tremendous disaster of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which self-governing weapons make war more feasible militates against the principle of war as a last hope in genuine self-defense, [183] potentially increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and precipitating a destabilizing arms race, with disastrous consequences for human rights. [184]
100. In specific, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which can identifying and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for serious ethical issue" since they lack the "distinct human capacity for ethical judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this reason, Pope Francis has actually urgently required a reconsideration of the advancement of these weapons and a prohibition on their usage, beginning with "an effective and concrete dedication to introduce ever higher and correct human control. No machine must ever select to take the life of a person." [186]
101. Since it is a little step from devices that can kill autonomously with precision to those efficient in large-scale destruction, some AI researchers have revealed concerns that such innovation positions an "existential threat" by having the prospective to act in ways that might threaten the survival of whole regions or perhaps of humanity itself. This threat demands severe attention, showing the enduring concern about technologies that approve war "an unmanageable harmful power over varieties of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing kids. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "carry out an examination of war with a completely new mindset" [188] is more immediate than ever.

102. At the very same time, while the theoretical threats of AI deserve attention, the more instant and pushing concern depends on how people with destructive intentions might misuse this innovation. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future capabilities are unforeseeable, humanity's past actions offer clear cautions. The atrocities dedicated throughout history are enough to raise deep concerns about the prospective abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that "mankind now has instruments of unprecedented power: we can turn this world into a garden, or lower it to a pile of rubble." [190] Given this fact, the Church advises us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are complimentary to use our intelligence towards things developing positively," or towards "decadence and mutual damage." [191] To prevent humanity from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there should be a clear stand against all applications of innovation that naturally threaten human life and dignity. This commitment requires careful discernment about the use of AI, particularly in military defense applications, to guarantee that it always respects human dignity and serves the common good. The development and deployment of AI in weaponries should go through the highest levels of ethical analysis, governed by an issue for human dignity and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology provides exceptional tools to manage and establish the world's resources. However, sometimes, humanity is progressively ceding control of these resources to makers. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, there is optimism about the potential of artificial basic intelligence (AGI), a theoretical type of AI that would match or exceed human intelligence and cause unimaginable developments. Some even speculate that AGI could attain superhuman abilities. At the exact same time, as society drifts away from a connection with the transcendent, some are lured to turn to AI looking for meaning or fulfillment-longings that can only be truly satisfied in communion with God. [194]
105. However, the anticipation of replacing God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture explicitly warns against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI might prove much more seductive than traditional idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths but do not speak; eyes, but do not see; ears, however do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or a minimum of provides the impression of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is crucial to keep in mind that AI is but a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated material, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not have much of the abilities particular to human life, and it is also fallible. By turning to AI as a viewed "Other" greater than itself, with which to share presence and responsibilities, mankind dangers creating an alternative to God. However, it is not AI that is eventually deified and worshipped, however humankind itself-which, in this method, becomes enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the prospective to serve humanity and add to the common great, it remains a production of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and resourcefulness" (Acts 17:29). It must never ever be ascribed unnecessary worth. As the Book of Wisdom affirms: "For a man made them, and one whose spirit is obtained formed them; for no guy can form a god which is like himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is much better than the things he worships given that he has life, however they never ever have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. On the other hand, human beings, "by their interior life, go beyond the whole product universe; they experience this deep interiority when they enter into their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they decide their own fate in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis reminds us, that each individual finds the "mysterious connection in between self-knowledge and openness to others, between the encounter with one's individual originality and the desire to provide oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "capable of setting our other powers and passions, and our entire person, in a stance of respect and loving obedience before the Lord," [198] who "provides to deal with every one of us as a 'Thou,' always and permanently." [199]
108. Considering the various difficulties positioned by advances in innovation, Pope Francis stressed the requirement for development in "human obligation, values, and conscience," proportionate to the development in the potential that this technology brings [200] -recognizing that "with a boost in human power comes a widening of duty on the part of people and communities." [201]
109. At the very same time, the "necessary and essential question" remains "whether in the context of this development male, as man, is ending up being really better, that is to state, more mature spiritually, more aware of the self-respect of his mankind, more responsible, more available to others, especially the neediest and the weakest, and readier to provide and to aid all." [202]
110. As an outcome, it is crucial to know how to assess individual applications of AI in particular contexts to figure out whether its use promotes human self-respect, the occupation of the human person, and the common good. As with many innovations, the effects of the different usages of AI may not always 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 principle of subsidiarity. Individual users, families, civil society, corporations, institutions, federal governments, and worldwide organizations should operate at their correct levels to ensure that AI is used for the good of all.

111. A considerable challenge and chance for the common good today lies in thinking about AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which highlights the interconnectedness of individuals and communities and highlights our shared duty for cultivating the essential wellness of others. The twentieth-century theorist Nicholas Berdyaev observed that people frequently blame machines for personal and social problems; nevertheless, "this just humiliates male and does not correspond to his self-respect," for "it is not worthy to transfer obligation from guy to a maker." [203] Only the human individual can be ethically responsible, and the challenges of a technological society are ultimately spiritual in nature. Therefore, dealing with those challenges "needs a surge of spirituality." [204]
112. A more point to consider is the call, triggered by the appearance of AI on the world phase, for a restored appreciation of all that is human. Years earlier, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos alerted that "the risk is not in the multiplication of machines, but in the ever-increasing number of males accustomed from their youth to desire only what devices can give." [205] This challenge is as real today as it was then, as the fast rate of digitization runs the risk of a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable elements of life are set aside and then forgotten or even deemed irrelevant because they can not be computed in formal terms. AI needs to be used only as a tool to match human intelligence instead of change its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that go beyond computation is vital for maintaining "an authentic humanity" that "seems to dwell in the midst of our technological culture, practically undetected, like a mist seeping gently below a closed door." [207]
113. The huge stretch of the world's knowledge is now available in ways that would have filled past generations with wonder. However, trademarketclassifieds.com to guarantee that improvements in knowledge do not end up being humanly or spiritually barren, one need to go beyond the simple accumulation of data and aim to attain true knowledge. [208]
114. This wisdom is the gift that humankind requires most to resolve the extensive questions and ethical difficulties posed by AI: "Only by adopting a spiritual way of viewing reality, just by recuperating a wisdom of the heart, can we face and translate the newness of our time." [209] Such "knowledge of the heart" is "the virtue that allows us to integrate the entire and its parts, our choices and their repercussions." It "can not be sought from makers," however it "lets itself be found by those who seek it and be seen by those who like it; it expects those who want it, and it goes in search of those who are worthwhile of it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]
115. In a world marked by AI, we need the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "enables us to look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, situations, events and to discover their real significance." [211]
116. Since a "person's excellence is measured not by the details or understanding they possess, but by the depth of their charity," [212] how we integrate AI "to consist of the least of our siblings and sisters, the vulnerable, and those most in need, will be the true measure of our mankind." [213] The "wisdom of the heart" can illuminate and direct the human-centered use of this technology to help promote the common excellent, look after our "typical home," advance the search for the reality, foster essential human advancement, favor human solidarity and fraternity, and lead mankind to its supreme objective: happiness and complete communion with God. [214]
117. From this viewpoint of knowledge, believers will have the ability to function as ethical agents efficient in using this technology to promote an authentic vision of the human individual and society. [215] This ought to be finished with the understanding that technological development becomes part of God's plan for creation-an activity that we are called to purchase toward the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the continual search for the True and the Good.

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

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

Ex audientia die 14 ianuarii 2025 Franciscus

Contents

I. Introduction

II. What is Artificial Intelligence?

III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition

Rationality

Embodiment

Relationality

Relationship with the Truth

Stewardship of the World

An Important Understanding of Human Intelligence

The Limits of AI

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

Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making

V. Specific Questions

AI and Society

AI and Human Relationships

AI, the Economy, and Labor

AI and Healthcare

AI and Education

AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse

AI, Privacy, and Surveillance

AI and the Protection of Our Common Home

AI and Warfare

AI and Our Relationship with God

VI. Concluding Reflections

True Wisdom

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See likewise Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. [2] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 307. Cf. Id., Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (21 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020 ), 43. [3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [5] J. McCarthy, et al., "A Proposition for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence" (31 August 1955), http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024). [6] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), pars. 2-3: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [7] Terms in this file explaining the outputs or procedures of AI are utilized figuratively to explain its operations and are not meant to anthropomorphize the maker. [8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [9] Here, one can see the main positions of the "transhumanists" and the "posthumanists." Transhumanists argue that technological advancements will enable people to overcome their biological constraints and boost both their physical and cognitive capabilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, contend that such advances will ultimately alter human identity to the degree that humankind itself might no longer be thought about genuinely "human." Both views rest on an essentially negative perception of human corporality, which deals with the body more as an obstacle than as an important part of the person's identity and call to complete awareness. Yet, this negative view of the body is irregular with an appropriate understanding of human dignity. While the Church supports real clinical progress, it affirms that human self-respect is rooted in "the person as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "self-respect is likewise intrinsic in each individual's body, which gets involved 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 approach shows a functionalist point of view, which minimizes the human mind to its functions and presumes that its functions can be totally quantified in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear really intelligent, it would still remain functional in nature. [11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460. [12] If "thinking" is attributed to devices, it needs to be clarified that this describes calculative thinking rather than critical thinking. Similarly, if devices are said to run using abstract thought, it should be defined that this is restricted to computational reasoning. On the other hand, by its very nature, human idea is an imaginative process that avoids programming and goes beyond constraints. [13] On the foundational role of language in shaping understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York 2010, 141-182). [14] For more conversation of these anthropological and theological structures, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144. [15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21. [16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi advertisement litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [faculty] by which he transcends to the illogical animals. Now, this [professors] is reason itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it may more suitably be provided"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When considering all that they have, people find that they are most distinguished from animals specifically by the fact they possess intelligence." This is also repeated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who mentions that "guy is the most perfect of all earthly beings endowed with movement, and his proper and natural operation is intellection," by which male abstracts from things and "gets in his mind things actually intelligible" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 76). [17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, ad 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a contemporary perspective that echoes elements of the classical and medieval distinction between these two modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York 2011. [19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp. [20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138. [21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intellect can investigate the reality of things through reflection, experience and discussion, and pertain to recognize in that reality, 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 "normally considers the human individual as a being who exists in the body and is unimaginable outside of it" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Che cosa è l'uomo?" (Sal 8,5): Un itinerario di antropologia biblica [30 September 2019], par. 19). Cf. ibid., pars. 20-21, 43-44, 48. [25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100 (2008 ), 863: "Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, however instead completely divulged its meaning and value." [26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81. [27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and hence it is unified to the body in order that it might have a presence and an operation suitable to its nature." [29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18. [30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357. [31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54. [32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221. [33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27. [34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), thatswhathappened.wiki 1552. Cf. II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls likewise possess reason and with it they circle in discourse around the reality of things. [...] [O] n account of the manner in which they are capable of concentrating the lots of into the one, they too, in their own fashion and as far as they can, are worthwhile of conceptions like those of the angels" (en. tr. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York - Mahwah 1987, 106-107). [35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 3: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7. [36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 42: AAS 91 (1999 ), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1043: "the human mind is capable of transcending instant concerns and grasping certain truths that are unvarying, as true now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, factor finds universal values obtained from that exact same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034. [38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last case of factor is to acknowledge that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York 1958, 77). [39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [40] Our semantic capacity enables us to comprehend messages in any type of communication in a way that both takes into account and transcends their material or empirical structures (such as computer system code). Here, intelligence ends up being a knowledge that "allows us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, scenarios, events and to uncover their genuine meaning" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our creativity enables us to generate new content or concepts, mainly by providing an initial viewpoint on reality. Both capacities depend upon the presence of an individual subjectivity for their complete awareness. [41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. [42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a dedication to the truth, is far more than personal sensation [...] Certainly, its close relation to reality promotes its universality and maintains it from being 'confined to a narrow field devoid of relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to reality thus secures it from 'a fideism that deprives it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643. [43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7. [44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. [46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as priced quote in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294. [47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure likens the universe to "a book reflecting, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who approves existence to all things (Breviloquium 2.12.1). Cf. Alain de Lille, De Incarnatione Christi, PL 210, 579a: "Omnis mundi creatura quasi liber et pictura nobis est et speculum." [48] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 67: AAS 107 (2015 ), 874; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589-592; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 57: "humans occupy a special place in deep space according to the divine strategy: they delight in the advantage of sharing in the divine governance of noticeable production. [...] Since man's place as ruler remains in truth an involvement in the magnificent governance of creation, we speak of it here as a form of stewardship." [49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165. [50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This idea is also shown in the creation account, where God brings animals to Adam "to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living creature, that was its name" (Gen. 2:19), an action that demonstrates the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's production. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117. [51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301. [52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302. [53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2. [54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7. [55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8. [57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906. [58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987. [59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: "L'intelligence n'est rien sans la délectation." Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: "The mind and the will are put at the service of the higher great by picking up and enjoying facts." [61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232). [62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he greatest norm of human life is the magnificent law itself-eternal, objective and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the methods of the human community according to a strategy conceived in his knowledge and love. God has actually enabled guy to participate in this law of his so that, under the mild personality of divine providence, many might have the ability to reach a 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 inscribed his own image and similarity on male (cf. Gen 1:26), conferring upon him an unparalleled self-respect [...] In result, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not represent any work he carries out, but which circulation from his vital self-respect as a person." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22. [68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310. [69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is comprehended as a technical term to indicate this innovation, recalling that the expression is likewise used to designate the discipline and not just its applications. [71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857. [72] For instance, see the motivation of scientific expedition in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the appreciation for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These authors, among a long list of other Catholics engaged in scientific research study and technological expedition, highlight that "faith and science can be unified in charity, offered that science is put at the service of the men and female of our time and not misused to damage or perhaps destroy them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87. [73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. [74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888. [77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658. [78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim. [79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293. [80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4. [81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, guy is, so to speak, the daddy of his acts." [82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776. [83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777. [84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father motivated efforts "to make sure that technology remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed toward the great." [85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the function of human agency in selecting a larger aim (Ziel) that then notifies the specific purpose (Zweck) for which each technological application is produced, 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 impact on human society, always represents a form of order in social relations and a plan of power, therefore making it possible for certain individuals to carry out particular actions while avoiding others from performing various ones. In a more or less explicit method, this constitutive power-dimension of innovation constantly 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: "Confronted with the marvels of devices, which appear to know how to select individually, we must be really clear that decision-making [...] should always be left to the human person. We would condemn mankind to a future without hope if we removed individuals's ability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend upon 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 describes algorithmic predisposition (methodical and consistent errors in computer systems that might disproportionately prejudice certain groups in unintentional ways) or discovering predisposition (which will lead to training on a biased information set) and not the "predisposition vector" in neural networks (which is a parameter utilized to change the output of "neurons" to change more properly to the information). [94] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father affirmed the development in agreement "on the requirement for development procedures to respect such values as addition, openness, security, equity, privacy and reliability," and likewise welcomed "the efforts of global companies to manage these technologies so that they promote genuine progress, contributing, that is, to a much 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 discussion of the ethical concerns raised by AI from a Catholic point of view, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253. [99] On the significance of discussion in a pluralist society oriented toward a "robust and solid social principles," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. [104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10. [105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; pricing 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: it-viking.ch L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027. [112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123. [113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034. [114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149. [115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414. [118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057. [119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985. [120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989). [123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Lots of people] want their social relationships offered by sophisticated equipment, by screens and systems which can be turned 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 happiness which contaminates us in our close and continuous interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from subscription in the neighborhood, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045. [124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1. [125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899. [126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107. [128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' teaching about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893. [129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as priced estimate 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 guy 'for work.' Through this conclusion one appropriately pertains to acknowledge the pre-eminence of the subjective significance of work over the unbiased one." [132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320. [133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502. [135] Ibid. [136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as priced estimate in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8. [137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops' Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: "If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture is manifest, with its painful effects, it is that of healthcare. When a sick person is not placed in the center or their self-respect is not considered, this provides increase to attitudes that can lead even to speculation on the bad luck of others. And this is extremely serious! [...] The application of a business method to the health care sector, if indiscriminate [...] may run the risk of disposing of humans." [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 using Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729; Francis, Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016), 6: AAS 108 (2016 ), 57-58. [145] Francis, Address to Members of the Global Researchers Advancing Catholic Education Project (20 April 2022): AAS 114 (2022 ), 580. [146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), par. 41: AAS 68 (1976 ), 31, pricing quote Id., Address to the Members of the "Consilium de Laicis" (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: "if [the modern person] does listen to instructors, it is due to the fact that they are witnesses." [147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126. [148] Francis, 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): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, pricing quote the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592. [150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167. [151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413. [152] In a 2023 policy file about using generative AI in education and research, UNESCO notes: "Among the key concerns [of making use of generative AI (GenAI) in education and research study] is whether human beings can perhaps cede fundamental levels of thinking and skill-acquisition processes to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking skills based on the outputs offered by AI. Writing, for instance, is typically connected with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], people can now start with a well-structured outline supplied by GenAI. Some experts have actually defined using GenAI to generate text in this method as 'composing without believing'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American thinker Hannah Arendt predicted such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and warned: "If it must end up being real that understanding (in the sense of know-how) and believed have parted business for excellent, then we would certainly become the powerless slaves, not a lot of our devices as of our know-how" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3). [153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417. [154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914. [155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479. [156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10. [157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3. [158] For example, it might assist people gain access to the "variety of resources for creating higher knowledge of fact" contained in the works of viewpoint (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8. [159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62. [160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074. [162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be truly indifferent to the question of whether what they understand is real or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he composes: 'I have actually fulfilled numerous who wished to trick, but none who desired to be deceived'"; pricing estimate Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794. [163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62. [164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8. [165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Media (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149. [166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24. [167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no man might with impunity breach that human self-respect which God himself treats with terrific reverence"; as priced estimate in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804. [168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203. [169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human self-respect in cyberspace obliges States to likewise respect the right to privacy, by protecting people from intrusive security and allowing 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 determined a list of "early promises of AI assisting to address environment change" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The file observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can change data into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools might assist develop new methods and financial investments to lower emissions, affect brand-new economic sector investments in net absolutely no, secure biodiversity, and develop broad-based social strength" (ibid.). [174] "The cloud" describes a network of physical servers throughout the world that makes it possible for users to shop, procedure, and manage their information remotely. [175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850. [176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890. [177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870. [178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852. [179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640. [180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317. [181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101. [182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310. [184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105. [185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We require to ensure and secure a space for proper human control over the choices made by expert system 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 usage of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) that do not have the appropriate human control would position essential ethical concerns, given that LAWS can never ever be morally accountable topics capable of abiding by worldwide humanitarian law." [187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: "Nor can we disregard the possibility of sophisticated weapons ending up in the incorrect hands, assisting in, for instance, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the institutions of legitimate systems of federal government. In a word, the world does not need brand-new innovations that contribute to the unfair advancement of commerce and the weapons trade and subsequently wind up promoting the folly of war." [190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565. [191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878. [192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687. [193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39. [194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661. [195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a better understanding today that the simple build-up of products and services [...] is insufficient for the awareness of human joy. Nor, in effect, does the availability of the numerous real advantages offered in current times by science and technology, including the computer system sciences, bring liberty from every form of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the considerable body of resources and prospective at man's disposal is guided by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the real good of the mankind, it easily turns against guy to oppress him." Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564. [196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6. [199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6. [200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. The End of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83). [201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288. [203] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," in C. Mitcham - R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York 19832, 212-213. [204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210. [205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829. [206] Cf. Francis, Meeting the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023). [207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: "The flood of details at our fingertips does not produce higher wisdom. Wisdom is not born of fast searches on the web nor is it a mass of unverified information. That is not the method to grow in the encounter with fact." [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.