1. With knowledge both ancient and new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to review the existing obstacles and opportunities positioned by clinical and technological improvements, particularly by the recent development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian tradition relates to the present of intelligence as a necessary aspect of how humans are created "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Starting from an integral vision of the human person and the biblical calling to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church highlights that this present of intelligence should be expressed through the accountable usage of reason and technical capabilities in the stewardship of the developed world.

2. The Church motivates the improvement of science, innovation, the arts, and other kinds of human undertaking, viewing them as part of the "cooperation of male and lady with God in improving the visible creation." [1] As Sirach verifies, God "provided ability to human beings, that he might be glorified in his marvelous works" (Sir. 38:6). Human capabilities and creativity come from God and, when utilized appropriately, glorify God by reflecting his wisdom and goodness. In light of this, when we ask ourselves what it suggests to "be human," we can not omit a consideration of our clinical and technological capabilities.

3. It is within this point of view that today Note addresses the anthropological and ethical difficulties raised by AI-issues that are especially significant, as one of the goals of this innovation is to imitate the human intelligence that designed it. For circumstances, unlike many other human developments, AI can be trained on the results of human imagination and then produce new "artifacts" with a level of speed and ability that often matches or surpasses what human beings can do, such as producing text or images equivalent from human structures. This raises important concerns about AI's potential role in the growing crisis of fact in the public forum. Moreover, this innovation is developed to find out and make certain choices autonomously, adjusting to new circumstances and providing solutions not predicted by its programmers, and therefore, it raises fundamental concerns about ethical obligation and human security, with more comprehensive ramifications for society as a whole. This new scenario has actually prompted lots of people to show on what it suggests to be human and the role of humanity in the world.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad consensus that AI marks a new and considerable phase in humankind's engagement with technology, placing it at the heart of what Pope Francis has actually explained as an "epochal change." [2] Its effect is felt worldwide and in a wide range of locations, including interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, healthcare, law, warfare, and global relations. As AI advances rapidly toward even higher accomplishments, it is critically important to consider its anthropological and ethical implications. This includes not just mitigating risks and avoiding damage but also ensuring that its applications are utilized to promote human progress and the typical good.

5. To contribute positively to the discernment concerning AI, and in response to Pope Francis' call for a renewed "knowledge of heart," [3] the Church uses its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active function in the worldwide discussion on these problems, the Church invites those turned over with sending the faith-including parents, instructors, pastors, and bishops-to commit themselves to this vital subject with care and attention. While this document is meant specifically for them, it is also meant to be available to a more comprehensive audience, particularly those who share the conviction that scientific and technological advances need to be directed toward serving the human person and the typical good. [4]
6. To this end, the file starts by identifying between principles of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then explores the Christian understanding of human intelligence, offering a structure rooted in the Church's philosophical and theological custom. Finally, the file provides guidelines to make sure that the advancement and use of AI maintain human self-respect and promote the important advancement of the human individual and society.

7. The concept of "intelligence" in AI has actually progressed gradually, drawing on a series of concepts from different disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a considerable turning point occurred in 1956 when the American computer system scientist John McCarthy arranged a summertime workshop at Dartmouth University to check out the issue of "Artificial Intelligence," which he specified as "that of making a maker behave in methods that would be called smart if a human were so acting." [5] This workshop released a research program concentrated on designing machines capable of carrying out jobs normally connected with the human intelligence and intelligent habits.

8. Ever since, AI research has actually advanced rapidly, causing the development of complex systems efficient in performing extremely sophisticated jobs. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are normally created to handle particular and minimal functions, such as equating languages, forecasting the trajectory of a storm, classifying images, responding to questions, or creating visual content at the user's request. While the definition of "intelligence" in AI research study differs, the majority of contemporary AI systems-particularly those utilizing machine learning-rely on statistical reasoning rather than sensible reduction. By evaluating large datasets to identify patterns, AI can "anticipate" [7] outcomes and propose brand-new methods, simulating some cognitive processes typical of human analytical. Such accomplishments have actually been made possible through advances in computing technology (including neural networks, unsupervised artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) as well as hardware developments (such as specialized processors). Together, these technologies enable AI systems to react to various forms of human input, adapt to brand-new scenarios, and even suggest unique services not prepared for by their initial programmers. [8]
9. Due to these rapid developments, numerous tasks when handled exclusively by humans are now entrusted to AI. These systems can augment and even supersede what human beings are able to carry out in many fields, especially in specialized areas such as information analysis, image acknowledgment, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is created for a particular task, numerous scientists aim to develop what is referred to as "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system efficient in operating across all cognitive domains and performing any job within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI could one day attain the state of "superintelligence," exceeding human intellectual capacities, or add to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, however, fear that these possibilities, even if theoretical, could one day eclipse the human individual, while still others welcome this possible change. [9]
10. Underlying this and numerous other viewpoints on the subject is the implicit presumption that the term "intelligence" can be utilized in the exact same way to refer to both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not capture the full scope of the concept. In the case of human beings, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the individual in his/her totality, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is comprehended functionally, frequently with the anticipation that the activities quality of the human mind can be broken down into digitized steps that devices can duplicate. [10]
11. This practical viewpoint is exhibited by the "Turing Test," which considers a device "smart" if a person can not distinguish its habits from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "behavior" refers just to the efficiency of particular intellectual tasks; it does not account for the complete breadth of human experience, that includes abstraction, feelings, creativity, and the visual, ethical, and spiritual sensibilities. Nor does it encompass the full variety of expressions characteristic of the human mind. Instead, when it comes to AI, the "intelligence" of a system is evaluated methodologically, however also reductively, based upon its ability to produce suitable responses-in this case, those connected with the human intellect-regardless of how those actions are produced.

12. AI's advanced functions provide it sophisticated capabilities to perform jobs, however not the capability to believe. [12] This difference is crucially important, as the method "intelligence" is specified undoubtedly shapes how we understand the relationship between human idea and this innovation. [13] To appreciate this, one must recall the richness of the philosophical custom and Christian faith, which provide a much deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's teaching on the nature, dignity, and vocation of the human individual. [14]
13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has actually played a main function in understanding what it indicates to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all people by nature desire to understand." [15] This understanding, with its capacity for abstraction that comprehends the nature and significance of things, sets humans apart from the animal world. [16] As thinkers, theologians, and psychologists have actually examined the specific nature of this intellectual faculty, they have likewise explored how human beings understand 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 often comprehended through the complementary concepts of "reason" (ratio) and "intellect" (intellectus). These are not separate faculties however, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are 2 modes in which the very same intelligence operates: "The term intellect is inferred from the inward grasp of the reality, while the name reason is taken from the inquisitive and discursive process." [18] This concise description highlights the two basic and complementary measurements of human intelligence. Intellectus refers to the instinctive grasp of the truth-that is, capturing it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and premises argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to reasoning correct: the discursive, analytical process that causes judgment. Together, intellect and reason form the two elements of the act of intelligere, "the appropriate operation of the human being as such." [19]
15. Explaining the human individual as a "logical" being does not reduce the individual to a particular mode of thought; rather, it acknowledges that the ability for intellectual understanding shapes and permeates all aspects of human activity. [20] Whether exercised well or inadequately, this capability is an intrinsic element of human nature. In this sense, the "term 'reasonable' encompasses all the capacities of the human individual," consisting of those related to "understanding and comprehending, as well as those of ready, caring, picking, and desiring; it likewise includes all corporeal functions carefully related to these capabilities." [21] This detailed viewpoint underscores how, in the human individual, created in the "image of God," reason is integrated in such a way that raises, shapes, and changes 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 views the human being as basically embodied. In the human individual, spirit and matter "are not two natures joined, however rather their union forms a single nature." [23] To put it simply, the soul is not simply the immaterial "part" of the individual contained within the body, nor is the body an external shell housing an intangible "core." Rather, the entire human person is simultaneously both material and spiritual. This understanding reflects the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which views the human person as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and thus, an authentically spiritual dimension) within and through this embodied existence. [24] The extensive significance of this condition is additional illuminated by the secret of the Incarnation, through which God himself took on our flesh and "raised it up to a superb dignity." [25]
17. Although deeply rooted in bodily presence, the human person transcends the material world through the soul, which is "almost on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intelligence's capability for transcendence and the self-possessed freedom of the will come from the soul, by which the human person "shares in the light of the divine mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its typical mode of understanding without the body. [28] In this method, the intellectual professors of the human person are an important part of an anthropology that acknowledges that the human individual is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further elements of this understanding will be established in what follows.

18. Human beings are "ordered by their very nature to interpersonal communion," [30] possessing the capacity to know one another, to provide themselves in love, and to participate in communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not a separated professors however is worked out in relationships, discovering its max expression in dialogue, collaboration, and uniformity. We find out with others, and we discover through others.

19. The relational orientation of the human individual is eventually grounded in the eternal self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is revealed in development and redemption. [31] The human individual is "called to share, by understanding and love, in God's own life." [32]
20. This vocation to communion with God is always connected to the call to communion with others. Love of God can not be separated from love for one's neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20; Mt. 22:37 -39). By the grace of sharing God's life, Christians are likewise called to imitate 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 actually liked you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the magnificent life of self-giving, transcend self-interest to respond more completely to the human occupation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Even more sublime than understanding many things is the commitment to care for 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 gift fashioned for the assimilation of reality." [34] In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it makes it possible for the individual to explore truths that go beyond mere sensory experience or energy, considering that "the desire for fact belongs to human nature itself. It is a natural residential or commercial property of human factor to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limitations of empirical data, human intelligence can "with real certitude attain to reality itself as knowable." [36] While reality remains just partly understood, the desire for truth "spurs factor constantly to go further; certainly, it is as if factor were overwhelmed to see that it can always exceed what it has currently attained." [37] Although Truth in itself goes beyond the borders of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this tourist attraction, the human person is caused seek "facts of a higher order." [39]
22. This innate drive toward the pursuit of reality is specifically evident in the noticeably human capacities 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 truth is necessary for charity to be both authentic and universal. [42]
23. The look for truth finds its greatest expression in openness to realities that transcend the physical and developed world. In God, all realities attain their ultimate and initial significance. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "basic choice that engages the whole individual." [44] In this method, the human individual becomes completely what she or he is contacted us to be: "the intellect and the will display their spiritual nature," allowing the individual "to act in a way that realizes personal liberty to the complete." [45]
24. The Christian faith understands production as the free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, produces "not to increase his magnificence, but to show it forth and to interact it." [46] Since God develops according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), creation is imbued with an intrinsic order that shows God's strategy (cf. Gen. 1; Dan. 2:21 -22; Is. 45:18; Ps. 74:12 -17; 104), [47] within which God has actually called people to presume a special role: to cultivate and care for the world. [48]
25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, people live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and abilities to care for and establish production in accord with God's strategy. [49] In this, human intelligence reflects the Divine Intelligence that produced all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] constantly sustains them, and guides them to their ultimate purpose in him. [51] Moreover, people are contacted us to establish their capabilities in science and technology, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in an appropriate relationship with development, humans, on the one hand, use their intelligence and skill to comply with God in guiding production towards the purpose to which he has called it. [52] On the other hand, production itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, assists the human mind to "ascend gradually to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]
26. In this context, human intelligence becomes more plainly understood as a faculty that forms an integral part of how the whole individual engages with reality. Authentic engagement needs accepting the full scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with truth unfolds in numerous ways, as everyone, in his/her complex individuality [54], looks for to understand the world, associate with others, fix issues, reveal imagination, and pursue essential well-being through the unified interaction of the different dimensions of the individual's intelligence. [55] This involves rational and linguistic capabilities but can likewise include other modes of interacting with truth. Consider the work of an artisan, who "should understand how to discern, in inert matter, a specific type that others can not acknowledge" [56] and bring it forth through insight and useful ability. Indigenous individuals who live near the earth often possess a profound sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a good friend who understands the ideal word to say or a person proficient at managing human relationships exhibits an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, dialogue and generous encounter between persons." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of expert system, 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 combination of reality into the ethical and spiritual life of the person, guiding his or her actions in light of God's goodness and reality. According to God's strategy, intelligence, in its fullest sense, also includes the ability to appreciate what is real, great, and stunning. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel expressed, "intelligence is nothing without pleasure." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the highest heaven in Paradiso, affirms that the conclusion of this intellectual pleasure is discovered in the "light intellectual loaded with love, love of real great filled with joy, joy which transcends every sweetness." [61]
29. An appropriate understanding of human intelligence, for that reason, can not be reduced to the simple acquisition of truths or the capability to perform specific jobs. Instead, it includes the person's openness to the ultimate questions of life and shows an orientation toward the True and the Good. [62] As an expression of the divine image within the person, 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 comprehended. For believers, this capability includes, in a specific way, the capability to grow in the understanding of the secrets of God by utilizing reason to engage ever more profoundly with exposed realities (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is formed by magnificent love, which "is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence possesses a vital contemplative measurement, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian purpose.

30. Due to the foregoing discussion, the differences between human intelligence and current AI systems become obvious. While AI is a remarkable technological accomplishment efficient in imitating certain outputs associated with human intelligence, it runs by carrying out tasks, attaining goals, or making choices based upon quantitative data and computational reasoning. For instance, with its analytical power, AI stands out at incorporating information from a range of fields, modeling complex systems, and promoting interdisciplinary connections. In this way, it can help specialists collaborate in resolving complicated issues that "can not be handled from a single point of view or from a single set of interests." [64]
31. However, even as AI procedures and simulates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains fundamentally restricted to a logical-mathematical structure, which enforces fundamental constraints. Human intelligence, in contrast, establishes organically throughout the person's physical and psychological growth, formed 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 essentially different from the developmental development of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, consisting of sensory input, psychological reactions, social interactions, and the special context of each minute. These elements shape and kind people within their individual history.In contrast, AI, doing not have a physique, relies on computational thinking and knowing based on vast datasets that consist of taped human experiences and understanding.

32. Consequently, although AI can mimic elements of human thinking and perform particular tasks with extraordinary speed and effectiveness, its computational capabilities represent just a portion of the more comprehensive capacities of the human mind. For example, AI can not currently reproduce ethical discernment or the capability to develop genuine relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is situated within a personally lived history of intellectual and ethical development that basically shapes the person's perspective, including the physical, emotional, social, ethical, and spiritual measurements of life. Since AI can not provide this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely exclusively on this technology or treat it as the main ways of interpreting the world can cause "a loss of appreciation for the entire, for the relationships in between things, and for the broader horizon." [65]
33. Human intelligence is not mainly about finishing functional jobs but about understanding and actively engaging with truth in all its measurements; it is likewise capable of surprising 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 seemingly limitless-are incomparable with the human ability to understand truth. A lot can be gained from a health problem, a welcome of reconciliation, and even a simple sunset; certainly, numerous experiences we have as people open new horizons and provide the possibility of attaining new wisdom. No gadget, working entirely with information, can determine up to these and countless other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an excessively close equivalence in between human intelligence and AI dangers catching a functionalist viewpoint, where individuals are valued based upon the work they can carry out. However, a person's worth does not depend on having particular abilities, cognitive and technological achievements, or specific success, but on the person's inherent dignity, grounded in being created in the image of God. [66] This self-respect remains intact in all situations, consisting of for those not able to exercise their abilities, whether it be an unborn kid, an unconscious person, or an older person who is suffering. [67] It also underpins the tradition of human rights (and, in specific, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "a crucial point of convergence in the look for common ground" [68] and can, thus, function as a fundamental ethical guide in conversations on the responsible development and usage of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the extremely usage of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can show misleading" [69] and threats ignoring what is most precious in the human individual. Due to this, AI must not be seen as an artificial type of human intelligence but as an item of it. [70]
36. Given these factors to consider, one can ask how AI can be comprehended within God's plan. To address this, it is crucial to recall that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character however is a human undertaking that engages the humanistic and cultural measurements of human imagination. [71]
37. Seen as a fruit of the potential engraved within human intelligence, [72] scientific query and the development of technical abilities belong to the "collaboration of males and female with God in refining the noticeable development." [73] At the very same time, all scientific and technological achievements are, ultimately, gifts from God. [74] Therefore, humans need to constantly utilize their abilities in view of the greater purpose for which God has approved them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has actually "fixed numerous evils which utilized to hurt and limit human beings," [76] a fact for which we must rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological advancements in themselves represent real human progress. [77] The Church is especially opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the self-respect of the human individual. [78] Like any human undertaking, technological development needs to be directed to serve the human individual and contribute to the pursuit of "greater justice, more comprehensive fraternity, and a more gentle order of social relations," which are "better than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical implications of technological advancement are shared not just within the Church but also amongst numerous scientists, technologists, and expert associations, who significantly require ethical reflection to direct this development in an accountable method.

39. To attend to these obstacles, it is vital to emphasize the significance of ethical duty grounded in the self-respect and occupation of the human individual. This guiding principle also uses to concerns worrying AI. In this context, the ethical measurement handles main value since it is people who create systems and figure out the functions for which they are utilized. [80] Between a machine and a person, surgiteams.com just the latter is really a moral agent-a topic of ethical duty who works out flexibility in his or her decisions and accepts their consequences. [81] It is not the device but the human who remains in relationship with fact and goodness, guided by an ethical conscience that calls the person "to enjoy and to do what is great and to avoid wicked," [82] bearing witness to "the authority of reality in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn." [83] Likewise, in between a maker and a human, just the human can be sufficiently self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of conscience, discerning with vigilance, and looking for the great that is possible in every situation. [84] In truth, all of this likewise belongs to the individual's exercise of intelligence.

40. Like any product of human creativity, AI can be directed toward favorable or unfavorable ends. [85] When used in methods that appreciate human dignity and promote the well-being of people and communities, it can contribute favorably to the human vocation. Yet, as in all locations where humans are called to make choices, the shadow of evil likewise looms here. Where human freedom allows for the possibility of choosing what is incorrect, the ethical examination of this technology will need to take into account how it is directed and utilized.

41. At the same time, it is not only completions that are fairly significant however also the ways utilized to attain them. Additionally, the total vision and understanding of the human person ingrained within these systems are necessary to think about also. Technological products show the worldview of their designers, owners, users, and regulators, [86] and have the power to "shape the world and engage consciences on the level of worths." [87] On a social level, some technological developments could likewise reinforce relationships and power dynamics that are inconsistent with a proper understanding of the human person and society.

42. Therefore, the ends and the means used in a given application of AI, in addition to the total vision it incorporates, should all be evaluated to ensure they respect human dignity and promote the typical good. [88] As Pope Francis has actually specified, "the intrinsic dignity of every man and every woman" need to be "the crucial criterion in assessing emerging innovations; these will prove fairly sound to the level that they assist respect that dignity and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] including in the social and financial spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays a crucial function not only in designing and producing technology but also in directing its use in line with the genuine good of the human individual. [90] The obligation for managing this sensibly pertains to every level of society, assisted by the principle of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The dedication to ensuring that AI always supports and promotes the supreme worth of the self-respect of every person and the fullness of the human occupation functions as a requirement of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, along with to its users. It remains valid for every application of the technology at every level of its use.

44. An evaluation of the implications of this assisting concept could start by considering the value of moral responsibility. Since complete moral causality belongs just to individual agents, not artificial ones, it is essential to be able to identify and specify who bears responsibility for the procedures associated with AI, particularly those capable of discovering, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up approaches and really deep neural networks enable AI to resolve complex problems, they make it hard to comprehend the processes that cause the services they adopted. This complicates responsibility considering that if an AI application produces undesired outcomes, identifying who is accountable ends up being tough. To resolve this problem, attention requires to be offered to the nature of accountability processes in complex, highly automated settings, where results may only become apparent in the medium to long term. For this, it is very important that ultimate obligation for choices used AI rests with the human decision-makers and that there is responsibility for the use of AI at each stage of the decision-making process. [91]
45. In addition to identifying who is accountable, it is necessary to determine the objectives offered to AI systems. Although these systems may utilize without supervision autonomous knowing systems and sometimes follow courses that human beings can not reconstruct, they eventually pursue goals that human beings have actually appointed to them and are governed by processes established by their designers and developers. Yet, this presents a challenge due to the fact that, as AI models end up being increasingly efficient in independent knowing, the capability to maintain control over them to make sure that such applications serve human functions might successfully decrease. This raises the crucial concern of how to ensure that AI systems are bought for the good of people and not against them.

46. While duty for the ethical use of AI systems begins with those who establish, produce, handle, and oversee such systems, it is also shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis kept in mind, the machine "makes a technical option among a number of possibilities based either on distinct criteria or on analytical reasonings. Humans, nevertheless, not just choose, but in their hearts can choosing." [92] Those who use AI to achieve a task and follow its outcomes produce a context in which they are eventually accountable for the power they have entrusted. Therefore, insofar as AI can help people in making choices, the algorithms that govern it ought to be reliable, secure, robust enough to deal with disparities, and transparent in their operation to alleviate predispositions and unintended side impacts. [93] Regulatory frameworks need to make sure that all legal entities remain liable for using AI and all its repercussions, with suitable safeguards for transparency, personal privacy, and accountability. [94] Moreover, those using AI needs to beware not to end up being excessively depending on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases contemporary society's currently high dependence on innovation.

47. The Church's ethical and social teaching offers resources to help ensure that AI is utilized in such a way that maintains human firm. Considerations about justice, for instance, ought to also resolve concerns such as cultivating just social dynamics, maintaining global security, and promoting peace. By exercising vigilance, individuals and neighborhoods can recognize methods to utilize AI to benefit humanity while avoiding applications that could break down human dignity or harm the environment. In this context, the idea of duty ought to be comprehended not only in its most restricted sense however as a "obligation for the care for others, which is more than just representing outcomes attained." [95]
48. Therefore, AI, like any innovation, can be part of a conscious and accountable response to mankind's vocation to the excellent. However, as formerly gone over, AI needs to be directed by human intelligence to align with this occupation, guaranteeing it appreciates the dignity of the human person. Recognizing this "exalted dignity," the Second Vatican Council that "the social order and its development must usually work to the advantage of the human individual." [96] Because of this, making use of AI, as Pope Francis said, need to be "accompanied by an ethic inspired by a vision of the common great, a principles of flexibility, responsibility, and fraternity, capable of fostering the complete development of people in relation to others and to the entire of creation." [97]
49. Within this general perspective, some observations follow below to highlight how the preceding arguments can help provide an ethical orientation in practical scenarios, in line with the "wisdom of heart" that Pope Francis has actually proposed. [98] While not exhaustive, this conversation is used in service of the discussion that thinks about how AI can be utilized to maintain the self-respect of the human person and promote the typical good. [99]
50. As Pope Francis observed, "the intrinsic dignity of each human being and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human household need to support the development of brand-new technologies and serve as unassailable requirements for assessing them before they are used." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI could "present important innovations in farming, education and culture, an enhanced level of life for whole nations and individuals, and the development of human fraternity and social friendship," and thus be "used to promote essential human advancement." [101] AI might likewise assist organizations identify those in need and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other comparable applications of this innovation could contribute to human development and the common good. [102]
52. However, while AI holds many possibilities for promoting the great, it can also hinder or even counter human development and the typical good. Pope Francis has kept in mind that "proof to date suggests that digital technologies have actually increased inequality in our world. Not simply distinctions in product wealth, which are likewise substantial, however also distinctions in access to political and social influence." [103] In this sense, AI might be utilized to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, create new kinds of poverty, widen the "digital divide," and worsen existing social inequalities. [104]
53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a couple of powerful business raises substantial ethical issues. Exacerbating this problem is the fundamental nature of AI systems, where no single person can work out complete oversight over the vast and complex datasets used for computation. This absence of well-defined accountability produces the threat that AI could be controlled for personal or corporate gain or to direct popular opinion for the advantage of a specific industry. Such entities, motivated by their own interests, possess the capability to work out "kinds of control as subtle as they are invasive, producing systems for the control of consciences and of the democratic procedure." [105]
54. Furthermore, there is the threat 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 ways alone. [106] In this paradigm, human dignity and fraternity are typically reserved in the name of efficiency, "as if reality, goodness, and reality immediately stream from technological and economic power as such." [107] Yet, human dignity and the common good should never be violated for the sake of performance, [108] for "technological advancements that do not cause an enhancement in the quality of life of all humankind, but on the contrary, intensify inequalities and disputes, can never count as true development. " [109] Instead, AI must be put "at the service of another type of development, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral." [110]
55. Attaining this goal requires a deeper reflection on the relationship between autonomy and obligation. Greater autonomy heightens each individual's responsibility throughout different elements of communal life. For Christians, the structure of this duty depends on the recognition that all human capabilities, including the person's autonomy, come from God and are implied to be used in the service of others. [111] Therefore, instead of simply pursuing economic or technological objectives, AI should serve "the typical good of the entire human household," which is "the sum total of social conditions that permit people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily." [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 underscores that residing in society is intrinsic to the nature and occupation of the human person. [114] As social beings, we look for relationships that involve mutual exchange and elearnportal.science the pursuit of fact, in the course of which, people "share with each other the truth they have actually found, or think they have actually discovered, in such a method that they assist one another in the look for fact." [115]
57. Such a mission, together with other aspects of human communication, presupposes encounters and mutual exchange in between people shaped by their unique histories, ideas, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a varied, diverse, and intricate truth: individual and social, reasonable and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis highlights this dynamic, noting that "together, we can look for the truth in dialogue, in relaxed discussion or in enthusiastic dispute. To do so requires determination; it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently accept the broader experience of people and peoples. [...] The procedure of building fraternity, be it local or universal, can only be carried out by spirits that are free and available to genuine encounters." [116]
58. It remains in this context that one can think about the obstacles AI postures to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the prospective to foster connections within the human household. However, it might also hinder a true encounter with reality and, eventually, lead people to "a deep and melancholic discontentment with social relations, or a hazardous sense of seclusion." [117] Authentic human relationships need the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their joy. [118] Since human intelligence is expressed and enriched also in interpersonal and embodied ways, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are vital for engaging with truth in its fullness.

59. Because "real wisdom requires an encounter with reality," [119] the increase of AI presents another difficulty. Since AI can successfully imitate the items of human intelligence, the capability to know when one is communicating with a human or a device can no longer be taken for granted. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other innovative outputs that are usually connected with people. Yet, it must be comprehended for what it is: a tool, not an individual. [120] This distinction is often obscured by the language used by specialists, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and therefore blurs the line between human and maker.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI also positions specific obstacles for the advancement of kids, possibly encouraging them to establish patterns of interaction that deal with human relationships in a transactional manner, as one would relate to a chatbot. Such routines might lead youths to see teachers as simple dispensers of details instead of as mentors who direct and nurture their intellectual and ethical growth. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and an unfaltering commitment to the good of the other, are important and irreplaceable in fostering the complete advancement of the human person.

61. In this context, it is important to clarify that, in spite of using anthropomorphic language, no AI application can really experience empathy. Emotions can not be reduced to facial expressions or phrases created in response to triggers; they reflect the way a person, as a whole, associates with the world and to his or her own life, with the body playing a main function. True compassion needs the ability to listen, recognize another's irreducible individuality, invite their otherness, and comprehend the significance behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the world of analytical judgment in which AI excels, true empathy belongs to the relational sphere. It involves intuiting and nabbing the lived experiences of another while maintaining the difference between self and other. [122] While AI can simulate empathetic actions, it can not duplicate the incomparably individual and relational nature of authentic empathy. [123]
62. Because of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as an individual should always be prevented; doing so for deceitful functions is a severe ethical infraction that might wear down social trust. Similarly, using AI to trick in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, including the sphere of sexuality-is also to be thought about unethical and needs mindful oversight to prevent damage, maintain transparency, and ensure the dignity of all individuals. [124]
63. In an increasingly separated world, some individuals have actually turned to AI in search of deep human relationships, basic companionship, or perhaps psychological bonds. However, while humans are meant to experience genuine relationships, AI can only imitate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an integral part of how a person grows to become who she or he is implied to be. If AI is utilized to help individuals foster real connections in between individuals, it can contribute positively to the complete realization of the individual. Conversely, if we change relationships with God and with others with interactions with technology, we run the risk of changing authentic relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of retreating into artificial worlds, we are called to take part in a committed and intentional way with truth, specifically by identifying 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 increasingly incorporated into financial and monetary systems. Significant investments are presently being made not just in the innovation sector however also in energy, financing, and media, especially in the areas of marketing and sales, logistics, technological development, compliance, and danger management. At the same time, AI's applications in these areas have actually also highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of tremendous chances but likewise extensive risks. A first genuine crucial point in this location worries the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a couple of corporations-only those large business would gain from the worth created by AI rather than business that utilize it.

65. Other wider elements of AI's effect on the economic-financial sphere must also be thoroughly examined, especially concerning the interaction between concrete truth and the digital world. One important consideration in this regard involves the coexistence of varied and alternative types of financial and banks within a provided context. This aspect must be motivated, as it can bring advantages in how it supports the real economy by promoting its development and stability, specifically throughout times of crisis. Nevertheless, it must be stressed that digital truths, not limited by any spatial bonds, tend to be more uniform and impersonal than communities rooted in a specific place and a particular history, with a typical journey identified by shared worths and hopes, but also by inescapable disagreements and divergences. This diversity is an indisputable asset to a community's economic life. Turning over the economy and financing entirely to digital technology would decrease this variety and richness. As a result, lots of options to economic problems that can be reached through natural discussion in between the included celebrations may no longer be attainable in a world controlled by procedures and just the appearance of proximity.

66. Another location where AI is already having a profound impact is the world of work. As in many other fields, AI is driving essential improvements throughout numerous professions, with a series of effects. On the one hand, it has the prospective to boost knowledge and productivity, develop new tasks, enable employees to concentrate on more ingenious jobs, and open new horizons for imagination and development.

67. However, while AI guarantees to enhance performance by taking control of ordinary tasks, it regularly requires workers to adapt to the speed and needs of devices rather than makers being created to support those who work. As an outcome, contrary to the marketed advantages of AI, current approaches to the technology can paradoxically deskill workers, subject them to automated security, and relegate them to stiff and repeated tasks. The need to stay up to date with the speed of technology can erode employees' sense of agency and suppress the innovative abilities they are expected to bring to their work. [125]
68. AI is currently removing the requirement for some jobs that were as soon as carried out by human beings. If AI is utilized to replace human workers rather than match them, there is a "considerable risk of disproportionate advantage for the couple of at the cost of the impoverishment of numerous." [126] Additionally, as AI becomes more powerful, there is an involved risk that human labor may lose its worth in the financial realm. This is the rational consequence of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humankind oppressed to performance, where, eventually, the expense of humanity must be cut. Yet, human lives are fundamentally important, independent of their financial output. Nevertheless, the "existing model," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to favor an investment in efforts to help the sluggish, the weak, or the less skilled to discover opportunities in life." [127] Due to this, "we can not allow a tool as effective and essential as Artificial Intelligence to reinforce such a paradigm, however rather, we should make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its expansion." [128]
69. It is very important to keep in mind that "the order of things should be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around." [129] Human work needs to not just be at the service of profit but at "the service of the entire human individual [...] considering the person's product requirements and the requirements of his/her intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and religious life." [130] In this context, the Church recognizes that work is "not just a method of making one's daily bread" but is likewise "a vital dimension of social life" and "a method [...] of personal growth, the structure of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of gifts. Work offers us a sense of shared duty for the advancement of the world, and ultimately, for our life as a people." [131]
70. Since work is a "part of the meaning of life on this earth, a course to development, human development and personal satisfaction," "the objective needs to not be that technological progress significantly changes human work, for this would be damaging to mankind" [132] -rather, it must promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI ought to help, not change, human judgment. Similarly, it must never ever degrade imagination or lower workers to mere "cogs in a device." Therefore, "regard for the dignity of laborers and the significance of work for the economic well-being of individuals, families, and societies, for task security and just incomes, ought to be a high top priority for the worldwide neighborhood as these kinds of technology permeate more deeply into our offices." [133]
71. As individuals in God's recovery work, health care specialists have the vocation and obligation to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the health care occupation carries an "intrinsic and undeniable ethical measurement," acknowledged by the Hippocratic Oath, which requires doctors and health care professionals to dedicate themselves to having "absolute regard for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Do-gooder, this dedication is to be performed by males and females "who reject the creation of a society of exemption, and act instead as neighbors, raising up and fixing up the succumbed to 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 helping the diagnostic work of health care providers, facilitating relationships between patients and medical personnel, providing new treatments, and broadening access to quality care also for those who are isolated or marginalized. In these methods, the technology might boost the "caring and loving closeness" [137] that doctor are called to encompass the sick and suffering.

73. However, if AI is used not to improve but to replace the relationship between patients and health care providers-leaving patients to engage with a device instead of a human being-it would minimize a most importantly crucial human relational structure to a centralized, impersonal, and unequal structure. Instead of encouraging solidarity with the sick and suffering, such applications of AI would run the risk of intensifying the solitude that frequently accompanies illness, particularly in the context of a culture where "individuals are no longer seen as a critical value to be taken care of and appreciated." [138] This abuse of AI would not align with respect for the self-respect of the human individual and uniformity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the well-being of clients and the decisions that touch upon their lives are at the heart of the health care occupation. This accountability needs physician to exercise all their ability and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded choices concerning those turned over to their care, constantly appreciating the inviolable dignity of the patients and the requirement for notified authorization. As an outcome, choices concerning patient treatment and the weight of responsibility they entail must constantly remain with the human person and must never be entrusted to AI. [139]
75. In addition, using AI to identify who need to receive treatment based mainly on economic procedures or metrics of efficiency represents a particularly bothersome circumstances of the "technocratic paradigm" that should be turned down. [140] For, "optimizing resources suggests using them in an ethical and fraternal method, and not penalizing the most delicate." [141] Additionally, AI tools in health care are "exposed to types of bias and discrimination," where "systemic mistakes can easily increase, producing not just oppressions in specific cases however also, due to the domino result, genuine types of social inequality." [142]
76. The combination of AI into health care likewise presents the danger of magnifying other existing variations in access to healthcare. As healthcare becomes increasingly oriented towards avoidance and lifestyle-based techniques, AI-driven options may inadvertently favor more affluent populations who already delight in much better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This pattern dangers reinforcing a "medication for the rich" design, where those with monetary methods gain from innovative preventative tools and customized health details while others battle to gain access to even standard services. To prevent such injustices, fair frameworks are needed to ensure that the use of AI in health care does not get worse existing health care inequalities but rather serves the typical good.

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

78. This technique involves a commitment to cultivating the mind, however constantly as a part of the integral development of the person: "We need to break that concept of education which holds that informing ways filling one's head with ideas. That is the method we educate automatons, cerebral minds, not people. Educating is taking a threat in the stress 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 indispensable relationship between teacher and trainee. Teachers do more than convey understanding; they model necessary human qualities and influence the happiness of discovery. [146] Their existence encourages trainees both through the material they teach and the care they show for their trainees. This bond fosters trust, good understanding, and the capability to address each individual's distinct self-respect and potential. On the part of the trainee, this can create a genuine desire to grow. The physical existence of a teacher produces a relational dynamic that AI can not replicate, one that deepens engagement and supports the trainee's integral advancement.

80. In this context, AI provides both chances and difficulties. If used in a prudent way, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and purchased to the authentic goals of education, AI can end up being an important academic resource by enhancing access to education, providing tailored support, and supplying immediate feedback to trainees. These advantages might boost the knowing experience, especially in cases where customized attention is needed, or educational resources are otherwise limited.

81. Nevertheless, a vital part of education is forming "the intellect to factor well in all matters, to connect towards fact, 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 even more crucial in an age marked by innovation, in which "it is no longer merely a question of 'utilizing' instruments of interaction, but of residing in a highly digitalized culture that has actually had a profound effect on [...] our capability to communicate, find out, be informed 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 occupation that it carries out," [150] the extensive use of AI in education could cause the trainees' increased dependence on innovation, deteriorating their ability to perform some skills separately and aggravating their reliance on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are developed to help individuals develop their critical thinking abilities and problem-solving skills, numerous others simply supply answers rather of triggering trainees to reach responses themselves or compose text for themselves. [152] Instead of training young people how to accumulate details and create quick reactions, education needs to motivate "the accountable usage of flexibility to face problems with excellent sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in using types of synthetic intelligence ought to aim above all at promoting vital thinking. Users of any ages, but especially the young, need to develop a critical approach to the usage of information and content gathered on the internet or produced by expert system systems. Schools, universities, and scientific societies are challenged to help trainees and specialists to understand the social and ethical aspects of the development and usages of innovation." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II recalled, "on the planet today, identified by such fast developments in science and technology, the jobs of a Catholic University presume an ever greater importance and seriousness." [155] In a specific method, Catholic universities are prompted to be present as excellent laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary key, they are advised to engage "with knowledge and creativity" [156] in careful research on this phenomenon, assisting to draw out the salutary capacity within the various fields of science and truth, and directing them constantly towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the typical great, reaching new frontiers in the dialogue in between faith and factor.

84. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that present AI programs have actually been known to provide prejudiced or fabricated details, which can lead trainees to rely on incorrect content. This problem "not just risks of legitimizing phony news and reinforcing a dominant culture's benefit, but, simply put, it likewise undermines the instructional process itself." [157] With time, clearer differences may emerge in between correct and improper usages of AI in education and research. Yet, a definitive standard is that making use of AI need to always be transparent and never misrepresented.

85. AI could be used as an aid to human self-respect if it helps people understand intricate concepts or directs them to sound resources that support their look for the truth. [158]
86. However, AI likewise provides a major danger of generating manipulated material and false details, which can easily misguide people due to its similarity to the fact. Such false information may occur unintentionally, as in the case of AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear real however are not. Since generating material that simulates human artifacts is main to AI's performance, reducing these threats proves challenging. Yet, the effects of such aberrations and false details can be rather severe. For this factor, all those involved in producing and utilizing AI systems need to be committed to the truthfulness and accuracy of the details processed by such systems and disseminated to the public.

87. While AI has a latent capacity to generate incorrect details, an even more troubling problem lies in the purposeful misuse of AI for control. This can happen when people or companies deliberately produce and spread false material with the aim to trick or trigger harm, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to a false depiction of a person, modified or produced by an AI algorithm. The threat of deepfakes is particularly obvious when they are utilized to target or harm others. While the images or videos themselves might be synthetic, the damage they cause is real, leaving "deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it" and "real wounds in their human self-respect." [159]
88. On a wider scale, by distorting "our relationship with others and with reality," [160] AI-generated fake media can gradually undermine the foundations of society. This issue needs mindful guideline, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or affected media-can spread accidentally, sustaining political polarization and social unrest. When society becomes indifferent to the truth, different groups construct their own versions of "truths," compromising the "reciprocal ties and mutual reliances" [161] that underpin the material of social life. As deepfakes trigger people to question whatever and AI-generated incorrect content deteriorates trust in what they see and hear, polarization and conflict will only grow. Such widespread deception is no insignificant matter; it strikes at the core of mankind, dismantling the foundational trust on which societies are constructed. [162]
89. Countering AI-driven fallacies is not only the work of market experts-it requires the efforts of all people of goodwill. "If technology is to serve human self-respect and not hurt it, and if it is to promote peace instead of violence, then the human community should be proactive in resolving these trends with respect to human self-respect and the promotion of the excellent." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated material ought to constantly exercise diligence in verifying the truth of what they disseminate and, in all cases, ought to "avoid the sharing of words and images that are breaking down of humans, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that make use of the weak and vulnerable." [164] This requires the continuous vigilance and mindful discernment of all users regarding their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are naturally relational, and the information everyone generates in the digital world can be viewed as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data conveys not just details but also individual and relational understanding, which, in an increasingly digitized context, can total up to power over the person. Moreover, while some types of information might pertain to public elements of an individual's life, others may discuss the individual's interiority, possibly even their conscience. Seen in this method, demo.qkseo.in privacy plays an essential role in protecting the limits of a person's inner life, maintaining their flexibility to connect to others, express themselves, and make decisions without excessive control. This defense is also connected to the defense of religious freedom, as security can likewise be misused to exert control over the lives of followers and how they express their faith.

91. It is appropriate, therefore, to attend to the concern of personal privacy from a concern for the genuine freedom and inalienable self-respect of the human individual "in all situations." [166] The Second Vatican Council consisted of the right "to secure privacy" amongst the basic rights "essential for living a really human life," a right that must be reached all individuals on account of their "sublime self-respect." [167] Furthermore, the Church has also affirmed the right to the genuine regard for a private life in the context of affirming the individual's right to a good credibility, defense of their physical and psychological stability, and flexibility from harm or undue invasion [168] -important elements 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 an individual's behavior and believing from even a little quantity of details, making the role of information personal privacy much more imperative as a secure for the self-respect and relational nature of the human individual. As Pope Francis observed, "while closed and intolerant attitudes towards others are on the increase, distances are otherwise diminishing or disappearing to the point that the right to privacy scarcely exists. Everything has actually become a sort of phenomenon to be analyzed and inspected, and people's lives are now under continuous monitoring." [170]
93. While there can be genuine and appropriate ways to utilize AI in keeping with human self-respect and the typical great, utilizing it for monitoring aimed at making use of, restricting others' flexibility, or benefitting a few at the expense of the numerous is unjustifiable. The risk of monitoring overreach need to be kept track of by appropriate regulators to guarantee transparency and public accountability. Those responsible for monitoring needs to never ever surpass their authority, which should constantly prefer the self-respect and freedom of everyone as the important basis of a just and humane society.

94. Furthermore, "basic regard for human self-respect demands that we refuse to allow the individuality of the individual to be related to a set of information." [171] This specifically uses when AI is used to evaluate people or groups based upon their habits, qualities, or history-a practice called "social scoring": "In social and economic decision-making, we must beware about entrusting judgments to algorithms that process data, often gathered surreptitiously, on an individual's makeup and previous habits. Such data can be polluted by societal prejudices and preconceptions. An individual's past behavior should not be utilized to reject him or her the opportunity to alter, grow, and contribute to society. We can not enable algorithms to limit or condition respect for human self-respect, or to omit compassion, grace, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able to alter." [172]
95. AI has numerous promising applications for enhancing our relationship with our "typical home," such as creating designs to anticipate severe environment events, proposing engineering services to lower their impact, managing relief operations, and anticipating population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable farming, optimize energy use, and supply early warning systems for public health emergency situations. These developments have the prospective to strengthen strength against climate-related challenges and promote more sustainable development.

96. At the very same time, present AI designs and the hardware needed to support them take in huge amounts of energy and water, considerably contributing to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This truth is frequently obscured by the method this innovation exists in the popular imagination, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can provide the impression that information is stored and processed in an intangible realm, detached from the physical world. However, "the cloud" is not a heavenly domain different from the real world; similar to all computing technologies, it relies on physical machines, cables, and energy. The same is real of the technology behind AI. As these systems grow in complexity, especially large language models (LLMs), they require ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and higher storage infrastructure. Considering the heavy toll these technologies handle the environment, it is crucial to establish sustainable services that lower their effect on our common home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is essential "that we try to find options not just in innovation but in a modification of humanity." [175] A total and genuine understanding of production recognizes that the worth of all produced things can not be minimized to their simple energy. Therefore, a completely human technique to the stewardship of the earth declines the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which seeks to "extract whatever possible" from the world, [176] and declines the "misconception of development," which assumes that "environmental problems will fix themselves simply with the application of new innovation and with no need for ethical considerations or deep change." [177] Such a state of mind must give method to a more holistic method that respects the order of production and promotes the integral good of the human individual while safeguarding our common home. [178]
98. The Second Vatican Council and the consistent teaching of the Popes since then have actually insisted that peace is not merely the absence of war and is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the serenity of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without safeguarding the goods of individuals, complimentary interaction, respect for the self-respect of persons and individuals, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the result of charity and can not be attained through force alone; rather, it needs to be mainly developed through patient diplomacy, the active promo of justice, uniformity, essential human advancement, and regard for the self-respect of all individuals. [180] In this method, the tools used to maintain peace needs to never be permitted to justify injustice, violence, or oppression. Instead, they must constantly be governed by a "firm determination to regard other people and nations, along with their dignity, along with the intentional practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical abilities might assist nations look for peace and ensure security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can also be highly problematic. Pope Francis has observed that "the capability to carry out military operations through remote control systems has actually resulted in a minimized perception of the destruction brought on by those weapon systems and the problem of responsibility for their usage, resulting in a much more cold and removed technique to the tremendous disaster of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which self-governing weapons make war more practical militates against the concept 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 speeding up a destabilizing arms race, with disastrous consequences for human rights. [184]
100. In particular, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which are capable of identifying and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for severe ethical issue" because they lack the "special human capacity for ethical judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this factor, Pope Francis has actually urgently called for a reconsideration of the advancement of these weapons and a restriction on their usage, starting with "a reliable and concrete dedication to present ever higher and proper human control. No maker ought to ever choose to take the life of a person." [186]
101. Since it is a small action from machines that can eliminate autonomously with accuracy to those efficient in massive destruction, some AI scientists have expressed concerns that such innovation presents an "existential threat" by having the possible to act in ways that could threaten the survival of entire areas or perhaps of mankind itself. This risk demands serious attention, showing the enduring issue about technologies that approve war "an uncontrollable harmful power over excellent numbers of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing children. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "undertake an evaluation of war with a completely brand-new attitude" [188] is more immediate than ever.

102. At the same time, while the theoretical threats of AI are worthy of attention, the more instant and pushing issue depends on how people with harmful objectives may abuse this technology. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future capabilities are unpredictable, humankind's previous actions supply clear warnings. The atrocities committed throughout history are adequate to raise deep concerns about the potential abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that "mankind now has instruments of unmatched power: we can turn this world into a garden, or decrease it to a stack of rubble." [190] Given this reality, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are complimentary to apply our intelligence towards things progressing favorably," or towards "decadence and mutual damage." [191] To avoid humanity from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there should be a clear stand against all applications of technology that inherently threaten human life and self-respect. This commitment needs mindful discernment about the usage of AI, particularly in military defense applications, to ensure that it constantly appreciates human dignity and serves the common good. The advancement and release of AI in armaments ought to undergo the highest levels of ethical analysis, governed by a concern for human dignity and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology provides impressive tools to manage and establish the world's resources. However, in some cases, humanity is progressively delivering control of these resources to devices. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, there is optimism about the potential of artificial general intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical form of AI that would match or surpass human intelligence and produce unthinkable developments. Some even speculate that AGI could attain superhuman capabilities. At the same time, as society wanders away from a connection with the transcendent, some are lured to turn to AI in search of meaning or fulfillment-longings that can just be truly satisfied in communion with God. [194]
105. However, the anticipation of substituting God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture explicitly alerts against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI might prove even more seductive than standard idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths but do not speak; eyes, however do not see; ears, however do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or at least offers the impression of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is essential to keep in mind that AI is however a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated product, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not possess many of the capabilities specific to human life, and it is also imperfect. By turning to AI as a perceived "Other" greater than itself, with which to share existence and duties, mankind dangers creating a replacement for God. However, it is not AI that is eventually deified and worshipped, but humanity itself-which, in this method, becomes enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the potential to serve mankind and add to the typical great, it remains a development of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and ingenuity" (Acts 17:29). It should never be ascribed unnecessary worth. As the Book of Wisdom verifies: "For a guy made them, and one whose spirit is obtained formed them; for no male can form a god which resembles himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is better than the items he worships considering that he has life, but they never have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. In contrast, people, "by their interior life, transcend the whole material universe; they experience this deep interiority when they get in into their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they choose their own destiny in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis advises us, that each specific finds the "mysterious connection between self-knowledge and openness to others, between the encounter with one's personal individuality and the desire to give oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "efficient in setting our other powers and passions, and our whole individual, in a position of respect and loving obedience before the Lord," [198] who "provides to treat each one people as a 'Thou,' always and forever." [199]
108. Considering the different difficulties postured by advances in innovation, Pope Francis stressed the requirement for development in "human duty, 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 broadening of duty on the part of individuals and communities." [201]
109. At the exact same time, the "vital and essential question" remains "whether in the context of this development man, as male, is ending up being genuinely much better, that is to state, more fully grown spiritually, more conscious of the dignity of his mankind, more accountable, 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 specific contexts to identify whether its use promotes human dignity, the occupation of the human person, and the typical good. Similar to lots of innovations, the results of the various usages of AI might not constantly be foreseeable from their creation. As these applications and their social effects become clearer, appropriate actions should be made at all levels of society, following the concept of subsidiarity. Individual users, households, civil society, corporations, institutions, governments, and global companies need to operate at their appropriate levels to make sure that AI is used for the good of all.

111. A considerable difficulty and chance for the typical good today depends on thinking about AI within a structure of relational intelligence, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of people and neighborhoods and highlights our shared obligation for fostering the important well-being of others. The twentieth-century thinker Nicholas Berdyaev observed that individuals often blame makers for individual and social problems; nevertheless, "this only humiliates male and does not correspond to his dignity," for "it is unworthy to move duty from male to a machine." [203] Only the human individual can be morally responsible, and the obstacles of a technological society are eventually spiritual in nature. Therefore, dealing with those obstacles "needs an increase of spirituality." [204]
112. An additional point to think about is the call, prompted by the look of AI on the world stage, for a renewed gratitude of all that is human. Years ago, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos alerted that "the threat is not in the reproduction of makers, but in the ever-increasing number of males accustomed from their youth to desire only what devices can offer." [205] This difficulty is as true today as it was then, as the fast rate of digitization risks a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable elements of life are reserved and after that forgotten and even considered unimportant because they can not be calculated in formal terms. AI ought to be utilized just as a tool to match human intelligence instead of replace its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that transcend computation is essential for maintaining "a genuine humankind" that "appears to stay in the middle of our technological culture, practically unnoticed, like a mist permeating carefully underneath a closed door." [207]
113. The huge stretch of the world's understanding is now available in ways that would have filled previous generations with awe. However, to ensure that advancements in knowledge do not become humanly or spiritually barren, one need to go beyond the simple accumulation of information and aim to attain true wisdom. [208]
114. This knowledge is the present that humankind requires most to deal with the extensive concerns and ethical challenges postured by AI: "Only by embracing a spiritual way of seeing reality, only by recuperating a wisdom of the heart, can we challenge and analyze the newness of our time." [209] Such "wisdom 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 looked for from makers," but it "lets itself be discovered by those who seek it and be seen by those who enjoy it; it anticipates those who want it, and it goes in search of those who deserve it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]
115. In a world marked by AI, we need the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "enables us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, circumstances, occasions and to discover their genuine meaning." [211]
116. Since a "person's perfection is determined not by the details or understanding they have, however by the depth of their charity," [212] how we incorporate AI "to consist of the least of our siblings and sis, the susceptible, and those most in need, will be the real step of our mankind." [213] The "knowledge of the heart" can illuminate and guide the human-centered use of this innovation to assist promote the common excellent, look after our "typical home," advance the look for the fact, foster integral human advancement, prefer human uniformity and fraternity, and lead humanity to its supreme objective: happiness and full communion with God. [214]
117. From this point of view of knowledge, believers will have the ability to function as moral representatives capable of utilizing this innovation to promote a genuine vision of the human person and society. [215] This need to be made with the understanding that technological development is part of God's prepare for creation-an activity that we are called to purchase towards the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the continuous search for the True and the Good.

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

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

Ex audientia 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 Integral Understanding of Human Intelligence

The Limits of AI

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

Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making

V. Specific Questions

AI and Society

AI and Human Relationships

AI, the Economy, and Labor

AI and Healthcare

AI and Education

AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse

AI, Privacy, and Surveillance

AI and the Protection of Our Common Home

AI and Warfare

AI and Our Relationship with God

VI. Concluding Reflections

True Wisdom

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See 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 processes of AI are used figuratively to explain its operations and are not meant to anthropomorphize the machine. [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 developments will enable people to conquer their biological constraints and enhance both their physical and cognitive capabilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, compete that such advances will ultimately modify human identity to the extent that humanity itself may no longer be thought about truly "human." Both views rest on an essentially unfavorable perception of human corporality, which deals with the body more as a barrier than as an essential part of the individual's identity and contact us to complete realization. Yet, this negative view of the body is irregular with an appropriate understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports authentic clinical development, it verifies that human dignity is rooted in "the person as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "self-respect is also inherent in each individual's body, which gets involved in its own method remaining in imago Dei" (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18). [10] This method shows a functionalist perspective, 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 genuinely smart, 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 associated to devices, it should be clarified that this describes calculative thinking rather than vital thinking. Similarly, if makers are said to operate using abstract thought, it should be defined that this is restricted to computational reasoning. On the other hand, by its very nature, human thought is an innovative process that eludes shows and goes beyond constraints. [13] On the foundational function of language in shaping understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York City 2010, 141-182). [14] For additional conversation of these anthropological and doctrinal foundations, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144. [15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I. 1, 980 a 21. [16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [faculty] by which he transcends to the unreasonable animals. Now, this [professors] is factor 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 thinking about all that they have, human beings discover that they are most distinguished from animals precisely by the reality they have intelligence." This is also reiterated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who states that "male is the most perfect of all earthly beings enhanced with motion, 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, advertisement 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a modern point of view that echoes aspects of the classical and medieval difference between these two modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York 2011. [19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp. [20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138. [21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intellect can examine the truth of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and pertain to recognize because reality, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal ethical demands." [22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp. [24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "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, but rather fully divulged its significance and worth." [26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81. [27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and for this reason it is united to the body in order that it might have an existence and an operation ideal to its nature." [29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18. [30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357. [31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54. [32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221. [33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27. [34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls likewise have factor 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 many into the one, they too, in their own fashion and as far as they can, are worthy 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 can going beyond instant issues and comprehending certain realities that are unchanging, as true now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, factor finds universal worths obtained from that very same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034. [38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last proceeding of factor is to acknowledge that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York City 1958, 77). [39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [40] Our semantic capacity allows us to understand messages in any form of interaction in a way that both takes into account and transcends their material or empirical structures (such as computer code). Here, intelligence becomes a knowledge that "enables us to look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, circumstances, occasions 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 imagination allows us to generate brand-new content or concepts, mainly by providing an initial perspective on truth. Both capacities depend upon the presence of an individual subjectivity for their complete realization. [41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. [42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a commitment to the reality, is a lot more than individual sensation [...] Certainly, its close relation to reality fosters its universality and maintains it from being 'restricted to a narrow field devoid of relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to fact thus secures it from 'a fideism that denies it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643. [43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7. [44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. [46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as priced quote in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294. [47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure likens the universe to "a book reflecting, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who gives existence to all things (Breviloquium 2.12.1). Cf. Alain de Lille, De Incarnatione Christi, PL 210, 579a: "Omnis mundi creatura quasi liber et pictura nobis est et speculum." [48] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 67: AAS 107 (2015 ), 874; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589-592; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 57: "people inhabit an unique location in deep space according to the magnificent strategy: they enjoy the opportunity of sharing in the divine governance of visible production. [...] Since male's place as ruler remains in reality a participation in the divine governance of development, we mention it here as a type of stewardship." [49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165. [50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This concept is likewise reflected 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 creation. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117. [51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301. [52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302. [53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2. [54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7. [55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8. [57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906. [58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987. [59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: "L'intelligence n'est rien sans la délectation." Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: "The mind and the will are put at the service of the higher excellent by noticing and appreciating realities." [61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232). [62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he greatest norm of human life is the divine law itself-eternal, unbiased and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the ways of the human neighborhood according to a plan developed in his knowledge and love. God has allowed male to take part in this law of his so that, under the gentle disposition of magnificent providence, numerous may be able to arrive at a much deeper and much deeper knowledge of unchangeable truth." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. [63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016. [64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042. [66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has imprinted his own image and likeness on guy (cf. Gen 1:26), conferring upon him a matchless dignity [...] In result, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not represent any work he performs, however which circulation from his necessary dignity as an individual." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22. [68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310. [69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is comprehended as a technical term to indicate this technology, remembering that the expression is likewise utilized to designate the field of study 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 example, see the encouragement of clinical expedition in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the gratitude for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These authors, amongst a long list of other Catholics engaged in scientific research study and technological exploration, show that "faith and science can be unified in charity, supplied that science is put at the service of the guys and lady of our time and not misused to damage or even ruin them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87. [73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. [74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888. [77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658. [78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim. [79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293. [80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4. [81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes guy an ethical topic. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the daddy of his acts." [82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776. [83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777. [84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father encouraged efforts "to guarantee that technology remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed towards the good." [85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the role of human firm in selecting a larger aim (Ziel) that then notifies the particular purpose (Zweck) for which each technological application is created, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um pass away Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71. [86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a purpose and, in its impact on human society, always represents a type of order in social relations and a plan of power, therefore allowing certain people to perform specific actions while preventing others from performing various ones. In a more or less explicit way, this constitutive power-dimension of innovation always includes the worldview of those who created 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 seem to understand how to select independently, we ought to be very clear that decision-making [...] should always be delegated the human individual. We would condemn humanity to a future without hope if we removed individuals's capability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend upon the choices of devices." [92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [93] The term "bias" in this document refers to algorithmic predisposition (methodical and constant errors in computer system systems that may disproportionately bias certain groups in unintentional methods) or discovering predisposition (which will result in training on a biased data set) and not the "bias vector" in neural networks (which is a criterion used to change the output of "nerve cells" to adjust more accurately to the data). [94] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father verified the development in consensus "on the need for development processes to appreciate such worths as inclusion, transparency, security, equity, personal privacy and reliability," and likewise invited "the efforts of global organizations to regulate these technologies so that they promote authentic development, contributing, that is, to a better world and an integrally greater quality of life." [95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8. [96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571. [98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For additional conversation of the ethical concerns raised by AI from a Catholic viewpoint, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253. [99] On the importance of discussion in a pluralist society oriented toward a "robust and solid social ethics," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. [104] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Ethics in Internet (22 February 2002), par. 10. [105] Francis, Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414; pricing estimate the Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (27 October 2018), par. 24: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1593. Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law (12 February 2017): AAS 99 (2007 ), 245. [106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047-1050. [107] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023 ), 1047. [108] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 308-309. [109] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [110] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1004-1005, 1007-1009, 1027. [112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 123. [113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1034. [114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004 ), par. 149. [115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [116] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [117] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413-414. [118] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057. [119] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985. [120] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986-987. [122] Cf. E. Stein, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C. 1989). [123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1057:" [Many individuals] want their social relationships offered by advanced equipment, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel tells us constantly to risk of an in person encounter with others, with their physical existence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their delight which infects 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 quote 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 man' and not man 'for work.' Through this conclusion one rightly 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 quoted in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8. [137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops' Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: "If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture appears, with its painful consequences, it is that of healthcare. When a sick individual is not positioned in the center or their dignity is ruled out, this generates mindsets that can lead even to speculation on the bad luck of others. And this is really serious! [...] The application of a company technique to the healthcare sector, if indiscriminate [...] may risk 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 making use of Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729; Francis, Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016), 6: AAS 108 (2016 ), 57-58. [145] Francis, Address to Members of the Global Researchers Advancing Catholic Education Project (20 April 2022): AAS 114 (2022 ), 580. [146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), par. 41: AAS 68 (1976 ), 31, pricing estimate Id., Address to the Members of the "Consilium de Laicis" (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: "if [the modern individual] does listen to instructors, it is since they are witnesses." [147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126. [148] Francis, Meeting the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [149] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 86: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413, quoting the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592. [150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167. [151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413. [152] In a 2023 policy file about the use of generative AI in education and research, UNESCO notes: "Among the essential concerns [of making use of generative AI (GenAI) in education and research] is whether humans can possibly deliver fundamental levels of thinking and skill-acquisition procedures to AI and rather concentrate on higher-order thinking abilities based on the outputs provided by AI. Writing, for instance, is typically associated with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], people can now begin with a well-structured overview supplied by GenAI. Some specialists have characterized using GenAI to generate text in this way as 'writing without believing'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American philosopher Hannah Arendt anticipated such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and cautioned: "If it must end up being real that knowledge (in the sense of know-how) and believed have parted company for great, then we would certainly become the defenseless slaves, not a lot of our devices as of our knowledge" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3). [153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417. [154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914. [155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479. [156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10. [157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3. [158] For instance, it may help people gain access to the "array of resources for creating greater understanding of truth" contained in the works of viewpoint (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS 91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8. [159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62. [160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074. [162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be genuinely indifferent to the question of whether what they know holds true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he composes: 'I have fulfilled lots of who wanted to trick, but none who wanted to be tricked'"; 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 guy might with impunity breach that human dignity which God himself treats with terrific respect"; as priced quote in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804. [168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203. [169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human dignity in the online world obliges States to also respect the right to privacy, by shielding residents from invasive surveillance and permitting them to secure their individual details from unauthorized gain access to." [170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984. [171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body recognized a list of "early promises of AI helping to address environment change" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The document observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can transform data into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools might help establish brand-new strategies and investments to reduce emissions, influence new economic sector financial investments in net absolutely no, safeguard biodiversity, and construct broad-based social resilience" (ibid.). [174] "The cloud" describes a network of physical servers throughout the world that allows users to shop, procedure, and handle their information from another location. [175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850. [176] Francis, photorum.eclat-mauve.fr 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 make sure and secure an area for appropriate human control over the options 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 development and usage of deadly autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) that lack the appropriate human control would position fundamental ethical concerns, considered that LAWS can never ever be morally responsible topics efficient in adhering to international 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 example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the organizations of legitimate systems of government. In a word, the world does not require new innovations that add to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and consequently wind up promoting the folly of war." [190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565. [191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878. [192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687. [193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39. [194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661. [195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a better understanding today that the simple accumulation of items and services [...] is inadequate for the awareness of human happiness. Nor, in repercussion, does the availability of the numerous real advantages offered in current times by science and innovation, including the computer technology, bring flexibility from every form of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the substantial body of resources and prospective at male's disposal is assisted by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the true good of the human race, it quickly 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 City 19832, 212-213. [204] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," 210. [205] G. Bernanos, "La révolution de la liberté" (1944 ), in Id., Le Chemin de la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829. [206] Cf. Francis, Meeting the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023). [207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: "The flood of details at our fingertips does not produce higher wisdom. Wisdom is not born of fast searches on the web nor is it a mass of unproven data. That is not the method to develop in the encounter with truth." [209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [210] Ibid. [211] Ibid. [212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121. [213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124. [214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.