1. With wisdom both ancient and brand-new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are contacted us to reflect on the existing obstacles and chances presented by scientific and technological improvements, especially by the current development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian tradition concerns the present of intelligence as a necessary element of how human beings are developed "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Starting from an integral vision of the human individual and the scriptural contacting us to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church highlights that this present of intelligence must be revealed through the responsible use of factor and technical capabilities in the stewardship of the produced world.

2. The Church encourages the advancement of science, technology, the arts, and other types of human venture, seeing them as part of the "cooperation of man and female with God in perfecting the visible creation." [1] As Sirach affirms, God "gave skill to people, that he might be glorified in his magnificent works" (Sir. 38:6). Human abilities and imagination originate from God and, when used rightly, glorify God by reflecting his wisdom and goodness. Due to this, when we ask ourselves what it suggests to "be human," we can not exclude a factor to consider of our clinical and technological abilities.

3. It is within this perspective that today Note addresses the anthropological and ethical obstacles raised by AI-issues that are particularly considerable, as one of the objectives of this innovation is to imitate the human intelligence that designed it. For example, unlike numerous other human productions, AI can be trained on the results of human imagination and after that produce brand-new "artifacts" with a level of speed and ability that frequently matches or surpasses what people can do, such as producing text or images identical from human structures. This raises crucial issues about AI's possible role in the growing crisis of truth in the general public forum. Moreover, this technology is designed to learn and make certain choices autonomously, adapting to brand-new situations and providing solutions not predicted by its developers, and hence, it raises fundamental concerns about ethical duty and human security, with wider implications for society as a whole. This brand-new situation has prompted lots of people to review what it implies to be human and the function of mankind on the planet.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad consensus that AI marks a brand-new and considerable stage in humanity's engagement with technology, positioning it at the heart of what Pope Francis has explained as an "epochal modification." [2] Its impact is felt worldwide and in a wide variety of locations, consisting of social relationships, education, work, art, healthcare, law, warfare, and global relations. As AI advances quickly toward even higher accomplishments, it is critically crucial to consider its anthropological and ethical ramifications. This includes not just mitigating risks and preventing harm but also making sure that its applications are utilized to promote human progress and the typical good.

5. To contribute favorably to the discernment relating to AI, and in reaction to Pope Francis' call for a renewed "knowledge of heart," [3] the Church offers its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active function in the international dialogue on these concerns, the Church invites those turned over with transmitting the faith-including parents, teachers, pastors, and bishops-to dedicate themselves to this important subject with care and attention. While this file is meant particularly for them, it is also indicated to be available to a wider audience, especially those who share the conviction that clinical and technological advances should be directed toward serving the human individual and the common good. [4]
6. To this end, the file begins by differentiating between principles of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then checks out the Christian understanding of human intelligence, supplying a framework rooted in the Church's philosophical and theological custom. Finally, the file provides guidelines to ensure that the development and usage of AI maintain human self-respect and promote the integral development of the human person and society.

7. The principle of "intelligence" in AI has progressed in time, drawing on a series of ideas from numerous disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a considerable milestone occurred in 1956 when the American computer system scientist John McCarthy arranged a summer season workshop at Dartmouth University to explore the problem of "Artificial Intelligence," which he defined as "that of making a maker behave in manner ins which would be called smart if a human were so acting." [5] This workshop introduced a research study program focused on developing machines capable of carrying out tasks normally connected with the human intellect and intelligent habits.

8. Ever since, AI research has actually advanced rapidly, causing the advancement of complex systems efficient in carrying out highly sophisticated tasks. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are typically created to handle specific and minimal functions, such as equating languages, forecasting the trajectory of a storm, categorizing images, answering questions, or creating visual material at the user's demand. While the meaning of "intelligence" in AI research study varies, most contemporary AI systems-particularly those utilizing machine learning-rely on analytical inference rather than rational deduction. By analyzing big datasets to determine patterns, AI can "anticipate" [7] outcomes and propose brand-new techniques, simulating some cognitive procedures typical of human analytical. Such achievements have actually been made possible through advances in calculating technology (consisting of neural networks, without supervision artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) along with hardware developments (such as specialized processors). Together, these innovations make it possible for AI systems to respond to different types of human input, adjust to new situations, and even recommend unique options not expected by their original programmers. [8]
9. Due to these fast improvements, many jobs when handled exclusively by people are now entrusted to AI. These systems can enhance or perhaps supersede what people have the ability to carry out in numerous fields, particularly in specialized areas such as information analysis, image acknowledgment, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is designed for a particular job, lots of researchers aim to develop what is called "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system efficient in running throughout all cognitive domains and carrying out any task within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI could one day attain the state of "superintelligence," exceeding human intellectual capabilities, or contribute to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, however, fear that these possibilities, even if theoretical, could one day eclipse the human person, while still others welcome this prospective change. [9]
10. Underlying this and lots of other perspectives on the topic is the implicit presumption that the term "intelligence" can be used in the same method to refer to both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not record the complete scope of the idea. In the case of human beings, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the individual in his/her entirety, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is understood functionally, frequently with the presumption that the activities characteristic of the human mind can be broken down into digitized actions that makers can duplicate. [10]
11. This functional point of view is exemplified by the "Turing Test," which considers a maker "smart" if a person can not identify its behavior from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "behavior" refers just to the performance of particular intellectual jobs; it does not account for the complete breadth of human experience, which includes abstraction, feelings, imagination, and the aesthetic, ethical, and religious perceptiveness. Nor does it incorporate the complete variety of expressions characteristic of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the "intelligence" of a system is evaluated methodologically, however likewise reductively, based upon its ability to produce suitable responses-in this case, those associated with the human intellect-regardless of how those reactions are produced.

12. AI's advanced functions provide it sophisticated capabilities to perform jobs, however not the ability to think. [12] This distinction is most importantly crucial, as the method "intelligence" is specified inevitably shapes how we comprehend the relationship between human thought and this innovation. [13] To value this, one need to remember the richness of the philosophical tradition and Christian faith, which provide a much deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's mentor 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 suggests to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all individuals by nature desire to know." [15] This understanding, with its capacity for abstraction that comprehends the nature and meaning of things, sets humans apart from the animal world. [16] As philosophers, theologians, and psychologists have actually taken a look at the specific nature of this intellectual professors, they have actually also checked out how people comprehend the world and their unique place within it. Through this exploration, the Christian tradition has pertained to comprehend the human person as a being consisting of both body and soul-deeply connected to this world and yet transcending it. [17]
14. In the classical tradition, the concept of intelligence is often understood through the complementary concepts of "reason" (ratio) and "intellect" (intellectus). These are not different professors however, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are two modes in which the same intelligence operates: "The term intelligence is inferred from the inward grasp of the fact, while the name factor is drawn from the inquisitive and discursive procedure." [18] This succinct description highlights the 2 basic and complementary measurements of human intelligence. Intellectus describes the user-friendly grasp of the truth-that is, nabbing it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and premises argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to reasoning proper: the discursive, analytical process that results in judgment. Together, intellect and reason form the 2 elements of the act of intelligere, "the proper operation of the human being as such." [19]
15. Explaining the human individual as a "logical" being does not reduce the person to a particular mode of idea; rather, it acknowledges that the ability for intellectual understanding shapes and permeates all elements of human activity. [20] Whether worked out well or inadequately, this capacity is an intrinsic element of humanity. In this sense, the "term 'logical' incorporates all the capacities of the human individual," consisting of those related to "knowing and comprehending, as well as those of prepared, loving, selecting, and wanting; it also includes all corporeal functions carefully related to these capabilities." [21] This detailed perspective underscores how, in the human individual, developed in the "picture of God," factor is integrated in such a way that raises, shapes, and changes both the person's will and actions. [22]
16. Christian believed thinks about the intellectual faculties of the human individual within the structure of an essential sociology that sees the human being as essentially embodied. In the human individual, spirit and matter "are not two natures united, however rather their union forms a single nature." [23] In other words, the soul is not simply the immaterial "part" of the individual contained within the body, nor is the body an outer shell housing an intangible "core." Rather, the whole human individual is concurrently both product and spiritual. This understanding reflects the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which views the human individual as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and therefore, an authentically spiritual measurement) within and through this embodied presence. [24] The extensive significance of this condition is further illuminated by the mystery of the Incarnation, through which God himself handled our flesh and "raised it as much as a sublime self-respect." [25]
17. Although deeply rooted in physical presence, the human individual goes beyond the material world through the soul, which is "practically on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intellect's capability for transcendence and the self-possessed liberty 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 normal mode of understanding without the body. [28] In this way, the intellectual professors of the human individual are an important part of an anthropology that recognizes that the human person is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further elements of this understanding will be developed in what follows.

18. Humans are "bought by their very nature to interpersonal communion," [30] possessing the capacity to know one another, to provide themselves in love, and to enter into communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not a separated professors however is worked out in relationships, finding its maximum expression in dialogue, cooperation, and uniformity. We find out with others, and we learn through others.

19. The relational orientation of the human individual is ultimately grounded in the everlasting 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 occupation to communion with God is necessarily connected to the call to communion with others. Love of God can not be separated from love for one's next-door neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20; Mt. 22:37 -39). By the grace of sharing God's life, Christians are likewise contacted us to imitate Christ's outpouring present (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "like one another, as I have actually enjoyed you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the magnificent life of self-giving, go beyond self-interest to react more totally to the human occupation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Even more superb than knowing numerous things is the dedication to look after one another, for if "I understand all secrets and all knowledge [...] however do not have love, I am absolutely nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2).

21. Human intelligence is eventually "God's present fashioned for the assimilation of reality." [34] In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it enables the individual to check out truths that surpass simple sensory experience or energy, considering that "the desire for truth belongs to human nature itself. It is an inherent residential or commercial property of human reason to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limitations of empirical information, human intelligence can "with genuine certitude attain to reality itself as knowable." [36] While reality remains only partly known, the desire for truth "spurs factor constantly to go further; certainly, it is as if factor were overwhelmed to see that it can constantly go beyond what it has currently attained." [37] Although Truth in itself transcends the boundaries of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this attraction, the human person is led to seek "truths of a higher order." [39]
22. This natural drive toward the pursuit of truth is especially obvious in the definitely human capabilities for semantic understanding and creativity, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "way that is suitable to the social nature and self-respect of the human person." [41] Likewise, a steadfast orientation to the reality is vital for charity to be both authentic and universal. [42]
23. The search for reality discovers its greatest expression in openness to realities that go beyond the physical and produced world. In God, all truths attain their supreme and initial meaning. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "essential choice that engages the entire person." [44] In this way, the human individual ends up being totally what he or she is contacted us to be: "the intellect and the will show their spiritual nature," making it possible for the person "to act in such a way that understands personal flexibility to the complete." [45]
24. The Christian faith understands development as the totally free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, develops "not to increase his splendor, however to reveal it forth and to communicate 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 plan (cf. Gen. 1; Dan. 2:21 -22; Is. 45:18; Ps. 74:12 -17; 104), [47] within which God has called human beings to assume an unique function: to cultivate and take care of the world. [48]
25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, humans live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and abilities to care for and establish creation in accord with God's plan. [49] In this, human intelligence shows the Divine Intelligence that produced all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] constantly sustains them, and guides them to their ultimate function in him. [51] Moreover, humans are called to establish their abilities 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 ability to work together with God in assisting development towards the function to which he has called it. [52] On the other hand, development itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, helps the human mind to "ascend gradually to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]
26. In this context, human intelligence becomes more plainly comprehended as a professors that forms an important part of how the entire individual engages with reality. Authentic engagement needs embracing the full scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with truth unfolds in numerous ways, as each person, in his or her complex uniqueness [54], seeks to understand the world, associate with others, fix problems, express creativity, and pursue important well-being through the harmonious interaction of the various measurements of the individual's intelligence. [55] This involves sensible and linguistic capabilities but can likewise incorporate other modes of connecting with reality. Consider the work of a craftsmen, who "should understand how to determine, in inert matter, a specific kind that others can not acknowledge" [56] and bring it forth through insight and useful ability. Indigenous individuals who live close to the earth typically have an extensive sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a pal who knows the best word to state or a person adept at handling human relationships exhibits an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, discussion and generous encounter between persons." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of artificial intelligence, we can not forget that poetry and love are required to save our mankind." [59]
28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the combination of fact into the moral and spiritual life of the person, directing his/her actions in light of God's goodness and reality. According to God's plan, intelligence, in its fullest sense, also includes the ability to appreciate what is real, great, and lovely. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel revealed, "intelligence is absolutely nothing without delight." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the greatest heaven in Paradiso, testifies that the culmination of this intellectual pleasure is discovered in the "light intellectual complete of love, love of real excellent filled with joy, delight which goes beyond every sweet taste." [61]
29. A proper understanding of human intelligence, therefore, can not be reduced to the simple acquisition of facts or the ability to perform particular jobs. Instead, it involves the individual's openness to the supreme 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 existence in its fullness, which exceeds what is measurable, and understanding the significance of what has actually been understood. For followers, this capability consists of, in a particular method, the capability to grow in the knowledge of the secrets of God by utilizing factor to engage ever more exceptionally with revealed realities (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is formed by divine love, which "is put forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence has an important contemplative dimension, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any practical function.

30. In light of the foregoing conversation, the differences between human intelligence and current AI systems become obvious. While AI is a remarkable technological accomplishment efficient in mimicing certain outputs connected with human intelligence, it operates by carrying out tasks, attaining objectives, or making choices based upon quantitative information and computational reasoning. For instance, with its analytical power, AI excels at incorporating information from a range of fields, modeling complex systems, and promoting interdisciplinary connections. In this way, it can help professionals work together in resolving intricate issues that "can not be handled from a single perspective or from a single set of interests." [64]
31. However, even as AI processes and replicates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains fundamentally restricted to a logical-mathematical framework, which imposes intrinsic constraints. Human intelligence, on the other hand, establishes organically throughout the individual's physical and mental development, formed by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although innovative AI systems can "find out" through processes such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is essentially various from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is formed by embodied experiences, including sensory input, psychological responses, social interactions, and the special context of each minute. These aspects shape and form people within their personal history.In contrast, AI, doing not have a physique, depends on computational reasoning and knowing based on huge datasets that consist of tape-recorded human experiences and knowledge.

32. Consequently, although AI can imitate aspects of human thinking and carry out specific jobs with extraordinary speed and effectiveness, its computational capabilities represent just a fraction of the more comprehensive capabilities of the human mind. For example, AI can not presently reproduce moral discernment or the capability to establish genuine relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is positioned within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral development that basically shapes the person's viewpoint, incorporating the physical, emotional, social, moral, and spiritual measurements of life. Since AI can not use this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely solely on this technology or treat it as the main ways of analyzing the world can cause "a loss of appreciation for the whole, for the relationships in between things, and for the wider horizon." [65]
33. Human intelligence is not mainly about finishing practical tasks however about understanding and actively engaging with reality in all its dimensions; it is likewise efficient in unexpected insights. Since AI does not have the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to reality and goodness, its capacities-though relatively limitless-are incomparable with the human capability to comprehend truth. So much can be gained from an illness, a welcome of reconciliation, and even a simple sunset; certainly, lots of experiences we have as humans open brand-new horizons and use the possibility of attaining brand-new knowledge. No device, working exclusively with information, can determine up to these and many other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an extremely close equivalence between human intelligence and AI threats giving in to a functionalist perspective, where individuals are valued based on the work they can carry out. However, a person's worth does not depend on possessing specific abilities, cognitive and technological accomplishments, or private success, however on the individual's inherent dignity, grounded in being developed in the image of God. [66] This dignity remains intact in all scenarios, consisting of for those not able to exercise their abilities, whether it be a coming kid, an unconscious person, or an older person who is suffering. [67] It likewise underpins the tradition of human rights (and, in particular, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "an important point of convergence in the search for common ground" [68] and can, thus, serve as a basic ethical guide in conversations on the responsible advancement and usage of AI.

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, "the extremely use of the word 'intelligence'" in connection with AI "can prove misleading" [69] and threats ignoring what is most precious in the human person. Because of this, AI ought to not be seen as an artificial kind of human intelligence but as a product of it. [70]
36. Given these considerations, one can ask how AI can be understood within God's plan. To answer this, it is essential to remember that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character but is a human endeavor that engages the humanistic and cultural dimensions of human creativity. [71]
37. Seen as a fruit of the potential engraved within human intelligence, [72] scientific questions and the advancement of technical abilities belong to the "cooperation of guy and woman with God in improving the noticeable creation." [73] At the very same time, all clinical and technological achievements are, eventually, presents from God. [74] Therefore, people need to always use their capabilities in view of the higher purpose for which God has actually granted them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has actually "treated many evils which used to harm and restrict humans," [76] a fact for which we must rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological developments in themselves represent authentic human development. [77] The Church is especially opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the dignity of the human individual. [78] Like any human venture, technological development needs to be directed to serve the human individual and contribute to the pursuit of "greater justice, more substantial 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 only within the Church but also amongst many researchers, technologists, and professional associations, who progressively require ethical reflection to assist this development in a responsible method.

39. To deal with these obstacles, it is vital to emphasize the significance of ethical obligation grounded in the self-respect and occupation of the human individual. This directing concept likewise uses to concerns concerning AI. In this context, the ethical dimension takes on main value due to the fact that it is individuals who develop systems and identify the functions for which they are utilized. [80] Between a machine and a human being, only the latter is really an ethical agent-a topic of moral responsibility who works out liberty in his or her choices and accepts their effects. [81] It is not the maker however the human who remains in relationship with truth and goodness, guided by an ethical conscience that calls the person "to enjoy and to do what is great and to avoid evil," [82] attesting to "the authority of fact in reference to the supreme Good to which the human individual is drawn." [83] Likewise, 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 fact, all of this also comes from the person's exercise of intelligence.

40. Like any product of human creativity, AI can be directed towards favorable or negative ends. [85] When utilized in ways that respect human dignity and promote the wellness of people and communities, it can contribute positively to the human vocation. Yet, as in all locations where people are called to make decisions, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human liberty permits the possibility of picking what is incorrect, the ethical assessment of this innovation will require to take into consideration how it is directed and utilized.

41. At the exact same time, it is not just completions that are fairly substantial but also the means utilized to attain them. Additionally, the total vision and understanding of the human person ingrained within these systems are essential to consider also. Technological items 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 values." [87] On a societal level, some technological developments might also reinforce relationships and power characteristics that are inconsistent with an appropriate understanding of the human individual and society.

42. Therefore, the ends and the methods utilized in a provided application of AI, along with the overall vision it includes, should all be assessed to guarantee they respect human dignity and promote the common good. [88] As Pope Francis has actually mentioned, "the intrinsic self-respect of every male and every woman" must be "the crucial requirement in assessing emerging innovations; these will prove fairly sound to the extent that they assist regard that self-respect and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] including in the social and economic spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays an important function not only in developing and producing innovation but likewise in directing its usage in line with the authentic good of the human person. [90] The obligation for handling this carefully pertains to every level of society, directed by the principle of subsidiarity and other concepts of Catholic Social Teaching.

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

44. An examination of the ramifications of this guiding concept might begin by considering the importance of moral responsibility. Since full moral causality belongs only to individual agents, not synthetic ones, it is crucial to be able to recognize and specify who bears obligation for the procedures associated with AI, especially those capable of learning, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up techniques and really deep neural networks enable AI to solve intricate issues, they make it tough to comprehend the procedures that result in the options they embraced. This makes complex responsibility given that if an AI application produces undesired results, identifying who is responsible ends up being difficult. To address this problem, attention needs to be provided to the nature of accountability procedures in complex, extremely automated settings, where results might just become apparent in the medium to long term. For this, it is very important that supreme obligation for decisions used AI rests with the human decision-makers and that there is responsibility for the use of AI at each phase of the decision-making procedure. [91]
45. In addition to identifying who is accountable, it is important to identify the goals provided to AI systems. Although these systems might use not being watched self-governing knowing mechanisms and sometimes follow paths that human beings can not rebuild, they ultimately pursue goals that human beings have designated to them and are governed by processes developed by their designers and developers. Yet, this provides an obstacle due to the fact that, as AI designs end up being increasingly capable of independent knowing, the capability to maintain control over them to ensure that such applications serve human functions may effectively lessen. This raises the critical question of how to make sure that AI systems are bought for the good of people and not against them.

46. While responsibility for the ethical use of AI systems starts with those who establish, produce, handle, and supervise such systems, it is also shared by those who utilize them. As Pope Francis kept in mind, the maker "makes a technical choice among numerous possibilities based either on well-defined criteria or on analytical reasonings. Human beings, nevertheless, not only choose, but in their hearts can deciding." [92] Those who utilize AI to accomplish a task and follow its results create a context in which they are ultimately accountable for the power they have actually handed over. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist human beings in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it ought to be trustworthy, protected, robust enough to manage disparities, and transparent in their operation to mitigate biases and unintentional adverse effects. [93] Regulatory structures need to make sure that all legal entities remain accountable for using AI and all its effects, with appropriate safeguards for transparency, personal privacy, and accountability. [94] Moreover, those using AI ought to be mindful not to end up being extremely reliant on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases modern society's already high reliance on innovation.

47. The Church's moral and social mentor offers resources to help make sure that AI is used in a way that maintains human company. Considerations about justice, for instance, ought to likewise resolve problems such as cultivating just social dynamics, maintaining worldwide security, and promoting peace. By exercising vigilance, people and neighborhoods can determine methods to utilize AI to benefit humankind while avoiding applications that might break down human dignity or harm the environment. In this context, the concept of duty must be understood not just in its most restricted sense however as a "duty for the care for others, which is more than merely accounting for outcomes attained." [95]
48. Therefore, AI, like any innovation, can be part of a conscious and accountable response to mankind's vocation to the great. However, as formerly gone over, AI should be directed by human intelligence to align with this occupation, guaranteeing it appreciates the dignity of the human individual. Recognizing this "exalted dignity," the Second Vatican Council affirmed that "the social order and its advancement need to usually work to the benefit of the human individual." [96] Because of this, the usage of AI, as Pope Francis said, must be "accompanied by an ethic influenced by a vision of the typical good, an ethic of flexibility, responsibility, and fraternity, capable of fostering the full development of individuals in relation to others and to the entire of creation." [97]
49. Within this basic viewpoint, some observations follow below to illustrate how the preceding arguments can assist supply an ethical orientation in useful circumstances, in line with the "knowledge of heart" that Pope Francis has actually proposed. [98] While not extensive, this conversation is used in service of the dialogue that considers how AI can be used to maintain the dignity of the human individual and promote the common good. [99]
50. As Pope Francis observed, "the fundamental dignity of each human and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human family must undergird the development of new technologies and function as unassailable criteria for assessing them before they are utilized." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI could "present important developments in farming, education and culture, an improved level of life for whole nations and peoples, and the development of human fraternity and social friendship," and thus be "used to promote integral human advancement." [101] AI might also assist organizations identify those in requirement and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other comparable applications of this technology could contribute to human advancement and the common good. [102]
52. However, while AI holds lots of possibilities for promoting the good, it can likewise impede or even counter human advancement and the typical good. Pope Francis has actually kept in mind that "proof to date suggests that digital technologies have increased inequality in our world. Not simply differences in material wealth, which are likewise significant, but also differences in access to political and social influence." [103] In this sense, AI could be used to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, develop brand-new forms of poverty, widen the "digital divide," and intensify existing social inequalities. [104]
53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a couple of effective business raises considerable ethical concerns. Exacerbating this issue is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single person can work out complete oversight over the huge and complex datasets used for calculation. This lack of distinct responsibility develops the threat that AI might be manipulated for individual or corporate gain or to direct public viewpoint for the benefit of a specific market. Such entities, inspired by their own interests, have the capacity to exercise "kinds of control as subtle as they are invasive, creating systems for the control of consciences and of the democratic procedure." [105]
54. Furthermore, there is the risk of AI being used to promote what Pope Francis has actually called the "technocratic paradigm," which views all the world's problems as solvable through technological methods alone. [106] In this paradigm, human self-respect and fraternity are typically reserved in the name of performance, "as if truth, goodness, and reality immediately stream from technological and economic power as such." [107] Yet, human self-respect and the typical good should never ever be broken for the sake of effectiveness, [108] for "technological developments that do not cause an enhancement in the quality of life of all mankind, however on the contrary, aggravate inequalities and disputes, can never count as true development. " [109] Instead, AI ought to be put "at the service of another kind of development, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more important." [110]
55. Attaining this objective needs a deeper reflection on the relationship between autonomy and responsibility. Greater autonomy heightens each individual's duty across various elements of common life. For Christians, the structure of this duty depends on the recognition that all human capacities, consisting of the person's autonomy, come from God and are suggested to be utilized in the service of others. [111] Therefore, instead of merely pursuing financial or technological goals, AI needs to serve "the common good of the whole human household," which is "the amount overall of social conditions that enable individuals, 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 establish his gifts." [113] This conviction highlights that living in society is intrinsic to the nature and vocation of the human person. [114] As social beings, we look for relationships that include mutual exchange and the pursuit of truth, in the course of which, individuals "show each other the reality they have discovered, or believe they have actually discovered, in such a way that they help one another in the look for truth." [115]
57. Such a quest, along with other aspects of human communication, presupposes encounters and mutual exchange between people formed by their distinct histories, ideas, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a diverse, complex, and complex reality: private and social, reasonable and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis underscores this vibrant, noting that "together, we can seek the reality in discussion, in unwinded discussion or in enthusiastic argument. To do so requires determination; it entails minutes of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently accept the more comprehensive experience of people and peoples. [...] The procedure of building fraternity, be it regional or universal, can only be carried out by spirits that are totally free and available to authentic encounters." [116]
58. It remains in this context that a person can consider the difficulties AI poses to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the potential to foster connections within the human family. However, it could likewise hinder a real encounter with truth and, ultimately, lead people to "a deep and melancholic discontentment with interpersonal relations, or a harmful sense of seclusion." [117] Authentic human relationships require the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their joy. [118] Since human intelligence is revealed and enhanced likewise in social and embodied methods, genuine and spontaneous encounters with others are essential for engaging with truth in its fullness.

59. Because "true wisdom requires an encounter with truth," [119] the increase of AI introduces another challenge. Since AI can efficiently imitate the products of human intelligence, the capability to understand when one is engaging with a human or a machine can no longer be considered approved. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other sophisticated outputs that are usually connected with people. Yet, it must be understood for what it is: a tool, not an individual. [120] This difference is typically obscured by the language utilized by specialists, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and thus blurs the line in between human and maker.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI also presents particular obstacles for the development of kids, potentially encouraging them to develop patterns of interaction that treat human relationships in a transactional manner, as one would associate with a chatbot. Such practices might lead youths to see instructors as mere dispensers of details rather than as coaches who assist and support their intellectual and ethical development. Genuine relationships, rooted in compassion and an unfaltering dedication to the good of the other, are necessary and irreplaceable in cultivating the complete development of the human individual.

61. In this context, it is necessary to clarify that, regardless of using anthropomorphic language, no AI application can genuinely experience compassion. Emotions can not be minimized to facial expressions or expressions created in response to triggers; they reflect the method an individual, as a whole, connects to the world and to his or her own life, with the body playing a main role. True empathy requires the capability to listen, recognize another's irreducible uniqueness, welcome their otherness, and understand the meaning behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the realm of analytical judgment in which AI excels, real 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 replicate understanding responses, it can not reproduce the incomparably individual and relational nature of authentic empathy. [123]
62. Because of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as a person should always be prevented; doing so for deceitful functions is a grave ethical offense that could erode social trust. Similarly, using AI to trick in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, consisting of the sphere of sexuality-is also to be thought about unethical and requires mindful oversight to avoid damage, maintain transparency, and make sure the dignity of all people. [124]
63. In an increasingly separated world, some individuals have turned to AI searching for deep human relationships, simple friendship, or perhaps psychological bonds. However, while human beings are implied to experience authentic relationships, AI can only simulate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an important part of how a person grows to become who he or she is indicated to be. If AI is utilized to assist individuals foster real connections in between people, it can contribute positively to the full realization of the individual. Conversely, if we change relationships with God and with others with interactions with technology, we risk changing authentic relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of pulling back into synthetic worlds, we are contacted us to participate in a dedicated and intentional method with reality, specifically by relating to the poor and suffering, consoling those in sorrow, and creating bonds of communion with all.

64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being progressively incorporated into economic and financial systems. Significant investments are presently being made not only in the innovation sector however also in energy, financing, and media, particularly in the areas of marketing and sales, logistics, technological innovation, compliance, and threat management. At the exact same time, AI's applications in these areas have also highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of significant opportunities however also extensive risks. A very first real vital point in this location concerns the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a few corporations-only those big business would gain from the worth developed by AI rather than business that utilize it.

65. Other broader elements of AI's effect on the economic-financial sphere must also be thoroughly examined, particularly concerning the interaction between concrete reality and the digital world. One essential consideration in this regard includes the coexistence of diverse and alternative types of economic and monetary organizations within a given context. This factor ought to be motivated, as it can bring benefits in how it supports the genuine economy by cultivating its development and stability, particularly throughout times of crisis. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that digital realities, not limited by any spatial bonds, tend to be more homogeneous and impersonal than communities rooted in a specific place and a specific history, with a typical journey characterized by shared worths and hopes, but likewise by inevitable arguments and divergences. This diversity is an undeniable property to a community's economic life. Turning over the economy and financing entirely to digital innovation would minimize this variety and richness. As a result, many options to financial issues that can be reached through natural discussion between the included parties may no longer be attainable in a world controlled by treatments and only the appearance of nearness.

66. Another area where AI is already having a profound impact is the world of work. As in many other fields, AI is driving essential changes throughout lots of professions, with a variety of impacts. On the one hand, it has the prospective to enhance knowledge and efficiency, develop new tasks, make it possible for workers to concentrate on more innovative jobs, and open new horizons for creativity and innovation.

67. However, while AI assures to improve performance by taking over ordinary jobs, it frequently requires workers to adapt to the speed and needs of devices rather than makers being developed to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the advertised benefits of AI, present methods to the technology can paradoxically deskill workers, subject them to automated monitoring, and relegate them to rigid and repetitive jobs. The requirement to stay up to date with the speed of innovation can wear down workers' sense of firm and suppress the ingenious capabilities they are expected to give their work. [125]
68. AI is currently removing the need for some tasks that were when performed by people. If AI is used to replace human workers instead of complement them, there is a "significant risk of disproportionate advantage for the few at the cost of the impoverishment of numerous." [126] Additionally, as AI ends up being more effective, there is an associated risk that human labor might lose its value in the financial world. This is the rational effect of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humankind shackled to effectiveness, where, ultimately, setiathome.berkeley.edu the cost of humanity should be cut. Yet, human lives are intrinsically valuable, independent of their financial output. Nevertheless, the "existing model," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to favor a financial investment in efforts to assist the sluggish, the weak, or the less gifted to find opportunities in life." [127] In light of this, "we can not allow a tool as powerful and essential as Artificial Intelligence to strengthen such a paradigm, however rather, we must make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its growth." [128]
69. It is necessary to bear in mind that "the order of things must be secondary to the order of persons, and not the other method around." [129] Human work must not just be at the service of revenue however at "the service of the whole human person [...] taking into account the individual's product needs and the requirements of his/her intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and spiritual life." [130] In this context, the Church recognizes that work is "not just a method of making one's daily bread" however is likewise "a necessary dimension of social life" and "a method [...] of individual development, the structure of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of presents. Work gives us a sense of shared obligation for the development of the world, and eventually, for our life as a people." [131]
70. Since work is a "part of the significance of life on this earth, a path to development, human development and personal satisfaction," "the objective should not be that technological progress significantly changes human work, for this would be harmful to mankind" [132] -rather, it ought to promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI needs to assist, not replace, human judgment. Similarly, it must never deteriorate creativity or minimize employees to simple "cogs in a maker." Therefore, "respect for the self-respect of laborers and the importance of work for the economic well-being of individuals, households, and societies, for job security and simply wages, should be a high concern for the worldwide neighborhood as these types of innovation permeate more deeply into our work environments." [133]
71. As participants in God's healing work, healthcare experts have the vocation and duty to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the healthcare profession carries an "intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension," acknowledged by the Hippocratic Oath, which requires physicians and healthcare experts to commit themselves to having "absolute respect for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Good Samaritan, this commitment is to be performed by males and females "who reject the development of a society of exclusion, and act instead as neighbors, raising up and fixing up the fallen for the sake of the common good." [136]
72. Seen in this light, AI appears to hold immense capacity in a variety of applications in the medical field, such as assisting the diagnostic work of healthcare companies, facilitating relationships between clients and medical personnel, using brand-new treatments, and expanding access to quality care likewise for those who are separated or marginalized. In these methods, the technology could boost the "compassionate and caring nearness" [137] that healthcare providers are contacted us to encompass the ill and suffering.

73. However, if AI is utilized not to boost 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 reduce a crucially important human relational structure to a central, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of encouraging solidarity with the sick and suffering, such applications of AI would run the risk of intensifying the isolation that frequently accompanies health problem, particularly in the context of a culture where "individuals are no longer seen as a paramount worth to be looked after and respected." [138] This abuse of AI would not align with regard for the dignity of the human person and uniformity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the wellness of clients and the decisions that touch upon their lives are at the heart of the health care profession. This accountability requires doctor to work out all their skill and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded options regarding those delegated to their care, always appreciating the inviolable self-respect of the clients and the requirement for informed consent. As a result, choices relating to patient treatment and the weight of duty they entail need to always remain with the human individual and must never be handed over to AI. [139]
75. In addition, utilizing AI to determine who should receive treatment based mainly on financial measures or metrics of effectiveness represents an especially bothersome instance of the "technocratic paradigm" that should be rejected. [140] For, "enhancing resources implies using them in an ethical and fraternal way, and not penalizing the most delicate." [141] Additionally, AI tools in healthcare are "exposed to kinds of bias and discrimination," where "systemic mistakes can easily multiply, producing not only oppressions in individual cases however also, due to the domino result, real forms of social inequality." [142]
76. The combination of AI into healthcare also presents the threat of enhancing other existing disparities in access to treatment. As health care ends up being progressively oriented towards avoidance and lifestyle-based approaches, AI-driven options might accidentally favor more wealthy populations who currently take pleasure in much better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This pattern threats reinforcing a "medication for the rich" model, where those with monetary ways gain from sophisticated preventative tools and personalized health details while others battle to gain access to even standard services. To avoid such inequities, fair frameworks are needed to make sure that the usage of AI in healthcare does not aggravate existing healthcare inequalities but rather serves the common good.

77. The words of the Second Vatican Council remain totally appropriate 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 a mere procedure of passing on realities and intellectual abilities: rather, its aim is to add to the individual's holistic development in its various aspects (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, etc), consisting of, for instance, neighborhood life and relations within the academic community," [144] in keeping with the nature and dignity of the human individual.

78. This approach involves a commitment to cultivating the mind, however constantly as a part of the important development of the person: "We should break that idea of education which holds that educating means filling one's head with ideas. That is the way we educate robots, cerebral minds, not people. Educating is taking a risk in the stress between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]
79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human person is the important relationship in between instructor and trainee. Teachers do more than communicate understanding; they design necessary human qualities and influence the happiness of discovery. [146] Their existence motivates trainees both through the content they teach and the care they show for their trainees. This bond fosters trust, shared understanding, and the capability to address each person's unique dignity and potential. On the part of the trainee, this can produce an authentic desire to grow. The physical existence of a teacher produces a relational dynamic that AI can not duplicate, one that deepens engagement and nurtures the trainee's integral advancement.

80. In this context, AI provides both chances and challenges. If used in a sensible way, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and bought to the authentic goals of education, AI can end up being an important educational resource by improving access to education, providing tailored assistance, and offering instant feedback to trainees. These advantages might improve the learning experience, especially in cases where individualized attention is needed, or educational resources are otherwise scarce.

81. Nevertheless, an important part of education is forming "the intellect to factor well in all matters, to reach out towards reality, and to understand it," [147] while assisting the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is even more important in an age marked by technology, in which "it is no longer merely a question of 'utilizing' instruments of communication, but of residing in a highly digitalized culture that has had an extensive effect on [...] our capability to communicate, find out, be notified and participate in relationship with others." [149] However, instead of promoting "a cultivated intelligence," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and occupation that it carries out," [150] the substantial use of AI in education could result in the trainees' increased reliance on technology, deteriorating their capability to perform some skills separately and worsening their dependence on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are developed to help people develop their vital thinking abilities and problem-solving abilities, lots of others simply provide responses instead of triggering trainees to come to answers themselves or compose text for themselves. [152] Instead of training youths how to generate details and produce quick reactions, education should motivate "the accountable use of freedom to deal with issues with great sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in using types of expert system need to aim above all at promoting critical thinking. Users of all ages, however particularly the young, need to develop a critical approach to making use of data and content collected online or produced by expert system systems. Schools, universities, and scientific societies are challenged to assist trainees and specialists to grasp the social and ethical elements of the advancement and uses of technology." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II remembered, "worldwide today, characterized by such quick advancements in science and innovation, the tasks of a Catholic University presume an ever higher value and seriousness." [155] In a specific way, Catholic universities are prompted to be present as terrific laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary key, they are prompted to engage "with wisdom and imagination" [156] in mindful research on this phenomenon, helping to draw out the salutary capacity within the numerous fields of science and reality, and guiding them constantly towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the typical good, reaching brand-new frontiers in the discussion between faith and reason.

84. Moreover, it ought to be kept in mind that existing AI programs have actually been known to supply biased or produced details, which can lead trainees to trust inaccurate material. This problem "not only runs the danger of legitimizing fake news and strengthening a dominant culture's advantage, however, simply put, it also weakens the instructional procedure itself." [157] With time, clearer distinctions might emerge in between proper and improper usages of AI in education and research. Yet, a definitive guideline is that making use of AI must always be transparent and never misrepresented.

85. AI could be used as an aid to human self-respect if it assists people understand complex principles or directs them to sound resources that support their look for the truth. [158]
86. However, AI likewise presents a severe risk of creating manipulated material and false details, which can easily misguide individuals due to its similarity to the fact. Such false information might occur accidentally, as when it comes to AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear real however are not. Since producing content that imitates human artifacts is main to AI's performance, reducing these threats shows challenging. Yet, the consequences of such aberrations and false details can be quite grave. For this reason, all those involved in producing and using AI systems ought to be devoted to the truthfulness and accuracy of the details processed by such systems and distributed to the general public.

87. While AI has a latent potential to produce incorrect details, a a lot more unpleasant problem lies in the purposeful abuse of AI for control. This can take place when individuals or companies purposefully produce and spread incorrect content with the aim to deceive or cause harm, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to an incorrect depiction of an individual, edited or generated by an AI algorithm. The risk of deepfakes is especially obvious when they are used to target or hurt others. While the images or videos themselves might be artificial, 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 misshaping "our relationship with others and with reality," [160] AI-generated phony media can gradually undermine the foundations of society. This issue requires mindful guideline, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or influenced media-can spread accidentally, sustaining political polarization and social unrest. When society becomes indifferent to the truth, various groups construct their own versions of "realities," compromising the "reciprocal ties and mutual dependencies" [161] that underpin the material of social life. As deepfakes cause people to question whatever and AI-generated incorrect content deteriorates rely on what they see and hear, polarization and dispute will only grow. Such widespread deceptiveness is no unimportant matter; it strikes at the core of mankind, taking apart the foundational trust on which societies are constructed. [162]
89. Countering AI-driven falsehoods is not just the work of market experts-it requires the efforts of all people of goodwill. "If technology is to serve human dignity and not damage it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human community must be proactive in addressing these patterns with regard to human self-respect and the promotion of the great." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated material should always work out diligence in confirming the reality of what they distribute and, in all cases, need to "avoid the sharing of words and images that are degrading of humans, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that exploit the weak and susceptible." [164] This calls for the ongoing prudence and mindful discernment of all users concerning their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are inherently relational, and the information each person creates in the digital world can be viewed as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data conveys not only details however also personal and relational understanding, which, in a progressively digitized context, can amount to power over the individual. Moreover, while some types of information might pertain to public aspects of an individual's life, others might discuss the individual's interiority, maybe even their conscience. Seen in this way, personal privacy plays an essential function in securing the limits of an individual's inner life, maintaining their freedom to associate with others, reveal themselves, and make choices without unnecessary control. This defense is likewise tied to the defense of spiritual liberty, as monitoring can likewise be misused to exert control over the lives of followers and how they reveal their faith.

91. It is suitable, for that reason, to attend to the concern of personal privacy from a concern for the legitimate liberty and inalienable dignity of the human person "in all scenarios." [166] The Second Vatican Council included the right "to protect personal privacy" among the fundamental rights "needed for living a truly human life," a right that must be reached all people on account of their "superb dignity." [167] Furthermore, the Church has likewise verified the right to the genuine respect for a private life in the context of affirming the individual's right to a great reputation, defense of their physical and psychological integrity, and flexibility from harm or excessive invasion [168] -necessary components of the due respect for the intrinsic self-respect of the human person. [169]
92. Advances in AI-powered data processing and analysis now make it possible to infer patterns in a person's habits and believing from even a percentage of details, making the function of data privacy a lot more crucial 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 vanishing to the point that the right to personal privacy scarcely exists. Everything has become a type of spectacle to be examined and inspected, and people's lives are now under constant security." [170]
93. While there can be genuine and proper methods to utilize AI in keeping with human dignity and the typical excellent, using it for monitoring aimed at exploiting, restricting others' freedom, or benefitting a few at the cost of the lots of is unjustifiable. The risk of monitoring overreach must be kept an eye on by proper regulators to make sure transparency and public responsibility. Those accountable for monitoring ought to never ever exceed their authority, which should constantly prefer the self-respect and liberty of everyone as the essential basis of a just and gentle society.

94. Furthermore, "fundamental respect for human self-respect demands that we decline to permit the originality of the individual to be determined with a set of data." [171] This especially uses when AI is utilized to assess individuals or groups based on their habits, qualities, or history-a practice referred to as "social scoring": "In social and financial decision-making, we need to beware about entrusting judgments to algorithms that process information, frequently gathered surreptitiously, on a person's makeup and previous habits. Such information can be polluted by social bias and preconceptions. A person's previous habits need to not be utilized to deny him or her the chance to change, grow, and add to society. We can not permit algorithms to restrict or condition regard for human dignity, or to exclude empathy, grace, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able to alter." [172]
95. AI has lots of promising applications for improving our relationship with our "typical home," such as developing designs to anticipate severe environment events, proposing engineering services to decrease their effect, handling relief operations, and predicting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable farming, optimize energy usage, and supply early caution systems for public health emergencies. These developments have the possible to enhance durability against climate-related obstacles and promote more sustainable advancement.

96. At the exact same time, current AI designs and the hardware needed to support them consume huge quantities of energy and water, substantially contributing to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This reality is frequently obscured by the way this technology exists in the popular imagination, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can offer the impression that data is stored and processed in an intangible realm, removed from the physical world. However, "the cloud" is not an ethereal domain different from the real world; just like all computing technologies, it depends on physical machines, cables, and energy. The very same holds true of the innovation behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, specifically large language designs (LLMs), they need ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and greater storage facilities. Considering the heavy toll these technologies take on the environment, it is crucial to develop sustainable services that reduce their effect on our typical home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is vital "that we search for options not only in innovation however in a change of humanity." [175] A total and genuine understanding of creation recognizes that the worth of all developed things can not be reduced to their mere energy. Therefore, a totally human technique to the stewardship of the earth turns down the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which looks for to "draw out everything possible" from the world, [176] and declines the "misconception of development," which assumes that "eco-friendly issues will fix themselves just with the application of brand-new technology and without any need for ethical factors to consider or deep modification." [177] Such a frame of mind must provide way to a more holistic technique that appreciates the order of production and promotes the important good of the human individual while safeguarding our common home. [178]
98. The Second Vatican Council and the constant teaching of the Popes considering that then have insisted that peace is not simply the absence of war and is not restricted to maintaining a balance of powers in between enemies. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the serenity of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without safeguarding the products of individuals, complimentary communication, respect for the self-respect of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the impact of charity and can not be attained through force alone; instead, it must be mainly developed through client diplomacy, the active promo of justice, solidarity, essential human advancement, and respect for the dignity of all people. [180] In this way, the tools utilized to maintain peace must never be permitted to validate oppression, violence, or oppression. Instead, they ought to constantly be governed by a "firm determination to regard other individuals and countries, along with their dignity, along with the deliberate practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical abilities might help nations seek peace and guarantee security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can also be highly troublesome. Pope Francis has actually observed that "the capability to conduct military operations through remote control systems has actually caused a minimized understanding of the devastation triggered by those weapon systems and the problem of obligation for their use, resulting in an even more cold and separated approach to the tremendous disaster of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which autonomous weapons make war more feasible militates against the concept of war as a last hope in genuine self-defense, [183] possibly increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and precipitating a destabilizing arms race, with devastating effects for human rights. [184]
100. In specific, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which can identifying and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for severe ethical concern" due to the fact that they lack the "special human capability for ethical judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this factor, Pope Francis has actually urgently required a reconsideration of the advancement of these weapons and a prohibition on their use, starting with "an efficient and concrete commitment to introduce ever higher and correct human control. No machine ought to ever select to take the life of a human being." [186]
101. Since it is a little action from makers that can eliminate autonomously with accuracy to those capable of massive damage, some AI researchers have expressed issues that such innovation positions an "existential threat" by having the prospective to act in manner ins which might threaten the survival of whole areas or perhaps of humankind itself. This danger needs severe attention, reflecting the long-standing concern about technologies that grant war "an uncontrollable devastating power over multitudes of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing children. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "carry out an examination of war with an entirely new attitude" [188] is more immediate than ever.

102. At the very same time, while the theoretical risks of AI should have attention, the more instant and pressing issue depends on how people with harmful intentions may misuse this innovation. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future capabilities are unpredictable, humankind's previous actions offer clear cautions. The atrocities devoted throughout history suffice to raise deep issues about the prospective abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that "mankind now has instruments of unprecedented power: we can turn this world into a garden, or reduce it to a pile of debris." [190] Given this reality, the Church advises us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are complimentary to apply our intelligence towards things evolving positively," or towards "decadence and shared destruction." [191] To prevent humankind 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 careful discernment about using AI, especially in military defense applications, to make sure that it always respects human dignity and serves the typical good. The development and deployment of AI in weaponries ought to be subject to the greatest levels of ethical analysis, governed by a concern for human self-respect and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology uses amazing tools to manage and establish the world's resources. However, sometimes, humanity is significantly delivering control of these resources to makers. Within some circles of researchers and futurists, there is optimism about the capacity of artificial basic intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical type of AI that would match or surpass human intelligence and bring about inconceivable improvements. Some even hypothesize that AGI could attain superhuman capabilities. At the same time, as society drifts away from a connection with the transcendent, some are tempted to turn to AI in search of meaning or fulfillment-longings that can just be truly satisfied in communion with God. [194]
105. However, the presumption of substituting God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture clearly alerts against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI might show even more seductive than traditional idols for, unlike idols that "have mouths but do not speak; eyes, however do not see; ears, but do not hear" (Ps. 115:5 -6), AI can "speak," or a minimum of gives the illusion of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is important to keep in mind that AI is but a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated material, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not possess a lot of the capabilities specific to human life, and it is also imperfect. By turning to AI as a viewed "Other" greater than itself, with which to share existence and responsibilities, humanity risks developing a replacement for God. However, it is not AI that is eventually deified and worshipped, however humanity itself-which, in this method, ends up being enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the possible to serve humanity and contribute to the common excellent, it remains a development of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and resourcefulness" (Acts 17:29). It needs to never ever 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 much better than the things he worships because he has life, however they never ever have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. On the other hand, people, "by their interior life, go beyond the entire product universe; they experience this deep interiority when they participate in their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they decide their own fate in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis advises us, that each private discovers the "mysterious connection between self-knowledge and openness to others, between the encounter with one's individual individuality and the willingness to give oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "efficient in setting our other powers and passions, and our entire individual, in a position of reverence and caring obedience before the Lord," [198] who "uses to treat each one of us as a 'Thou,' always and permanently." [199]
108. Considering the different obstacles positioned by advances in technology, Pope Francis stressed the need for growth in "human duty, worths, and conscience," proportionate to the growth in the potential that this technology brings [200] -acknowledging that "with an increase in human power comes a broadening of obligation on the part of people and communities." [201]
109. At the very same time, the "essential and basic question" remains "whether in the context of this development guy, as male, is becoming genuinely better, that is to say, more fully grown spiritually, more familiar with the dignity of his humanity, more accountable, more available to others, specifically the neediest and the weakest, and readier to give and to aid all." [202]
110. As a result, it is essential to understand how to evaluate specific applications of AI in particular contexts to identify whether its usage promotes human self-respect, the vocation of the human person, and the typical good. Just like many innovations, the results of the different usages of AI might not constantly be foreseeable from their creation. As these applications and their social impacts become clearer, appropriate actions need to be made at all levels of society, following the concept of subsidiarity. Individual users, households, civil society, corporations, institutions, federal governments, and worldwide organizations need to work at their correct levels to ensure that AI is used for the good of all.

111. A substantial obstacle and chance for the typical excellent today lies in thinking about AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which stresses the interconnectedness of individuals and neighborhoods and highlights our shared responsibility for fostering the important wellness of others. The twentieth-century theorist Nicholas Berdyaev observed that individuals often blame devices for individual and social problems; nevertheless, "this just humiliates male and does not correspond to his dignity," for "it is unworthy to move responsibility from male to a machine." [203] Only the human individual can be morally responsible, and the difficulties of a technological society are eventually spiritual in nature. Therefore, facing those obstacles "demands an augmentation of spirituality." [204]
112. A more indicate think about is the call, prompted by the look of AI on the world stage, for a restored gratitude of all that is human. Years earlier, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos warned that "the risk is not in the reproduction of devices, but in the ever-increasing number of men accustomed from their youth to desire only what machines can provide." [205] This obstacle 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 set aside and then forgotten and even deemed unimportant because they can not be computed in official terms. AI should be used just as a tool to match human intelligence rather than replace its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that go beyond computation is crucial for maintaining "a genuine mankind" that "seems to stay in the midst of our technological culture, practically undetected, like a mist seeping carefully beneath a closed door." [207]
113. The large stretch of the world's knowledge is now available in manner ins which would have filled previous generations with awe. However, to make sure that improvements in knowledge do not become humanly or spiritually barren, one should exceed the simple build-up of information and aim to attain true knowledge. [208]
114. This wisdom is the present that humankind requires most to resolve the profound concerns and ethical challenges postured by AI: "Only by embracing a spiritual way of seeing truth, just by recuperating a knowledge of the heart, can we confront and translate the newness of our time." [209] Such "wisdom of the heart" is "the virtue that allows us to incorporate the entire and its parts, our decisions and their effects." It "can not be looked for from machines," but it "lets itself be found by those who seek it and be seen by those who love it; it anticipates those who desire it, and it enters search of those who deserve it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]
115. In a world marked by AI, we require the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "allows us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, situations, occasions and to discover their real meaning." [211]
116. Since a "individual's perfection is determined not by the details or understanding they have, but by the depth of their charity," [212] how we include AI "to consist of the least of our brothers and sis, the vulnerable, and those most in need, will be the true step of our humanity." [213] The "wisdom of the heart" can brighten and guide the human-centered use of this technology to help promote the common excellent, take care of our "common home," advance the look for the truth, foster essential human advancement, prefer human solidarity and fraternity, and lead humankind to its supreme goal: joy and full communion with God. [214]
117. From this perspective of knowledge, followers will be able to act as ethical representatives efficient in using this technology to promote a genuine vision of the human individual and society. [215] This ought to be finished with the understanding that technological progress becomes part of God's strategy for creation-an activity that we are called to buy toward the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the continuous look for the True and the Good.

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

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

Ex audientia die 14 ianuarii 2025 Franciscus

Contents

I. Introduction

II. What is Artificial Intelligence?

III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition

Rationality

Embodiment

Relationality

Relationship with the Truth

Stewardship of the World

An Essential Understanding of Human Intelligence

The Limits of AI

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

Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making

V. Specific Questions

AI and Society

AI and Human Relationships

AI, the Economy, and Labor

AI and Healthcare

AI and Education

AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse

AI, Privacy, and Surveillance

AI and the Protection of Our Common Home

AI and Warfare

AI and Our Relationship with God

VI. Concluding Reflections

True Wisdom

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See likewise Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. [2] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 307. Cf. Id., Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia (21 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020 ), 43. [3] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [5] J. McCarthy, et al., "A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence" (31 August 1955), http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024). [6] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), pars. 2-3: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [7] Terms in this file explaining the outputs or processes of AI are utilized figuratively to explain its operations and are not meant to anthropomorphize the maker. [8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [9] Here, one can see the main positions of the "transhumanists" and the "posthumanists." Transhumanists argue that technological advancements will enable people to conquer their biological constraints and enhance both their physical and cognitive capabilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, contend that such advances will eventually change human identity to the extent that mankind itself might no longer be thought about truly "human." Both views rest on a fundamentally negative understanding of human corporality, which treats the body more as an obstacle than as an important part of the person's identity and call to full awareness. Yet, this unfavorable view of the body is inconsistent with an appropriate understanding of human dignity. While the Church supports real scientific development, it verifies that human self-respect is rooted in "the person as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "dignity is likewise fundamental in each individual's body, which participates in its own method remaining in imago Dei" (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18). [10] This method reflects a functionalist viewpoint, which decreases the human mind to its functions and presumes that its functions can be entirely quantified in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear truly intelligent, it would still remain functional in nature. [11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460. [12] If "believing" is associated to machines, it needs to be clarified that this refers to calculative thinking instead of crucial thinking. Similarly, if devices are said to operate using abstract thought, it must be specified that this is restricted to computational reasoning. On the other hand, by its very nature, human thought is an imaginative procedure that eludes shows and goes beyond constraints. [13] On the foundational role of language in forming understanding, cf. M. Heidegger, Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. "Letter on Humanism," in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London - New York City 2010, 141-182). [14] For 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 advertisement litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: "Man is made in the image of God in relation to that [faculty] by which he transcends to the irrational animals. Now, this [professors] is factor itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it may more suitably be offered"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When thinking about all that they have, humans discover that they are most identified from animals exactly by the fact they have intelligence." This is likewise restated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who states that "man is the most perfect of all earthly beings endowed with movement, and his correct and natural operation is intellection," by which male abstracts from things and "gets in his mind things really intelligible" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 76). [17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, advertisement 3. Cf. ibid., I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a contemporary point of view that echoes elements of the classical and medieval distinction in between these two modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York 2011. [19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp. [20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138. [21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intellect can investigate the reality of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and pertain to recognize in that reality, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal ethical needs." [22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp. [24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "normally thinks about the human individual as a being who exists in the body and is unthinkable 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 completely revealed its meaning and worth." [26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81. [27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and thus it is united to the body in order that it might have a presence and an operation suitable to its nature." [29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18. [30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357. [31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54. [32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221. [33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27. [34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls likewise have reason and with it they circle in discourse around the reality of things. [...] [O] n account of the way in which they are capable of concentrating the numerous into the one, they too, in their own style and as far as they can, deserve conceptions like those of the angels" (en. tr. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York City - Mahwah 1987, 106-107). [35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 3: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7. [36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 42: AAS 91 (1999 ), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1043: "the human mind can going beyond immediate issues and grasping certain truths that are changeless, as real now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, factor finds universal worths obtained from that same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034. [38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last proceeding of factor is to recognize that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York City 1958, 77). [39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [40] Our semantic capability permits us to understand messages in any kind of interaction in a manner that both considers 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, situations, events and to reveal 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 enables us to produce brand-new material or concepts, mainly by offering an original perspective on truth. Both capacities depend on the existence of a personal 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 dedication to the reality, is far more than personal sensation [...] Certainly, its close relation to reality cultivates its universality and maintains it from being 'restricted to a narrow field devoid of relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to fact thus protects it from 'a fideism that denies it of its human and universal breadth.'" The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101 (2009 ), 642-643. [43] Cf. International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 7. [44] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 13: AAS 91 (1999 ), 15. [46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as estimated in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid., par. 294. [47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302. Bonaventure compares deep space to "a book reflecting, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who approves existence to all things (Breviloquium 2.12.1). Cf. Alain de Lille, De Incarnatione Christi, PL 210, 579a: "Omnis mundi creatura quasi liber et pictura nobis est et speculum." [48] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 67: AAS 107 (2015 ), 874; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589-592; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 57: "human beings inhabit an unique location in deep space according to the divine strategy: they delight in the opportunity of sharing in the magnificent governance of visible development. [...] Since male's location as ruler remains in reality a participation in the magnificent governance of development, we mention it here as a kind of stewardship." [49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165. [50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This concept is likewise reflected in the development account, where God brings creatures to Adam "to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living creature, that was its name" (Gen. 2:19), an action that shows the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's development. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117. [51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301. [52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302. [53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2. [54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7. [55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8. [57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906. [58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987. [59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: "L'intelligence n'est rien sans la délectation." Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: "The mind and the will are put at the service of the greater great by noticing and enjoying facts." [61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232). [62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he greatest norm of human life is the magnificent law itself-eternal, unbiased and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the entire world and the methods of the human community according to a strategy conceived in his knowledge and love. God has enabled male to take part in this law of his so that, under the mild personality of magnificent providence, lots of might be able to reach a much deeper and much deeper knowledge of unchangeable reality." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. [63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016. [64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042. [66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has imprinted his own image and similarity on man (cf. Gen 1:26), giving upon him an unparalleled self-respect [...] In result, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not represent any work he carries out, but which circulation from his essential dignity as a person." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22. [68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310. [69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is comprehended as a technical term to suggest this innovation, recalling 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 motivation of clinical expedition in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the appreciation for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These writers, amongst a long list of other Catholics participated in scientific research study and technological exploration, highlight that "faith and science can be joined in charity, provided that science is put at the service of the guys and lady of our time and not misused to damage and 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 male an ethical subject. When he acts deliberately, male is, so to speak, the daddy of his acts." [82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776. [83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777. [84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 463, where the Holy Father motivated efforts "to guarantee that technology remains human-centered, fairly grounded and directed towards the excellent." [85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 166: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1026-1027; Id., Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the function of human firm in picking a larger aim (Ziel) that then informs the particular purpose (Zweck) for which each technological application is produced, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um die Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71. [86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a purpose and, in its impact on human society, always represents a type of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, thus enabling certain people to carry out particular actions while preventing others from carrying out various ones. In a basically explicit way, this constitutive power-dimension of technology constantly consists of the worldview of those who invented and developed it." [87] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2020 ), 309. [88] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [89] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, pars. 212-213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [90] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 5: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589; Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [91] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "Confronted with the marvels of machines, which seem to know how to select separately, we ought to be extremely clear that decision-making [...] need to constantly be left to the human individual. We would condemn humanity to a future without hope if we took away individuals's capability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend upon the choices of machines." [92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [93] The term "predisposition" in this document describes algorithmic predisposition (systematic and constant mistakes in computer system systems that may disproportionately bias certain groups in unexpected methods) or learning bias (which will lead to training on a biased information set) and not the "predisposition vector" in neural networks (which is a specification utilized to adjust the output of "nerve cells" to change more properly to the data). [94] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father affirmed the development in agreement "on the requirement for advancement procedures to appreciate such worths as addition, transparency, security, equity, personal privacy and reliability," and also invited "the efforts of global organizations to manage these technologies so that they promote real progress, contributing, that is, to a better world and an integrally 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 further conversation of the ethical questions raised by AI from a Catholic perspective, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds., Journal of Moral Faith, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253. [99] On the importance of dialogue in a pluralist society oriented towards a "robust and strong social ethics," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. [104] Cf. Pontifical Council for 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 (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 provided by advanced devices, by screens and systems which can be turned on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel informs us continuously to risk of an in person encounter with others, with their physical existence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their joy which infects us in our close and constant interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from membership in the community, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045. [124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1. [125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899. [126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107. [128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' mentor about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893. [129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as priced estimate in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453. [130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: "work is 'for guy' and not guy 'for work.' Through this conclusion one appropriately pertains to acknowledge the pre-eminence of the subjective meaning of work over the unbiased one." [132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320. [133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502. [135] Ibid. [136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as quoted in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8. [137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops' Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: "If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture is manifest, with its painful consequences, it is that of healthcare. When an ill individual is not put in the center or their dignity is ruled out, this triggers attitudes that can lead even to speculation on the bad luck of others. And this is extremely severe! [...] The application of a service technique to the health care sector, if indiscriminate [...] might run the risk of disposing of human beings." [142] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [143] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729. [144] Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on using Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729; Francis, Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016), 6: AAS 108 (2016 ), 57-58. [145] Francis, Address to Members of the Global Researchers Advancing Catholic Education Project (20 April 2022): AAS 114 (2022 ), 580. [146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), par. 41: AAS 68 (1976 ), 31, pricing estimate Id., Address to the Members of the "Consilium de Laicis" (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: "if [the contemporary person] does listen to teachers, it is because 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, pricing quote the XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Final Document (27 October 2018), par. 21: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1592. [150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167. [151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019 ), 413. [152] In a 2023 policy document about the usage of generative AI in education and research, UNESCO notes: "One of the essential questions [of making use of generative AI (GenAI) in education and research study] is whether human beings can possibly cede fundamental levels of thinking and skill-acquisition procedures to AI and rather focus on higher-order thinking abilities based on the outputs offered by AI. Writing, for instance, is frequently connected with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], people can now begin with a well-structured summary offered by GenAI. Some experts have defined the use of GenAI to create text in this way as 'composing without thinking'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American philosopher Hannah Arendt predicted such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and warned: "If it must turn out to be real that knowledge (in the sense of knowledge) and believed have actually parted company for great, then we would certainly become the helpless servants, not a lot of our devices since our know-how" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3). [153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417. [154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914. [155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479. [156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10. [157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3. [158] For example, it might help people gain access to the "selection of resources for generating greater knowledge 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., links.gtanet.com.br par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8. [159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62. [160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074. [162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be truly indifferent to the question of whether what they know holds true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he writes: 'I have met lots of who desired to trick, however none who wished to be tricked'"; estimating Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794. [163] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62. [164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8. [165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Media (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149. [166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24. [167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no guy may with impunity violate that human self-respect which God himself treats with fantastic respect"; as quoted in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804. [168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203. [169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human dignity in the online world requires States to likewise respect the right to privacy, by shielding residents from invasive surveillance and allowing 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 determined a list of "early pledges of AI assisting to resolve environment modification" (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for Humanity [December 2023], 3). The document observed that, "taken together with predictive systems that can transform data into insights and insights into actions, AI-enabled tools may help establish brand-new methods and investments to lower emissions, influence brand-new economic sector investments in net zero, secure biodiversity, and construct broad-based social durability" (ibid.). [174] "The cloud" describes a network of physical servers throughout the world that makes it possible for users to store, procedure, and handle their data from another location. [175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850. [176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890. [177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870. [178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852. [179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640. [180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317. [181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101. [182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310. [184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105. [185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We need to guarantee and protect a space for proper 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 advancement and usage of deadly self-governing weapons systems (LAWS) that lack the suitable human control would position basic ethical issues, considered that LAWS can never ever be ethically responsible topics capable of 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 advanced weapons winding up in the wrong hands, facilitating, for example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the institutions of legitimate systems of government. In a word, the world does not require new technologies that add to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and as a result wind up promoting the recklessness of war." [190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565. [191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878. [192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687. [193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39. [194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661. [195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a much better understanding today that the simple accumulation of items and services [...] is not enough for the realization of human happiness. Nor, in consequence, does the availability of the many genuine benefits provided in current times by science and innovation, including the computer sciences, bring flexibility from every type of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the substantial body of resources and possible at male's disposal is guided by an ethical understanding and by an orientation towards the real good of the mankind, it easily turns against man to oppress him." Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988 ), 550-551.563 -564. [196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [197] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [198] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6. [199] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6. [200] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659, 87 ff. (en. tr. The End of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83). [201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [202] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), par. 15: AAS 71 (1979 ), 287-288. [203] N. Berdyaev, "Man and Machine," in C. Mitcham - R. Mackey, eds., Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York 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 internet nor is it a mass of unverified data. That is not the way to develop in the encounter with fact." [209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, wifidb.science 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.