1. With knowledge both ancient and brand-new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to assess the present difficulties and chances postured by clinical and technological improvements, particularly by the current development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Christian custom regards the present of intelligence as a necessary element of how people are produced "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). Beginning with an integral vision of the human person and the biblical contacting us to "till" and "keep" the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church emphasizes that this gift of intelligence ought to be revealed through the responsible usage of reason and technical capabilities in the stewardship of the created world.

2. The Church encourages the development of science, technology, the arts, and other types of human endeavor, viewing them as part of the "collaboration of male and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation." [1] As Sirach affirms, God "offered skill to people, that he might be glorified in his marvelous works" (Sir. 38:6). Human abilities and imagination originate from God and, when used appropriately, glorify God by showing his wisdom and goodness. In light of this, when we ask ourselves what it means to "be human," we can not omit a consideration of our clinical and technological capabilities.

3. It is within this viewpoint that today Note addresses the anthropological and ethical obstacles raised by AI-issues that are particularly considerable, as one of the objectives of this innovation is to imitate the human intelligence that developed it. For circumstances, unlike many other human developments, AI can be trained on the results of human imagination and after that create new "artifacts" with a level of speed and skill that often measures up to or surpasses what human beings can do, such as producing text or images indistinguishable from human compositions. This raises critical concerns about AI's possible role in the growing crisis of truth in the public online forum. Moreover, this innovation is designed to learn and make certain choices autonomously, adjusting to new situations and offering solutions not anticipated by its programmers, and thus, it raises basic concerns about ethical duty and human safety, with more comprehensive ramifications for society as a whole. This new scenario has triggered many individuals to review what it implies to be human and the function of humanity on the planet.

4. Taking all this into account, there is broad consensus that AI marks a brand-new and considerable phase in humanity's engagement with technology, positioning it at the heart of what Pope Francis has explained as an "epochal change." [2] Its impact is felt internationally and in a wide variety of areas, including interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, health care, law, warfare, and international relations. As AI advances rapidly towards even greater achievements, it is seriously crucial to consider its anthropological and ethical ramifications. This includes not just mitigating dangers and avoiding harm however also making sure that its applications are used to promote human progress and the typical good.

5. To contribute positively to the discernment relating to AI, and in response to Pope Francis' require a renewed "knowledge of heart," [3] the Church uses its experience through the anthropological and ethical reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active role in the international discussion on these issues, the Church invites those turned over with sending the faith-including moms and dads, teachers, pastors, and bishops-to dedicate themselves to this crucial topic with care and attention. While this document is planned particularly for them, it is likewise meant to be available to a wider audience, particularly those who share the conviction that scientific and technological advances need to be directed towards serving the human person and the common good. [4]
6. To this end, the document begins by distinguishing between concepts of intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then explores the Christian understanding of human intelligence, providing a framework rooted in the Church's philosophical and theological custom. Finally, the document offers guidelines to ensure that the advancement and usage of AI maintain human dignity and promote the essential advancement of the human individual and society.

7. The idea of "intelligence" in AI has actually developed with time, making use of a variety of concepts from numerous disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a considerable turning point took place in 1956 when the American computer researcher John McCarthy arranged a summer workshop at Dartmouth University to explore the issue of "Artificial Intelligence," which he specified as "that of making a device act in manner ins which would be called smart if a human were so behaving." [5] This workshop launched a research study program focused on creating machines efficient in carrying out tasks generally associated with the human intelligence and smart habits.

8. Ever since, AI research study has actually advanced quickly, leading to the development of complex systems efficient in performing highly advanced jobs. [6] These so-called "narrow AI" systems are normally developed to deal with specific and limited functions, such as translating languages, predicting the trajectory of a storm, classifying images, addressing questions, or creating visual material at the user's demand. While the meaning of "intelligence" in AI research differs, the majority of modern AI systems-particularly those utilizing device learning-rely on analytical reasoning rather than logical reduction. By analyzing large datasets to identify patterns, AI can "anticipate" [7] outcomes and propose brand-new techniques, imitating some cognitive processes typical of human problem-solving. Such achievements have actually been enabled through advances in computing innovation (including neural networks, unsupervised artificial intelligence, and evolutionary algorithms) along with hardware innovations (such as specialized processors). Together, these innovations allow AI systems to react to different types of human input, adjust to new scenarios, and even suggest novel options not prepared for by their initial programmers. [8]
9. Due to these fast improvements, lots of jobs as soon as handled exclusively by human beings are now delegated to AI. These systems can enhance or perhaps supersede what human beings have the ability to do in lots of fields, especially in specialized locations such as information analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each "narrow AI" application is designed for a particular task, lots of researchers aim to develop what is called "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI)-a single system efficient in running throughout all cognitive domains and performing any task within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI could one day attain the state of "superintelligence," exceeding human intellectual capacities, or contribute to "super-longevity" through advances in biotechnology. Others, nevertheless, fear that these possibilities, even if hypothetical, might one day eclipse the human person, while still others invite this potential improvement. [9]
10. Underlying this and many other point of views on the subject is the implicit assumption that the term "intelligence" can be utilized in the same way to refer to both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not capture the complete scope of the concept. When it comes to humans, intelligence is a professors that pertains to the person in his or her whole, whereas in the context of AI, "intelligence" is comprehended functionally, frequently with the presumption that the activities characteristic of the human mind can be broken down into digitized steps that makers can duplicate. [10]
11. This practical viewpoint is exemplified by the "Turing Test," which considers a machine "smart" if an individual can not differentiate its habits from that of a human. [11] However, in this context, the term "habits" refers just to the performance of particular intellectual tasks; it does not represent the full breadth of human experience, which includes abstraction, feelings, creativity, and the aesthetic, moral, and religious perceptiveness. Nor does it include the complete variety of expressions particular of the human mind. Instead, when it comes to AI, the "intelligence" of a system is evaluated methodologically, but also reductively, based on its ability to produce appropriate responses-in this case, those associated with the human intellect-regardless of how those responses are generated.

12. AI's advanced features provide it advanced abilities to carry out tasks, but not the ability to believe. [12] This distinction is crucially essential, as the method "intelligence" is defined undoubtedly shapes how we comprehend the relationship in between human idea and this innovation. [13] To value this, one must recall the richness of the philosophical custom and Christian faith, which provide a deeper and more detailed understanding of intelligence-an understanding that is main to the Church's teaching on the nature, self-respect, and vocation of the human individual. [14]
13. From the dawn of human self-reflection, the mind has actually played a main function in comprehending what it suggests to be "human." Aristotle observed that "all people by nature desire to know." [15] This understanding, with its capacity for abstraction that grasps the nature and significance of things, sets humans apart from the animal world. [16] As philosophers, theologians, and psychologists have analyzed the precise nature of this intellectual professors, they have actually also checked out how people understand the world and their distinct place within it. Through this exploration, the Christian custom has actually pertained to understand the human individual as a being consisting of both body and soul-deeply connected to this world and yet transcending it. [17]
14. In the classical custom, the idea of intelligence is typically understood through the complementary concepts of "factor" (ratio) and "intellect" (intellectus). These are not separate faculties however, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are 2 modes in which the same intelligence runs: "The term intellect is inferred from the inward grasp of the truth, while the name reason is drawn from the analytical and discursive procedure." [18] This succinct description highlights the two basic and complementary dimensions of human intelligence. Intellectus refers to the intuitive grasp of the truth-that is, collaring it with the "eyes" of the mind-which precedes and premises argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to reasoning correct: the discursive, analytical process that results in judgment. Together, intellect and factor form the 2 elements of the act of intelligere, "the appropriate operation of the human being as such." [19]
15. Explaining the human individual as a "rational" being does not reduce the person to a particular mode of idea; rather, it acknowledges that the capability for intellectual understanding shapes and penetrates all elements of human activity. [20] Whether worked out well or poorly, this capability is an intrinsic aspect of humanity. In this sense, the "term 'reasonable' encompasses all the capabilities of the human individual," including those related to "understanding and understanding, in addition to those of prepared, caring, selecting, and desiring; it likewise consists of all corporeal functions carefully related to these capabilities." [21] This detailed viewpoint underscores how, in the human individual, created in the "image of God," factor is integrated in a method that raises, shapes, and changes both the individual's will and actions. [22]
16. Christian thought considers the intellectual professors of the human individual within the framework of an essential anthropology that views the human being as basically embodied. In the human person, spirit and matter "are not 2 natures joined, but rather their union forms a single nature." [23] To put it simply, the soul is not merely the immaterial "part" of the person contained within the body, nor is the body an outer shell housing an intangible "core." Rather, the entire human individual is all at once both material and spiritual. This understanding shows the mentor of Sacred Scripture, which sees the human individual as a being who lives out relationships with God and others (and therefore, an authentically spiritual measurement) within and through this embodied existence. [24] The extensive meaning of this condition is additional lit up by the secret of the Incarnation, through which God himself handled our flesh and "raised it approximately a sublime dignity." [25]
17. Although deeply rooted in physical presence, the human person goes beyond the material world through the soul, which is "nearly on the horizon of eternity and time." [26] The intellect's capacity for transcendence and the self-possessed liberty of the will come from the soul, by which the human person "shares in the light of the magnificent mind." [27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its regular mode of knowledge without the body. [28] In this way, the intellectual professors of the human individual are an important part of a sociology that recognizes that the human person is a "unity of body and soul." [29] Further aspects of this understanding will be developed in what follows.

18. Human beings are "bought by their very nature to interpersonal communion," [30] having the capacity to understand one another, to offer themselves in love, and to participate in communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not a separated faculty however is worked out in relationships, discovering its max expression in discussion, partnership, and uniformity. We find out with others, and we learn through others.

19. The relational orientation of the human individual is eventually grounded in the everlasting self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is revealed in creation and redemption. [31] The human person is "contacted us to share, by understanding and love, in God's own life." [32]
20. This occupation to communion with God is necessarily tied to the call to communion with others. Love of God can not be separated from love for one's neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20; Mt. 22:37 -39). By the grace of sharing God's life, Christians are likewise called to mimic Christ's outpouring gift (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8 -11; Eph. 5:1 -2) by following his command to "love one another, as I have actually enjoyed you" (Jn. 13:34). [33] Love and service, echoing the divine life of self-giving, transcend self-interest to react more fully to the human vocation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Much more sublime than understanding lots of things is the commitment to care for one another, for if "I comprehend all secrets and all understanding [...] 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 truth." [34] In the double sense of intellectus-ratio, it makes it possible for the individual to explore truths that exceed simple sensory experience or energy, considering that "the desire for reality is part of human nature itself. It is an inherent property of human reason to ask why things are as they are." [35] Moving beyond the limitations of empirical data, human intelligence can "with genuine certitude attain to truth itself as knowable." [36] While truth remains just partially understood, the desire for fact "stimulates reason constantly to go even more; certainly, it is as if reason were overwhelmed to see that it can always surpass what it has currently attained." [37] Although Truth in itself goes beyond the boundaries of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. [38] Drawn by this tourist attraction, the human individual is resulted in look for "truths of a higher order." [39]
22. This innate drive toward the pursuit of reality is specifically obvious in the definitely human capabilities for semantic understanding and creativity, [40] through which this search unfolds in a "manner that is suitable to the social nature and self-respect of the human person." [41] Likewise, an unfaltering orientation to the fact is vital for charity to be both authentic and universal. [42]
23. The search for fact discovers its greatest expression in openness to realities that transcend the physical and produced world. In God, all facts attain their ultimate and original significance. [43] Entrusting oneself to God is a "basic decision that engages the entire person." [44] In this method, the human individual ends up being completely what she or he is contacted us to be: "the intelligence and the will show their spiritual nature," allowing the individual "to act in a manner that recognizes personal liberty to the complete." [45]
24. The Christian faith comprehends creation as the complimentary act of the Triune God, who, as Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, develops "not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and to communicate it." [46] Since God produces according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12), production is imbued with an intrinsic order that reflects God's strategy (cf. Gen. 1; Dan. 2:21 -22; Is. 45:18; Ps. 74:12 -17; 104), [47] within which God has called human beings to presume a special role: to cultivate and care for the world. [48]
25. Shaped by the Divine Craftsman, people live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by "keeping" and "tilling" (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation-using their intelligence and abilities to look after and develop creation in accord with God's strategy. [49] In this, human intelligence shows the Divine Intelligence that produced all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1), [50] continuously sustains them, and guides them to their supreme function in him. [51] Moreover, human beings are called to establish their capabilities in science and innovation, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir. 38:6). Thus, in a correct relationship with production, humans, on the one hand, use their intelligence and ability to comply with God in guiding production towards the purpose to which he has called it. [52] On the other hand, development itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, helps the human mind to "rise gradually to the supreme Principle, who is God." [53]
26. In this context, human intelligence becomes more plainly understood as a professors that forms an essential part of how the entire individual engages with reality. Authentic engagement requires accepting the full scope of one's being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with truth unfolds in numerous ways, as each individual, in his or her diverse uniqueness [54], seeks to comprehend the world, relate to others, solve issues, express imagination, and pursue important well-being through the harmonious interplay of the various dimensions of the individual's intelligence. [55] This includes sensible and linguistic abilities but can also encompass other modes of interacting with truth. Consider the work of a craftsmen, who "should understand how to determine, in inert matter, a particular type that others can not acknowledge" [56] and bring it forth through insight and practical ability. Indigenous peoples who live near to the earth often possess a profound sense of nature and its cycles. [57] Similarly, a pal who understands the right word to state or a person proficient at handling human relationships exhibits an intelligence that is "the fruit of self-examination, dialogue and generous encounter between individuals." [58] As Pope Francis observes, "in this age of synthetic intelligence, we can not forget that poetry and love are required to conserve our humanity." [59]
28. At the heart of the Christian understanding of intelligence is the combination of reality into the ethical and spiritual life of the individual, directing his/her actions due to God's goodness and truth. According to God's plan, intelligence, in its max sense, also includes the ability to relish what is real, great, and lovely. As the twentieth-century French poet Paul Claudel revealed, "intelligence is absolutely nothing without pleasure." [60] Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the highest paradise in Paradiso, affirms that the conclusion of this intellectual pleasure is discovered in the "light intellectual full of love, love of real good filled with joy, joy which goes beyond every sweetness." [61]
29. A proper understanding of human intelligence, for that reason, can not be lowered to the mere acquisition of truths or the ability to carry out specific tasks. Instead, it includes the person'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 individual, human intelligence has the ability to access the totality of being, considering existence in its fullness, which exceeds what is quantifiable, and understanding the significance of what has been comprehended. For believers, this capacity includes, in a specific method, the capability to grow in the understanding of the secrets of God by utilizing reason to engage ever more profoundly with exposed facts (intellectus fidei). [63] True intelligence is formed by magnificent love, which "is put forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human intelligence has an important reflective dimension, an unselfish openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian function.

30. Because of the foregoing discussion, the differences between human intelligence and existing AI systems become obvious. While AI is a remarkable technological accomplishment capable of imitating certain outputs related to human intelligence, it runs by performing tasks, attaining objectives, or making choices based on quantitative data and computational reasoning. For instance, with its analytical power, AI stands out at integrating data from a range of fields, modeling complex systems, and fostering interdisciplinary connections. In this way, it can help specialists work together in resolving complicated problems that "can not be dealt with from a single perspective or from a single set of interests." [64]
31. However, even as AI procedures and simulates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains essentially confined to a logical-mathematical structure, which enforces inherent constraints. Human intelligence, on the other hand, develops naturally throughout the individual's physical and mental growth, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although innovative AI systems can "learn" through processes such as artificial intelligence, this sort of training is fundamentally different from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is formed by embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional actions, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment. These elements shape and type individuals within their personal history.In contrast, AI, doing not have a physique, depends on computational thinking and knowing based upon vast datasets that consist of tape-recorded human experiences and understanding.

32. Consequently, although AI can replicate elements of human thinking and perform specific jobs with extraordinary speed and performance, its computational capabilities represent just a portion of the wider capacities of the human mind. For instance, AI can not currently reproduce moral discernment or the capability to establish authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is located within a personally lived history of intellectual and ethical formation that essentially forms the person's perspective, encompassing the physical, emotional, social, moral, and spiritual measurements of life. Since AI can not provide this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely entirely on this technology or treat it as the main ways of interpreting the world can result in "a loss of appreciation for the entire, for the relationships between things, and for the wider horizon." [65]
33. Human intelligence is not mainly about finishing practical jobs however about understanding and actively engaging with truth in all its dimensions; it is likewise efficient in surprising insights. Since AI lacks the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to reality and goodness, its capacities-though seemingly limitless-are unparalleled with the human ability to understand reality. So much can be gained from a disease, an accept of reconciliation, and even an easy sunset; certainly, lots of experiences we have as people open brand-new horizons and provide the possibility of attaining new wisdom. No device, working entirely with information, can determine up to these and countless other experiences present in our lives.

34. Drawing an extremely close equivalence in between human intelligence and AI threats catching a functionalist viewpoint, where individuals are valued based upon the work they can carry out. However, an individual's worth does not depend on possessing specific skills, cognitive and technological accomplishments, or private success, however on the individual's fundamental self-respect, grounded in being developed in the image of God. [66] This self-respect remains undamaged in all circumstances, including for those not able to exercise their capabilities, 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 specific, what are now called "neuro-rights"), which represent "a crucial point of merging in the search for commonalities" [68] and can, therefore, act as a fundamental ethical guide in conversations on the accountable development 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 deceptive" [69] and risks neglecting what is most valuable in the human individual. Due to this, AI ought to not be viewed as an artificial type of human intelligence however as an item of it. [70]
36. Given these considerations, one can ask how AI can be comprehended within God's strategy. To address this, it is essential to recall that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character but is a human venture that engages the humanistic and cultural dimensions of human imagination. [71]
37. Seen as a fruit of the possible engraved within human intelligence, [72] scientific query and the advancement of technical skills belong to the "cooperation of males and female with God in refining the visible development." [73] At the exact same time, all scientific and technological accomplishments are, ultimately, gifts from God. [74] Therefore, human beings should always use their capabilities in view of the greater purpose for which God has given them. [75]
38. We can gratefully acknowledge how innovation has actually "fixed numerous evils which used to damage and restrict human beings," [76] a reality for which we ought to rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological advancements in themselves represent authentic human progress. [77] The Church is especially opposed to those applications that threaten the sanctity of life or the self-respect of the human person. [78] Like any human undertaking, technological development needs to be directed to serve the human person and add to the pursuit of "higher justice, more substantial fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations," which are "better than advances in the technical field." [79] Concerns about the ethical implications of technological advancement are shared not just within the Church but also amongst many scientists, technologists, and professional associations, who increasingly require ethical reflection to guide this advancement in an accountable way.

39. To resolve these obstacles, it is necessary to emphasize the value of ethical obligation grounded in the dignity and occupation of the human person. This assisting concept likewise applies to questions concerning AI. In this context, the ethical dimension takes on main importance since it is people who design systems and figure out the purposes for which they are utilized. [80] Between a machine and a human, only the latter is genuinely a moral agent-a topic of moral obligation who exercises liberty in his/her decisions and accepts their consequences. [81] It is not the machine however the human who remains in relationship with fact and goodness, assisted by a moral conscience that calls the individual "to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil," [82] attesting to "the authority of truth in recommendation to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn." [83] Likewise, between a machine 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 seeking the good that is possible in every circumstance. [84] In reality, all of this likewise comes from the individual's exercise of intelligence.

40. Like any product of human imagination, AI can be directed toward positive or unfavorable ends. [85] When used in ways that respect human dignity and promote the wellness of individuals and communities, it can contribute positively to the human occupation. Yet, as in all areas where humans are called to make choices, the shadow of evil likewise looms here. Where human liberty permits the possibility of picking what is incorrect, the ethical examination of this innovation will require to consider how it is directed and utilized.

41. At the exact same time, it is not just completions that are fairly significant but also the means utilized to attain them. Additionally, the total vision and understanding of the human individual ingrained within these systems are important to consider also. Technological products reflect 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 could likewise enhance relationships and power characteristics that are irregular with a correct understanding of the human individual and society.

42. Therefore, the ends and the methods utilized in a provided application of AI, in addition to the overall vision it integrates, must all be evaluated to guarantee they appreciate human dignity and promote the typical good. [88] As Pope Francis has actually specified, "the intrinsic dignity of every male and every woman" need to be "the crucial requirement in examining emerging innovations; these will prove fairly sound to the level that they assist respect that self-respect and increase its expression at every level of human life," [89] including in the social and financial spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays a crucial function not just in creating and producing technology but likewise in directing its use in line with the genuine good of the human individual. [90] The duty for handling this carefully pertains to every level of society, guided by the principle of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.

43. The commitment to ensuring that AI always supports and promotes the supreme worth of the dignity of every human and the fullness of the human occupation acts as a criterion of discernment for designers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, in addition to to its users. It remains legitimate for every single application of the innovation at every level of its use.

44. An evaluation of the implications of this assisting principle could begin by thinking about the importance of ethical obligation. Since complete ethical causality belongs just to personal representatives, not synthetic ones, it is crucial to be able to identify and define who bears responsibility for the procedures involved in AI, especially those capable of learning, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up techniques and really deep neural networks make it possible for AI to fix complicated problems, they make it hard to comprehend the processes that lead to the options they embraced. This complicates accountability since if an AI application produces unwanted results, identifying who is responsible ends up being tough. To resolve this issue, attention needs to be provided to the nature of accountability processes in complex, highly automated settings, where outcomes may only become obvious in the medium to long term. For this, it is important that supreme duty for choices made utilizing AI rests with the human decision-makers and that there is accountability for using AI at each stage of the decision-making procedure. [91]
45. In addition to determining who is responsible, it is vital to identify the goals offered to AI systems. Although these systems might use unsupervised autonomous knowing systems and in some cases follow courses that humans can not reconstruct, they ultimately pursue objectives that human beings have actually appointed to them and are governed by procedures developed by their designers and programmers. Yet, this presents a difficulty since, as AI models end up being increasingly efficient in independent knowing, the capability to maintain control over them to guarantee that such applications serve human purposes may effectively reduce. This raises the crucial question of how to guarantee that AI systems are ordered for the good of individuals and not against them.

46. While duty for the ethical usage of AI systems starts with those who develop, produce, manage, and manage such systems, it is also shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis kept in mind, the machine "makes a technical choice among a number of possibilities based either on well-defined criteria or on statistical reasonings. Humans, however, not just select, however in their hearts are capable of choosing." [92] Those who utilize AI to accomplish a task and follow its results create a context in which they are eventually accountable for the power they have actually delegated. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist humans in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it ought to be trustworthy, safe, robust enough to handle disparities, and transparent in their operation to alleviate predispositions and unintended adverse effects. [93] Regulatory structures should ensure that all legal entities remain liable for using AI and all its repercussions, with suitable safeguards for openness, privacy, and responsibility. [94] Moreover, those utilizing AI ought to beware not to end up being overly dependent on it for their decision-making, a pattern that increases modern society's currently high reliance on innovation.

47. The Church's ethical and social mentor provides resources to assist guarantee that AI is used in a way that maintains human company. Considerations about justice, for instance, need to likewise deal with concerns such as cultivating just social characteristics, maintaining global security, and promoting peace. By exercising prudence, people and communities can determine methods to utilize AI to benefit humankind while preventing applications that might break down human self-respect or harm the environment. In this context, the principle of responsibility ought to be understood not just in its most minimal sense however as a "duty for the look after others, which is more than just accounting for results attained." [95]
48. Therefore, AI, like any technology, can be part of a conscious and responsible answer to humanity's vocation to the excellent. However, as formerly gone over, AI needs to be directed by human intelligence to align with this occupation, guaranteeing it appreciates the self-respect of the human person. Recognizing this "exalted dignity," the Second Vatican Council verified that "the social order and its advancement should inevitably work to the benefit of the human individual." [96] In light of this, making use of AI, as Pope Francis said, must be "accompanied by an ethic inspired by a vision of the typical great, a principles of liberty, duty, and fraternity, efficient in fostering the complete advancement of individuals in relation to others and to the whole of production." [97]
49. Within this basic point of view, some observations follow below to highlight how the preceding arguments can assist supply an ethical orientation in useful circumstances, in line with the "wisdom of heart" that Pope Francis has actually proposed. [98] While not extensive, this discussion is used in service of the discussion that thinks about 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 being and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human household should support the advancement of new innovations and serve as unassailable requirements for examining them before they are utilized." [100]
51. Viewed through this lens, AI might "introduce essential developments in farming, education and culture, an improved level of life for whole nations and peoples, and the development of human fraternity and social relationship," and thus be "utilized to promote integral human development." [101] AI could likewise help companies identify those in requirement and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other similar applications of this technology might contribute to human advancement and the common good. [102]
52. However, while AI holds numerous possibilities for promoting the good, it can also prevent or even counter human advancement and the common good. Pope Francis has actually noted that "evidence to date recommends that digital innovations have increased inequality in our world. Not just differences in product wealth, which are also substantial, however also distinctions in access to political and social impact." [103] In this sense, AI might be used to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, produce new types of poverty, widen the "digital divide," and worsen existing social inequalities. [104]
53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a couple of effective business raises substantial ethical concerns. Exacerbating this problem is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single person can exercise total oversight over the huge and intricate datasets used for computation. This absence of distinct accountability creates the risk that AI could be manipulated for individual or business gain or to direct popular opinion for the benefit of a specific industry. Such entities, inspired by their own interests, have the capability to work out "kinds of control as subtle as they are invasive, developing mechanisms for the manipulation of consciences and of the democratic procedure." [105]
54. Furthermore, there is the threat of AI being utilized to promote what Pope Francis has actually called the "technocratic paradigm," which views all the world's problems as understandable through technological means alone. [106] In this paradigm, human self-respect and fraternity are typically set aside in the name of effectiveness, "as if reality, goodness, and fact automatically stream from technological and financial power as such." [107] Yet, human dignity and the common good must never ever be broken for the sake of efficiency, [108] for "technological advancements that do not result in an improvement in the lifestyle of all mankind, but on the contrary, intensify inequalities and conflicts, can never ever count as real progress. " [109] Instead, AI must be put "at the service of another kind of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more essential." [110]
55. Attaining this goal needs a much deeper reflection on the relationship in between autonomy and responsibility. Greater autonomy heightens everyone's responsibility throughout numerous elements of communal life. For Christians, the structure of this responsibility depends on the recognition that all human capabilities, including the person's autonomy, originated from God and are suggested to be utilized in the service of others. [111] Therefore, rather than simply pursuing economic or technological goals, AI needs to serve "the common good of the whole human household," which is "the sum total of social conditions that enable individuals, either as groups or as people, to reach their satisfaction more totally and more quickly." [112]
56. The Second Vatican Council observed that "by his inner nature man is a social being; and if he does not participate in relations with others, he can neither live nor establish his presents." [113] This conviction underscores that living in society is intrinsic to the nature and vocation of the human person. [114] As social beings, we seek relationships that include shared exchange and the pursuit of fact, in the course of which, people "share with each other the reality they have discovered, or think they have actually discovered, in such a method that they assist one another in the look for reality." [115]
57. Such a mission, in addition to other aspects of human communication, presupposes encounters and shared exchange between people formed by their unique histories, thoughts, convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a varied, multifaceted, and intricate reality: private and social, logical and affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis underscores this dynamic, keeping in mind that "together, we can look for the truth in discussion, in unwinded conversation or in enthusiastic dispute. To do so requires perseverance; it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently embrace the more comprehensive experience of individuals and peoples. [...] The process of structure fraternity, be it local or universal, can just be undertaken by spirits that are free and available to authentic encounters." [116]
58. It remains in this context that a person can think about the difficulties AI poses to human relationships. Like other technological tools, AI has the prospective to cultivate connections within the human family. However, it might also impede a real encounter with truth and, ultimately, lead individuals to "a deep and melancholic dissatisfaction with interpersonal relations, or a harmful sense of isolation." [117] Authentic human relationships need the richness of being with others in their pain, their pleas, and their joy. [118] Since human intelligence is expressed and enhanced also in interpersonal and embodied ways, genuine and spontaneous encounters with others are important for engaging with truth in its fullness.

59. Because "real wisdom demands an encounter with reality," [119] the rise of AI presents another difficulty. Since AI can successfully mimic the items of human intelligence, the capability to know when one is connecting with a human or a device can no longer be considered given. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other innovative outputs that are normally associated with people. Yet, it must be comprehended for what it is: a tool, not a person. [120] This distinction is typically obscured by the language used by practitioners, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and thus blurs the line between human and maker.

60. Anthropomorphizing AI also positions specific difficulties for the advancement of kids, potentially motivating them to develop patterns of interaction that deal with human relationships in a transactional way, as one would relate to a chatbot. Such routines might lead young people to see instructors as simple dispensers of details instead of as coaches who direct and support their intellectual and moral development. Genuine relationships, rooted in empathy and a steadfast commitment to the good of the other, are important and irreplaceable in fostering the full advancement of the human person.

61. In this context, it is essential to clarify that, despite making use of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can genuinely experience empathy. Emotions can not be decreased to facial expressions or expressions produced in action to triggers; they reflect the method a person, as a whole, associates with the world and to his or her own life, with the body playing a main role. True compassion requires the ability to listen, recognize another's irreducible originality, invite their otherness, and understand the meaning behind even their silences. [121] Unlike the world of analytical judgment in which AI stands out, true compassion comes from the relational sphere. It involves intuiting and nabbing the lived experiences of another while maintaining the difference in between self and other. [122] While AI can imitate empathetic actions, it can not reproduce the incomparably personal and relational nature of authentic compassion. [123]
62. Because of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as a person should constantly be prevented; doing so for deceitful purposes is a severe ethical violation that might erode social trust. Similarly, utilizing AI to deceive in other contexts-such as in education or in human relationships, including the sphere of sexuality-is likewise to be thought about unethical and requires mindful oversight to prevent harm, maintain transparency, and make sure the self-respect of all people. [124]
63. In an increasingly separated world, some people 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 replicate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with others are an essential part of how a person grows to become who he or she is suggested to be. If AI is utilized to assist individuals foster authentic connections between individuals, it can contribute favorably to the complete realization of the individual. Conversely, if we change relationships with God and with others with interactions with technology, we run the risk of changing authentic relationality with a lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22 -23). Instead of pulling back into artificial worlds, we are called to engage in a committed and deliberate method with reality, especially by relating to the bad and suffering, consoling those in sadness, and creating bonds of communion with all.

64. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, AI is being progressively integrated into financial and monetary systems. Significant investments are currently being made not only in the innovation sector however likewise in energy, finance, and media, especially in the areas of marketing and sales, logistics, technological innovation, compliance, and risk management. At the same time, AI's applications in these locations have actually also highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of significant chances but likewise profound dangers. A first real crucial point in this location concerns the possibility that-due to the concentration of AI applications in the hands of a couple of corporations-only those large business would gain from the value developed by AI rather than the companies that utilize it.

65. Other broader aspects of AI's impact on the economic-financial sphere need to likewise be thoroughly analyzed, especially worrying the interaction in between concrete truth and the digital world. One crucial consideration in this regard includes the coexistence of varied and alternative kinds of financial and monetary institutions within an offered context. This element should be encouraged, as it can bring advantages in how it supports the genuine economy by cultivating its development and stability, particularly during times of crisis. Nevertheless, it needs to be stressed that digital realities, not limited by any spatial bonds, tend to be more uniform and impersonal than neighborhoods rooted in a specific place and a specific history, with a typical journey characterized by shared worths and hopes, but likewise by unavoidable disputes and divergences. This variety is an undeniable asset to a neighborhood's economic life. Turning over the economy and financing entirely to digital technology would minimize this range and richness. As a result, numerous options to economic issues that can be reached through natural dialogue between the included parties may no longer be attainable in a world dominated by procedures and just the look of nearness.

66. Another area where AI is currently having a profound impact is the world of work. As in lots of other fields, AI is driving basic changes throughout lots of occupations, with a variety of effects. On the one hand, it has the prospective to boost competence and efficiency, develop new tasks, enable employees to concentrate on more ingenious tasks, and open brand-new horizons for imagination and innovation.

67. However, while AI promises to boost efficiency by taking control of ordinary tasks, it regularly requires employees to adjust to the speed and needs of makers instead of makers being developed to support those who work. As an outcome, contrary to the advertised advantages of AI, existing methods to the innovation can paradoxically deskill workers, subject them to automated monitoring, and relegate them to stiff and repeated tasks. The requirement to keep up with the speed of technology can wear down employees' sense of agency and stifle the ingenious capabilities they are anticipated to give their work. [125]
68. AI is presently getting rid of the requirement for some tasks that were as soon as carried out by human beings. If AI is used to change human workers rather than match them, there is a "substantial danger of disproportionate benefit for the few at the cost of the impoverishment of lots of." [126] Additionally, as AI becomes more powerful, there is an involved danger that human labor might lose its worth in the economic realm. This is the logical consequence of the technocratic paradigm: a world of mankind oppressed to efficiency, where, ultimately, the cost of mankind need to be cut. Yet, human lives are fundamentally valuable, independent of their financial output. Nevertheless, the "present design," Pope Francis explains, "does not appear to prefer a financial investment in efforts to help the sluggish, the weak, or the less gifted to discover chances in life." [127] Because of this, "we can not enable a tool as effective and indispensable as Artificial Intelligence to enhance such a paradigm, however rather, we must make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its growth." [128]
69. It is essential to remember that "the order of things must be subordinate to the order of individuals, and not the other way around." [129] Human work needs to not only be at the service of earnings but at "the service of the entire human individual [...] taking into consideration the individual's material needs and the requirements of his or her intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and spiritual life." [130] In this context, the Church acknowledges that work is "not just a means of earning one's daily bread" but is also "an essential dimension of social life" and "a means [...] of individual development, the structure of healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of presents. Work offers us a sense of shared obligation for the advancement of the world, and eventually, for our life as a people." [131]
70. Since work is a "part of the significance of life on this earth, a course to growth, human advancement and individual fulfillment," "the goal needs to not be that technological development progressively changes human work, for this would be harmful to humankind" [132] -rather, it should promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI ought to help, not change, human judgment. Similarly, it needs to never break down creativity or decrease employees to mere "cogs in a device." Therefore, "respect for the dignity of workers and the significance of work for the economic well-being of people, households, and societies, for job security and simply salaries, ought to be a high top priority for the global community as these types of technology permeate more deeply into our offices." [133]
71. As individuals in God's recovery work, health care specialists have the occupation and obligation to be "guardians and servants of human life." [134] Because of this, the health care occupation brings an "intrinsic and undeniable ethical measurement," acknowledged by the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges doctors and health care professionals to devote themselves to having "absolute regard for human life and its sacredness." [135] Following the example of the Good Samaritan, this dedication is to be carried out by males and women "who turn down the production of a society of exclusion, and act instead as next-door neighbors, raising up and fixing up the succumbed to the sake of the common good." [136]
72. Seen in this light, AI appears to hold enormous capacity in a variety of applications in the medical field, such as assisting the diagnostic work of doctor, facilitating relationships between patients and medical personnel, using new treatments, and broadening access to quality care likewise for those who are isolated or marginalized. In these methods, the technology could boost the "caring and loving closeness" [137] that doctor are contacted us to reach the sick and suffering.

73. However, if AI is utilized not to boost but to replace the relationship in between clients and health care providers-leaving patients to engage with a machine rather than a human being-it would minimize a crucially important human relational structure to a centralized, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of motivating uniformity with the ill and suffering, such applications of AI would risk getting worse the isolation that typically accompanies health problem, especially in the context of a culture where "persons are no longer viewed as a vital worth to be looked after and appreciated." [138] This abuse of AI would not line up with respect for the dignity of the human individual and solidarity with the suffering.

74. Responsibility for the well-being of patients and the choices that discuss their lives are at the heart of the healthcare profession. This accountability needs doctor to exercise all their skill and intelligence in making well-reasoned and fairly grounded choices concerning those delegated to their care, always appreciating the inviolable self-respect of the patients and the need for informed approval. As a result, decisions regarding client treatment and the weight of duty they entail need to always remain with the human individual and ought to never be delegated to AI. [139]
75. In addition, utilizing AI to identify who need to receive treatment based mainly on financial procedures or metrics of efficiency represents an especially troublesome circumstances of the "technocratic paradigm" that should be declined. [140] For, "optimizing resources implies using them in an ethical and fraternal way, and not punishing the most vulnerable." [141] Additionally, AI tools in health care are "exposed to kinds of bias and discrimination," where "systemic mistakes can easily increase, producing not just injustices in private cases however likewise, due to the cause and effect, genuine forms of social inequality." [142]
76. The combination of AI into healthcare likewise poses the risk of enhancing other existing variations in access to healthcare. As health care ends up being significantly oriented towards prevention and lifestyle-based methods, AI-driven solutions might unintentionally favor more affluent populations who already delight in better access to medical resources and quality nutrition. This trend threats reinforcing a "medication for the abundant" design, where those with financial ways gain from sophisticated preventative tools and individualized health details while others battle to gain access to even basic services. To avoid such injustices, fair structures are needed to ensure that the usage of AI in health care does not worsen existing health care inequalities but rather serves the typical good.

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

78. This approach includes a commitment to cultivating the mind, but always as a part of the important development of the individual: "We must break that idea of education which holds that educating ways filling one's head with ideas. That is the method we educate automatons, cerebral minds, not individuals. Educating is taking a risk in the tension in between the mind, the heart, and the hands." [145]
79. At the center of this work of forming the entire human person is the essential relationship in between instructor and trainee. Teachers do more than communicate understanding; they model essential human qualities and inspire the delight of discovery. [146] Their existence encourages trainees both through the content they teach and the care they demonstrate for their trainees. This bond promotes trust, good understanding, and the capability to address each person's distinct self-respect and capacity. On the part of the trainee, this can create an authentic desire to grow. The physical presence of an instructor creates a relational dynamic that AI can not duplicate, one that deepens engagement and nurtures the trainee's essential advancement.

80. In this context, AI provides both chances and difficulties. If utilized in a sensible manner, within the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and purchased to the genuine goals of education, AI can become a valuable academic resource by boosting access to education, providing tailored support, and supplying instant feedback to trainees. These benefits could improve the learning experience, specifically in cases where individualized attention is required, or educational resources are otherwise scarce.

81. Nevertheless, an important part of education is forming "the intellect to factor well in all matters, to connect towards truth, and to understand it," [147] while helping the "language of the head" to grow harmoniously with the "language of the heart" and the "language of the hands." [148] This is even more essential in an age marked by innovation, in which "it is no longer merely a question of 'utilizing' instruments of interaction, but of living in an extremely digitalized culture that has had a profound influence on [...] our capability to communicate, discover, be notified and get in into relationship with others." [149] However, rather of fostering "a cultivated intellect," which "brings with it a power and a grace to every work and profession that it carries out," [150] the substantial use of AI in education could lead to the trainees' increased dependence on technology, deteriorating their ability to carry out some abilities separately and aggravating their reliance on screens. [151]
82. Additionally, while some AI systems are created to assist individuals establish their critical thinking capabilities and problem-solving skills, numerous others merely supply answers rather of triggering trainees to get to answers themselves or write text for themselves. [152] Instead of training young individuals how to amass details and create fast actions, education ought to encourage "the responsible use of liberty to deal with concerns with common sense and intelligence." [153] Building on this, "education in making use of types of expert system should aim above all at promoting critical thinking. Users of all ages, however particularly the young, require to develop a critical approach to using information and content gathered on the internet or produced by synthetic intelligence systems. Schools, universities, and scientific societies are challenged to assist trainees and experts to grasp the social and ethical aspects of the development and uses of innovation." [154]
83. As Saint John Paul II recalled, "in the world today, characterized by such fast developments in science and technology, the tasks of a Catholic University assume an ever greater value and urgency." [155] In a particular way, Catholic universities are prompted to be present as excellent labs of hope at this crossroads of history. In an inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary secret, they are prompted to engage "with knowledge and creativity" [156] in mindful research on this phenomenon, helping to draw out the salutary capacity within the numerous fields of science and reality, and directing them constantly towards fairly sound applications that plainly serve the cohesion of our societies and the typical great, reaching brand-new frontiers in the discussion between faith and reason.

84. Moreover, it needs to be noted that current AI programs have been known to supply prejudiced or fabricated details, which can lead trainees to trust inaccurate content. This issue "not just risks of legitimizing fake news and reinforcing a dominant culture's advantage, but, in other words, it also undermines the academic process itself." [157] With time, clearer differences may emerge in between proper and inappropriate usages of AI in education and research. Yet, a definitive guideline is that using AI must always be transparent and never ever misrepresented.

85. AI could be utilized as an aid to human self-respect if it helps people comprehend intricate concepts or directs them to sound resources that support their search for the fact. [158]
86. However, AI also presents a major danger of creating manipulated content and false details, which can easily misinform individuals due to its similarity to the truth. Such false information may happen accidentally, as when it comes to AI "hallucination," where a generative AI system yields results that appear genuine however are not. Since generating content that simulates human artifacts is main to AI's performance, mitigating these risks shows difficult. Yet, the effects of such aberrations and false details can be quite serious. For this reason, all those associated with producing and utilizing AI systems should be dedicated to the truthfulness and precision of the details processed by such systems and shared to the public.

87. While AI has a latent capacity to create false details, a a lot more unpleasant issue depends on the intentional abuse of AI for manipulation. This can happen when individuals or organizations intentionally create and spread false content with the aim to trick or trigger damage, such as "deepfake" images, videos, and audio-referring to an incorrect representation of an individual, modified or created by an AI algorithm. The threat of deepfakes is particularly evident when they are utilized 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 injuries in their human dignity." [159]
88. On a wider scale, by distorting "our relationship with others and with reality," [160] AI-generated phony media can gradually weaken the structures of society. This concern needs cautious guideline, as misinformation-especially through AI-controlled or influenced media-can spread unintentionally, sustaining political polarization and social unrest. When society ends up being indifferent to the reality, numerous groups build their own versions of "realities," deteriorating the "mutual ties and mutual dependencies" [161] that underpin the fabric of social life. As deepfakes trigger people to question everything and AI-generated incorrect material wears down rely on what they see and hear, polarization and dispute will only grow. Such extensive deceptiveness is no unimportant matter; it strikes at the core of mankind, taking apart the foundational trust on which societies are built. [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 self-respect and not hurt it, and if it is to promote peace instead of violence, then the human community should be proactive in resolving these trends with respect to human dignity and the promotion of the great." [163] Those who produce and share AI-generated material ought to constantly work out diligence in validating the truth of what they share and, in all cases, ought 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 vulnerable." [164] This requires the ongoing vigilance and mindful discernment of all users concerning their activity online. [165]
90. Humans are inherently relational, and the data everyone generates in the digital world can be viewed as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data conveys not only details however likewise personal and relational understanding, which, in a significantly digitized context, can total up to power over the person. Moreover, while some types of information might pertain to public elements of a person's life, others may discuss the person's interiority, possibly even their conscience. Seen in this method, personal privacy plays an essential function in securing the limits of an individual's inner life, maintaining their freedom to relate to others, reveal themselves, and make choices without excessive control. This protection is likewise tied to the defense of spiritual flexibility, as monitoring can likewise be misused to put in control over the lives of believers and how they reveal their faith.

91. It is appropriate, therefore, to attend to the issue of privacy from an issue for the legitimate freedom and inalienable dignity of the human person "in all situations." [166] The Second Vatican Council included the right "to secure privacy" among the essential rights "needed for living a genuinely human life," a right that must be encompassed all individuals on account of their "superb self-respect." [167] Furthermore, the Church has actually likewise affirmed the right to the genuine regard for a personal life in the context of verifying the individual's right to a good credibility, defense of their physical and psychological integrity, and flexibility from harm or undue invasion [168] -vital elements of the due regard for the intrinsic self-respect of the human person. [169]
92. Advances in AI-powered data processing and analysis now make it possible to infer patterns in an individual's behavior and believing from even a percentage of details, making the role of information privacy much more essential as a safeguard for the dignity 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 shrinking or disappearing to the point that the right to personal privacy hardly exists. Everything has actually ended up being a sort of phenomenon to be examined and inspected, and people's lives are now under continuous security." [170]
93. While there can be genuine and proper methods to use AI in keeping with human dignity and the typical excellent, utilizing it for monitoring aimed at exploiting, limiting others' freedom, or benefitting a few at the expenditure of the numerous is unjustifiable. The danger of monitoring overreach should be kept an eye on by appropriate regulators to make sure transparency and public accountability. Those accountable for surveillance should never exceed their authority, which must always favor the dignity and liberty of everyone as the important basis of a just and humane society.

94. Furthermore, "essential regard for human self-respect demands that we refuse to enable the originality of the person to be identified with a set of information." [171] This specifically uses when AI is utilized to evaluate people or groups based upon their behavior, attributes, or history-a practice referred to as "social scoring": "In social and financial decision-making, we must be cautious about delegating judgments to algorithms that process data, frequently gathered surreptitiously, on a person's makeup and prior behavior. Such data can be polluted by societal prejudices and preconceptions. A person's previous behavior must not be used to reject him or her the opportunity to alter, grow, and add to society. We can not permit algorithms to limit or condition regard for human dignity, or to omit empathy, grace, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that individuals are able to change." [172]
95. AI has numerous promising applications for improving our relationship with our "typical home," such as creating models to anticipate extreme environment events, proposing engineering services to lower their effect, managing relief operations, and predicting population shifts. [173] Additionally, AI can support sustainable farming, enhance energy use, and offer early caution systems for public health emergency situations. These improvements have the prospective to reinforce strength against climate-related difficulties and promote more sustainable development.

96. At the exact same time, existing AI models and the hardware required to support them consume huge amounts of energy and water, considerably contributing to CO2 emissions and straining resources. This reality is typically obscured by the way this technology is presented in the popular creativity, where words such as "the cloud" [174] can provide the impression that data is saved and processed in an intangible world, separated from the real world. However, "the cloud" is not an ethereal domain separate from the real world; as with all calculating technologies, it relies on physical makers, cable televisions, and energy. The same holds true of the innovation behind AI. As these systems grow in intricacy, particularly big language designs (LLMs), they require ever-larger datasets, increased computational power, and higher storage facilities. Considering the heavy toll these innovations handle the environment, it is crucial to develop sustainable solutions that reduce their effect on our common home.

97. Even then, as Pope Francis teaches, it is vital "that we search for services not just in innovation however in a change of humanity." [175] A complete and genuine understanding of development recognizes that the worth of all produced things can not be lowered to their mere utility. Therefore, a totally human technique to the stewardship of the earth declines the distorted anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which looks for to "draw out whatever possible" from the world, [176] and rejects the "myth of development," which assumes that "environmental issues will fix themselves simply with the application of new innovation and with no need for ethical factors to consider or deep change." [177] Such a mindset needs to pave the way to a more holistic method that appreciates the order of creation and promotes the integral good of the human person while protecting our typical home. [178]
98. The Second Vatican Council and the consistent teaching of the Popes ever since have actually firmly insisted that peace is not merely the absence of war and is not restricted to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine, peace is "the serenity of order." [179] Certainly, peace can not be attained without safeguarding the goods of persons, complimentary interaction, respect for the self-respect of persons and individuals, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity and can not be attained through force alone; rather, it must be mainly developed through patient diplomacy, the active promo of justice, solidarity, important human advancement, and regard for the dignity of all people. [180] In this method, the tools utilized to maintain peace should never be allowed to validate injustice, violence, or oppression. Instead, they need to constantly be governed by a "firm determination to regard other individuals and countries, together with their dignity, in addition to the purposeful practice of fraternity." [181]
99. While AI's analytical capabilities might help nations seek peace and ensure security, the "weaponization of Artificial Intelligence" can also be highly problematic. Pope Francis has observed that "the ability to perform military operations through remote control systems has resulted in a minimized understanding of the devastation triggered by those weapon systems and the burden of responsibility for their use, leading to a a lot more cold and separated technique to the tremendous disaster of war." [182] Moreover, the ease with which self-governing weapons make war more viable militates against the principle of war as a last hope in legitimate self-defense, [183] possibly increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of human oversight and speeding up a destabilizing arms race, with catastrophic effects for human rights. [184]
100. In specific, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which are capable of determining and striking targets without direct human intervention, are a "cause for serious ethical issue" due to the fact that they lack the "special human capacity for moral judgment and ethical decision-making." [185] For this factor, Pope Francis has urgently called for a reconsideration of the advancement of these weapons and a prohibition on their use, starting with "an effective and concrete dedication to introduce ever higher and proper 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 machines that can kill autonomously with precision to those efficient in massive damage, some AI scientists have revealed concerns that such innovation presents an "existential threat" by having the prospective to act in manner ins which could threaten the survival of whole regions or even of mankind itself. This danger demands serious attention, reflecting the long-standing issue about innovations that approve war "an uncontrollable harmful power over multitudes of innocent civilians," [187] without even sparing kids. In this context, the call from Gaudium et Spes to "carry out an examination of war with an entirely brand-new mindset" [188] is more immediate than ever.

102. At the very same time, while the theoretical risks of AI should have attention, the more immediate and pressing concern lies in how people with malicious objectives might abuse this innovation. [189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future abilities are unforeseeable, mankind's previous actions offer clear warnings. The atrocities dedicated throughout history suffice to raise deep issues about the prospective abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that "humankind now has instruments of unmatched power: we can turn this world into a garden, or decrease it to a stack of debris." [190] Given this truth, the Church advises us, in the words of Pope Francis, that "we are totally free to apply our intelligence towards things developing favorably," or toward "decadence and shared damage." [191] To avoid mankind from spiraling into self-destruction, [192] there need to be a clear stand against all applications of innovation that naturally threaten human life and dignity. This dedication needs cautious discernment about the usage of AI, particularly in military defense applications, to make sure that it constantly appreciates human self-respect and serves the typical good. The advancement and release of AI in armaments should be subject to the greatest levels of ethical scrutiny, governed by an issue for human self-respect and the sanctity of life. [193]
104. Technology provides impressive tools to manage and develop the world's resources. However, in many cases, humankind is increasingly ceding control of these resources to machines. Within some circles of researchers and futurists, there is optimism about the potential of artificial general intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical kind of AI that would match or surpass human intelligence and produce unimaginable developments. Some even hypothesize that AGI could attain superhuman abilities. At the very same time, as society wanders away from a connection with the transcendent, some are tempted to turn to AI searching for significance or fulfillment-longings that can just be really pleased in communion with God. [194]
105. However, the presumption of substituting God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture clearly alerts against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1 -5; 34:17). Moreover, AI might show much more sexy 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 at least provides the illusion of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is vital to keep in mind that AI is but a pale reflection of humanity-it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated material, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI can not have a lot of the abilities particular to human life, and it is also imperfect. By turning to AI as a viewed "Other" higher than itself, with which to share presence and obligations, humanity threats creating an alternative to God. However, it is not AI that is eventually deified and worshipped, however humanity itself-which, in this method, becomes enslaved to its own work. [195]
106. While AI has the prospective to serve humankind and contribute to the typical great, it remains a production of human hands, bearing "the imprint of human art and ingenuity" (Acts 17:29). It needs to never ever be ascribed unnecessary worth. As the Book of Wisdom verifies: "For a male made them, and one whose spirit is obtained formed them; for no male can form a god which resembles himself. He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is better than the things he worships because he has life, however they never have" (Wis. 15:16 -17).

107. In contrast, human beings, "by their interior life, go beyond the whole material universe; they experience this deep interiority when they participate in their own heart, where God, who probes the heart, awaits them, and where they choose their own fate in the sight of God." [196] It is within the heart, as Pope Francis advises us, that each private discovers the "strange connection between self-knowledge and openness to others, in between the encounter with one's personal uniqueness and the willingness to offer oneself to others. " [197] Therefore, it is the heart alone that is "capable of setting our other powers and enthusiasms, and our entire individual, in a stance of reverence and loving obedience before the Lord," [198] who "uses to deal with each one people as a 'Thou,' constantly and permanently." [199]
108. Considering the numerous challenges presented by advances in innovation, Pope Francis highlighted the need for growth in "human duty, values, and conscience," proportionate to the growth in the potential that this innovation brings [200] -recognizing that "with a boost in human power comes a widening of obligation on the part of people and neighborhoods." [201]
109. At the very same time, the "necessary and essential question" remains "whether in the context of this development man, as guy, is becoming genuinely better, that is to state, more fully grown spiritually, more knowledgeable about the self-respect of his humankind, 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 crucial to know how to evaluate individual applications of AI in specific contexts to determine whether its usage promotes human self-respect, the vocation of the human person, and the typical good. As with lots of innovations, the results of the numerous uses of AI might not constantly be predictable from their creation. As these applications and their social impacts end up being clearer, appropriate actions should be made at all levels of society, following the concept of subsidiarity. Individual users, families, civil society, corporations, institutions, federal governments, and global companies need to work at their correct levels to guarantee that AI is utilized for the good of all.

111. A substantial difficulty and opportunity for the typical excellent today depends on thinking about AI within a framework of relational intelligence, which highlights the interconnectedness of people and communities and highlights our shared responsibility for fostering the integral well-being of others. The twentieth-century philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev observed that individuals typically blame machines for individual and social problems; nevertheless, "this only embarrasses man and does not correspond to his self-respect," for "it is not worthy to transfer duty from guy to a device." [203] Only the human person can be ethically accountable, and the challenges of a technological society are eventually spiritual in nature. Therefore, facing those obstacles "demands a climax of spirituality." [204]
112. A more point to think about is the call, triggered by the look of AI on the world stage, for a restored appreciation of all that is human. Years back, the French Catholic author Georges Bernanos cautioned that "the risk is not in the multiplication of machines, however in the ever-increasing number of men accustomed from their childhood to desire just what makers can provide." [205] This obstacle is as true today as it was then, as the quick pace of digitization risks a "digital reductionism," where non-quantifiable aspects of life are reserved and then forgotten or even deemed irrelevant because they can not be calculated in formal terms. AI ought to be utilized just as a tool to complement human intelligence rather than replace its richness. [206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that transcend computation is vital for maintaining "an authentic humanity" that "appears to dwell in the middle of our technological culture, practically undetected, like a mist permeating gently underneath a closed door." [207]
113. The huge area of the world's understanding is now available in manner ins which would have filled previous generations with wonder. However, to guarantee that improvements in knowledge do not end up being humanly or spiritually barren, one must surpass the mere build-up of information and aim to attain true knowledge. [208]
114. This knowledge is the gift that humanity requires most to resolve the profound questions and ethical challenges presented by AI: "Only by adopting a spiritual method of viewing truth, only by recuperating a wisdom of the heart, can we confront and analyze the newness of our time." [209] Such "knowledge of the heart" is "the virtue that enables us to incorporate the entire and its parts, our decisions and their effects." It "can not be sought from machines," but it "lets itself be found by those who seek it and be seen by those who like it; it anticipates those who desire it, and it goes in search of those who are worthy of it (cf. Wis 6:12 -16)." [210]
115. In a world marked by AI, we need the grace of the Holy Spirit, who "enables us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, situations, occasions and to discover their genuine significance." [211]
116. Since a "person's excellence is determined not by the details or understanding they possess, but by the depth of their charity," [212] how we include AI "to include the least of our brothers and sis, the susceptible, and those most in requirement, will be the true procedure of our humanity." [213] The "wisdom of the heart" can illuminate and direct the human-centered use of this innovation to assist promote the typical great, look after our "typical home," advance the search for the reality, foster essential human advancement, favor human uniformity and fraternity, and lead mankind to its ultimate objective: happiness and full communion with God. [214]
117. From this point of view of wisdom, believers will be able to serve as moral representatives efficient in utilizing this technology to promote an authentic vision of the human person and society. [215] This need to be made with the understanding that technological progress belongs to God's prepare for creation-an activity that we are called to purchase 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 ordered its publication.

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

Ex audientia die 14 ianuarii 2025 Franciscus

Contents

I. Introduction

II. What is Artificial Intelligence?

III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition

Rationality

Embodiment

Relationality

Relationship with the Truth

Stewardship of the World

An 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 Proposition for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence" (31 August 1955), http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024). [6] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), pars. 2-3: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [7] Terms in this file explaining the outputs or processes of AI are utilized figuratively to explain its operations and are not planned to anthropomorphize the device. [8] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3; Id., Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [9] Here, one can see the main positions of the "transhumanists" and the "posthumanists." Transhumanists argue that technological developments will make it possible for human beings to overcome their biological constraints and improve both their physical and cognitive capabilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, contend that such advances will ultimately change human identity to the degree that humankind itself may no longer be thought about genuinely "human." Both views rest on an essentially unfavorable understanding of human corporality, which deals with the body more as an obstacle than as an important part of the individual's identity and contact us to full realization. Yet, this unfavorable view of the body is inconsistent with a correct understanding of human self-respect. While the Church supports real clinical development, it verifies that human dignity is rooted in "the person as an inseparable unity of body and soul. " Thus, "self-respect is likewise fundamental in everyone's body, which takes part in its own way in remaining in imago Dei" (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18). [10] This technique reflects a functionalist point of view, which reduces the human mind to its functions and presumes that its functions can be totally quantified in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were to appear truly intelligent, it would still remain practical in nature. [11] Cf. A.M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1950) 443-460. [12] If "believing" is credited to devices, it must be clarified that this refers to calculative thinking instead of crucial thinking. Similarly, if makers are said to operate utilizing abstract thought, it needs to be defined that this is limited to computational reasoning. On the other hand, by its very nature, human idea is a creative process that eludes programming and transcends constraints. [13] On the foundational function 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 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 [professors] by which he transcends to the illogical animals. Now, this [professors] is reason itself, or the 'mind,' or 'intelligence,' whatever other name it might more appropriately be offered"; Id., Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: "When thinking about all that they have, human beings discover that they are most differentiated from animals precisely by the reality they possess intelligence." This is likewise repeated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who states that "male is the most best of all earthly beings enhanced with movement, and his proper and natural operation is intellection," by which man abstracts from things and "gets in his mind things in fact 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 perspective that echoes components of the classical and middle ages distinction in between these two modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York City 2011. [19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp. [20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7( 2 ), 1136-1138. [21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1045: "The intellect can investigate the reality of things through reflection, experience and discussion, and pertain to recognize because truth, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal moral demands." [22] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp. [24] Certainly, Sacred Scripture "normally considers the human individual as a being who exists in the body and is unimaginable outside of it" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Che cosa è l'uomo?" (Sal 8,5): Un itinerario di antropologia biblica [30 September 2019], par. 19). Cf. ibid., pars. 20-21, 43-44, 48. [25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100 (2008 ), 863: "Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, however instead fully disclosed its meaning and value." [26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81. [27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: "to be separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul's] nature [...] and for this reason it is unified to the body in order that it might have a presence and an operation ideal to its nature." [29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18. [30] International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 56. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357. [31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54. [32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par. 221. [33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27. [34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1219. Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: "Human souls also possess reason and with it they circle in discourse around the reality of things. [...] [O] n account of the manner in which they are capable of concentrating the lots of into the one, they too, in their own style and as far as they can, are worthy of conceptions like those of the angels" (en. tr. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York City - Mahwah 1987, 106-107). [35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 3: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7. [36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. [37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 42: AAS 91 (1999 ), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1043: "the human mind is capable of going beyond instant issues and grasping certain realities that are unvarying, as true now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, reason discovers universal values obtained from that same nature"; ibid., par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034. [38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): "The last proceeding of factor is to recognize that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it" (en. tr. Pascal's Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York 1958, 77). [39] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1036. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (3 December 2007), par. 4: AAS 100 (2008 ), 491-492. [40] Our semantic capacity enables us to comprehend messages in any form of interaction in a way that both takes into account and transcends their product or empirical structures (such as computer system code). Here, intelligence becomes a wisdom that "allows us to take a look at things with God's eyes, to see connections, circumstances, events and to uncover their real significance" (Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications [24 January 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our creativity enables us to produce new content or concepts, mainly by offering an original viewpoint on reality. Both capacities depend upon the existence of a personal subjectivity for their full awareness. [41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931. [42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 184: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1034: "Charity, when accompanied by a dedication to the reality, is far more than personal feeling [...] Certainly, its close relation to truth fosters its universality and maintains it from being 'restricted to a narrow field devoid of relationships.' [...] Charity's openness to fact thus safeguards 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 likens the universe to "a book showing, representing, and explaining its Maker," the Triune God who gives existence to all things (Breviloquium 2.12.1). Cf. Alain de Lille, De Incarnatione Christi, PL 210, 579a: "Omnis mundi creatura quasi liber et pictura nobis est et speculum." [48] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 67: AAS 107 (2015 ), 874; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 589-592; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God (2004 ), par. 57: "people inhabit a distinct place in the universe according to the divine strategy: they take pleasure in the advantage of sharing in the magnificent governance of visible development. [...] Since man's location as ruler remains in truth a participation in the magnificent governance of development, we mention it here as a type of stewardship." [49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993 ), 1164-1165. [50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053. This concept is likewise reflected in the 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 demonstrates the active engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God's production. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117. [51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301. [52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302. [53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2. [54] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 236: AAS 105 (2023 ), 1115; Id., Address to Participants in the Meeting of University Chaplains and Pastoral Workers Promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (24 November 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 November 2023, 7. [55] Cf. J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 5.1, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 99-100; Francis, Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 316. [56] Francis, Address to the Members of the National Confederation of Artisans and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CNA) (15 November 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 15 November 2024, 8. [57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2 February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020 ), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015 ), 906. [58] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107 (2015 ), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), pars. 17-24: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 985-987. [59] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5. [60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956, 32: "L'intelligence n'est rien sans la délectation." Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13: L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: "The mind and the will are put at the service of the higher great by sensing and enjoying realities." [61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: "luce intellettüal, piena d'amore;/ amor di vero ben, pien di letizia;/ letizia che trascende ogne dolzore" (en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232). [62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966 ), 931:" [T] he highest standard 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 neighborhood according to a plan developed in his knowledge and love. God has allowed guy to get involved in this law of his so that, under the gentle personality of magnificent providence, lots of might have the ability to come to a much deeper and deeper understanding of unchangeable fact." Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1037. [63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (24 April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016. [64] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892. [65] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 110: AAS 107 (2015 ), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1042. [66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 11: AAS 83 (1991 ), 807: "God has actually imprinted his own image and similarity on guy (cf. Gen 1:26), giving upon him an unparalleled dignity [...] In effect, beyond the rights which man obtains by his own work, there exist rights which do not correspond to any work he carries out, but which flow from his vital dignity as an individual." Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4. [67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22. [68] Francis, Address to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020): AAS 112 (2024 ), 310. [69] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [70] In this sense, "Artificial Intelligence" is understood as a technical term to indicate this innovation, remembering that the expression is also used to designate the discipline and not only its applications. [71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1052-1053; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83 (1991 ), 856-857. [72] For example, see the motivation of clinical exploration in Albertus Magnus (De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and engel-und-waisen.de the gratitude for the mechanical arts in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These writers, among a long list of other Catholics took part in scientific research and technological exploration, illustrate that "faith and science can be joined in charity, offered that science is put at the service of the men and lady of our time and not misused to damage and even damage them" (Francis, Address to Participants in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]: L'Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999 ), 6-7.86 -87. [73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. [74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. [76] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 102: AAS 107 (2015 ), 888. [77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889; Id., Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020 ), 978; Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101 (2009 ), 657-658. [78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim. [79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293. [80] Cf. Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2-4. [81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: "Freedom makes male an ethical subject. When he acts intentionally, male is, so to speak, the dad 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 role of human agency in selecting a wider aim (Ziel) that then notifies the particular purpose (Zweck) for which each technological application is created, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit um pass away Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71. [86] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4: "Technology is born for a purpose and, in its influence on human society, constantly represents a form of order in social relations and a plan of power, thus making it possible for certain individuals to carry out particular actions while avoiding others from carrying out various ones. In a basically specific way, this constitutive power-dimension of innovation constantly includes 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 devices, which seem to know how to choose independently, we need to be really clear that decision-making [...] should constantly be delegated the human individual. We would condemn humanity to a future without hope if we took away people's capability to make choices about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend on the options of devices." [92] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [93] The term "bias" in this file refers to algorithmic bias (systematic and constant mistakes in computer system systems that might disproportionately bias certain groups in unintended ways) or learning predisposition (which will result in training on a prejudiced information set) and not the "bias vector" in neural networks (which is a criterion utilized to adjust the output of "neurons" to change more properly to the information). [94] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464, where the Holy Father affirmed the growth in agreement "on the requirement for development procedures to appreciate such values as inclusion, transparency, security, equity, personal privacy and dependability," and likewise invited "the efforts of global companies to manage these technologies so that they promote genuine development, contributing, that is, to a much better world and an integrally greater quality of life." [95] Francis, Greetings to a Delegation of the "Max Planck Society" (23 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 23 February 2023, 8. [96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [97] Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1571. [98] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For additional discussion 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 significance of discussion in a pluralist society oriented toward a "robust and strong social ethics," see Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1044-1045. [100] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 2: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 2. [101] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047. [102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [103] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 464. [104] Cf. Pontifical Council for 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 ), asteroidsathome.net 413-414; estimating 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 people] desire their interpersonal relationships offered by sophisticated devices, by screens and systems which can be switched on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel tells us constantly to run the threat of a face-to-face encounter with others, with their physical existence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their pleasure which infects us in our close and constant interaction. True faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from subscription in the neighborhood, from service, from reconciliation with others." Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1044-1045. [124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 1. [125] Cf. Francis, Address to Participants at the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570; Id, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 18, 124-129: AAS 107 (2015 ), 854.897-899. [126] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [127] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), par. 209: AAS 105 (2013 ), 1107. [128] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4. For Pope Francis' teaching about AI in relationship to the "technocratic paradigm," cf. Id., Encyclical Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 106-114: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-893. [129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046-1047.; as quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961 ), 453. [130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1086. [131] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981 ), 591: "work is 'for guy' and not male 'for work.' Through this conclusion one rightly pertains to recognize the pre-eminence of the subjective significance of work over the unbiased one." [132] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107 (2015 ), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016 ), 319-320. [133] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [134] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), par. 89: AAS 87 (1995 ), 502. [135] Ibid. [136] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 67: AAS 112 (2020 ), 993; as quoted in Id., Message for the XXXI World Day of the Sick (11 February 2023): L'Osservatore Romano, 10 January 2023, 8. [137] Francis, Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [138] Francis, Address to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (11 January 2016): AAS 108 (2016 ), 120. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 18: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975; Id., Message for the XXXII World Day of the Sick (11 February 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 13 January 2024, 12. [139] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465; Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. [140] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 105, 107: AAS 107 (2015 ), 889-890; Id., Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 18-21: AAS 112 (2020 ), 975-976; Id., Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops' Conference (10 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017 ), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: "If there is a sector in which the throwaway culture appears, with its painful consequences, it is that of healthcare. When a sick individual is not placed in the center or their self-respect is not considered, this generates mindsets that can lead even to speculation on the misfortune of others. And this is really severe! [...] The application of an organization method to the health care sector, if indiscriminate [...] might risk disposing of people." [142] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [143] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729. [144] Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on making use of Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966 ), 729; Francis, Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016), 6: AAS 108 (2016 ), 57-58. [145] Francis, Address to Members of the Global Researchers Advancing Catholic Education Project (20 April 2022): AAS 114 (2022 ), 580. [146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), par. 41: AAS 68 (1976 ), 31, estimating Id., Address to the Members of the "Consilium de Laicis" (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974 ), 568: "if [the modern person] does listen to teachers, it is since they are witnesses." [147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse 6.1, London 18733, 125-126. [148] Francis, Meeting 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 crucial concerns [of using generative AI (GenAI) in education and research] is whether human beings can possibly deliver fundamental levels of thinking and skill-acquisition processes to AI and rather concentrate on higher-order thinking skills based on the outputs supplied by AI. Writing, for example, is often connected with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI [...], humans can now start with a well-structured summary provided by GenAI. Some experts have defined using GenAI to produce text in this way as 'composing without thinking'" (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American theorist Hannah Arendt predicted such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and cautioned: "If it must turn out to be real that knowledge (in the sense of knowledge) and believed have actually parted company for excellent, then we would certainly end up being the helpless servants, not a lot of our machines since our knowledge" (Id., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182, 3). [153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), par. 262: AAS 108 (2016 ), 417. [154] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 7: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3; cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 167: AAS 107 (2015 ), 914. [155] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae (15 August 1990), 7: AAS 82 (1990 ), 1479. [156] Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium (29 January 2018), 4c: AAS 110 (2018 ), 9-10. [157] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3. [158] For example, it may assist people gain access to the "selection of resources for producing 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., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999 ), 7-8. [159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62. [160] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020 ), 969-1074. [162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit (25 March 2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019 ), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999 ), 25-26: "People can not be really indifferent to the concern of whether what they understand is true or not. [...] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he writes: 'I have actually fulfilled many who wished to deceive, but none who wished to be tricked'"; quoting Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794. [163] Dicastery for suvenir51.ru the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), par. 62. [164] Benedict XVI, Message for the XLIII World Day of Social Communications (24 May 2009): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2009, 8. [165] Cf. Dicastery for Communications, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Media (28 May 2023), par. 41; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Inter Mirifica (4 December 1963), pars. 4, 8-12: AAS 56 (1964 ), 146, 148-149. [166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24. [167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892 ), 127: "no guy may with impunity breach that human dignity which God himself treats with great respect"; as priced estimate in John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83 (1991 ), 804. [168] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2477, 2489; can. 220 CIC; can. 23 CCEO; John Paul II, Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (28 January 1979), III.1-2: Insegnamenti II/1 (1979 ), 202-203. [169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and International Security (24 October 2022): "Maintaining human dignity in cyberspace obliges States to likewise appreciate the right to personal privacy, by protecting people from intrusive monitoring and allowing them to secure their personal details from unapproved gain access to." [170] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 42: AAS 112 (2020 ), 984. [171] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [172] Francis, Address to the Participants in the "Minerva Dialogues" (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023 ), 465. [173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body identified a list of "early guarantees of AI assisting to address climate 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 assist develop brand-new techniques and financial investments to reduce emissions, affect new economic sector investments in net no, secure biodiversity, and develop broad-based social resilience" (ibid.). [174] "The cloud" describes a network of physical servers throughout the world that allows users to shop, process, and handle their information remotely. [175] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 9: AAS 107 (2015 ), 850. [176] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 106: AAS 107 (2015 ), 890. [177] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 60: AAS 107 (2015 ), 870. [178] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13: AAS 107 (2015 ), 848.852. [179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640. [180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1100-1107; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317. [181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1101. [182] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. [183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310. [184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1105. [185] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2: "We need to ensure and secure an area for correct human control over the options made by expert system programs: human self-respect itself depends on it." [186] Francis, Address at the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): "The development and usage of deadly self-governing weapons systems (LAWS) that do not have the suitable human control would present fundamental ethical concerns, given that LAWS can never ever be morally responsible topics capable of abiding by worldwide humanitarian law." [187] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258: AAS 112 (2020 ), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966 ), 1103-1104. [189] Cf. Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3: "Nor can we neglect the possibility of sophisticated weapons ending up in the incorrect hands, facilitating, for example, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the institutions of legitimate systems of federal government. In a word, the world does not require brand-new innovations that add to the unfair development of commerce and the weapons trade and as a result end up promoting the recklessness of war." [190] John Paul II, Act of Entrustment to Mary for the Jubilee of Bishops (8 October 2000), par. 3: Insegnamenti XXIII/2 (200 ), 565. [191] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 79: AAS 107 (2015 ), 878. [192] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 51: AAS 101 (2009 ), 687. [193] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39. [194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661. [195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988 ), 548:" [T] here is a better understanding today that the simple accumulation of items and services [...] is not enough for the realization of human joy. Nor, in repercussion, does the availability of the many real benefits offered in recent times by science and technology, including the computer sciences, bring freedom from every kind of slavery. On the contrary, [...] unless all the significant body of resources and prospective at man's disposal is assisted by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the true good of the mankind, it quickly turns against male 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, Consulting With the Trainees of the Barbarigo College of Padua in the 100th Year of its Foundation (23 March 2019): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 March 2019, 8. Cf. Id., Address to Rectors, Professors, Trainees and Staff of the Roman Pontifical Universities and Institutions (25 February 2023). [207] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020 ), 986: "The flood of details at our fingertips does not make for greater wisdom. Wisdom is not born of fast searches on the internet nor is it a mass of unproven information. That is not the way to develop in the encounter with reality." [209] Francis, Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): L'Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. [210] Ibid. [211] Ibid. [212] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 37: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1121. [213] Francis, Message for the LVII World Day of Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate (19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018 ), 1123-1124. [214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107 (2015 ), 892-893. [215] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the Seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age" (27 September 2019): AAS 111 (2019 ), 1570-1571.