Quotes

In a similar sense, artificial intelligence now demands to be “disarmed,” freed from logics that turn it into an instrument of domination, exclusion and death. Like nuclear energy, it must be at the service of all and of the common good. Decisions about technology must never be separated from conscience and responsibility.

Disarming, however, is not enough. We must build. [...] Artificial intelligence can be a construction site of history from within a horizon of communion, in which technical progress learns to serve human life. [...] Let’s not fear artificial intelligence, but constantly keep the question of the human in play.

For this reason, the Church wishes, with humility and frankness, to be part of conversations on artificial intelligence. We do not possess technical answers, nor do we seek to displace those with expertise. But we bring a wisdom concerning the human that our present time desperately needs: every person is unique and irreplaceable, a free and intelligent subject with a conscience, capable of seeking God, serving one another, caring for our common home.

The relationship with technological tools is complex, as the relationship between the technological tool and the person using it is circular, implying mutual conditioning. Those who use technological tools are, to some extent, conditioned by the possibilities that the tools offer and may imagine the organisation of their lives in a different way. [...] This dynamism has a greater impact on the individual when we move from technological tools that increase the speed of travel (cars, trains, aeroplanes) to ‘intellectual technologies’ that aim to enhance knowledge, that is, what and how we think (digital technology, social media, artificial intelligence). // Since these tools are more closely connected to our self-understanding, used to express ourselves in various forms of social communication, to shape personal or collective identities, and to cultivate relationships with others, a more intimate transformation ensues. Digital technology is no longer just a tool, but constitutes a real living environment, with its own way of structuring human activities and relationships. This technological development has a strong impact on the self-understanding of the individual, inscribed in new cognitive and communicative potentialities. The digital age inaugurates a new horizon of meaning in which we think and communicate.

But the greatest danger is that of reducing the horizon of human knowledge, limiting it to those forms of knowledge that correspond to what AI can process, with a strong impact on the educational environment (in schools and universities). Questions of meaning and ethical issues, but also philosophical (ontological) and theological questions, may be excluded as irrelevant. Thus, AI could effectively decide what is permissible to know, relegating other issues to the subjective realm or to matters of taste.

Each of us possesses an irreplaceable and inimitable vocation, that originates from our own lived experience and becomes manifest through interaction with others. // If we fail in this task of preservation, digital technology threatens to alter radically some of the fundamental pillars of human civilization that at times are taken for granted.

Although AI can provide support and assistance in managing tasks related to communication, in the long run, choosing to evade the effort of thinking for ourselves and settling for artificial statistical compilations threatens to diminish our cognitive, emotional and communication skills.

The task laid before us is not to stop digital innovation, but rather to guide it and to be aware of its ambivalent nature. It is up to each of us to raise our voice in defense of human persons, so that we can truly assimilate these tools as allies.

Humanity is at a crossroads, facing the immense potential generated by the digital revolution driven by Artificial Intelligence. The impact of this revolution is far-reaching, transforming areas such as education, work, art, healthcare, governance, the military, and communication. This epochal transformation requires responsibility and discernment to ensure that AI is developed and utilized for the common good, building bridges of dialogue and fostering fraternity, and ensuring it serves the interests of humanity as a whole.

In fact, while AI can simulate aspects of human reasoning and perform specific tasks with incredible speed and efficiency, it cannot replicate moral discernment or the ability to form genuine relationships. Therefore, the development of such technological advancements must go hand in hand with respect for human and social values, the capacity to judge with a clear conscience, and growth in human responsibility.

Although responsibility for the ethical use of AI systems begins with those who develop, manage and oversee them, those who use them also share in this responsibility. AI therefore requires proper ethical management and regulatory frameworks centered on the human person, and which goes beyond the mere criteria of utility or efficiency. Ultimately, we must never lose sight of the common goal of contributing to that “tranquillitas ordinis – the tranquility of order”, as Saint Augustine called it (De Civitate Dei) and fostering a more humane order of social relations, and peaceful and just societies in the service of integral human development and the good of the human family.

Although advanced AI systems can “learn” through processes such as machine learning, this sort of training is fundamentally different from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment. These elements shape and form individuals within their personal history.

Consequently, although AI can simulate aspects of human reasoning and perform specific tasks with incredible speed and efficiency, its computational abilities represent only a fraction of the broader capacities of the human mind. For instance, AI cannot currently replicate moral discernment or the ability to establish authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is situated within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral formation that fundamentally shapes the individual’s perspective, encompassing the physical, emotional, social, moral, and spiritual dimensions of life.

Human intelligence is not primarily about completing functional tasks but about understanding and actively engaging with reality in all its dimensions; it is also capable of surprising insights. Since AI lacks the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to truth and goodness, its capacities—though seemingly limitless—are incomparable with the human ability to grasp reality. So much can be learned from an illness, an embrace of reconciliation, and even a simple sunset; indeed, many experiences we have as humans open new horizons and offer the possibility of attaining new wisdom.

Between a machine and a human being, only the latter is truly a moral agent—a subject of moral responsibility who exercises freedom in his or her decisions and accepts their consequences.

At this time in history, which risks becoming rich in technology and poor in humanity, our reflections must begin with the human heart. Only by adopting a spiritual way of viewing reality, only by recovering a wisdom of the heart, can we confront and interpret the newness of our time and rediscover the path to a fully human communication.

No doubt, machines possess a limitlessly greater capacity than human beings for storing and correlating data, but human beings alone are capable of making sense of that data. It is not simply a matter of making machines appear more human, but of awakening humanity from the slumber induced by the illusion of omnipotence, based on the belief that we are completely autonomous and self-referential subjects, detached from all social bonds and forgetful of our status as creatures.

All of us are called to grow together, in humanity and as humanity. We are challenged to make a qualitative leap in order to become a complex, multiethnic, pluralistic, multireligious and multicultural society. We are called to reflect carefully on the theoretical development and the practical use of these new instruments of communication and knowledge. Their great possibilities for good are accompanied by the risk of turning everything into abstract calculations that reduce individuals to data, thinking to a mechanical process, experience to isolated cases, goodness to profit, and, above all, a denial of the uniqueness of each individual and his or her story.

Information cannot be separated from living relationships. These involve the body and immersion in the real world; they involve correlating not only data but also human experiences; they require sensitivity to faces and facial expressions, compassion and sharing.

The answer we give to these questions is not pre-determined; it depends on us. It is up to us to decide whether we will become fodder for algorithms or will nourish our hearts with that freedom without which we cannot grow in wisdom. Such wisdom matures by using time wisely and embracing our vulnerabilities. It grows in the covenant between generations, between those who remember the past and who look ahead to the future. Only together can we increase our capacity for discernment and vigilance and for seeing things in the light of their fulfilment. Lest our humanity lose its bearings, let us seek the wisdom that was present before all things (cf. Sir 1:4): it will help us also to put systems of artificial intelligence at the service of a fully human communication.

This should lead us to reflect on something frequently overlooked in our current technocratic and efficiency-oriented mentality, as it is decisive for personal and social development: the “sense of limit”. Human beings are, by definition, mortal; by proposing to overcome every limit through technology, in an obsessive desire to control everything, we risk losing control over ourselves; in the quest for an absolute freedom, we risk falling into the spiral of a “technological dictatorship”. Recognizing and accepting our limits as creatures is an indispensable condition for reaching, or better, welcoming fulfilment as a gift. In the ideological context of a technocratic paradigm inspired by a Promethean presumption of self-sufficiency, inequalities could grow out of proportion, knowledge and wealth accumulate in the hands of a few, and grave risks ensue for democratic societies and peaceful coexistence.

Fundamental respect for human dignity demands that we refuse to allow the uniqueness of the person to be identified with a set of data. Algorithms must not be allowed to determine how we understand human rights, to set aside the essential human values of compassion, mercy and forgiveness, or to eliminate the possibility of an individual changing and leaving his or her past behind.

Technology is, and has been, immensely beneficial to our human family. We think, for example, of the countless advances made in the fields of medicine, engineering and communications (cf. Laudato Si’, 102). In acknowledging the practical benefits of science and technology, we also see them as evidence of the creativity of human beings and the nobility of their vocation to participate responsibly in God's creative action (cf. ibid., 131). // From this perspective, I am convinced that the development of artificial intelligence and machine learning has the potential to contribute in a positive way to the future of humanity; we cannot dismiss it.

The concept of human dignity – and this is central – requires us to recognize and respect the fact that a person’s fundamental value cannot be measured by data alone. In social and economic decision-making, we should be cautious about delegating judgements to algorithms that process data, often collected surreptitiously, on an individual’s makeup and prior behaviour. Such data can be contaminated by societal prejudices and preconceptions. A person’s past behaviour should not be used to deny him or her the opportunity to change, grow and contribute to society. We cannot allow algorithms to limit or condition respect for human dignity, or to exclude compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able to change.