Simul and I re-read
the Pope’s encyclical about Humans in the era of AI. I intend to integrate all
of this into my own Lutheran framework, but for now, here are some highlights
from Magnifica Humanitas
Private, transnational
parties are the main driver of AI development (5)
“Technology is
never neutral” Technology takes on the characteristics of their creator (9)
“Building for the
common good means accepting the limits and weakness of humanity without
considering them an error to be corrected.” (12)
“The Church regards
all who sincerely seek ‘truth, goodness, and beauty’ as companions on the
journey, and considers them as ‘precious allies’ in defending the
dignity of every person and in caring for creation.” (23)
Leo XIII’s
Encyclical Rerum Novarum confronted with the “new things” of his time—the
conflict between capital and labor, the question of the workforce, and economic
and social transformation—Leo XIII did not limit himself merely to
acknowledging the unrest, but saw these situations as an area for the Church’s
pastoral mission.” (29)
Subsidiarity: “Whatever can be carried out by
individuals, families, intermediary organizations and local communities should
not be carried out by higher-level authorities.” (31)
Factors to keep in
mind while thinking about our present situation Law over interests,
economic equality to ameliorate tensions and violence, and community
as mediator between the individual and the state/powerful entities (32)
“The church values
democracy insofar as it guarantees the effective participation of citizens,
enabling them to elect and peacefully replace their leaders and prevents power
from being monopolized by small elite groups motivated by particular or
ideological interests.” (39)
Development ought
to translate into “real growth, of benefit to everyone and genuinely
sustainable.” (40)
People have
inherent dignity and that ought to be protected in the age of artificial
intelligence (46)
The mystery of
humanity becomes perfectly clear in Christ who is “completely free, open to
others, capable of building healthy and beautiful relationships, and committed
to the total gift of self.” (49)
Ideologies that “suggest
that every person must earn or justify their worth, to the point of attributing
greater value to those who are more efficient or effective” are insidious. Persons ought not be reduced to means to an
end, resources to be used, or instrumentalized. (51)
If the task of
discovering human rights that are applicable to all is abandoned, “it is
conceivable that rights considered untouchable today might, in the future, end
up being questions or denied by those in power, perhaps after having obtained
only an apparent consensus from populations that are frightened or manipulated.”
(56)
The State’s
responsibility is to “ensure cohesion, unity and the proper organization of
civil society so that the common good can be pursued with everyone’s
contribution… harmonize the different sectoral interests with the requirements
of justice.” (63)
Private property
rights are always subordinate to the universal destination of goods. “The
Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private as absolute or
inviolable.” (66)
Universally
intended goods include patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological
infrastructure, and data. (67)
“Decisions ought to
be made at the closest level possible to the persons involved.” This should lead
to: accessible social life, services that match real needs, solutions that are
more creative and respect the dignity of each person. (70)
“States and
transnational institutions are called to ensure fair rules and effective
safeguards, so” local institutions “have a voice and can contribute to the
discernment of choices that affect people’s daily lives, such as
employment, access to services, data management and digital environments.” (72
Solidarity requires:
“the ability to forgo immediate benefits in order to create opportunities for
others in the future and a willingness to challenge habits and privileges—including
those related to digital consumption and use of technology—when they prevent
others from living with dignity.” (75)
“Like the natural
environment, the ‘digital ecosystem’ can be preserved or exploited, shared or
monopolized. Solidarity demands that decisions regarding data, algorithms,
platforms and artificial intelligence take into account not only the immediate benefits
for a few, but also the impact of all peoples and on future generations.” (76)
“Development is not
truly human if it increases consumption for some while shifting costs and
burdens on to others, or relegates entire regions to subordinate roles,
preventing them from realizing their full potential.” (83)
“True progress is
not what increases the wellbeing of some by degrading ecosystems, shifting
costs onto the most disadvantaged communities, or compromising the living
conditions of those who will follow us.” (84)
Technocratic paradigm:
“the tendency to let the logic of efficiency, control and profit alone shape personal,
social and economic decisions. This makes it clear that technology is not
simply a tool. When it becomes the standard by which everything is judged
it begins to dictate what matters and what can be discarded.” (92)
“If technological
development advances without a corresponding ethical and social progress, the
result may be an increase in means without a growth in humanity: ‘having
more’ without ‘being more.’ (94)
“All of us,
including those who design them (AI systems), possess only a limited
understanding of their actual function… Thus there emerges an urgent need for a
twofold commitment: on the one hand, a deepening of scientific research; on the
other, the exercise of moral and spiritual discernment.” (98)
We need to especially
consider: “the ease with which results are obtained, the impression of
objectivity and the simulation of human communication.” Ready made answers
weaken personal creativity and judgment. Because AI seems objective we “overlook
the fact that they reflect the cultural assumptions of those who designed and
trained them.” For less discerning users, AI imitating human communication can
be misleading, “creating the illusion of a relationship with a real personal
subject. When words are simulated, they do not build genuine relationships, but
only their appearance. The artificial imitation of care or support can become particularly
risky when it enters context where real relationships and emotional bonds are
lacking. Here the danger is not so much that a person may believe they are communicating
with another person, but rather that they may gradually lose the very desire to
form genuine human connections.” (100)
“AI systems require
enormous amounts of energy and water, significantly influencing carbon dioxide emissions,
and place heavy demands on natural resources… For this reason it is essential to
develop more sustainable technological solutions that reduce environmental impact
and help protect our common home.” (101)
“We cannot
consider AI to be morally neutral.” (104)
“Disarming AI means
freeing it form the mentality of ‘armed’ competition, which today is not
limited simply to the military context, but is also an economic and cognitive phenomenon…
To disarm means discrediting the assumption that technical power
automatically confers the right to govern… preventing it from dominating
humanity.” (110)
“When efficiency
becomes the ultimate measure of value, human beings are tempted to see
themselves as a project to be optimized rather than as persons
called to relationship and communion.” (112)
“when
intelligence becomes self-referential its true purpose of serving life and the human
person is lost.” (113)
Transumanism “the central role of technology and the
aspiration to transcend the limits of the human condition. In general, transhumanism
envisions the enhancement of human beings through technologies with the aim of
increasing performance and capabilities. Posthumanism, especially in its more
radical forms, goes further: it challenges anthropocentrism and envisions a hybridization
of human beings, machines and the environment, even anticipating a threshold
where humanity surpasses itself in a new evolutionary stage. Even when such
ideas remain largely speculative, they gain relevance by altering the
collective imagination and thereby influence social, economic and political
choices. (116)
“It is one thing to
integrate technology within a human-centered relational vision; it is quite
another to be guided by an outlook that devalues human limits and promises a
purely technical form of ‘salvation’” (117)
“We must remember
that humanity flourishes not despite limitations, but
often through them… It is also wise to acknowledge our fundamental finitude, knowing that
‘religious experience, and in particular Christian faith, propose that we live,
without oversimplification, this ambivalence between human greatness and
limitation, interpreting it in the light of our original and fundamental relationship
with God.” (118)
“Even when
limitations are experienced as inner suffering, human wisdom teaches us not to
deny or suppress it, but to integrate it… over the years, we carry within
us lessons that leave their mark like scars, the memories of a journey shaped
by freedom and failure, dreams and disappointments… To renounce this adventure,
both tragic and splendid, in the name of a presumed transcendence of all limits,
could mean many things, but it would not longer be human.” (120)
“Tools that could
foster dialogue and participation are often used to construct distorted
narratives and blur the boundaries between truth and falsehood, mixing fact and
opinions. Disinformation did not begin with AI, yet today it finds a powerful
amplifier in AI. In public discourse, the truth of facts has a rational
dimension, as it requires verification, cross-checking of sources and
responsible argumentation. Moreover, it is deeply relational, built through bonds
of trust and shared practices, as well as an honest exchange with others and
with the world. Only the shared pursuit of the veracity of facts, perceived as
a common good, can provide a solid foundation for just communication.” (132)
“People believe that
they can construct reality, and that whatever best suits their claims
corresponds to what is true.” (133)
“As the philosopher
Hannah Arendt wrote, the ideal subjects of (totalitarian propaganda) are not so
much those who are ideologically convinced but rather ‘people for whom the
distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between truth and
false no longer exist.” (134)
“The content that
circulates within digital environments shapes how people perceive the world
and introduces into the collective consciousness images and narratives that
direct our desires and influence our daily choices.” (135)
“truth is a
common good and not the property of those with power or influence.” (137)
“The pervasiveness
of digital media fosters a culture of immediacy and hyper-stimulation,
which gives rise to fatigue, boredom and apathy concerning the effort
required for seeking the truth.” (139)
“Educating people
about the use of AI involves teaching them to decide when and for what
purpose it ought not be used. The speed and ease with which answers or summaries can be obtained risk
extinguishing the desire to ask questions, which is a process that bears fruit
only over time.” (140)
“Work is not simply
an instrument; it expresses and enhances the dignity of our lives.” (149)
Automation,
robotics and AI “are rapidly transforming the very structure of work... It
frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines,
rather than machines being designed to support those who work.” “Current
approaches to technology can paradoxically de-skill workers, subject them to
automated surveillance and relegate them to rigid and repetitive tasks. The
need to keep up with the pace of technology can erode workers’ sense of agency and stifle the innovative abilities they are expected to bring to
their work.” (150)
“In those parts of
the world where work tends to diminish or change radically due to technological
and organizational processes outside of democratic control, we must rethink
the nature of work and its connection to citizenship, ensuring that
unemployment does not jeopardize social participation.” (154)
“While some regions
spend heavily on superfluous interventions or dreams of individual enhancement
accessible only to a select few, other parts of the world lack the essential
equipment needed to save millions of human lives… Today, justice requires
access to the benefits of innovation, including care, knowledge, tools and
opportunities.” (161)
“The subtler forms
of addiction linked to the ‘digital attention economy’ should not be
underestimated, since platforms and services are often designed to capture
users’ time and attention exploiting their vulnerabilities and weakening
their inner freedom. When business models thrive on human weakness, the person
is treated as means rather than as an end… There is an urgent need to promote
technologies that strengthen interior freedom by fostering education in digital
sobriety and the protection of minors, thus countering models that exploit
vulnerability.” (170)
Technocratic and
post-humanist mentalities “tend to regard the human person as an object to
be manipulated or resource to be optimized, removing all safeguards against
the unchecked pursuit of profit. What prevails is efficiency, rather than
respect for freedom and human dignity.” (172)
“Nothing in the
world of AI is immaterial or magical. Every seemingly immediate and
flawless response is the result of a long chain of mediation, involving vast networks
of natural resources energy infrastructure and, above all, people.”
(173)
“If technology
becomes the ultimate criterion, the human person risks being reduced to data a
cog in a machine or a commodity. If, however, technology is integrated with a
wise perspective, it can become an instrument of growth, justice, and
fraternity.” (180)
War… “the risk of technology, detached from
ethics and responsibility, will render decisions about life and death more
rapid and impersonal, and will present the use of force as an immediate and
viable option.” (182)
“While AI can
enhance the defense and protection of civilians, it can also lower the
threshold for the use of force, shield people from responsibility and foster a
culture in which the enemy is reduced to a statistic and the victim to ‘collateral
damage.’” (183)
“The modern Babel
can be seen not only in the globalized technocratic paradigm, but also in the
remote clash between opposing imperialisms, between powers that wish to preserve
their supremacy, and those that aspire to seize that supremacy, resulting in a
multiplicity of local conflicts… Yet, despite this downward spiral, we can also
glimpse a great part of humanity that is striving to remain human and work to
build the holy city of coexistence and peace. All to often, we are unwitting
builders and clumsy architects of this city, capable of generous gestures but
lacking an overall vision. This building project is slower, less visible and
less spectacular, and awaits a better understanding and greater coordination so
that it may become the conscious and clear responsibility of every community,
from families to States, and the relations between Nations. It is this prospect
of commitment, this construction site of hope, that we call the ‘civilization
of love.’” (185)
“It is important
tot reaffirm that the ‘just war’ theory, which has all too often been
used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated. Humanity possesses far
more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving
conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness. The use of force,
violence and weapons reflects a relational poverty that always has disastrous consequences
for civilian populations.” (192)
“The growing ease
with which autonomous weapons systems can be deployed makes war more ‘feasible’
and less subject to human control. This violates the principle that armed
force should be used only as a last resort in case of legitimate self-defense.
For this reason, the development and use of AI in warfare must be subjected to
the most rigorous ethical constraints.” (197)
“It is not
permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial
systems. No algorithm can make war morally acceptable.” (198)
“When people come
to believe that nothing is genuinely true and that principles are hollow
words, then the fuse in their hearts is lit for new eruptions of intolerance
and aggression.” (206)
“In countries
marked by serious social tensions, we cannot rule out the possibility that some
leaders may consider armed conflict as an effective way of diverting attention
from domestic problems and a cynical tool for managing difficulties.” (208)
Tolkien quote: “It is not our part to master all the
tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years
wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that
those who live after may have clean earth to till.” (213)
“I would like to
propose a sober yet demanding program of Christian life with which we can
navigate this epochal change in the light of the Gospel. This avenue emerges
through contemplating God’s plan, living ecclesial unity by partaking of
the Eucharist, building a world centered on the common good and praying
in union with the Blessed Virgin Mary.” (229)
“Our world is
filled with attempts to seize control of markets and spheres of influence,
often shrouded in reassuring rhetoric and seductive ideologies. Yet our hearts
yearn for an approach that is wise and benevolent, akin to that which Mary
praises in her Magnificat, when she proclaims that God’s mercy
extends in every generation to those who fear him. This plan of mercy continues
to unfold throughout history today, even amid the rapid and unsettling changes
brought by algorithms and global networks, and it becomes a compass in the
digital era for living our lives according to the Gospel.” (230)
“What saves
humanity is the divine love that descends into the most fragile point of our
history and renews it from within.” (232)
“Nothing will be
lost that is authentically human. Indeed everything will be purified and
reunited in the One, who gathers every fragment of life, every tear and every
authentically human achievement, rescuing them from nothingness and delivering
them redeemed to the Father.” (233)
“Our role must be
the acceptance of human limitations as a natural and positive reality… we are
called to assume an active role, without taking refuge in spiritual
sentimentality or retreating into our own little worlds. We must be faithful
to the truth, invest in education, cultivate relationships and love justice and
peace.” (236)
“I invite
everyone to cherish places and times where physical presence remains crucial,
such as shared meals, Christian community gatherings, time spent with the
lonely and serving the poor.” (239)
“I would
encourage a careful examination of the supply chains of digital production, the
working conditions hidden behind our devices and the mechanisms that profit
from manipulation and war.” (240)
“In this era of
digital transformation, I see in Nehemiah a striking parable of our own vocation,
which is not to be passive spectators of social and cultural factures, nor mere
commentators on what is crumbling, but men and women prepared to enter the
construction site of history—research laboratories, technology companies,
schools, the media, institutions and local communities—in order to rebuild what
has collapsed and protect what is threatened.” (241)
