On Humanity and AI
I read Pope Leo’s Encyclical MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS a few days after it was published. It’s largely been talked about as the encyclical about AI, and AI is a major theme in the essay, but it largely an encyclical about what it means to be human. I don’t generally seek out Papal Encyclical’s, and I don’t really identify with my Catholic upbringing anymore, at least not in a religious sense. However, lately I’ve found myself craving a mature ethical model in which to evaluate AI and the world we could be ushering in.
I grew up Catholic, went to Catholic schools, at one point I even wondered if I might want to become a Priest though that didn’t last long. I didn’t really fall away from my faith for any interesting reason I’ve just never really been a person who believes in things all that strongly. I don’t trust my own abilities enough to have the kind of confidence that I’ve uncovered some knowledge that others don’t have access to. I just have doubt, about a lot of things, almost all the time. The Church also takes several applied ethical stances that I just can’t get on board with, mostly things regarding LGBTQ issues, but also it’s absolutist stance against all abortions all the time, and even it’s theological teachings about sin and forgiveness strike me as odd.
Even with all my doubts and differences of opinion I still value many of the core ethical virtues that I was taught in school. I don’t claim to live up to them, but they do represent the values I prefer to live by, and they are what I find respectable in others in so far as they embody them.
The four cardinal virtues, though not strictly Christian having come from Plato long before there were any Christians, were taught in nearly every religion class I had from middle school on up.
- Prudence
- Justice
- Fortitude
- Temperance
These are often called human virtues in Catholic circles, and are generally discussed in the context of the 3 theological virtues “Faith, Hope, and Charity”. I’m not really here to discuss the virtues themselves, I’m trying to lay out a little bit of background about why I would care about what the Pope has to say about AI. In that even though I don’t have much faith in a god, and far less faith in “The Church” as an organization - especially the American church being filled to the brim with the most repugnant form of conservative ideology I could imagine. I am still a virtue ethicist at heart, and the current Pope seems to be one as well. I’ve never been able to separate my sense of right and wrong from these core virtues that were drilled into me by the Priests, Nuns, and Lay teachers I had during my formative years. For as long as I can remember, and even more so over the last decade I’ve been struck by how many christians I’ve seen run headlong into a political system that embodies none of these virtues.
What drew me to the Popes encyclical was a hope that there was still some semblance of the good and wise people I knew as a child in positions of power, and that maybe the voice of 2000 years of serious ethical thought would provide some thoughtful wisdom to the AI conversation. I was not disappointed.
I found Pope Leo’s words to be stirring and powerful, and I hope the people who make decisions about AI development, and usage read and reflect on what he had to say in his first encyclical.
Going through the encyclical I had to stop myself from highlighting too much because otherwise there would be more lines highlighted than not. But here are a few that I was most fond of.
Speaking on the equal dignity of all humans.
Among these ideologies, I consider particularly insidious the one that suggests that every person must earn or justify his or her own worth, to the point of attributing greater value to those who are more efficient or effective. From this perspective, persons end up being reduced to a means of achieving results, a resource to be used and exploited, and are no longer recognized as a proper end in themselves who should never be instrumentalized. The value of persons, however, does not depend on what they achieve or produce. There are rights that apply to everyone simply by virtue of being human, and no human power can legitimately deny or arbitrarily limit them.
…
The fundamental dignity of each person, therefore, is neither acquired nor earned, nor does it need to be justified.
On Social Justice.
In the digital age, a just social order guarantees everyone equal access to opportunities, protects the youngest and weakest members of society, combats hate and misinformation and subjects the use of data and technology to public oversight, so that the guiding principle is not solely profit but the dignity of every person and the common good of all people.
A litmus test for social justice today is the treatment of migrants, refugees and those forced to move due to poverty, violence, climate change and environmental disasters. The way a society treats them reveals whether its sense of justice is driven by fear or by the spirit of fraternity.
On Responsibility, transparency and the governance of AI.
For AI to respect human dignity and truly serve the common good, responsibility must be clearly defined at every stage: from those who design and develop these systems to those who use them and rely on them for concrete decisions.
…
as with every major technological shift, AI tends to amplify the power of those who already possess economic resources, expertise and access to data. In light of the common good and the universal destination of goods, this raises serious concerns, since small but highly influential groups can shape information and consumption patterns, influence democratic processes and steer economic dynamics to their own advantage, undermining social justice and solidarity among peoples. For this reason, it is essential that the use of AI, especially when it touches on public goods and fundamental rights, be guided by clear criteria and effective oversight, grounded in participation and subsidiarity. Communities and intermediary organizations must not be reduced to passive recipients of decisions made elsewhere; they must be able to contribute to discernment and oversight. Moreover, ownership of data cannot be left solely in private hands but must be appropriately regulated. Data is the product of many contributors and should not be treated as something to be sold off or entrusted to a select few.
On Disarmament
To disarm means discrediting the assumption that technical power automatically confers the right to govern. To disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity. It means freeing technology from monopolistic control and opening it to discussion and debate, therefore making it human-friendly and restoring it to the plurality of human cultures and ways of life.
On AI as a weapon.
AI does not remove the intrinsic inhumanity of conflict; indeed it can only bring about conflict more quickly and render it more impersonal, lowering the threshold for resorting to violence, transforming defense into threat prediction and thus reducing victims to data. In this way, it will accustom us to the idea that violence is inevitable and needs only to be optimized.
On Political Realism
When people limit themselves to looking only at their own sector, they may deceive themselves into believing they are performing actions that are morally neutral and avoid questions about the ultimate ends that guide certain experiments. In this way, they risk cooperating — perhaps unknowingly — with questionable projects that fuel new forms of violence, manipulation and dominance.
…
Certainly, not everyone has the same power to make a difference. There are those who govern, make investment decisions, lead institutions, conduct research, educate, produce or provide information, and then there are those who only seem to live their daily lives. Yet, no one is without responsibility. We all have our own areas for action, and it is precisely there — and nowhere else — that we must choose whether to fuel the mentality of force (even if only through indifference, cynicism, lies or hatred), or to preserve the mindset of peace (with truth, moderation, closeness and care).