Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence and Peace

At the beginning of the New Year, a time of grace which the Lord gives to each one of us, I would like to address God’s People, the various nations, heads of state and government, the leaders of the different religions and civil society, and all the men and women of our time, in order to offer my fervent good wishes for peace.

1. The progress of science and technology as a path to peace

Sacred Scripture attests that God bestowed his Spirit upon human beings so that they might have “skill and understanding and knowledge in every craft” (Ex 35:31). Human intelligence is an expression of the dignity with which we have been endowed by the Creator, who made us in his own image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26), and enabled us to respond consciously and freely to his love. In a particular way, science and technology manifest this fundamentally relational quality of human intelligence; they are brilliant products of its creative potential.

In its Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, the Second Vatican Council restated this truth, declaring that “through its labours and its native endowments, humanity has ceaselessly sought to better its life”. [1] When human beings, “with the aid of technology”, endeavour to make “the earth a dwelling worthy of the whole human family”, [2] they carry out God’s plan and cooperate with his will to perfect creation and bring about peace among peoples. Progress in science and technology, insofar as it contributes to greater order in human society and greater fraternal communion and freedom, thus leads to the betterment of humanity and the transformation of the world.

We rightly rejoice and give thanks for the impressive achievements of science and technology, as a result of which countless ills that formerly plagued human life and caused great suffering have been remedied. At the same time, techno-scientific advances, by making it possible to exercise hitherto unprecedented control over reality, are placing in human hands a vast array of options, including some that may pose a risk to our survival and endanger our common home. [3]

The remarkable advances in new information technologies, particularly in the digital sphere, thus offer exciting opportunities and grave risks, with serious implications for the pursuit of justice and harmony among peoples. Any number of urgent questions need to be asked. What will be the consequences, in the medium and long term, of these new digital technologies? And what impact will they have on individual lives and on societies, on international stability and peace?

2. The future of artificial intelligence: between promise and risk

Progress in information technology and the development of digital technologies in recent decades have already begun to effect profound transformations in global society and its various dynamics. New digital tools are even now changing the face of communications, public administration, education, consumption, personal interactions and countless other aspects of our daily lives.

Moreover, from the digital footprints spread throughout the Internet, technologies employing a variety of algorithms can extract data that enable them to control mental and relational habits for commercial or political purposes, often without our knowledge, thus limiting our conscious exercise of freedom of choice. In a space like the Web, marked by information overload, they can structure the flow of data according to criteria of selection that are not always perceived by the user.

We need to remember that scientific research and technological innovations are not disembodied and “neutral”, [4] but subject to cultural influences. As fully human activities, the directions they take reflect choices conditioned by personal, social and cultural values in any given age. The same must be said of the results they produce: precisely as the fruit of specifically human ways of approaching the world around us, the latter always have an ethical dimension, closely linked to decisions made by those who design their experimentation and direct their production towards particular objectives.

This is also the case with forms of artificial intelligence. To date, there is no single definition of artificial intelligence in the world of science and technology. The term itself, which by now has entered into everyday parlance, embraces a variety of sciences, theories and techniques aimed at making machines reproduce or imitate in their functioning the cognitive abilities of human beings. To speak in the plural of “forms of intelligence” can help to emphasize above all the unbridgeable gap between such systems, however amazing and powerful, and the human person: in the end, they are merely “fragmentary”, in the sense that they can only imitate or reproduce certain functions of human intelligence. The use of the plural likewise brings out the fact that these devices greatly differ among themselves and that they should always be regarded as “socio-technical systems”. For the impact of any artificial intelligence device – regardless of its underlying technology – depends not only on its technical design, but also on the aims and interests of its owners and developers, and on the situations in which it will be employed.

Artificial intelligence, then, ought to be understood as a galaxy of different realities. We cannot presume a priori that its development will make a beneficial contribution to the future of humanity and to peace among peoples. That positive outcome will only be achieved if we show ourselves capable of acting responsibly and respect such fundamental human values as “inclusion, transparency, security, equity, privacy and reliability”. [5]

Nor is it sufficient simply to presume a commitment on the part of those who design algorithms and digital technologies to act ethically and responsibly. There is a need to strengthen or, if necessary, to establish bodies charged with examining the ethical issues arising in this field and protecting the rights of those who employ forms of artificial intelligence or are affected by them. [6]

The immense expansion of technology thus needs to be accompanied by an appropriate formation in responsibility for its future development. Freedom and peaceful coexistence are threatened whenever human beings yield to the temptation to selfishness, self-interest, the desire for profit and the thirst for power. We thus have a duty to broaden our gaze and to direct techno-scientific research towards the pursuit of peace and the common good, in the service of the integral development of individuals and communities. [7]

The inherent dignity of each human being and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human family must undergird the development of new technologies and serve as indisputable criteria for evaluating them before they are employed, so that digital progress can occur with due respect for justice and contribute to the cause of peace. Technological developments that do not lead to an improvement in the quality of life of all humanity, but on the contrary aggravate inequalities and conflicts, can never count as true progress. [8]

Artificial intelligence will become increasingly important. The challenges it poses are technical, but also anthropological, educational, social and political. It promises, for instance, liberation from drudgery, more efficient manufacturing, easier transport and more ready markets, as well as a revolution in processes of accumulating, organizing and confirming data. We need to be aware of the rapid transformations now taking place and to manage them in ways that safeguard fundamental human rights and respect the institutions and laws that promote integral human development. Artificial intelligence ought to serve our best human potential and our highest aspirations, not compete with them.

3. The technology of the future: machines that “learn” by themselves

In its multiple forms, artificial intelligence based on machine learning techniques, while still in its pioneering phases, is already introducing considerable changes to the fabric of societies and exerting a profound influence on cultures, societal behaviours and peacebuilding.

Developments such as machine learning or deep learning, raise questions that transcend the realms of technology and engineering, and have to do with the deeper understanding of the meaning of human life, the construction of knowledge, and the capacity of the mind to attain truth.

The ability of certain devices to produce syntactically and semantically coherent texts, for example, is no guarantee of their reliability. They are said to “hallucinate”, that is, to create statements that at first glance appear plausible but are unfounded or betray biases. This poses a serious problem when artificial intelligence is deployed in campaigns of disinformation that spread false news and lead to a growing distrust of the communications media. Privacy, data ownership and intellectual property are other areas where these technologies engender grave risks. To which we can add other negative consequences of the misuse of these technologies, such as discrimination, interference in elections, the rise of a surveillance society, digital exclusion and the exacerbation of an individualism increasingly disconnected from society. All these factors risk fueling conflicts and hindering peace.

4. The sense of limit in the technocratic paradigm

Our world is too vast, varied and complex ever to be fully known and categorized. The human mind can never exhaust its richness, even with the aid of the most advanced algorithms. Such algorithms do not offer guaranteed predictions of the future, but only statistical approximations. Not everything can be predicted, not everything can be calculated; in the end, “realities are greater than ideas”. [9] No matter how prodigious our calculating power may be, there will always be an inaccessible residue that evades any attempt at quantification.

In addition, the vast amount of data analyzed by artificial intelligences is in itself no guarantee of impartiality. When algorithms extrapolate information, they always run the risk of distortion, replicating the injustices and prejudices of the environments where they originate. The faster and more complex they become, the more difficult it proves to understand why they produced a particular result.

“Intelligent” machines may perform the tasks assigned to them with ever greater efficiency, but the purpose and the meaning of their operations will continue to be determined or enabled by human beings possessed of their own universe of values. There is a risk that the criteria behind certain decisions will become less clear, responsibility for those decisions concealed, and producers enabled to evade their obligation to act for the benefit of the community. In some sense, this is favoured by the technocratic system, which allies the economy with technology and privileges the criterion of efficiency, tending to ignore anything unrelated to its immediate interests. [10]

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. [11]  

5. Burning issues for ethics

In the future, the reliability of an applicant for a mortgage, the suitability of an individual for a job, the possibility of recidivism on the part of a convicted person, or the right to receive political asylum or social assistance could be determined by artificial intelligence systems. The lack of different levels of mediation that these systems introduce is particularly exposed to forms of bias and discrimination: systemic errors can easily multiply, producing not only injustices in individual cases but also, due to the domino effect, real forms of social inequality.

At times too, forms of artificial intelligence seem capable of influencing individuals’ decisions by operating through pre-determined options associated with stimuli and dissuasions, or by operating through a system of regulating people’s choices based on information design. These forms of manipulation or social control require careful attention and oversight, and imply a clear legal responsibility on the part of their producers, their deployers, and government authorities.

Reliance on automatic processes that categorize individuals, for instance, by the pervasive use of surveillance or the adoption of social credit systems, could likewise have profound repercussions on the social fabric by establishing a ranking among citizens. These artificial processes of categorization could lead also to power conflicts, since they concern not only virtual users but real people. 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.

Nor can we fail to consider, in this context, the impact of new technologies on the workplace. Jobs that were once the sole domain of human labour are rapidly being taken over by industrial applications of artificial intelligence. Here too, there is the substantial risk of disproportionate benefit for the few at the price of the impoverishment of many. Respect for the dignity of labourers and the importance of employment for the economic well-being of individuals, families, and societies, for job security and just wages, ought to be a high priority for the international community as these forms of technology penetrate more deeply into our workplaces.

6. Shall we turn swords into ploughshares?

In these days, as we look at the world around us, there can be no escaping serious ethical questions related to the armaments sector.  The ability to conduct military operations through remote control systems has led to a lessened perception of the devastation caused by those weapon systems and the burden of responsibility for their use, resulting in an even more cold and detached approach to the immense tragedy of war. Research on emerging technologies in the area of so-called Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, including the weaponization of artificial intelligence, is a cause for grave ethical concern. Autonomous weapon systems can never be morally responsible subjects. The unique human capacity for moral judgment and ethical decision-making is more than a complex collection of algorithms, and that capacity cannot be reduced to programming a machine, which as “intelligent” as it may be, remains a machine. For this reason, it is imperative to ensure adequate, meaningful and consistent human oversight of weapon systems.

Nor can we ignore the possibility of sophisticated weapons ending up in the wrong hands, facilitating, for instance, terrorist attacks or interventions aimed at destabilizing the institutions of legitimate systems of government. In a word, the world has no need of new technologies that contribute to the unjust development of commerce and the weapons trade and consequently end up promoting the folly of war. By so doing, not only intelligence but the human heart itself would risk becoming ever more “artificial”. The most advanced technological applications should not be employed to facilitate the violent resolution of conflicts, but rather to pave the way for peace.

On a more positive note, if artificial intelligence were used to promote integral human development, it could introduce important innovations in agriculture, education and culture, an improved level of life for entire nations and peoples, and the growth of human fraternity and social friendship. In the end, the way we use it to include the least of our brothers and sisters, the vulnerable and those most in need, will be the true measure of our humanity.

An authentically humane outlook and the desire for a better future for our world surely indicates the need for a cross-disciplinary dialogue aimed at an ethical development of algorithms – an algor-ethics – in which values will shape the directions taken by new technologies. [12] Ethical considerations should also be taken into account from the very beginning of research, and continue through the phases of experimentation, design, production, distribution and marketing. This is the approach of ethics by design, and it is one in which educational institutions and decision-makers have an essential role to play.

7. Challenges for education

The development of a technology that respects and serves human dignity has clear ramifications for our educational institutions and the world of culture. By multiplying the possibilities of communication, digital technologies have allowed us to encounter one another in new ways. Yet there remains a need for sustained reflection on the kinds of relationships to which they are steering us. Our young people are growing up in cultural environments pervaded by technology, and this cannot but challenge our methods of teaching, education and training.

Education in the use of forms of artificial intelligence should aim above all at promoting critical thinking. Users of all ages, but especially the young, need to develop a discerning approach to the use of data and content collected on the web or produced by artificial intelligence systems. Schools, universities and scientific societies are challenged to help students and professionals to grasp the social and ethical aspects of the development and uses of technology.

Training in the use of new means of communication should also take account not only of disinformation, “fake news”, but also the disturbing recrudescence of “certain ancestral fears… that have been able to hide and spread behind new technologies”. [13] Sadly, we once more find ourselves having to combat “the temptation to build a culture of walls, to raise walls… in order to prevent an encounter with other cultures and other peoples”, [14] and the development of a peaceful and fraternal coexistence.

8. Challenges for the development of international law

The global scale of artificial intelligence makes it clear that, alongside the responsibility of sovereign states to regulate its use internally, international organizations can play a decisive role in reaching multilateral agreements and coordinating their application and enforcement. [15] In this regard, I urge the global community of nations to work together in order to adopt a binding international treaty that regulates the development and use of artificial intelligence in its many forms. The goal of regulation, naturally, should not only be the prevention of harmful practices but also the encouragement of best practices, by stimulating new and creative approaches and encouraging individual or group initiatives. [16]

In the quest for normative models that can provide ethical guidance to developers of digital technologies, it is indispensable to identify the human values that should undergird the efforts of societies to formulate, adopt and enforce much-needed regulatory frameworks. The work of drafting ethical guidelines for producing forms of artificial intelligence can hardly prescind from the consideration of deeper issues regarding the meaning of human existence, the protection of fundamental human rights and the pursuit of justice and peace. This process of ethical and juridical discernment can prove a precious opportunity for shared reflection on the role that technology should play in our individual and communal lives, and how its use can contribute to the creation of a more equitable and humane world. For this reason, in debates about the regulation of artificial intelligence, the voices of all stakeholders should be taken into account, including the poor, the powerless and others who often go unheard in global decision-making processes.

* * *

I hope that the foregoing reflection will encourage efforts to ensure that progress in developing forms of artificial intelligence will ultimately serve the cause of human fraternity and peace. It is not the responsibility of a few but of the entire human family. For peace is the fruit of relationships that recognize and welcome others in their inalienable dignity, and of cooperation and commitment in seeking the integral development of all individuals and peoples.

It is my prayer at the start of the New Year that the rapid development of forms of artificial intelligence will not increase cases of inequality and injustice all too present in today’s world, but will help put an end to wars and conflicts, and alleviate many forms of suffering that afflict our human family. May Christian believers, followers of various religions and men and women of good will work together in harmony to embrace the opportunities and confront the challenges posed by the digital revolution and thus hand on to future generations a world of greater solidarity, justice and peace.

From the Vatican, 8 December 2023

FRANCISCUS

[1]  No. 33.

[2]  Ibid., 57.

[3] Cf. Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), 104.

[4] Cf. ibid., 114.

[5]  Address to Participants in the “Minerva Dialogues” (27 March 2023).

[6] Cf. ibid.

[7] Cf. Message to the Executive Chairman of the “World Economic Forum” meeting in Davos (12 January 2018).

[8] Cf. Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), 194; Address to Participants in the Seminar “The Common Good in the Digital Age” (27 September 2019).

[9] Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), 233.

[10] Cf. Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), 54.

[11] Cf. Meeting with Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (28 February 2020).

[12] Cf. ibid.

[13] Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 27.

[14]  Ibid.

[15] Cf. ibid, 170-175.

[16] Cf. Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), 177.

01.01.24

An exciting and fearsome tool

 Esteemed ladies and gentlemen,

I address you today, the leaders of the Intergovernmental Forum of the G7, concerning the effects of artificial intelligence on the future of humanity.

“Sacred Scripture attests that God bestowed his Spirit upon human beings so that they might have ‘skill and understanding and knowledge in every craft’ ( Ex 35:31)”. [1] Science and technology are therefore brilliant products of the creative potential of human beings. [2]

Indeed, artificial intelligence arises precisely from the use of this God-given creative potential.

As we know, artificial intelligence is an extremely powerful tool, employed in many kinds of human activity: from medicine to the world of work; from culture to the field of communications; from education to politics. It is now safe to assume that its use will increasingly influence the way we live, our social relationships and even the way we conceive of our identity as human beings. [3]

The question of artificial intelligence, however, is often perceived as ambiguous: on the one hand, it generates excitement for the possibilities it offers, while on the other it gives rise to fear for the consequences it foreshadows. In this regard, we could say that all of us, albeit to varying degrees, experience two emotions: we are enthusiastic when we imagine the advances that can result from artificial intelligence but, at the same time, we are fearful when we acknowledge the dangers inherent in its use. [4]

After all, we cannot doubt that the advent of artificial intelligence represents a true cognitive-industrial revolution, which will contribute to the creation of a new social system characterised by complex epochal transformations. For example, artificial intelligence could enable a democratization of access to knowledge, the exponential advancement of scientific research and the possibility of giving demanding and arduous work to machines. Yet at the same time, it could bring with it a greater injustice between advanced and developing nations or between dominant and oppressed social classes, raising the dangerous possibility that a “throwaway culture” be preferred to a “culture of encounter”.

The significance of these complex transformations is clearly linked to the rapid technological development of artificial intelligence itself.

It is precisely this powerful technological progress that makes artificial intelligence at the same time an exciting and fearsome tool, and demands a reflection that is up to the challenge it presents.

In this regard, perhaps we could start from the observation that artificial intelligence is above all else a tool. And it goes without saying that the benefits or harm it will bring will depend on its use.

This is surely the case, for it has been this way with every tool fashioned by human beings since the dawn of time.

Our ability to fashion tools, in a quantity and complexity that is unparalleled among living things, speaks of a techno-human condition: human beings have always maintained a relationship with the environment mediated by the tools they gradually produced. It is not possible to separate the history of men and women and of civilization from the history of these tools. Some have wanted to read into this a kind of shortcoming, a deficit, within human beings, as if, because of this deficiency, they were forced to create technology. [5] A careful and objective view actually shows us the opposite. We experience a state of “outwardness” with respect to our biological being: we are beings inclined toward what lies outside-of-us, indeed we are radically open to the beyond. Our openness to others and to God originates from this reality, as does the creative potential of our intelligence with regard to culture and beauty. Ultimately, our technical capacity also stems from this fact. Technology, then, is a sign of our orientation towards the future.

The use of our tools, however, is not always directed solely to the good. Even if human beings feel within themselves a call to the beyond, and to knowledge as an instrument of good for the service of our brothers and sisters and our common home (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 16), this does not always happen. Due to its radical freedom, humanity has not infrequently corrupted the purposes of its being, turning into an enemy of itself and of the planet. [6] The same fate may befall technological tools. Only if their true purpose of serving humanity is ensured, will such tools reveal not only the unique grandeur and dignity of men and women, but also the command they have received to “till and keep” (cf. Gen 2:15) the planet and all its inhabitants. To speak of technology is to speak of what it means to be human and thus of our singular status as beings who possess both freedom and responsibility. This means speaking about ethics.

In fact, when our ancestors sharpened flint stones to make knives, they used them both to cut hides for clothing and to kill each other. The same could be said of other more advanced technologies, such as the energy produced by the fusion of atoms, as occurs within the Sun, which could be used to produce clean, renewable energy or to reduce our planet to a pile of ashes.

Artificial intelligence, however, is a still more complex tool. I would almost say that we are dealing with a tool sui generis. While the use of a simple tool (like a knife) is under the control of the person who uses it and its use for the good depends only on that person, artificial intelligence, on the other hand, can autonomously adapt to the task assigned to it and, if designed this way, can make choices independent of the person in order to achieve the intended goal. [7]

It should always be remembered that a machine can, in some ways and by these new methods, produce algorithmic choices. The machine makes a technical choice among several possibilities based either on well-defined criteria or on statistical inferences. Human beings, however, not only choose, but in their hearts are capable of deciding. A decision is what we might call a more strategic element of a choice and demands a practical evaluation. At times, frequently amid the difficult task of governing, we are called upon to make decisions that have consequences for many people. In this regard, human reflection has always spoken of wisdom, the phronesis of Greek philosophy and, at least in part, the wisdom of Sacred Scripture. Faced with the marvels of machines, which seem to know how to choose independently, we should be very clear that decision-making, even when we are confronted with its sometimes dramatic and urgent aspects, must always be left to the human person. We would condemn humanity to a future without hope if we took away people’s ability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend on the choices of machines. We need to ensure and safeguard a space for proper human control over the choices made by artificial intelligence programs: human dignity itself depends on it.

Precisely in this regard, allow me to insist: in light of the tragedy that is armed conflict, it is urgent to reconsider the development and use of devices like the so-called “lethal autonomous weapons” and ultimately ban their use. This starts from an effective and concrete commitment to introduce ever greater and proper human control. No machine should ever choose to take the life of a human being.

It must be added, moreover, that the good use, at least of advanced forms of artificial intelligence, will not be fully under the control of either the users or the programmers who defined their original purposes at the time they were designed. This is all the more true because it is highly likely that, in the not-too-distant future, artificial intelligence programs will be able to communicate directly with each other to improve their performance. And if, in the past, men and women who fashioned simple tools saw their lives shaped by them – the knife enabled them to survive the cold but also to develop the art of warfare – now that human beings have fashioned complex tools they will see their lives shaped by them all the more. [8]

The basic mechanism of artificial intelligence

I would like now briefly to address the complexity of artificial intelligence. Essentially, artificial intelligence is a tool designed for problem solving. It works by means of a logical chaining of algebraic operations, carried out on categories of data. These are then compared in order to discover correlations, thereby improving their statistical value. This takes place thanks to a process of self-learning, based on the search for further data and the self-modification of its calculation processes.

Artificial intelligence is designed in this way in order to solve specific problems. Yet, for those who use it, there is often an irresistible temptation to draw general, or even anthropological, deductions from the specific solutions it offers.

An important example of this is the use of programs designed to help judges in deciding whether to grant home-confinement to inmates serving a prison sentence. In this case, artificial intelligence is asked to predict the likelihood of a prisoner committing the same crime(s) again. It does so based on predetermined categories (type of offence, behaviour in prison, psychological assessment, and others), thus allowing artificial intelligence to have access to categories of data relating to the prisoner’s private life (ethnic origin, educational attainment, credit rating, and others). The use of such a methodology – which sometimes risks de facto delegating to a machine the last word concerning a person’s future – may implicitly incorporate prejudices inherent in the categories of data used by artificial intelligence.

Being classified as part of a certain ethnic group, or simply having committed a minor offence years earlier (for example, not having paid a parking fine) will actually influence the decision as to whether or not to grant home-confinement. In reality, however, human beings are always developing, and are capable of surprising us by their actions. This is something that a machine cannot take into account.

It should also be noted that the use of applications similar to the one I have just mentioned will be used ever more frequently due to the fact that artificial intelligence programs will be increasingly equipped with the capacity to interact directly (chatbots) with human beings, holding conversations and establishing close relationships with them. These interactions may end up being, more often than not, pleasant and reassuring, since these artificial intelligence programs will be designed to learn to respond, in a personalised way, to the physical and psychological needs of human beings.

It is a frequent and serious mistake to forget that artificial intelligence is not another human being, and that it cannot propose general principles. This error stems either from the profound need of human beings to find a stable form of companionship, or from a subconscious assumption, namely the assumption that observations obtained by means of a calculating mechanism are endowed with the qualities of unquestionable certainty and unquestionable universality.

This assumption, however, is far-fetched, as can be seen by an examination of the inherent limitations of computation itself. Artificial intelligence uses algebraic operations that are carried out in a logical sequence (for example, if the value of X is greater than that of Y, multiply X by Y; otherwise divide X by Y). This method of calculation – the so-called “algorithm” – is neither objective nor neutral. [9] Moreover, since it is based on algebra, it can only examine realities formalised in numerical terms. [10]

Nor should it be forgotten that algorithms designed to solve highly complex problems are so sophisticated that it is difficult for programmers themselves to understand exactly how they arrive at their results. This tendency towards sophistication is likely to accelerate considerably with the introduction of quantum computers that will operate not with binary circuits (semiconductors or microchips) but according to the highly complex laws of quantum physics. Indeed, the continuous introduction of increasingly high-performance microchips has already become one of the reasons for the dominant use of artificial intelligence by those few nations equipped in this regard.

Whether sophisticated or not, the quality of the answers that artificial intelligence programs provide ultimately depends on the data they use and how they are structured.

Finally, I would like to indicate one last area in which the complexity of the mechanism of so-called Generative Artificial Intelligence clearly emerges. Today, no one doubts that there are magnificent tools available for accessing knowledge, which even allow for self-learning and self-tutoring in a myriad of fields. Many of us have been impressed by the easily available online applications for composing a text or producing an image on any theme or subject. Students are especially attracted to this, but make disproportionate use of it when they have to prepare papers.

Students are often much better prepared for, and more familiar with, using artificial intelligence than their teachers. Yet they forget that, strictly speaking, so-called generative artificial intelligence is not really “generative”. Instead, it searches big data for information and puts it together in the style required of it. It does not develop new analyses or concepts, but repeats those that it finds, giving them an appealing form. Then, the more it finds a repeated notion or hypothesis, the more it considers it legitimate and valid. Rather than being “generative”, then, it is instead “reinforcing” in the sense that it rearranges existing content, helping to consolidate it, often without checking whether it contains errors or preconceptions.

In this way, it not only runs the risk of legitimising fake news and strengthening a dominant culture’s advantage, but, in short, it also undermines the educational process itself. Education should provide students with the possibility of authentic reflection, yet it runs the risk of being reduced to a repetition of notions, which will increasingly be evaluated as unobjectionable, simply because of their constant repetition. [11]

Putting the dignity of the human person back at the centre, in light of a shared ethical proposal

A more general observation should now be added to what we have already said. The season of technological innovation in which we are currently living is accompanied by a particular and unprecedented social situation in which it is increasingly difficult to find agreement on the major issues concerning social life. Even in communities characterised by a certain cultural continuity, heated debates and arguments often arise, making it difficult to produce shared reflections and political solutions aimed at seeking what is good and just. Thus aside from the complexity of legitimate points of view found within the human family, there is also a factor emerging that seems to characterise the above-mentioned social situation, namely, a loss, or at least an eclipse, of the sense of what is human and an apparent reduction in the significance of the concept of human dignity. [12] Indeed, we seem to be losing the value and profound meaning of one of the fundamental concepts of the West: that of the human person. Thus, at a time when artificial intelligence programs are examining human beings and their actions, it is precisely the ethos concerning the understanding of the value and dignity of the human person that is most at risk in the implementation and development of these systems. Indeed, we must remember that no innovation is neutral. Technology is born for a purpose and, in its impact on human society, always represents a form of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, thus enabling certain people to perform specific actions while preventing others from performing different ones. In a more or less explicit way, this constitutive power dimension of technology always includes the worldview of those who invented and developed it.

This likewise applies to artificial intelligence programs. In order for them to be instruments for building up the good and a better tomorrow, they must always be aimed at the good of every human being. They must have an ethical “inspiration”.

Moreover, an ethical decision is one that takes into account not only an action’s outcomes but also the values at stake and the duties that derive from those values. That is why I welcomed both the 2020 signing in Rome of the Rome Call for AI Ethics, [13]  and its support for that type of ethical moderation of algorithms and artificial intelligence programs that I call “algor-ethics”. [14]   In a pluralistic and global context, where we see different sensitivities and multiple hierarchies in the scales of values, it might seem difficult to find a single hierarchy of values. Yet, in ethical analysis, we can also make use of other types of tools: if we struggle to define a single set of global values, we can, however, find shared principles with which to address and resolve dilemmas or conflicts regarding how to live.

This is why the Rome Call was born: with the term “algor-ethics”, a series of principles are condensed into a global and pluralistic platform that is capable of finding support from cultures, religions, international organizations and major corporations, which are key players in this development.

The politics that is needed

We cannot, therefore, conceal the concrete risk, inherent in its fundamental design, that artificial intelligence might limit our worldview to realities expressible in numbers and enclosed in predetermined categories, thereby excluding the contribution of other forms of truth and imposing uniform anthropological, socio-economic and cultural models. The technological paradigm embodied in artificial intelligence runs the risk, then, of becoming a far more dangerous paradigm, which I have already identified as the “technocratic paradigm”. [15] We cannot allow a tool as powerful and indispensable as artificial intelligence to reinforce such a paradigm, but rather, we must make artificial intelligence a bulwark against its expansion.

This is precisely where political action is urgently needed. The Encyclical Fratelli Tutti reminds us that “for many people today, politics is a distasteful word, often due to the mistakes, corruption and inefficiency of some politicians. There are also attempts to discredit politics, to replace it with economics or to twist it to one ideology or another. Yet can our world function without politics? Can there be an effective process of growth towards universal fraternity and social peace without a sound political life?”. [16]

Our answer to these questions is: No! Politics is necessary! I want to reiterate in this moment that “in the face of many petty forms of politics focused on immediate interests [...] ‘true statecraft is manifest when, in difficult times, we uphold high principles and think of the long-term common good. Political powers do not find it easy to assume this duty in the work of nation-building’ ( Laudato Si’, 178), much less in forging a common project for the human family, now and in the future”. [17]

Esteemed ladies and gentlemen!

My reflection on the effects of artificial intelligence on humanity leads us to consider the importance of “healthy politics” so that we can look to our future with hope and confidence. I have written previously that “global society is suffering from grave structural deficiencies that cannot be resolved by piecemeal solutions or quick fixes. Much needs to change, through fundamental reform and major renewal. Only a healthy politics, involving the most diverse sectors and skills, is capable of overseeing this process. An economy that is an integral part of a political, social, cultural and popular programme directed to the common good could pave the way for ‘different possibilities which do not involve stifling human creativity and its ideals of progress, but rather directing that energy along new channels’ ( Laudato Si’, 191)”. [18]

This is precisely the situation with artificial intelligence. It is up to everyone to make good use of it but the onus is on politics to create the conditions for such good use to be possible and fruitful.

Thank you.

[1]  Message for the 57th World Day of Peace, 1 January 2024, 1.

[2] Cf. ibid.

[3]Cf. ibid., 2.

[4] This ambivalence was already noted by Pope Saint Paul VI in his Address to the Personnel of the “Centro Automazione Analisi Linguistica” of the Aloysianum, 19 June 1964.

[5] Cf. A. GEHLEN, L’uomo. La sua natura e il suo posto nel mondo, Milan 1983, 43.

[6] Cf. Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), 102-114.

[7]  Message for the 57th World Day of Peace, 1 January 2024, 3.

[8] The insights of Marshall McLuhan and John M. Culkin are especially relevant to the consequences of the use of artificial intelligence.

[9] Cf. Address to Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life, 28 February 2020.

[10] Cf. Message for the 57th World Day of Peace, 1 January 2024, 4.

[11] Cf. ibid., 3, 7.

[12] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita on Human Dignity (2 April 2024).

[13] Cf. Address to Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life, 28 February 2020.

[14] Cf. Address to Participants in the Congress on Child Dignity in the Digital World, 14 November 2019; AAddress to Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life, 28 February 2020.

[15] For a more extensive explanation, see the Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ on Care for Our Common Home (24 May 2015).

[16] Encyclical Letter, Fratelli Tutti on Fraternity and Social Friendship (3 October 2020), 176.

[17]  Ibid, 178.

[18] Ibid, 179.

14.06.24