References:
The encyclical itself
Catholic analysis and summary by the Pillar, Ascension Press, The Vatican.
Secular analysis:
“Idols of the Valley: Pope Leo’s wise but frustrating first missive on AI” by Yuval Levis, The New Atlantis.
“Pope Leo’s Not-Very-Anti-AI Encyclical” by Matthew Walther, “A Fan’s Notes/The New York Times.
“The Most Serious Thinking on AI and Education to Date” by Stefan Bauschard, Education Disrupted.
“Pope’s AI manifesto reframes the conversation” from The Deep View.
“Pope Leo’s Magnifica Humanitas on AI” by Zvi Mowshowitz, Don’t Worry About the Vase
Secular piece analyzing how much of the encyclical was written by Claude itself.
My thoughts:
Having read a decent number of encyclicals, I found Magnifica Humanitas (MH) more in line with the sociological encyclicals of his name-sake, Pope Leo XIIII, and predecessor, Pope Francis, than the deeper philosophical and theological writings that mark Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. It seems primarily focused on centering the promises and perils of AI and technology in the moment, rather than considering a deeper approach to what sets human intelligence apart from artificial “intelligence.” In doing so, His Holiness engages with many of the themes that permeate the injustices of modern society: environmental and economical degradation, loss of freedom, the eradication of rights and work in the face of profit, and the replacement of a genuine compassion and generosity with greed. At the same time, the work does bring into theological consideration the way technology separates, dehumanizes, and profits from the individual and the inherent dangers. The writing is at its strongest when it constructs a counter to this, acknowledging the role of the church, sacraments, saints, and social teaching to stand apart from this worldly goal.
I wish that the call laid out in paragraph 15, “In the era of artificial intelligence, when human dignity is threatened by new forms of dehumanization, ours is the pressing duty to remain profoundly human” was answered in a systematic and philosophical way. However, the document does represent a starting point and references “Quo Vadis, Humanitas?” [added to my to-read pile] in seeking to construct a “Theology of the Human” in opposition to artificial intelligence.
I found the ongoing references to Genesis “Tower of Babel” – the hubris of human construction leading to exploitation and division – and Nehemiah’s crowd-sourced and people-centered reconstruction of the walls of Jerusalem to be an introductory metaphor that calls for deeper consideration. As Walther points out in his critique – Babel should never have been built at all – while MH clearly isn’t a call for Butlerian Jihad. Is the construction of walls – given the Vatican’s (and this document’s) call for immigrant recognition the metaphor to best use? Interestingly – the first reference to such a divide in paragraph 1 – hints at the idea of the City of God (Augustine is the namesake of the Pope’s order) but it is an unexplored path [there are four references and paragraph 130 opens the door wider, but again the theological engagement is not there].
While neither condemning nor celebrating AI, the appearance of a Claude Vice President at the release of the document, hints to a reoccurring message: “technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate and use it. Therefore, the primary choice is not between a “yes” or “no” to technology, but rather between constructing Babel or rebuilding Jerusalem; between a power that claims to dominate the heavens and a people who work together in the presence of God to rebuild the walls of fraternal coexistence” (9). The Pope seems to have settled on the idea that this a tool, that is being misused widely, but certainly has the possibility to be beneficial.
Where the encyclical does improve off of his predecessor’s writings is the clearer structure – one that clearly follows an outline and enables easier comprehension. and note-taking. The Pontiff repeatedly lays out a thesis, then delineates an outline of its components, prior to offering grounded and specific policy-recommendations. The political-economic-societal aspects align to offer a series of recommendations grounded in social justice, the heart of the second chapter.
Chapter three has drawn the most attention – largely because it is focused on AI and technology. Paragraph 99 has drawn derision from those enamored with silicon intelligence (per Mowshowitz: “The central claim, wherein Leo denies that AIs can think or importantly be minds, is wrong, as Olah points out in his statements”) by stating bluntly:
These systems merely imitate certain functions of human intelligence...So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom... Rather, it is a form of statistical adaptation based on data and feedback, which can be very effective, but does not imply inner growth.
From here, Pope Leo discusses concerns and intersections of AI with the people. He highlights issues of personal use succinctly: “the ease with which results are obtained, the impression of objectivity and the simulation of human communication” which can “weaken personal creativity and judgement” (100). He likewise repeatedly highlights the way AI uses human data and environmental resources for largely corporate profit, decrying this repeatedly and calling for greater governance and transparency.
Chapter 4 then looks at the intersection between AI and human society. Here the Pontiff’s call for an “ecology of communication” speaks to the way technology grows, distorts and perverts communication. Naturally, this leads to several sections focused on education in this age. With Pope Leo naming the challenge faced today by educators and parents everywhere: “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). And the next paragraph defines what should be the ongoing basis for every Catholic framework of AI: “Educating people about the use of AI, then, involves teaching them to decide when and for what purpose it ought not to be used” (140). This same section details other concerns with technology (141):
In recent years, psychological and psychiatric literature has documented with growing insistence how early and unsupervised exposure to digital devices and social media can negatively impact sleep, attention span, control of emotions and relationships, especially during the most vulnerable stages of life, at times with tragic consequences. This is further aggravated by easy access to violent or degrading content that offends sensibility, to pornographic and hypersexualized material, to messages that trivialize the body and emotions, and to proposals that normalize risky behavior. Online phenomena such as grooming, blackmail and the sexual exploitation of minors are not uncommon, and are made more insidious by the use of fake profiles, algorithms that facilitate dangerous contact, and AI tools capable of manipulating images and videos. Having a personal mobile device at too early an age and using it without adult supervision can exacerbate young people’s vulnerabilities, foster addiction and expose them to isolation, bullying and cyberbullying, as well as to pressures to share intimate images or sensitive information.
The Pope calls for schools to fight for access for all “children and young people of every background” (144). These systems then must “be rethought in order to promote an authentically integral education” and allow “ongoing formation of teachers” (145). Lastly, “a genuinely healthy attitude is needed, requiring rhythms that incorporate silence, in-depth study, reading and judicious analysis” (146). These three calls stand to allow our schools to flourish in opposition to the idea of an education focused on solely worldly ideals and efficacy.
The rest of this chapter focuses on work and education, drawing from the last 150 years of Papal teachings to advocate for a worker-centered economy. It is here too that the second-most cited reference of the document lies – focusing on slavery and the Church’s uneasy relationship with it over the past 2000 years.
The final chapter focuses on the duality between a civilization of power and one of love. Again, the focus is on the socio-economic-political aspects of such a divide and there is a large discussion of the politics of war and power in the modern age. One can almost feel concerns about the Trump administration, terrorism, Ukraine/Russia, et al. needing to be addressed. Unfortunately, this section also felt somewhat disjointed from a focus on technology and AI (the Pope does advocate a “human in the loop”) – until the Pope’s closing call.
This call is focused on four aspects leading to a “sober yet demanding program of Christian life with which we can navigate this epochal change in the light of the Gospel” (229). First, we must “contemplate the grandeur of humanity” which as come to use through the Incarnation and thus Christ himself (233). Second, the Church must be a place where “a different paradigm, one that preserves human connections” is made present through the Eucharist (235). This echoes much of Pope Francis and Leo’s efforts to efface unity in the Church. The third call is one to “assume an active role” by being “faithful to the truth, investing in education, cultivating relationships, and loving justice and peace” (236). These echo the social justice outlined so well in chapter two. Finally, the last section draws on prayer, calling us to have hope: “sharing who we are and what we have, so that the presence of Jesus may grow among us and his Kingdom take shape” (245). This ‘not-so-‘New Evangelization builds on the idea of us being a witness in this post-Christian age.
More a document on technology and its role in the modern economy, as sparked by the development of artificial intelligence, MH is an opportunity for the Church to begin a deeper conversation about what humans are and are not and what technology is and is not. By expounding on these philosophical and technological aspects, the Church can help lead us with faith, hope, and love in the ChatGPT era.
Leave a Reply