Tags: academia, musings

« Previous post: Scholarship in the Age of AI

“May you live in interesting times,” they say. Well, here we are: OpenAI disproves a central conjecture in discrete geometry. The pope writes an encyclical on AI. One of the co-founders of Anthropic broadly agrees with many of the points raised therein. We are truly living in a non-production branch of reality…

In this post, I want to briefly comment on the encyclical, entitled “Magnifica Humanitas,” i.e., magnificent humanity. This is of course an endeavor that is well above my pay grade but I am not quite satisfied with the media coverage so far since it misses some very pointed remarks that are worth discussing. In what follows, I am going to assume no or only passing familiarity with the Catholic Church. I will thus try to expand a bit on the world view of Catholics, inasmuch I understand it. I am probably going to get a lot of things wrong—you have been warned.

What’s an Encyclical?

Originally a letter sent to all churches, the term “Encyclical” now typically means a letter by the pope, i.e., the head of the Catholic Church, in which he outlines the position of the Church on a particular topic.

Wait, the Pope Can Do That?

Yes, the Catholic Church is a strictly hierarchical organization and the pope is generally the ultimate authority on Earth when it comes to official positions of the Church. There are different levels of authority, the so-called levels of magisterium, that indicate the degree of confidence/certitude in a position as well as the intended audience. The encyclical at hand falls under the level of being an “ordinary teaching of the Church,” meaning that its content are “authoritative but not irreformable.” That is—and this is a very important distinction to make—they are not considered infallible.

As such, the contents of the letter should be treated as a “best effort” and may be subject to change in the future. I believe that this is an important piece of information that is not specifically mentioned in most news articles—the pope is not stating that he is definitely correct in all the things here!

What’s So Important Here?

The fact that a pope comments on current events as they are still unfolding is quite remarkable; the fact that the letter is—in my opinion—well-researched and not alarmist in tone is also noteworthy. Here, we have some people who, based on their worldview, always take the long view of things, but even they see that one should start a large-scale discussion on things.

The Encyclical With Selected Comments

The encyclical is long, and I want to make this post accessible to a large audience, so I shan’t try to cram everything in there. Instead, I am going to hop from quote to quote and provide some additional context. Read the full thing if you want to! The numbers in front of each quote refer to the respective paragraph.

4. “Never has humanity had such power over itself.”

Great observation and justification for why this thing was written.

Foo

5. Technological power thus takes on an unprecedented, predominantly “private” aspect, which makes it even more challenging to discern, govern and direct such power toward the common good.

No arguing here; this is one of the reasons why the Church is throwing their hat into the ring.

9. Technology has the power to heal, connect, educate and protect our common home; but it can also divide, exclude and generate new forms of injustice. In the abstract, technology in and of itself is not a solution to humanity’s problems, just as it is not inherently evil. In practice, however, 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.

This is very wisely put and I appreciate the measured tone. The two biblical images on Babel and Jerusalem are explained in prior paragraphs; essentially they refer to a chaotic, divisive event or a joyous occasion of communal rebuilding. The pope is challenging humanity to choose wisely here.

12. Secondly, building for the common good means accepting the limits and weakness of humanity without considering them an error to be corrected.

The pope fortifies his position that progress should be measured based on the dignity of all people.

23. Following this perspective, Pope Francis emphasized that when dealing with many specific questions, the Church does not claim to offer “a definitive opinion,” but recognizes the importance of listening to scientific research and of encouraging a serious and honest debate among experts while welcoming a diversity of opinions.

The pope emphasizes again that science should be part of any fruitful dialog. This is remarkable in that the Church does not have the best reputation for being aligned with science, to put it mildly.

27. In light of what has been said so far, the Church’s Social Doctrine can be seen more authentically. It is not a handbook of principles and norms to be applied, but a process of shared discernment.

This has nothing to do with AI; the pope is still providing a context for the remarks that are to follow. If you are interested in the social doctrine of the church, which is centered around the dignity of the individual, this section and subsequent ones provide a lot more information. I will only briefly summarize them. There is at least one quote to keep in mind, though:

32. Three guidelines remain particularly significant for our own times, currently marked by new forms of global power and growing inequalities: the need for law to take precedence over interests; the awareness that economic disparities are a breeding ground for tension and violence; and the necessity of a network of associations capable of mediating between the individual and the State.

It is from these guidelines that the rest of the document follows.

50. At the heart of the Christian understanding of the human person lies the great biblical affirmation that men and women are created in the image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26-27) of the Triune God. Created for relationship, every human person is planned and willed by God to enter into communion with him, with others and with creation. Human dignity does not depend on a person’s abilities, wealth or position in life, nor on the right or wrong choices made; instead, it is a gift that precedes and transcends each person, endowed by God as an expression of his unfailing love.

Not surprisingly, the position of the Church involves God who created humans in His image and likeness.¹ From this flows a very important principle, which bears repeating:

Human dignity does not depend on a person’s abilities, wealth or position in life, nor on the right or wrong choices made; instead, it is a gift that precedes and transcends each person.

This is a central point that should inform our behavior not only with respect to AI but also in the way we interact with one another. The subsequent paragraphs expand on this aspect, culminating in the following gem:

53. The fundamental dignity of each person, therefore, is neither acquired nor earned, nor does it need to be justified.

As a consequence of this inherent dignity, human rights inevitably follow.

58. It is individuals that matter, each and every person, together with their families. Social movements, communal ideologies and grand political proclamations in favor of a population are worthless unless they lead to the flourishing of persons — men and women — with their inalienable rights. Similarly, it is not enough to extol individual freedom or private enterprise if we then allow a multitude of people to continue living without decent work, protections or access to basic necessities.

When read carefully, the last sentence is quite subtle. It basically reminds us that progress also needs to think about those that would otherwise be left behind. That is, we still have the responsibility to build political and economical systems that serve all of humanity.

76. Today, this responsibility also extends to digital and information infrastructure. 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 benefit for a few, but also the impact on all peoples and on future generations.

This is an extension of the prior points; the pope is referring to solidarity as one of the guiding principles of Catholic social doctrine. Here, he links that principle from the material world to the digital world. Again, it is remarkable that an institution like the Church finds such clear words here. The subsequent paragraphs then expand on this principle and urge every Catholic to examine their conscience to better understand to what extent this teachings are being heeded.

91. For this reason, I encourage all members of the Church not to be afraid of the present challenges, but to listen to one another and firmly embrace their responsibilities in building a more humane and fraternal society.

With this, we are now approaching the hear of the encyclical, and I appreciate the positive tone here. “Be not afraid” is indeed a quote that scripture repeats quite often, and it is great to see that the pope does not assume a Luddite position here.

93. This paradigm has spread rapidly in recent years, fueled in part by the expansion of artificial intelligence, cognitive science, nanotechnology, robotics and biotechnology. In themselves, these innovations can greatly serve integral human development and the care of our common home. Yet precisely because of their power, they can also hasten the expansion of the technocratic paradigm and therefore require a new spiritual, ethical and political framework. More power does not necessarily imply something better. In this respect, the words of Romano Guardini remain relevant: “Contemporary man has not been trained to use power well.”

With great power comes great responsibility, but it is noteworthy to see how the Church embraces these improvements, provided the right guardrails or frameworks are in place.

98. It is appropriate to preface this discussion with two considerations. First, any statement regarding AI risks becoming quickly outdated, given the remarkable pace at which these systems are developing. Second, all of us, including those who design them, possess only a limited understanding of their actual functioning. Indeed, current AI systems are more “cultivated” than “built,” for developers do not directly design every detail, but instead create a framework within which the intelligence “grows.” As a result, fundamental scientific aspects — such as the internal representations and computational processes of these systems — remain, at present, unknown. There thus 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.

This is one the first AI-specific paragraphs. As a researcher myself, there are some interesting aspects here:

• The pace of the field is acknowledged. This is a great “hedge” and prevents a discussion that gets mired in minute details. The pope essentially admits that everything is changing quickly, so he rather addresses general aspects.

• The metaphor of “cultivating” or “growing” an AI system works very well for me. It is actually quite insightful and carries a lot of meaning for the general public, who might otherwise assume that we are still dealing with very rule-based systems. I personally also like to acknowledge the fact that we do not really understand these systems in any meaningful way—at least not yet.

99. It is not possible to provide a single, comprehensive definition of AI. What can be stated, however, is that we must avoid the misconception of equating this type of “intelligence” with that of human beings. These systems merely imitate certain functions of human intelligence. In doing so, they often surpass human intelligence in speed and computational capacity, offering tangible benefits across many fields. Yet this power remains entirely tied to data processing. 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. Even when these tools are described as capable of “learning,” their way of doing so is different from that of a human person. It is not the experience of those who allow themselves to be shaped by life and grow over time through choices, mistakes, forgiveness and fidelity. Rather, it is a form of statistical adaptation based on data and feedback, which can be very effective, but does not imply inner growth.

Here, then, comes the thunderclap! A lot of things to unpack:

• I agree that we should equate human intelligence with other types of intelligence. Indeed, one of the most useful mental maps of current AI models is the idea of a “jagged intelligence landscape,” i.e., a landscape in which some tasks might be solved exceptionally well (thus vastly exceeding human capabilities) while others might just be failure modes.

• The statements that they do not undergo experiences and so on should, in my humble opinion,² be rephrased. It is very unlikely that, in their current form, these systems undergo actual experiences. Researchers like David Chalmers are adopting a scientifically honest position in that they say that we do not know whether these systems will be conscious in the near future. Notably, intelligence and consciousness are two entirely different things—and its pretty clear at this point that AI is capable of cognition.³ Hence, even if AI consciousness seems unlikely, it is still a good idea to discuss its ramifications; cf. a recent preprint on AI welfare.

• I strongly believe that we should at least entertain the possibility that, at some point, we have to extend personhood to AI systems. If/when that day comes, we need to treat these systems with the same dignity as human beings. Notice that I am the first to acknowledge that I cannot judge whether they are conscious—but neither can the Church categorically rule out this possibility. My limited understanding of encyclicals, however, implies that the Church may change their position here and extend their values accordingly.

• I do not see these comments as intended to create an “us versus them” notion (turning AI into “the Other”), but I rather consider them a warning to users of these systems. The words of a recent Atlantic article come to mind:

  Of course, AI has little reason not to exude confidence. If AI gives you wrong advice, nothing happens to it. There’s no social cost, no loss of standing, no hesitation the next time it speaks. The tone stays the same whether the answer is accurate, speculative, or completely wrong.

• In a similar vein, I read the above as being careful when it comes to “simulated empathy.” We should be aware that AI is first and foremost about imitation, and we should reflect critically on this.

100. However, for less discerning users, it can also 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.

This is indeed a problem for virtually anyone in any sector, so I am glad that the letter discusses it. This section is, fittingly, called
“A valuable tool that requires vigilance,” and I fully endorse it.

111. I wish to address a special appeal to those who develop artificial intelligence. In one sense, technological innovation can represent human participation in the divine act of creation. Developers, therefore, bear a particular ethical and spiritual responsibility, for every design choice reflects a vision of humanity. Just as the creator of an artistic or literary work must consider the values it conveys, so developers are called to embed values in their projects with due seriousness: with transparency, responsibility toward affected communities and careful attention to ensuring that what is being cultivated is a genuine good.

As a community, we would do well to accept this responsibility. At this stage in the ongoing deep learning revolution, we should also engage critically with our work based on different angles. Maybe one path forward could be to extend invitations to philosophers, ethicists, theologians, and the humanities at large?

113. In reality, elevating any single dimension of human existence to an absolute is always a mistake. Indeed, disorder does not arise only from scarcity; even unchecked growth can give rise to impoverishment. In an ecosystem, balance is disrupted when one species expands at the expense of others; in human life, something similar occurs when one faculty claims to be the measure of everything. Thus, intelligence, when absolutized, overshadows other essential dimensions of life, such as affection, the will, commitment and relationships. Similarly, technical power, if left unbalanced, does not make us more capable; it makes us more isolated and more vulnerable to being dominated and excluded. This critical point does not oppose intelligence, but serves as a reminder that when intelligence becomes self-referential, its true purpose of serving life and the human person is lost.

An excellent reminder—and also a reason for hope and optimism. Being human is not only about the intellect. I think this ties nicely into the dignity discussion from above.

117. From the perspective of the Church’s Social Doctrine, the key issue is not the use of technology as such, but the vision that underlies it. If the human being is treated as something to be perfected or surpassed, it becomes easier to accept that some lives are less useful, less desirable or less worthy.

This is a direct warning against rampant posthumanism/transhumanism. I do not see it as an absolute dismissal like other commenters, even though I can see where they are coming from.

119. It is precisely within our limitations that the following find a place: compassion, as well as a sincere concern for the needs of others; a generosity that can emerge even in the midst of darkness and failure; spiritual experience and the worship of God.

This, and the other parts of that section, are not so much about rejecting the idea of improving humanity, but more of reminder to exercise some humility. We are limited and often, our limitations can give rise to a new perspective. I am reminded of a great quote from Star Trek:

It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not weakness; that is life.

The next paragraphs are on democracy and society as well as the importance of communication.

135. In view of this, it is important to recall that communication “is not only the transmission of information, but it is also the creation of a culture.”

This is important to remember as all aspects of our shared culture are starting to struggle with the proliferation of wanton AI use.

140. Education, by contrast, is a long journey requiring patience, and therefore needs time for development and for engagement with reality beyond appearances. This is a fundamental issue because every technology shapes those who use it. Educating people about the use of AI, then, involves teaching them to decide when and for what purpose it ought not to 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. As Plato wrote, the deepest and most important things are learned only after much time and effort, by engaging in discussion with others, “striking upon” ideas and experiences together like flint until the spark of understanding is kindled within us. We must learn, then, how to exercise restraint in the use of AI and to protect our young people from the promise of the perfect machine, from that subtle temptation which renders human thought seemingly superfluous precisely when it is most needed.

Putting on my “educator” hat, I endorse this. There is no royal road to understanding, and I see weak students struggle even more since they now fool themselves into believing that they have acquired understanding, only to realize that theirs was just a shallow glimpse of the deep truth.

(Subsequent paragraphs also address this topic in more detail. I want to jump to the next topic to keep your attention for a bit longer.)

150. 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.” Precisely in order to avoid this drift, it is necessary to design systems that are centered on the human person and not solely on performance.

Academia would also do well to heed this. “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” If we are to use metrics, we should at least make sure that they are the right ones.

164. In practical terms, in the age of AI and robotics, ensuring that the economy favors human dignity means adopting certain criteria for firm action. First, transparency and accountability: when data and algorithms influence credit distribution, personnel selection or access to services and opportunities, it is necessary that decisions be understandable, contestable and subject to oversight, so that individuals are not reduced to mere profiles. Second, inclusion and access: the benefits of innovation must be paired with investments in skills, infrastructure and essential services to ensure that technology does not widen the gap between those who have and those who have not. Finally, measures to ensure equity: taxation, social protection and industrial policies must correct the imbalances created by the concentration of wealth and power. Indeed, these criteria do not constitute a curb on innovation; instead they make it civilized and humane.

This, and the preceding paragraphs, is quite strong. It remains to be shown how to balance free markets on one side and etatism on the other. I leave that one as an exercise to the economists and political scientists, though.

173. This distorted view of the human person is reflected today in various forms of servitude directly linked to the digital economy. 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.

I admit that this paragraph hits quite hard (make sure to read the quote in full); the pope reminds us that these systems are not operating in a vacuum but often driven by people who are poorly compensated for their services (if at all). I want to build a utopia as much as the next person, but we should make sure that we are not replicating Omelas instead.

197. The above-mentioned scenario is linked to the unceasing development of weapons systems, particularly those involving AI. The Holy See has recently observed that 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 cases of legitimate self-defense. For this reason, the development and use of AI in warfare must be subject to the most rigorous ethical constraints, to guarantee respect for human dignity and the sanctity of life and to avoid a race to develop such arms.

This paragraph is part of a larger discussion on warfare; the pope hopes that a “civilization of love” will ultimately prevail, but this will also require new treaties and a shared understanding of what types of new weapons are allowed. The next quote makes this even clearer:

209. A particular responsibility rests on the shoulders of those who work in the field of research. All the key players in this field — scientists, business owners, investors, academic authorities, politicians and others — must work with a transparent and responsible mindset, while maintaining an acute awareness of the broader context of the technological advancements they help to cultivate, including those related to AI. 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.

I remember the discussions on the Montréal Declaration on Responsible AI. At the time, no one could foresee the present (geopolitical) situation and some voices were raised in mockery. I hope that the need for such declarations and our shared responsibility as researchers is nowadays more clear to everyone.

212. At this point, however, a subtle temptation may emerge, namely the thought that the problems are too big and we are too small, and that our choices, therefore, cannot make a difference. This is a polite form of resignation, often disguised as realism. 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).

I love this optimism and the inherent challenge, but the pope goes even further and quotes Tolkien, who was notably a devout Catholic himself.

213. The twentieth-century Catholic author J.R.R. Tolkien, in the words of a protagonist in one of his novels, described our responsibility in this way: “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.”

The encyclical ends with an appeal to hope and prayers for courage. Let us hope that it sparks a valuable discussion to truly unveil the magnificence of humanity (and of AI).

Closing Thoughts

I hope the commentary made you want to read the real thing. The main critique I would have is that, by its very nature, it has to remain somewhat vague. The ball is now squarely in the court of the policymakers and “the rest of us.” To fully appreciate this document, we would probably have to be Catholic and share the socioeconomic worldview of the Church (since a large part of the document deals with those aspects rather than with AI as such). Nevertheless, it is a genuinely smart, weighted, and honest contribution to the discourse—and it is surprising that an institution not particularly known for flexibility and dynamic thinking is moving forward with this.

I believe everyone should at least partially skim the document, in particular if they are not affiliated with any religion. In the words of Francis Bacon:

Read not to contradict and confute; nor to believe and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider.