|
You undoubtedly have read some of the comments and opinions about Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical released last week on artificial intelligence, Magnifica Humanitas (Magnificant Humanity) (text here). The subtitle makes the content clearer: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence. To me, what is most significant about this letter, written not just to Catholics but to “all men and women of good will,” is how Leo has seized the role of moral leader regarding the development and use of AI, just as Leo has done with his remarks about selected actions of the Trump administration (see here for my recent newsletter about Leo’s encounter with Trump). I think Leo has taken an exemplary and, in some sense, a revolutionary approach to the benefits and risks that AI presents to the world. He does not hand down judgements or “hurl anathemas,” but instead puts forth what is sometimes called in Jesuit thinking “a way of proceeding.” He recognizes that it is critical to raise moral questions during the development process, not just after AI has hit its maturity. He calls for an intensive, ongoing moral dialogue in the coming years about AI’s development and use. (To be clear, he does condemn one AI application: autonomous weapons.) Dedicating his first encyclical to AI and treating it in such depth (42,000 words), Leo demonstrates his belief that AI is not just another technological advance but one that raises unique and fundamental questions about human existence. At the least, he considers AI’s revolution the equal of the industrial revolution of the 19th century, addressed by his predecessor Pope Leo XIII, in the very first of the papal social encyclicals, Rerum Novarem in 1892 (text here). That letter addressed fundamental questions about the impact of automation and the industrial age on human labor and human identity. One has to ask: if there is such an unprecedented global development, whether technological or otherwise, who has the standing to address its moral implications? There are certainly now hundreds of initiatives and projects examining the ethics of AI, including one I started more than a decade ago at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. My late brother, the political scientist Eric Hanson, highlighted this problem in his most important work, Religion and Politics in the International System Today (see here). Eric observes that “The world lacks an international primary ethical broker to articulate and to focus attention on the most crucial international moral issues.” In arguing that one or more religious leaders might fill this gap, he comments, “If contemporary religious leadership, exempted from frequent elections and the twenty-four-hour news cycle, cannot maintain the long-term view of the global common good, who can?” He also warned that “In the absence of such healthy options, demented charlatans can occupy the empty public square as the only alternative for idealistic young people who wish to change the world.” Eric would probably find a number of nominees for AI’s “demented charlatans.” Pope Leo is stepping forward today to play the role of moral leader that is so badly needed, but he is doing it with a significant twist—calling for ongoing dialogue rather than pre-judging the risks, benefits, and harms of AI. Instead, Leo suggests there are guardrails, in the form of core moral values, that can direct our inquiry and the development and use of AI in the coming years. He finds and redefines these from longstanding religious and ethical traditions—but he recognizes that they must be applied in a continuous moral dialogue as technological capabilities and geopolitical conditions evolve. These core values include: The Dignity of Persons. His title Magnificient Humanity gives this one away. You cannot reduce human beings to automatons who follow the dictates of AI programs. You cannot remove human labor from life when all humans find meaning by contributing to their families and the world. The Common Good. A fundamental moral value in the modern era, the common good recognizes there are public policies and initiatives that serve the whole community, and that these same goods cannot be achieved if the rich and others can secede from society and create enclaves unto themselves. Taxes, when well spent, are essential to the achievement of the common good. The Universal Destination of Goods. Christian thought has long considered wealth and property as goods belonging to all humanity and is suspicious of great concentrations of wealth and power. Leo extends this to suggest algorithms and the huge volumes of data in AI models can be considered “goods” which must be shared with all humanity. Subsidiarity. To control tyrants and the concentration of political and economic power, Catholic social teaching has enshrined subsidiarity, that all human affairs ought to be governed and guided at the most local level possible. Subsidiarity suggests AI models ought to be as local as possible and that there is danger in having very few global models. Solidarity. One of the most important aspects of human life is community. The future of each human being is connected to the future of every other human being. This connectedness requires authentic participation: staying informed, engaging with others, making their voice heard, contributing to public decisions and choices. Centralization of those actions in a government or an AI program denies human solidarity. Social Justice. One of the most important values in both religious thought and modern political thinking is social justice: that every human being—particularly the poorest and weakest—can live a truly dignified life, that no one is left behind. Social justice today requires access to all digital technologies, and perhaps especially AI in the future. Most importantly, Leo called for a continuing moral dialogue with AI developers and users, symbolized by the event that introduced the encyclical last week and featured an AI developer from Anthropic. Leo’s exhortation made me think of one “way of proceeding” employed by Ignatius, the founder of the Jesuits. His rapidly growing cadre of Jesuits scattered around the world, to a great extent, found their own projects and how to perform them. Remember this was the 1500s, but Ignatius required each Jesuit to write an annual letter back to him in Rome assessing their work and its results. The letters were copied, and sets were sent back to each Jesuit. This “learning community,” which Ignatius created, enabled the Jesuits to grow rapidly in sophistication and effectiveness. Similarly today, I hope Leo’s call for an ongoing global project of moral reflection on the development and use of AI will lead to rapid moral learning about how AI can be used by humanity going forward. Leo reminds us of the stakes by describing this undertaking as “the construction project of our time.”
|
