The summary of the Pope Leo’s open letter to “all people of good will” is at Part I, along with a link to the whole 42,000 word opus. News reports on the document can be read here, here and here.
1. The document appears to begin, as we would expect, from the basic socialist/Communist/progressive bias the Catholic Church has always displayed, which includes suspicion and contempt for capitalism. In the text, Pope Leo says that while “technology should not be considered, in itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity,” he added that “the pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs.” The encyclical doesn’t resolve the obvious conflict that has always existed in that perspective: technology ideally improves the quality of life for humanity, saves resources and redistributes them elsewhere, and often reduces the costs of goods and services making them more affordable to all. One of my favorite inventors, Walter Hunt (inventor of the safety pin), invented the first practical sewing machine but didn’t patent or market it because he was certain that it would put seamstresses out of work. So Elias Howe patented the sewing machine instead. Were more jobs lost or created by the invention? I have no idea. This has been the inevitable sequence with new technology throughout human history: its ultimate impact is usually impossible to predict.
Ethics Lesson: Trying to develop rules and laws limiting the uses of emerging technology is stifling as well as futile, and foolish to boot.
2. A Pope using the Biblical fable of the Tower of Babel as his primary analogy to justify limiting the use of artificial intelligence is signature significance that makes me, for one, tend to roll my eyes at the entire document. That’s a story about the Old Testament God finding sinful the aspirations of mankind and sabotaging an effort by humans to cooperate in creating something ambitious and unprecedented. The encyclical demands acceptance of human limits, while science, capitalism and American individualism set no limits on human advancement. The Pope seems to be saying the equivalent of “If God had meant for us to fly, he would have given us wings.”
Ethics Alarms 
Whenever I see Papal pronouncements of any sort, I simply file them in the exact same place as those of Billy Graham or any other innumerable pastors of Protestant churches. Without putting too fine a point on it, I see all such matters as human beings presuming to know the mind of God, or offering to substitute their judgement for that of their flock, who are surely capable of reading the scriptures and understanding their message.
Yes, I know the Pope’s authority is far broader than that of any reverend or pastor, and that he is the spiritual leader of and sets the policy for the largest Christian denomination in the world, and of course I respect that. After all, the Apostle’s Creed is used by every major denomination of which I am aware, and belief in the Holy Catholic Church is right there near the end.
Many Popes have been brilliant and insightful men, full of humble wisdom, and many have… not. Based on what I know about this encyclical, this Pope does not engender much confidence that he is one of the former.
Yes, I know the Pope’s authority is far broader than that of any reverend or pastor, and that he is the spiritual leader of and sets the policy for the largest Christian denomination in the world, and of course I respect that.
The Pope has authority certainly. But (technically) the ‘policy’ of Catholic Christianity has already been ‘set’. The incumbent Pope can place emphasis on certain trends (as Francis did and as Leo says he continues) but there cannot be too much innovation. There is a rather divisive dispute within the Church: that between those who see Vatican ll as the beginning of numerous destructive trends which have harmed the Church and ‘perverted’ the Liturgy. These tend to be traditionalists who favor pre-Vatican ll liturgy.
Then, on the other side, are bizarre (sometimes seeming) post-Catholics who have radical designs and want to modernize everything. The most radical (in my experience) are the Latin American priests.
The Encyclical in question is really pretty sensible. And certainly someone has to say something about the dangers of hyper-intelligent computer systems and their implications …
The document appears to begin, as we would expect, from the basic socialist/Communist/progressive bias the Catholic Church has always displayed, which includes suspicion and contempt for capitalism.
This is just one more and very common “binary statements” common in the present. Everything is reduced to phrases and encapsulations. To say that the doctrines of humanism and the valuation of the human person that are central to Christian message is socialist and communistic is spectacular as a statement. If there were no ideological platform where care, concern, mutual help, and social solidarity did not exist (was not a social value) we would live in hell-realms.
A critique of any systems that dehumanize or that harm people could only be the proper focus of life and education. So don’t we have to start from the elevation of that central valuation?
It really depends on what one means by the too broad term ‘capitalism’. There are (obviously!) excesses by corporate machines that have far too much power and require oversight — or perhaps not? There should be no critical oversight? Small businesses are the engine of American (and world) prosperity. In all my experience with Catholic Social Doctrine there has never been criticism of such enterprise.
But any thinking person must recognize that with the advent of AI and entire constellations of corporate enterprise that there are certainly extreme dangers. Or no?
Idealism unmoored from experience, history and reality is useful as a point of reference, but using them to set practical policy is irresponsible, as has been proven gazillions of times. It would be nice if religious leaders had the integrity to be transparent on that point, but it would cut into fundraising. Can’t have that!
I have been reading the document and I find it sound, instructive and useful. But I am very much a fan of Catholic social doctrine. I am even contemplating paying attention to it … soon. 🔜😎
As long as your sock drawer is in perfect order and you have nothing else to do, why not?
Idealism unmoored from experience, history and reality …
In reality the Church (the Fathers, the long history of experience guiding people) knows so very much about human nature. After 2.000 years I guess you learn a thing or two.
Utter nonsense. The Church (and the Bible generally) recognizes human nature but deliberately pretends it can be other than it is.
😳
Jack, you are developing an amazing talent for saying things with intellectual and even emotional commitment which are yet fully false.
The Church recognizes how devilishly messed up are people, and how difficult it truly is to live in accord with defined ethics, yet it outlines precisely and carefully how this can be done.
Using thousand year old moral codes and idealized fables and myths. “How it can be done”? “Follow these edicts or you’ll be sorry” is not a formula for being ethical. As Gene Hackman says, “Stick a cattle prod up a horse’s ass and it will deal cards!” What the Church has “learned” is that fear and self-interest is a far better motivator of compliant conduct than genuine commitment to virtue, but that cynicism must be cloaked in exalted rhetoric.
If you knew in fact about Catholic Christian ethics, you would know that it has been developed relationally to Biblical texts and ideals recognized as vital and important. However, I know that you know very little about this, so I cannot even take you seriously.
This is a diagram if your animus to Catholicism.
I’m not going to be drawn into a religious debate. Religion does wonderful things for those with faith; it also provides easy guidance for those without the reasoning ability to be ethical. The country was healthier when organized religion was a consistently positive influence on society. Solace, ritual, nice clean absolutes. I have lots of friends who are devout Catholics, ex-Catholics, lapsed Catholics, and hypocritical Catholics, like the ones who defend abortion.
From an ethicist’s point of view, I don’t comprehend how an institution that wasn’t deeply and essentially corrupt could ever be involved with a child predator scandal to the extent the Roman Catholic Church was (is?). I don’t believe such an institution has the moral credibility to ever issue demands or advice to anyone, much less tell the world what is an ethical way to handle technology. It chose its own selfish institutional welfare over the moral principles it claimed to represent. And it directly ignored the Golden Rule. Based on that, “Catholic Christian ethics’ is an oxymoron.
A Pope using the Biblical fable of the Tower of Babel as his primary analogy to justify limiting the use of artificial intelligence is signature significance that makes me, for one, tend to roll my eyes at the entire document.
I almost dare to make a bet that the reference to the Tower of Babel is based on the French philosopher Jacques Ellul’s book “The Technological Society” (1954), where he argues that modern technology continues the Babel project by seeking artificial unity, absolute power, and independence from God. This book also criticized the notion of efficiency, which also is mentioned in the encyclical.
I came across Ellul during philosophy class during college more than forty years ago, and found this philosophy too pompous and unpractical.
Note: Wikipedia mentions according to David Kaczynski that Ellul’s book “The Technological Society” served as his brother Ted Kaczynski’s (the Unabomber) bible.
Jack wrote: I’m not going to be drawn into a religious debate.
Except even if that is not the case, the world and our civilization is ‘involved’ in the debate. That is, it is living it. Nor does it actually matter that the Church is corrupt, or been corrupt, nor acted in extremely bad ways (thinking of certain periods of history). It certainly has. The status of the Church could only reflect hunankind’s status, and it certainly looks as if we are quite messed up.
However, the Church is a metaphysical idea and an ideal. God definitely exists and the world is ultimately a divinely ordained experience that all are living through. And within the Church’s doctrines are those expressions of Catholic social teaching which are brilliant and far-reaching. And that Church is here now and will be here until the end of time.
So, there is more to be gained (in my view) by understanding and appreciating the Church (Christian and Catholic spiritual and material ethics) then in simple, binary expressions of contempt, dislike and hatred.
it also provides easy guidance for those without the reasoning ability to be ethical.
I think I see your point. In the best case a Catholic training would also be a training in philosophy and reasoning. The fact is: that is the case. The best exponents of Catholicism (and defenders of the Institution) are very capable intellectually and rationally.
You may have great reasoning abilities (you certainly do) and all sorts of intellectual and cultural experience, but that is not quite enough if one cannot define this realm (where we are, and why we are) by way of metaphysics. You may know tremendous amounts ”horizontally” but in my experience of you, you lack the ‘vertical’ element. So what I have found is that people require an understanding of the vertical dimension and some sort of Picture of it.
I don’t comprehend how an institution that wasn’t deeply and essentially corrupt could ever be involved with a child predator scandal to the extent the Roman Catholic Church was (is?). I don’t believe such an institution has the moral credibility to ever issue demands or advice to anyone, much less tell the world what is an ethical way to handle technology.
Yes, I can easily see and understand why this scandal or any of the other serious historical errors of the institutional Church would become the ‘reason’ for rejecting its body of teaching and dismissing it entirely. There were times when things were even worse (if my understanding is correct). However, the Church is as well as a physical institution also a metaphysical one: an ideal, an object to be attained.
And it can indeed — and it just did! — present an extremely thoughtful and wide-ranging Encyclical on the daunting topic. I suggest reading it before you dismiss it.
It is true: a specific person who acted criminally will be dismissed as an authority to be listened to (even if his or her advice was sound. But the Church (and all Christendom) is much more than a person. And there is of course the idea of a Holy Spirit (guiding, spiritual power and authority).
“Yes, I can easily see and understand why this scandal or any of the other serious historical errors of the institutional Church would become the ‘reason’ for rejecting its body of teaching and dismissing it entirely.” Shameless trivializing and avoidance of reality. The old joke applies: “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?” So many children were abused by priests in so many countries by so many priests—who were protected and allowed to continue harming children in multiple parishes over many years—that they still don’t have a count. “Hundreds of thousands” is all we are told.
No wonder you think the Holocaust was no big deal…
#1 – Walter Hunter, huh? Worried about the seamstresses was he? Did it occur to him that a sewing machine would ease the workload, make them more productive, allow them to possibly make more money?
Walter Hunt. (1796-1859) Before Edison, had more patents than any other American. Brilliant inventor, terrible business man. His best known invention hasn’t changed since he came up with it, and is used frequently today: the safety pin! Here’s a video about him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-IrXMYWwPc
To be fair to the Greeks, Romans, and Etruscans of about 13th-14th century BC, the safety pin is just a slight variant of the fibulae they used to hold their cloaks, togas, etc. together, though decorative ones fell out of fashion for a while.
Frankly, I’m surprised he was able to get a patent.
It was the convenience of the automatic clasp, which was deemed a material improvement. Which it was.