Papal documents reward close reading and deep reflection, and often some of the most interesting ideas take time to emerge. However, here are three thoughts on Pope Leo’s first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the time of Artificial Intelligence.
A CHALLENGE TO THE ‘TECHNOCRACY’
The 21st century has seen an increasing concentration of power in the hands of a small number of tech ‘elites’. Pope Leo sets up two opposing examples of how technology might be incorporated into a society. The first he describes by referencing the Biblical ‘Tower of Babel’, where those in control of technology use it to dominate and control people’s lives and choices. The other he describes referencing the rebuilding of Jerusalem, where people work together for the greater good.
‘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.’
When it comes to new technologies, including AI, Pope Leo notes that those with the greatest power aren’t governments, but the ‘economic and technological actors that exercise de facto power over the conditions of everyday life’. It’s these powers which ‘define conditions for access, rules of visibility, forms of interaction, and even economic opportunities’. Think, for example, of the power of Google’s algorithm to promote one idea over another, or the power of Spotify’s music algorithm to promote one artist over another.
At the moment, these processes are applied in an opaque manner. However, Pope Leo calls on states and institutions to ensure ‘fair rules and effective safeguards, so that local communities, intermediary organisations, schools, universities, religious institutions and associations have a voice and can contribute to the discernment of choices that affect people’s daily lives.’
Public policy has only just begun to grapple with reining-in the power of the tech sector (see, for example, the recent social media ban for teenagers), but this new encyclical imagines more possibilities in the future.
‘When it comes to decisions regarding economic flows and digital platforms, as well as the governance of data and algorithms, we cannot allow a handful of actors to dictate these processes on their own; instead, we must build forms of cooperation that respect the various levels of the global community and make them jointly responsible for the common good.’
HOW WILL AI ADOPTION AFFECT HUMAN BEINGS?
Pope Leo acknowledges that AI is in its infancy, and that we don’t yet know how the technology will develop. However, he also draws a strong distinction between AI and humanity – noting that its ability to process information doesn’t make it human.
‘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, behaviour 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.’
When we use AI, we need to be aware of how we’re employing the technology. Automated systems that can make decisions on people’s employment, credit, access to services, cannot know ‘compassion, mercy, forgiveness and above all, the hope that people are able to change’. And a more subtle danger arises, as when ‘AI systems present themselves as neutral and objective, they end up reflecting and reinforcing the stereotypes or ideological bias of their designers and developers’.
‘In reality, every technical tool embodies choices and priorities through what it measures, ignores and optimises, and how it classifies people and situations. If a system is designed or used in a way that treats some lives as less worthy, or excludes them without the possibility of appeal, then it is not merely a tool “to be used well,” since it has already introduced criteria that contradict the inalienable dignity of the human person. For this reason, ethical discernment cannot be limited to asking whether we are using a system for good or bad purposes; it must also examine how that system is designed and what vision of the human person and society is embedded in the data and models that guide it.’
The adoption of AI and technology must be focused on how it can improve people’s lives, and on mitigating risks to people’s wellbeing. Pope Leo endorses appropriate interventions from legislators such as holding service providers responsible for ‘setting age limits . . . and for providing specific protections against all forms of online sexual exploitation and violence’. He also expresses concern about the fact that AI is often being promoted as a way to reduce employment costs, thereby impacting families by driving people out of work.
‘One viable path is, first of all, to establish social criteria for innovation. Here, every introduction of automation and AI should be accompanied by verifiable measures to protect the employment, retraining and participation of workers. In this way, technology will be oriented toward freeing up human time and capabilities, rather than producing exclusion.’
CONCERN FOR THE POOR MUST BE PARAMOUNT
‘Nothing in the world of AI is immaterial or magical’, notes Pope Leo. Everything comes from some form of labour, some use of resources and infrastructure, involving human beings. There are people involved in data labelling and making decisions on what data to include (or promote) when it comes to AI, as well as many others working to moderate content, often ‘working under demanding conditions for minimal wages’. There is also the fact that the digital landscape is being used by criminal networks, who utilise much of the infrastructure for activities including trafficking and exploitation of human beings.
Pope Leo writes, ‘It is not enough to invoke efficiency, nor to celebrate the benefits of innovation, if they are built on a chain of exploitation that remains deliberately hidden. If technology promises emancipation, yet produces new forms of global subordination, it stands in contradiction to the fundamental principle of human dignity.’
To address these issues, he again calls for governments and civil society to work with tech companies:
‘First, the supply chains that underpin the technological industry and the digital economy need to become more transparent, so that no competitive advantage is built upon hidden exploitation.
‘Second, companies and investors need to adopt clear criteria for preventive ethical verification (due diligence), placing among their priorities the protection of workers, the fight against forced labour and the assessment of the social impact of data-driven models.
‘Furthermore, digital platforms must cooperate responsibility with authorities and civil society to prevent communication, payment and profiling tools from becoming channels for the recruitment and control of victims.’
For too long, the large tech companies have been mostly unimpeded in reshaping our economy and society. At its heart, Magnifica Humanitas, is a call for a rebalancing – to put technology at the service of humanity, rather than continuing to jeopardise humanity for the betterment of those in control of technology.
Click here for a video explaining the encyclical.
Michael McVeigh is Jesuit Communications head of publishing and digital content.
Michael McVeigh is the Editor of Australian Catholics magazine, and senior editor at Jesuit Communications.
