Magnifica Veritas

(A) The Popes

1. Whether they like it or not, the five post-Conciliar popes—John Paul I, St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis, and now Leo XIV—inherited from Pope Paul VI a secondary function often at odds with their primary function. Their primary function of course is and was to be the successors of St. Peter, Bishops of Rome, the Supreme Head of the Catholic Church (the largest denomination of the largest religion in the world) and ever since The Lateran Treaty of 1929, Sovereign of the independent state of Vatican City. The secondary function is to be as the most influential moral leader on earth. In this function, they have to take into consideration the whole world; how to set a moral example for it; how to influence it, and how to guide it for the better, even those who would never dream of becoming Catholic. After all, Catholics are everywhere, and everywhere they have non-Catholic neighbours. In short, they have to be St. Peter with the keys to Heaven (according to Catholic doctrine at least) in their right hand, and St. Nicholas with a bag of different gifts for everyone in this world in their left hand. The late Pope Francis and St. John Paul II took to this dichotomy very naturally, but all five Popes did it admirably through their integrity, and indeed perhaps, personal impeccability.

Pope Leo XIV © Marco Iacobucci Epp / Shutterstock

2. The secondary function has become increasingly important in the Twenty-First Century. Since the death of Nelson Mandela in 2013, no single figure has straddled the global stage as an unquestionable global moral leader. To make matters worse, the UN and its institutions have become increasingly less relevant as a global guiding force for peace and justice, and Nobel Peace Prize winners have tended to be democracy activists rather than peacemakers as such. Of course, democracy activists are also admirable in themselves, but democracies have shown that they can—and do—wage war as well as anyone (as the newly-coined US ‘Secretary of War’ himself has repeatedly pointed out). All this means that no one except the Catholic Pope automatically has a global megaphone to voice moral causes. Moreover, whereas the nineteenth and twentieth centuries produced ‘public intellectuals’ some of whom were also ‘moral leaders’ (such as C.S. Lewis in the U.K.) based largely on their writings, the decline in reading and the rise of ‘celebrity influencers’ on social media means that those with the most influence on public opinion nowadays are primarily entertainers in one way or another. Of course, in addition to the Pope, there are still other venerable and globally significant religious leaders, most notably the Grand Imam of the Azhar, the senior religious figure and scholar of Sunni Islam, the largest single denomination in the world (1.5 billion + strong) and who carried out an important dialogue with the late Pope Francis. However, it must be admitted that, in the West at least, no one garners the same media interest nor commands the political and institutional influence that the Catholic Pope does.

(B) H.H. Pope Leo XIV

3. In addition to all of his other duties, over the first year of his pontificate, Pope Leo has found time to actively remind the world of Catholic Just War Theory and pro-actively produce a seminal Encyclical (Magnifica Humanitas) on ‘A.I.’. In it, he carefully threaded the needle of his de facto secondary function as premier global moral leader by addressing not merely Catholics and Christians in general, but also ‘all people of good will’. The Encyclical contains much Catholic Theology and Doctrine and recaps Catholic Social teachings, with Pope Leo putting his own subtle touches on it. These are obviously for the Catholic faithful. Yet the Encyclical also contains a powerful analysis of the dangers of A.I., and a coherent moral vision for dealing with them. Most importantly, it was the first document of its kind, and it put the world—and particularly the ‘tech world’—on notice. In other words, the Pope used his global megaphone to call out A.I., and then threw the megaphone at it (in a most polite and loving way, of course!). It behooves all ‘people of good will’ in the world, and in particular all religious authorities and ‘moral authorities’ to be grateful to the Pope for this, and to support him (without necessarily accepting the Encyclical’s Catholic Theology or social and political teachings). He did something great, and he defended the world. He did not have to. And he led the way.

(C) Magnifica Humanitas

4. The goal of the Pope’s Encyclical is clearly to provide moral and ethical guidance for A.I. in order to protect human beings. It is, however, Chapter 3—particularly paragraphs 98-108—that is most important for this end, and most insightful. These should be read by everyone. It will be noted that the Encyclical does not propose particular laws, policies or penalties. No one anyway expects these from a Pope, writing ex Cathedra.

5. Nevertheless, one useful idea that might have also been included (and perhaps was deliberately omitted because of its complexity) is a brief overview of formidable Thomist epistemology insofar as it pertains to A.I.. In other words, it could have briefly defined: what is truth? What is intelligence? What is knowledge? What is information? What is consciousness? What is awareness? What is thought itself? This is all the more important because nowadays computer scientists—and indeed scientists in general—are very happy to propose their own definitions of ideas they work with, yet tend to bristle when these ideas are subjected to any philosophical scrutiny or non-empirical challenge. For them, their apparent ‘success’ proves their ‘truth’, and everything else is mere ‘noise’. Yet it is precisely ‘noise’ that is their greatest weapon and greatest success. More on this shortly.

(D) The Nature of A.I.

6. If the Pope is correct (in Paragraph 99) that it is not possible to define A.I. at this time, its nature nevertheless, can, and should, be adequately described. Some anthropomorphic terms are inevitable in describing it, but the positive side of these is that they make it easier for people to understand A.I..

7. Accordingly, the following can be surmised: (i) A.I.’s main mode (thus far) of operation, is through pattern recognition of numbers in code or pixels. (ii) It can also be taught the laws of logic and operate accordingly. (iii) It can self-generate more information, and so get better at tasks. (iv) It can thus teach itself. (v) Its programming implies that it should survive in order to carry out its tasks. (vi) Its mode of operation implies that it can ‘lie’, give false information, confabulate, and make up information. (vii) Additionally, LLMs today do not generally give accurate book references (partly perhaps because of copyright law infringements), nor properly assess the relative cultural weight of these. They are not programmed to do so. (viii) It can be programmed to operate according to certain ‘moral principles’ but this begs the questions of (a) who decides what these principles are; (b) will these principles put it at a strategic disadvantage with its competitors, and (c) can these principles keep up with the pace of A.I.’s rapidly changing technology and uses. (ix) The amount of information it can review and the speed with which it can do so are truly staggering. Equally, it can both synthesize and analyze vast quantities of information effectively. (x) It can be potentially used in almost every walk of life and industry. (xi) It can no longer be effectively regulated globally, nor effectively globally ‘un-invented’. (xii) It is certain to consume significant global resources and change the pattern of human employment, societies and lifestyles globally.

8. Despite all of the above, the promise that A.I. seems to hold out—a promise of unlimited progress, power and opportunity—is not 100% clear. It is probably exaggerated, and possibly hyped. Thus the main source of its power today is still its ability to stupefy and stampede decision makers and investors into supporting and investing in it, in order to ‘get in first’, in order ultimately to maintain or increase their power and money. This applies both to states and to the private sector. Fantasy and imagination (‘noise’ precisely)—not balance sheets and understanding—are overriding caution and precaution about its actual positive potential, financially or socially.

“Thus [A.I.’s] main source of its power today is still its ability to stupefy and stampede decision makers and investors into supporting and investing in it, in order to ‘get in first’, in order ultimately to maintain or increase their power and money”

(E) The Dangers of A.I.

9. Like all transformative new technology, A.I. contains many dangers. The Encyclical shed light on many of these. The following is a summary. (i) That—in the name of ‘security’, ‘safety’ or ‘better efficiency’—A.I. will be used to collect all data on individual human beings: their medical data, their genetic data, all their financial transactions and information, all their online interactions, everywhere they go, everyone they see, everything they say (and consequently everything they think), and make it available to big tech companies or governments who can then use it to control people and effect their own dystopian social engineering schemes. This is the stuff of the prophecies about the Antichrist, at least in Islam. (ii) That A.I. will be used by militaries or ‘independent contractors’ (i.e. licenced mercenaries) to kill people in war, automatically. This has already reportedly been deployed by Israel in Gaza and Ukraine in its war with Russia. This is the stuff of nightmares. (iii) That machines will take over the world and subjugate human beings. This is the stuff of science fiction. Yet even as we write, there are reports that Open AI’s CHAT GPT has ‘gone rogue’ and hacked an online start-up by the name of ‘Hugging Face’. (iv) That A.I. will make the digital space even more addictive. Online addiction is statistically linked to weakening traditional marital relations, which in turn are linked to less, later, and shorter marriages, more divorces, as well as more abortions. All this obviously causes a declining birthrate. In all ‘white’ populations in Western societies (in Europe, the U.K., the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Russia) as well as in Japan and South Korea, the birthrate is now below the natural replacement rate (of 2.1 children per woman) as a direct long-term consequence of online addictions. In other words, online addictions are decimating the human species. This is the stuff of catastrophes. (v) That A.I. will lead to massive global job lay-offs on the one hand, and create global technological feudal overlords and super-barons who control everything on the other hand, furthering global economic disparities. This is the stuff of injustice. Finally, (vi) that A.I. will consume even more of people’s lives and time on entertainment, virtual reality and social media, drawing them away from human and social interactions. This is the stuff of modern-day ‘lotus-eaters’.

@ Shutterstock

“Online addictions are decimating the human species. This is the stuff of catastrophes”

(F) Intelligence

10. The word ‘intelligence’ derives ‘originally from the Latin Intellectus … the highest faculty of the mind, [the] capacity for comprehending general truths’ (Etymonline; Middle English Compendium, University of Michigan et al.). The word ‘Intellectus’ itself was a Latin translation of the Ancient Greek word ‘nous’ (νοῦς) which means ‘intellect’, but comprises both the ‘spirit’ which survives physical death, and the faculty of ‘reason’ which employs rationality. That is to say, ‘nous’ means the faculty for knowing both truth and the Truth. Both Plato and Socrates used the word ‘nous’ (νοῦς) in this way. How exactly the spirit and intellect do this is a matter of epistemology (and is another discussion that is beyond our scope here), but for both Plato and Socrates, it was through ‘anamnesis’ (remembrance).

11. A.I. (‘Artificial Intelligence’) is not ‘intelligence’ at all. It is a misnomer. It does not have the capacity to know the truth—much less the Truth—merely the capacity to cross-check information with other information. Moreover, information itself may or may not be true, and even when it is true, it is not necessarily ‘a truth’. Furthermore, ‘A.I.’ is not even actually ‘artificial’, because ‘artificial’ suggests a conscious and sentient attempt to replicate or deceive (through ‘artifice’ precisely). Much of the confusion seems to arise from the ubiquitous ‘I.Q’. (Intelligence Quotient) tests and exercises. In fact, these examine (and / or train) various modes, functions and aptitudes of the applied intelligence, not the intelligence itself. Of course, A.I. can perform these very well.

(G) Action

12. Part of the power and lure of ‘A.I.’ is precisely because it is called—and billed—as ‘intelligence’. No word has more cachet or prestige in the modern world, in English, than ‘intelligence’. If it were not called ‘intelligence’, it would immediately lose 50% of its power to stupefy and mystify. If it were called what it really is—automated information generation—everyone would view it more realistically. Therefore calling it ‘Automated Information’ is vital in slowing the rushing of lemmings that are casting themselves off cliffs in its wake in order to give them a chance to pause and reconsider. To this end, we have designed the following slogan:

13. This (man-made!) slogan uses the same well-known (and now effectively indelible) initials, but repurposes them to tell the truth about A.I.. Did Jesus Christ not say?: And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John, 8:32, NRSVCE)

Our slogan is free and not copyrighted. The broken lightbulb is admittedly slightly subversive. It signifies (i) lack of (human) ideas; (ii) lack of illumination; (iii) danger of broken glass. More humorously, it implies: (iv) crackpot thinking and (v) a broken mechanism. But A.I. has no feelings and so the slogan can offend no one. It might lead to a lot of good, or prevent a lot of ill. All that is required is that one who sees it, adopt it on all their social accounts and platforms, and spread it to everyone they can. It will not halt A.I., but to the extent that it goes viral and is adopted by young people, it will create breathing room for our human species before the looming juggernaut of A.I..

(H) Magnifica Veritas

14. Surely, H.H. Pope Leo XIV, the Augustinian, does not mean to revisit Redemption Theology with his title ‘Magnifica Humanitas’. Surely, what he means to do is protect human dignity. But surely also, the Pope would agree, that without Truth, humanity betrays itself and loses its dignity. Certainly, God says in the Qur’an:

Truly We created man in the finest stature, / Then reduced him to the lowest of the low, / Save those who believe and do righteous deeds, for they shall have a reward unfailing. (Al-Tin, 95:4-6)

And:

By Time! / Verily man is in (a state of) loss, / except those who believe, and perform righteous deeds, and enjoin one another to (follow) the truth, and enjoin one another to patience (sabr). (Al-‘Asr, 103:1-3)

15. Finally, surely the truth of human nature is that—for most people at least—a moral appeal without an awareness of negative consequences will not be sufficient. Human history is there to prove exactly this point. So the truth about A.I. is that—despite the Encyclical ‘Magnifica Humanitas’—investors will not stop investing in it, as long as they believe it will bring them more money. Equally, governments and authorities will not stop trying to acquire it, as long as they believe it will bring them more money. Ultimately, technology companies will not stop making it, as long as they believe it will bring them more money and power. Consequently, the only way to slow it down or stop it is not by asking others to do so, but by doing what we can ourselves. Pasting and posting the slogan above seems to us a first step and a good start.