Quotes and Notes from Magnifica Humanitas

Pope Leo XIV's first encyclical came out this weekend, tackling the pitfalls of AI. As a Villanova alumnus previously published in the field of ethical computing, one who works in social impact software development, I feel somewhat qualified to share my highlighted passages and notes. Any emphasis in quotes is mine.

He frames humanity's approach to technology through the stories of Babel and Nehemiah. The Tower of Babel imposed conformity and homogeneity, "eliminated diversity" (7). Babel, for Pope Leo, represents all efforts that sacrifice human dignity for efficiency. Nehemiah represents the opposite:

"After the Babylonian exile, a portion of the people returned to Jerusalem, but the city was still in ruins, the walls collapsed and the gates burned (cf. Neh 1–2). Nehemiah, a Jew in the service of the Persian King Artaxerxes, received news of the disastrous state of his ancestral city. Before taking action, he fasted, prayed and interceded for the people. He then asked the king for permission to return to Jerusalem and, upon arriving, examined the destroyed areas in silence. He did not impose solutions from above. He convened the families, assigned each of them a section of the wall to rebuild, listened to their concerns, coordinated their efforts and addressed any opposition. The narrative shows how the city is reborn, not through the initiative of one man, but through the shared responsibility of all: men, women, priests, artisans, heads of households and young people all play a part. It is an undertaking with God at the center, which rebuilds relationships before rebuilding with stones" (8).

Technology isn't the problem. The problem is the approach, the ends, the ways in which technology is used. Projects that aim to reduce the human experience to a uniform, data-centered facsimile oriented towards profit are to be avoided. Pope Leo calls this Babel syndrome, a dehumanizing, ever-present challenge. Instead, he emphasizes that the alternative, the "way of Nehemiah", is the harder yet more valuable path. Work based on subsidiarity, built on inclusion and community buy-in, oriented towards the inalienable dignity of each human person.

Since AI's impact on the nature of work is a question of great concern, it's important to understand how Pope Leo defines work. "Work is not considered simply as a problem to be dealt with or a means of generating income, but a fundamental good for the person, a principle of economic activity and the key to the entire societal question. Through work, human beings bring their freedom, creativity and capacity for cooperation into play, contributing to the cultural and moral elevation of society" (37).

Pope Leo tackles the great divide between quality and quantity, reminding us that progress is not inherently good. ​"The danger of humanity becoming a victim of its own achievements was already clearly recognized by Saint Paul VI, who warned that 'the most extraordinary scientific progress, the most astounding technical feats and the most amazing economic growth, unless accompanied by authentic moral and social progress, will in the long run go against man.' For this reason, technological progress — valuable in itself — requires careful discernment of the anthropological vision that guides it and the ends it pursues. If technological development advances without a corresponding ethical and social progress, the result may be an increase in means without a growth in humanity: 'having more' without 'being more'. In such a scenario, there is a risk that individuals will be evaluated principally according to the outcomes they produce" (94).

He warns about the great dangers of personal AI use: "the ease with which results are obtained, the impression of objectivity and the simulation of human communication" (100). These concerns have all been raised elsewhere, but his emphases on the need for truth and human connection, two things weakened by ubiquitous generative technology, are especially urgent. "Indifference to the truth leads, slowly but surely, to a descent into totalitarianism. As the philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote, the ideal subjects of such regimes are not so much those who are ideologically convinced, but rather 'people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist'" (134). "A society is noble and decent, not least for its support of the pursuit of truth and its adherence to the most basic of truths" (133).

After reminding the reader that these technologies will continue to exacerbate the divide between wealthy nations and poor ones, he criticizes the global order for prioritizing efficiency and innovation over humanity, specifically the irresponsible use of water and electricity for data centers, the ecologically fraught mining of rare earth metals, the abuse of miners (who are often children), and the poor treatment of the hidden humans classifying data to train AI models. "If technology promises emancipation, yet produces new forms of global subordination, it stands in contradiction to the fundamental principle of human dignity" (173).

As a former educator, he emphasizes the importance of friction in human learning, the need for an educational system focused on truths gained through effort. "A genuinely healthy attitude is needed, requiring rhythms that incorporate silence, in-depth study, reading and judicious analysis, for without these elements inner freedom may be compromised" (146). Meaningful, deep understanding doesn't come with immediacy, but with work. This call for healthy mental processes doesn't end at the schoolhouse door, but applies to everyone.

Pope Leo warns that AI systems should not be given the power to control human outcomes, and reminds us of the subtle danger of accepting AI as neutral or objective. "Indeed, entrusting an algorithm in practice with the power to select who is worthy or not, without anyone bearing responsibility for that judgment, is to hand over the task of redefining the boundaries of human possibilities. In this process, political responsibility is also lost, not just empathy toward those excluded, which can, after all, be simulated. The exclusion of the vulnerable becomes cloaked in a veneer of neutrality and objectivity, against which it becomes difficult to raise objections. In this way, injustice goes unnoticed, and compassion, mercy and forgiveness — understood not as mere appearances but as real political actions — gradually disappear from view" (103).

From this follows a simple but compelling consequence: we cannot consider AI to be morally neutral. In reality, every technical tool embodies choices and priorities through what it measures, ignores and optimizes, 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 (104).

He calls for developers and technologists to build with care and responsibility. "This is the guiding principle for technological processes: it is not enough for artificial intelligence to make us more efficient or connected; it must also serve to build a universal human family, with shared rights and duties, where digital proximity becomes a real opportunity for encounter and mutual care" (187).

"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" (111).

"Ultimately, the key question remains the one posed by Saint John Paul II: does AI “make human life on earth ‘more human’ in every aspect of that life? Does it make it more worthy of man?” If the answer is yes, then we can recognize it as an opportunity to be embraced responsibly, on a path of patient, shared reconstruction, akin to the rebuilding of Jerusalem narrated in the Book of Nehemiah. If, however, power grows while the heart withers and human bonds fray, then we are faced with a new form of Babel — a construction that is grandiose, yet fundamentally dehumanizing." (129).

Some Brief Thoughts

Here are some takeaways as a developer who works in and with these technologies in the social impact sector:

• AI shouldn't be used to reduce our humanity by cheapening communication and learning, two foundational skills we should all cherish and foster. Instead, AI should liberate us from drudgery and increase our capacity for bettering the world.
  • What does that look like for me?
    • Placing AI in the middle of my workflow, where generations will be based on my human-developed understanding of the problem and my planned solution. That's fundamentally different from using AI to understand or "solve" problems directly.
    • For example, using AI to generate API endpoints based on a data model I've designed. This saves me days of work without reducing my understanding of the codebase or the needs of the project.
    • Think to yourself: "If the AI shut off tomorrow, would I still be capable of tackling this problem?"
• It's crucial to regularly reevaluate how AI affects your personal workflow. Think of the bodybuilding principle of "time under tension". Is AI taking most of your cognitive load, reducing your capability for complex thought and problem solving? Or, is it acting as an expansion of your productivity?
• AI's role in judgement and autonomous evaluation should be limited and monitored closely. Relinquishing agency to AI creates layers of obscurity between those affected by the decisions and the developers responsible, and accountability becomes harder to maintain.
• Reading the entire encyclical is a worthwhile endeavor. I've covered some of the major sections here, but there's plenty more value to be found.

Further Reading

• The Lord of the Rings - Leo references Tolkien, quoting Gandalf: “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.” This just really validates my conviction that Pope Leo and I would get along well. (Go Cats.)
• A Theology of Liberation - Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez's foundational work on liberation theology is an important follow up. The principle of subsidiarity permeates Magnifica Humanitas, and understanding this concept of community-first organization is important.