Magnificent Humanity: A Conversation on Pope Leo's First Encyclical

Added: 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]more generally, which is another theme of this um this very dense document that I kind of picked up on. So there was AI and there was this larger kind of historical conversation about what does it mean to progress in science and technology. Um this text seems to point us then towards the operative concern for AI and progress. Yeah, being about the technology as such. I used to be a chemical physicist. So I have some kind of engineering questions and scientific questions where the technology is concerned but a profound kind of anthropological concern right and I'm pulling from 117 in the tests asking who we are becoming as we build this tool.

[00:00:41]Um and this question for me is especially key because it leaves space if conceived of and you know um contextualized properly for the tool that AI is being reoriented um in service to the person right and not in replacement of the person. Um, and I was listening to what you were saying about advanced medical tech, Mike, um, and alleviating suffering and and where I'm concerned, um, I had heart surgery two and a half years ago that if done 10 years ago before these advanced technologies, right, would have been open heart in the hospital for several weeks. And so conceiving of a world where this technology technology is properly oriented in service to the person seemed like a theme in this uh, encyclical that was very hopeful.

[00:01:28]Um, and so when I put these two pieces together in my mind in my initial hot take, you know, the eucharistic imagination, um, and this authentic and radically human vision of progress that permeates the document, um, the criteria for safeguarding our humanity in an age that will include AI, I think you and I are in agreement, right, is not antagonistic. It's not siloing the technology. um nor and I will comment on this later is it regulation alone right um but it means that the criteria that we need to kind of deploy as we work with in this reality are very intimate um are very social are very and are very personal and the piece that I kind of want to rest on in terms of like these ultimate you know these opening comments was from 115 where he talks like this criteria remains true progress remains a heart open to others and intelligence willing to listen and a will that seeks what unites rather than what separates.

[00:02:28]So these pieces together, the imaginary, the imaginaries, the leaving space for a rightly oriented technology left me kind of really wanting to read the encyclical again and again to kind of fully understand what I could pull from it in my current role at the Institute for Church Life.

[00:02:45]>> Uh thank you very much. That's just wonderful. I love the Chris Ola, you know, because that's where you come to as an ethical person. Maybe you are agnostic or wherever you are in your faith life. Uh but you we still uh in any case moral voices that incentives cannot bend is held to be an honorable thing on your insights on that section Heather 117 on >> yes >> amazing >> you know the that next paragraph 118 talking about limits and finitude >> any thoughts there like I mean saying to a human being you know you're not gonna you know you can cut your head off brain and live forever in a jar or something.

[00:03:27]Is that really what it is to be a human?

[00:03:30]>> Exactly. And I think that there's a distinction to be made and I think we can all sense that between um healing and this um met, you know, this image that you just gave us, Mike, right, about cutting the head off and living in a drawer. That's not hum that's not human flourishing. Um in my case, the advanced technology that repaired my life was to return me to health. And I think that like that is an acceptance of my limits as a being and human being and an embracing of technology to this kind of proper end as opposed to the false transcendence that's promised by heads living in a draw. Uh go on jar >> jar. Yeah.

[00:04:10]>> Yeah. Or I've even seen people indefinitely, you know, human beings frozen just before death so I can be thought out later on. Like that's not >> that's false transcendence.

[00:04:19]>> Yeah. And the other one That's great.

[00:04:20]The other one is the uh like he he has these metaphors that a construction site this AI era is a construction site right so so and that goes that's old theology and there's you know construction of the good right or is it the good under construction there's an agency syntax thing there humans construct the goods but only if there are kind of you know co-creators in that Tolken sense or in that toistic sense even Augustinian I think we'll leave it there and we'll move on uh over to to to Dr. Joe Vukov and uh Joe, same question goes over to you about these initial takes. We know Joe, don't we that um in the long run, you know, we're going to we're going to unpack this for a long time, but just initially, what do you find yourself thinking about? What's resonating with you? What's alive?

[00:05:06]>> Yeah, thanks Mike and thanks for everyone for joining the call. I I think that's the first thing to say is that this is something that this will be our first pass on this. And I think this will be encyclical that merits careful reading, close reading, and a lot of reflection on the part of the church and people of goodwill. The image that really stuck with me is the one the Holy Father led with. So it's very easy when we're thinking about the ethics of AI or the ethics of new technology to either say yes or no or go or stop. But that's not the dichotomy that the Holy Father gave us. He rather gave us a pair of images grounded in the Bible. So he gave us on the one hand this image of building the Tower of Babel. Um maybe a little bit predictable but very appropriate, right? Of course, when we build the Tower of Babel, we're constructing something in our own image.

[00:05:52]We're trying to usurp God's place. It's a it's a tower, a celebration of our own egos. But the contrast he sets up with building the Tower of Babel is really interesting. It's more of a biblical deep cut, but he holds up this rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem in Nehemiah. If you're not familiar with the story, it's after the exile, Nehemiah is returning to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem with the people. But of course, that's ultimately to serve the end of the worship of God in the holy city. Um, this is from paragraph 8.

[00:06:22]The Holy Father says this, "The narrative shows how the city is reborn not through the initiative of one man, but through the shared responsibility of all 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. So I just love this contrast because again we don't get stop or go yes or no. We rather get two images of building. One of building Babel, the other of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. So the distinction here is not a matter of yes or no to technology, yes or no to building. Both images are of images of building. It's rather an invitation to reflect on what ends towards which we are building. I think this is related to another um feature of the encyclical that really stood out to me which is its reflections on the ideologies of transhumanism and posthumanism.

[00:07:15]Transhumanism and posthumanism are these ideologies of building often of building away from our limits a way of transcending humanity usually through technology and overcoming all the kinds of limitations that humans might have.

[00:07:31]So it's this building sort of ideology and it's interesting because those ideologies share something with Christianity. Of course, Christianity shares with it a call to transcendence and a call to overcoming limitations in a certain way. But when you look at them more carefully, they're they're very different kinds of images of building because of course for the transhumanist and posthumanist, you're overcoming limitations. This is um call back to what you were just talking about a little bit earlier, Mike, with this idea of limitations being something that is overcome through technology for the transhumanist or posthumanist. Whereas for the Christian, we attain transcendence only in and through our limitations. Heaven is only achieved by the way of the cross. So, I think that these two images both of building the Tower of Babel and rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem and this um conversation of the similarities and really important dissimilarities between transhumanist ideologies and Christian Catholic ideologies, ways of thinking about the world, I should say, um will be really crucial ones to the conversation going forward and they're ones that I hope to reflect on a lot as well.

[00:08:37]>> That's uh really engaging stuff there, Joe. and um limit. Okay, so transhumanism need needs a deeper dive and maybe we'll do something later in the center or somewhere else uh in these fields. But human beings and limits we don't how do how do you think about that? On one hand, you know, you could say we'd never have any um cardiovascular surgeons had we not broke a limit uh in norms and ethics about maybe research on cadaavvers, right? Or we never get to the moon if we didn't do X Y and Z. How do you how do Catholics think about limits and crossing them?

[00:09:20]>> Yeah, I mean I think that that's that's the the crucial issue and I agree it merits a lot more careful reflection. I think the key distinction is the idea of what we do with the limits that we've been handed. Um, and I think that there's the modern temptation which is articulated most clearly by the transhumanist. But I think the transhumanist thought here is really a distillation of wider cultural ways of thinking is that if we have a limit, the thing to do is to overcome it. Right? Whether that's a limit that is um, you know, something about our embodiment, whether that's a limit of my psych, right? It's, you know, self-help. It's you you go and you fix the limit. You transcend it. You use technology. You use some sort of mechanism in order to get over the limit and become the better version of you.

[00:10:04]And I think it's really interesting because like you were saying, Mike, there there are parallels here with the Catholic vision because of course Catholic esquetology in heaven there there will be those limits will our suffering will cease and there there will be sort of the heavenly transcendence of limitations. But I think that there's a reason why there's a crucifix at the at the the front of every church, right? Is that it's a picture of here is suffering, here is human limitation, but being embraced and transcendences achieved in and through that. So I think that there's really subtle distinctions to be made here, but it's a matter of not just getting over them, but >> embracing them, going through them, and ultimately achieving something transcendent and more. Yeah, there are different trajectories for the limit that you break you break. We have a fukole on the call. The other fukole, Michelle Fukull has this idea of limit and transgression. And the idea is that you always transgress a limit at the point and that makes the limit longer and larger. That's very Prometheian, but we'll leave it there. Joe, thanks very much for your insights. We move now to Dr. Chris Baglo. And Chris, same question to you. what, you know, what's your hot take on the a couple of themes that you that you know, you you kind of sat up in your chair and got your highlight out and all that kind of thing.

[00:11:22]>> Well, as as I read through the document, my first thought was, wow, I was wondering if this pope was going to be more like Benedict or more like Francis in length. But actually, he's more like Francis in length than he is like Pope Benedict who wrote very short, memorable encyclicals. Um, but I tried to follow certain themes through it. And like Joe, what struck me were the two biblical images. You know, that's the word of God, right? So when we hear about the Tower of Babel, we're hearing something inspired by the Holy Spirit. And when we hear about Nehemiah, we are also hearing about that. And those two, if you follow, keep those in mind all the way through the document. And by the way, at the very end, he returns to them. They stand for two antithetical again and again two kind of antithetical uh possibilities.

[00:12:14]And these are just a few that struck me.

[00:12:17]The antithesis between the opposition between homogenization and unification.

[00:12:27]The difference between homogenization and unification. Tower of Babel.

[00:12:31]Homogenization.

[00:12:33]Unification. the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, uniformity and communion, the idea that there's a way in which people can be impoverished by being brought into one or they can actually flourish in their diversity. Uh, another one that that stands out a lot in various places was automation versus personal responsibility.

[00:13:03]that is there's a different there are places in which automation is fine, right? Um but only when one carefully discerns whether or not personal responsibility ought to be at play in that place instead.

[00:13:19]And then one you already referred to and I would put it this way. The antithesis between and the the the universal power and finitude and the beauty of univers of sorry the beauty of finitude and the danger of universal power.

[00:13:40]So, one thing that I did because I was inspired to go look at a book that I haven't actually read from beginning to end, the book of Nehemiah, since I I undertook reading the whole Bible when I was like in my early 20s. And I went back and I started reading it. And his his description is so accurate. It is a gathering together of people to ch to secure something that they love, right?

[00:14:08]Um and they do it in prayer and they do it in such a way that everyone gets a chance to be involved and as we know that is not what's happening with artificial intelligence in the experiences we have with it every day.

[00:14:23]Things are ripped away from original authors. Things are taken from various places. They're all put together sometimes quite badly and the original the unique human voice is lost.

[00:14:38]Yeah, I mean amazing list of rehearsal there. Again, scratching the surface, but we could spend a lot of time on each of those. Uh, and and Pope Leo does. I have this graphic. Maybe you've seen it, everybody on the call. I think that the diccastry for the promoting of integral human development did this. But Chris, it's got there's two rows ahead of us at the second uh ribbon. Babel's uh or Babel, I'll say Babel. Uh three earmarks. Humanity without God, uniformity, dehumanization. Those are the earmarks for Babel or Babel. Jerusalem's earmarks are God at the center, >> diversity as a source of richness, >> brotherhood to follow Pope Francis and Fellituti, you know, human family >> and collaboration. Those are the earmarks of Jerusalem.

[00:15:26]>> It's a great theme that's emerging there. Any thoughts on that? I mean, I love all your I love the way you have, you know, communion is the thing, right?

[00:15:33]>> Right. Yeah. So, so, uh, one thing I thought he would make more of in the encyclical is, uh, especially when I saw Tower of Babel, I was thinking that the next image was going to be Pentecost.

[00:15:44]>> Huh.

[00:15:45]>> And in fact, it was released, right, the day after Pentecost.

[00:15:50]>> It was implicit. [laughter] >> Pentecost is the antithesis of Babel.

[00:15:54]>> Yeah.

[00:15:55]>> It's a place where everyone hears the apostles speaking in their own languages. And what's happened to them?

[00:16:00]What happens to them is what happened to Christ on the cross. They're cut to the heart.

[00:16:06]A space becomes open for them for others inside themselves.

[00:16:10]>> It is this thing happening Chris because that the other theme in here is this constru especially in our pedagogical in our universities not to fall flat flatfooted in in like psychopantic toadies to AI innovations but to cultivate in our students a civilization of love. Right.

[00:16:29]>> Yeah. I mean, how many people who have ever taught know that so most students are afraid to say anything in class, >> right?

[00:16:36]>> Is AI emboldening them to use their own unique voices or is it smothering those voices?

[00:16:42]>> Well, >> that I think is pretty the answer to that question is pretty clear to me.

[00:16:46]>> Pretty clear.

[00:16:47]>> All right, that's great. We'll come back and see you in a second here. But now we go over to uh >> uh Leila's own Father Matthew D. Matt, same question to you. your fresh takes, your uh interpretations, initial um thoughts on the document.

[00:17:03]>> Well, thanks Mike. Um I want to resonate with a lot of what's already been said, the technocratic versus the eucharistic.

[00:17:08]I too was really struck by this construction site image. So for Pope Francis it was the field hospital something sort of uh immediately reacting versus the construction site is all about what kind of foundations do you do you put in so that you can build a building worth living in. Um, and something that struck me on that was the the encyclical talks about um, nihilism and pragmatism getting caught in these things and kind of the paradox of we have more capacities than ever. And yet um, as Chris was just saying, I teach a lot of students and I teach philosophy of technology and I was in no way surprised that all these commencement speakers lauding AI were getting booed.

[00:17:50]they have this great sense that there is something that they're being undermined that even though it can do all these things for them. They're constrained that when the pope talks about uh these false pragmatisms and false realisms that there are these sort of tracks that were caught in economic tracks and cultural tracks and techn technological tracks and there's no there's no escape for them. There's something determined.

[00:18:12]So even though there's all this power, that's a power that uh the AI agents have the power and the people don't really have the power. Uh and the frame narrative of the of the document really is about where as a Christian does one find power um of that that kind of power of freedom. So St. Augustine, one of his images of sin is incurvatus in say sort of this being cut off from one another, turning in on oneself as opposed to the frame narrative of the of the piece of the of the encyclical is this eukaristic community which is interactive is horizontal. with with people in a space that is shared, that is mutually acknowledging, that is going to the altar wishing one another peace and is also a radical openness to those other people and to God. And that is that kind of place of freedom and place of solidarity. that place where it's not the false realism, the sort of determined realism, the realism without freedom, but instead it's the real acknowledgment of the diversity of persons and the diversity of ends. And only from that kind of grounded realism uh and that kind of eukaristic realism can tools be seen as tools and not as determinative.

[00:19:33]>> You think it very well said and compelling insights. Um, let's maybe the quicker uh followup is I was struck by that uh twice. It was the University of Central Florida. I should probably shouldn't call out names, but and then um well, I'll keep going. University of Arizona, I believe, where these commencement speakers were lauding and enthusiastically kind of selling the beauties of the coming AI. Mhm.

[00:19:57]>> It was shocking, wasn't it, to hear these booze? And can you, you know, does that match your experience as a professor in the classroom with young people?

[00:20:07]>> I It's It's an odd position since when I teach philosophy of technology, philosophy of AI, and we're launching and uh I helped launch uh with some other folks an AI and human flourishing minor here at at Lyola that'll go on uh line next uh in the fall semester. Um and I end up in these classrooms just to have kind of a balance of voices being the apologist for AI. Yeah. Just to because very few students take up that side that on the one hand they they use it but there is sort of an awe they feel compelled to use it as though they don't have a lot of choice around it. I mean sort of famously Haidider talks about how technology and frames us and they definitely do feel like it sets bounds for them that they don't like. I think you said it in the other insight on freedom and I think maybe they might feel encroached upon when their freedom is is is uh what protracted or prescribed >> and there's something about that I think that is an open question. Um but when you feel if you feel like you're being part of a machine or uh your agency's compromised or you're a cog your energy and your spirit is sapped. If you feel like you're making something with whatever tool you feel like you are alive, something like that. Does that resonate with you? How do you >> Yeah.

[00:21:24]>> Yeah.

[00:21:25]>> Well, I think and then there are I mean I think in the best case these tools are are extensions. I mean they they allow I mean minimally us to do math that was never for possible in the early days of I mean just bigger numbers and it kind of extends from from there or like the construction site like if you don't have a crane your building is not going to get very tall. So it's not the case, but that can still serve a humane vision.

[00:21:50]>> And so and and I think that's the distinctions and some people were criticizing the encyclical saying the pope really needed to take a harder stance against AI. And he takes this that it has the capacity to be humane.

[00:22:02]Um and it really is where do we what is our disposition? What is our grounding as humans, as a community, as a political community, as a church that we can then approach these devices not out of need but out of a sense of sort of agency and composure really I mean a discerned calm and there is a spiritual disposition towards these machines to have uh right ordering towards them.

[00:22:26]>> Uh it's well said and let let us not forget Pope uh Pope Leo is a trained mathematician. I think his first book is on some type of uh the the existence of God and probability in terms of probability uh published by Oxford and then he's also a canon lawyer. He's very methodical.

[00:22:43]>> All right. Uh I want to encourage the viewers uh to if you have a question, type it into the uh the question slot.

[00:22:50]We're going to get to a few of these toward the end of our broadcast. Uh but for right now, we're gonna kind come right back to Father Dun with kind of part two of our um of our event, our our program. And that is for our panelists to kind of I guess show off their scholarship. So uh panelists will have a text or two and they'll explicate so we can hear some of the actual language of the encyclical and we're going to begin with Father Dutch. So please Matt.

[00:23:16]>> Well, I think I've been preparing this response since I was about 12 years old when I read the Lord of the Rings.

[00:23:22]Um because the pope uh I think in partly speaking to all people of goodwill or at least all Tolken fans of goodwill quotes this is the quote is from uh Gandalf speaking before the big battle before the black gates for those of you Lord of the Rings fan and he he quotes saying it is not our part to master all the tides of the world but to do what is in us for the sucker of those years wherein we are set uprooting the evil in the fields that we know so that those who live after may have a clean earth to till.

[00:23:54]And then the pope goes on to explain, "The civilization of love will not arise from a single or spectacular gesture, but from the sum total of small steadfast acts of fidelity that serve as a bull work against dehumanization."

[00:24:12]When I I read this quote, I immediately needed to find it in the text because I had a suspicion about what it says. And it's interesting in the context that the pope is quoting u he's just or Gandalf just finished talking about a palunteer which are the seeing stones in the Lord of the Rings where they can see um distant places and communicate with one another and that's been used there's a there's a big uh AI company and software company called Palunteer which is all about extending uh power but in the in the Lord of the Rings Um the the palunt here is they're or they're a caution around them. They can corrupt or they can extend. Um and just before the part that the pope um that the pope talks about um Gandalf warns of those who use these palunteer and the series of people who have been corrupted by them that the palunteer looking through them through these great powers can cause them to mistake the meaning of what they see is what says that's that's the danger of these tools of these pal these mythical tools in Palunteer but I think the extension is really there too um to say that the tool is great, but it has a corrupting or a wearing out. And in the story, people that use these tools too much are worn out by them. So they're they're not sort of neutral tools. They have the capacity to manipulate. And even people that think they're going to use them from for good end up using them for sort of despite themselves as opposed to what the Pope quote. It was sort of taking a sense and we talked about limits before.

[00:25:56]Yeah.

[00:25:56]>> The humane limits that we have saying, well, we're all called to do good and to say our limits, our scope. What what is it that within our agency and our community and our calling to to contribute? What is that piece of field that I can tell? What is that evil that I can remove remove that is within my reach that is discerned? So not sort of the abstraction of trying to extend myself indefinitely and sort of the illusion of saying that this technology will allow me to extend myself indefinitely, but saying what is it that can serve what I'm call how I'm called to extend myself, how I'm called to engage in some good. It's amazing. It's like the limit again shows a certain kind of anthropology or the mystery of our lives in God or an imagination that has a complex of opposites. A palunteer has is riddled with an abundance of conflicting forces. You know, life is that way. And what is it left for us? We have to pray and discern, don't we, to kind of locate the the best way. Let me ask you this.

[00:27:00]>> So, this is what I went to, you know, and and when I AIed it, it didn't give me the information I wanted. I like this is a gap here. Now, it's Gandalf the white that says this, not Gandalf the gray.

[00:27:10]>> And that's >> Yeah. So, why is that why is that important, man? Well, I mean I think all well he's well two things. I mean he has gone through this suffering through this conversion process and uh Saramon was the one who was corrupted even though he was the wisest and most powerful he was corrupted by the politier that he held and also that there is something canotic in this speech. They're going to the big battle but their big battle is before the blackade there's not to win. They're they're to distract. Um, and so it's the humble, it's the hobbits going that are actually going to win. And so there is this sense of their their place in the community. Their tilling of the field is the modest one. Even that's the great armies and the great banners. The the little hobbits are the ones that are going to win. It's it's really a lesson in humility. And Gandalf the White, the more exalted one, is also has paradoxically become also more humble in it.

[00:28:05]>> But he's come through hell to get there.

[00:28:07]You know, we know this. So that's wonderful. Well, I I guess the lesson here is be careful how long or which palunteer you hold, my friends. And also amazing that Tolken is now part of the ordinary magisterium of the church and about time. [laughter] >> Let's go over to you, Dr. Chris Baglo.

[00:28:28]>> Hi. Okay, so my passage is number 136 from the encyclical. I like to read it and then I'll reflect on it. The Pope writes, "Those who control digital platforms and means of communication have a considerable ability to affect the collective imagination and to present a particular vision of reality as desirable.

[00:28:49]Such power should be constantly guided by the pursuit of truth and respect for human dignity. So that the culture fostered on the internet does not become an instrument of excessive distraction, homogenization or dominance, but rather a setting in which inner freedom and critical thought can mature. Okay. So we believe by faith that the Holy Spirit blows freely in the world and we also know as Walker Percy wrote that artists are like canaries that coal miners used to take into the shafts to test the air.

[00:29:23]Right? Then we should note that we were warned about this danger he's describing. Um, and we were warned not by Marian visionaries who usually just warn about sin tilt court or theologians whose work is out of the reach of most. No, I propose that we were warned by popular music across distinct genres about what was happening. I'm going to give you three examples. First, consider Back on the Chain Gang by The Pretenders. Uh, written in 1982 by their lead singer, Chrissy Hind. Recorded after their guitarist died of a drug overdose.

[00:30:03]Here's some of the lyrics. She sings, "Circumstance beyond our control. The phone, the TV, and the news of the world. Got in the house like a pigeon from hell. Threw sand in our eyes and descended like flies.

[00:30:21]Every Catholic parent, indeed every thoughtful Catholic, knows about that pigeon from hell, which in Pope Leo's words, comes into the house as an instrument of distraction, homogenization, and dominance. Only think of Jonathan Hate's book, The Anxious Generation, to see the corrosive effects it's had on young people. Now, even before that, in 1978, in his song Radio, Elvis Costello described himself being moved by listening to his radio, doing everything that it advised him to do while its songs brought tears to his eyes. But his bliss turns to horror when the switch breaks and he can't change the channel, which helps him discover that it is homogenizing him and controlling him. They're saying things, he sings that I can hardly believe. They really think we're getting out of control. And here's his chorus. Radio is a sound salvation. Radio is cleaning up the nation. They say you better listen to the voice of reason, but they don't give you any choice cuz they think that it's treason. So, you had better do as you were told. You better listen to your radio.

[00:31:32]But those guys were New Wave. Hard Rock was not without its visionaries. One last example, Russia's 1980 Spirit of the Radio. Spirit of radio. The song is a lament on the change of FM radio from free form to commercial formats during the late 1970s.

[00:31:50]Some of us are old enough to remember when the internet was free form and commercialless.

[00:31:56]That was a good time. Now, here's some lyrics. Wasn't it nice to believe in the freedom of music? But glittering uh but glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity. In fact, the closing words of the song even refer to the prophetic ministry. It says for the words of the prophets were written on the studio wall which echoes with the sounds of salesmen.

[00:32:22]So excessive distraction, hom homogenization and dominance that is the tower of babel babel that is being built and these oracles saw it coming in the age of radio and TV. So I'll stop there.

[00:32:36]>> Amazing. You know I love the way you went there Chris. I'm just also thinking of it's been said that advertising is the sacred music of the late modern age.

[00:32:46]>> Yeah. Right.

[00:32:46]>> Right. You know what I mean? Uh couple couple follow-ups here. Uh, two of the most beautiful words that are put together are Walker and Percy.

[00:32:55]>> Yes.

[00:32:57]>> Now, really though, he you could have added him in. And I don't know how much Pope Leo, you know, is he trafficking I don't there's not a lot of arts and literatures and music. I mean, Pope Francis kind of opened it up that way in his in his way of writing and cyclicals.

[00:33:11]And it's not a a critique, but I'm noticing the arts teaches something. You went with pop music and it was entirely apt and thoughtful. Uh Walker Percy in his fiction does this. I think of Love in the Ruins. Do you remember the book?

[00:33:27]>> Oh yes, very much so.

[00:33:28]>> Yeah. How you know how about how would that how would Love in the Ruins Percy kind of figure in with this encyclical?

[00:33:36]>> Um I think about the thing that came to mind is the old abandoned Howard Johnson where he where he holds up. You know what I mean? Yeah. Yeah, >> I won't give too too much of the story, but he notes that in the lobby there's an old Rotary Cub sign with its three questions. You know, is it fair to all concerned is one of them.

[00:33:53]>> Yeah.

[00:33:54]>> He said, "But the banner is rent like the Temple Veil, >> but that banner is rent in two." In other words, yeah, we we say these things, but they're just a thin veneer for what ultimately is dominance and then revolution or subversion or terrorism or lone gunman or whatever you however >> power, right? Yeah.

[00:34:16]>> Yeah.

[00:34:17]>> I mean, all right. Thank you. I mean, we gota have a shout out for people from Louisiana, I suppose, on this call.

[00:34:22]>> Absolutely.

[00:34:23]>> Thank you, Chris. All right. We're gonna move over here to >> uh Heather, please. What's your text, Heather? And uh what are you going to say about it?

[00:34:32]>> No, I appreciate you. And I want to pick up on this idea of distraction if I can that Chris was just speaking to and the kind of concerns we have where the young are where the young are to be considered. Um I approached this given Chris and I's work in the science and religion initiative and as a parent trying to navigate the digital space and his holiness speaks to parents as well.

[00:34:58]And so what I'd like to do is take up two quotes from the education part of the document, but as kind of like an on-ramp if I can. I found it very interesting that the vast majority of what his holiness had to say about education in the age of AI is kind of couched in the truth and common good section. So that's between 139 and 150.

[00:35:19]Um and it's a it's a very kind of telling um kind of framing for how he sees education and what is under attack precisely um in the age of AI where education is concerned and that's kind of for me how and why we learn. Um so my two paragraphs are 140 and 146 uh talking about how and why we learn respectively. Now, if you all are following along in the audience and you look at these paragraphs, they're rather beefy. So, I promise all of you that I will not be reading them all. Um, I'm just going to be like touching on some points because I got them highlighted.

[00:35:58]So, let's go to how we learn in 140. Um and and this is where I was fairly uh hopeful and optimistic in my initial comments, but this is where I kind of want to sound a bit of concern as an educator uh myself. The education by contrast is a long journey, right?

[00:36:19]Requiring patience and therefore needs time for development and for engagement with reality beyond experiences. So there's a tension there where AI is concerned. Where does it come from?

[00:36:30]Right? He says and I continue the quote the speed and ease with which answers can or summaries can be obtained risks extinguishing the desire to do what? Ask questions which is a process that he says bears fruit only over time. So it's this repification that is kind of built into the tool that is really kind of risky where the kind of careful process of discernment and wondering and awe at creation are concerned that is something that education needs to pay attention to. Um he then quotes Plato and beautiful quote but the piece that I kind of want to flag there again in the interest of time to my fellow panelists was that he flags that learning is also communal so we have a repification that's built into AI that's a problem right and there's a communal piece where education is concerned that AI can kind of styy and he concludes what we need to learn then and this kind of resonates with what Chris just said is how to exercise rest strength in the use of AI and to protect protect our young people, right, from the promise of the perfect machine, from what that subtle temptation which renders human thoughts seemingly superfluous precisely when it is most needed. Right? I'm noticing in my practice, if I kind of explicate this a bit more in the academy, when I interact with young people, they're afraid to make mistakes in discourse in a way that I haven't seen before. Why?

[00:37:53]Because thinking through things, and I'm modeling this now as I'm thinking through this quote on the fly, right?

[00:37:58]Um, thinking through things requires patience, right? It requires trust. It requires colleagues um, who may not share the same opinion as you, but who are nevertheless there as embodied persons who are also participants in this discourse. Right.

[00:38:14]>> Wow.

[00:38:15]>> My second piece very quickly on why we learn, again, this is presented again within this truth as a common good, which is a beautiful theme to unpack even in and of itself. But why we learn is presented for me in paragraphs 144 to 146 in the context of several concerns that his holiness has. Um and and for me it's really touching on this truth piece like why do we teach right parents professors catechists priests whatever why do we teach right and and he cautions first by saying that the system that is being built up around AI without dis you know careful discernment and critique is an educational system and I quote lacking in a love for truth um in which an incessant flow of information replaces the essential exercise of research, reflection, and discernment.

[00:39:07]So what does he think is needed towards the end of the quote, a genuinely healthy attitude requiring rhythms that incorporate silence, in-depth study, reading, and judicious analysis for without those elements and going back to what father Matt said with freedom, inner free, freedom may be compromised.

[00:39:27]So it's an attention issue. It's a distraction issue that we've already flagged, but also it's an awareness of the fact that where especially the young people are concerned. It is fundamentally a compromise of their inner freedom if the access to the answer is so quick all the time, right?

[00:39:45]Um if um they are presented with a response without error, seeming error, >> right? And this for me is precisely this integrated and integral vision of education that is screaming at me from these passages is precisely what the Catholic intellectual tradition gifts us in our schools and in our parishes.

[00:40:05]>> Yeah. Well said. We we are so hungry for it and we have to be reminded what the human p what who the human person is. I mean this is brilliant and it's you know I'm inspired as a as a teacher to kind of really turn into this uh because every age has to be educated. This one gives us urgency. I love the word you used, repetitification, right? And you might say the tyranny of the immediate that we we feel a lot. Um digital culture as you mentioned it assales and siphons and is a kind of parasite to our most precious faculty that of paying attention.

[00:40:44]>> It gives us that dopamine that keeps us and then a lot of things can happen when it has when when it has your attention, right? What do you think about that, Heather? I I think that is a I think that is a real concern, right? And I noticed that even in my own children where I asked them to kind of look something up in a table of contents and I was looked at like I was speaking I don't know Chinese. I do not for the record. Um [laughter] I I wish I could I real concern and I think that the antidote and again this comes out in the text and all the other the co-al and yourself Mike have hinted at this.

[00:41:21]>> Yeah. is not to say that this is a whole scale turning away from the thing but I think that there is a cultivation of a type of prudence here that can is the kind of co-responsibility of parents and pastors and teachers to kind of take the technology and make it not the source and summit of what it means to educate a person that reduces person to a number right we're forming whole people this is making God known loved and served This this is our remit. It is not attending to a number. It's forming.

[00:41:56]>> Okay. Thank you. Uh well said. Thank you very much, Heather. Okay. Let's turn over to to Dr. Joe Vukov. Joe, uh one text, two text, three text.

[00:42:06]>> I've got just one for you, Mike. Um but it's a good one. So the the conclusion goes to maybe an unexpected place, but I want to suggest to you a very appropriate place. It turns to the Magnificat. And this is from the very last paragraph of the encyclical, paragraph 245. I'll read read a pretty extended quote here. With the same faith as Mary, let us become weavers of hope in our world, sharing who we are and what we have so that the presence of Jesus may grow among us and his kingdom take shape. In the humble fidelity of daily life, even the era of AI can become a time in which the Holy Spirit brings about the civilization of love in our lives. It's the end of the quote. I think it's just a really beautiful passage to begin with. What really stood out to me here is this image of a weaver of hope. I mean, it's it's sort of it's just a beautiful image in itself. But what's the Holy Father getting at? He he actually tells us more or less what he's getting at here a little bit earlier in the encyclical. He talks about how to be a weaver of hope is to take up the perspective of the blessed mother in the magnificant that even in challenging times in times of upheaval times like the ones we're living in right now we can say that despite the way things seem and in many ways the way things are in the deepest sense of reality God has already cast down the mighty from their thrones filled the hungry with good things and lifted up the lowly.

[00:43:34]So I think it's a great way to start and maybe end thinking about what it means to be hopeful specifically in an area of AI is to see this invisible hand of God working in reality and that even though there are these challenges and there challenges that need to be addressed that underneath that a deeper sense of reality is the sense of reality that the blessed mother articulates in the Magnificat. So I thought that was just a really beautiful way to end this. Um, I also really liked just invoking Mary at the end of the encyclical. Um, one thing I've been thinking about is the way in which Pope Leo I 13th, so 13th, not 14th. Um, Pope during the industrial revolution gave us Raram Navarum out of which obviously this new encyclical is growing out of that tradition of social encyclicals, but also sometimes forgotten or if not forgotten not put together. also the pope that gave us the most encyclicals by a long shot on the most holy rosary. I think it was 12 encyclicals on the rosary alone. And I think that that's not a coincidence. I think that when we're met with times of great social upheaval and unrest and questions that are in the industrial revolution, I think what we're living through now, these questions and challenges take place on cultural and economic and anthropological fronts.

[00:44:53]It's kind of everything all at the same time. We had best meet those challenges with the social teaching of the church and we best meet those challenges with the best intellectual and cultural and economic and anthropological critiques that we can muster and I think the the holy father's new encyclical is a prime example of doing just that. But I think we also need to meet those challenges as again Pope Leo the 13th would suggest not just with social cultural um critique but also with a renewed sense of devotional life especially in particularly devotion to our blessed mother. So, I thought that was just a really nice way of sort of I don't know if it was explicit, but kind of gesturing to the way that Leo the 13th um shaped his pontifican against around both social teaching but also an increased sense of devotional life. So, I just thought it was a really great way to end the encyclical was to bring it home with the Magnificat and our blessed mother.

[00:45:50]>> That's really just edifying to hear. And I guess a followup would be um yeah, you know, Pope Leo the 13th, was it 86 encyclicals he wrote?

[00:46:00]>> It was a lot of encyclicals, right?

[00:46:02]>> And 12 of them are on on the rosary. And I mean, they were shorter, you know, and he he never left Rome, but um you know, it's prayer. How do you this might go on along, but just you you'll hear me on this. you know, you're I think you you gave us the holistic sense, you know, ethics and action and research and cultural engagement, but prayer and it seems this technology not and I'm not, you know, I'm not I'm not a tech pessimist like but it does kind of it's might steal the attention and we know how important attention is. You and I have talked about Simone Ve and attention. What are your thoughts on that? Yeah, I mean I think in many ways the prayer is intrinsically valuable for many reasons, but it also is the antidote to the crisis of attention that we're facing. In prayer, we learn to contemplate. We learn to be still, be quiet, and to listen to the still small voice of the Lord. And um so I I think that there's an important connection between those two things. It's it's not merely taking pragmatic caution against the ways that the algorithm can upend our attention in the way we can get sucked in to social media in the ways in which AI and its capacity to take over thoughtful reflection can take away our ability to engage in attention. So I think that's all really important. It's both important to pay attention to the way our practices are shaped with AI, but it's also important to actively cultivate a life of prayer because that is in many ways the the way of cultivating that kind of prayerful attention that ultimately lead leads to a prayerful life. So I think it's doing both of those at the same time both mitigates against the crisis of attention but also is formative for a capacity to engage in meaningful prayer.

[00:47:50]>> Yeah, thank you. I was just thinking there of rhythm and algorithm. Rhythm is of God. Algorithm could be that machine logos something. There's something there. I may have to look up that closely. Hey everybody, it's our time now for questions and the panelists, we can see them all on the screen and you know I I know that Heather's been answering questions there and way to go Heather and I see a lot of stuff and so I apologize. Um here's a question. We'll do a few. Um, these are probably there's other parts of this encyclical and this is a perfect one from Kimberly Ray Connor. Can you talk about the Pope's apology for the church's complicity and slavery and what this means in the context of both the life of the church and the context of the encyclical? Thank you, Kim. Uh, who wants to um weigh in on that on that important question?

[00:48:54]Is there Can we read the quote? Can someone read that? That's that one for us. Well, I don't know if we can get it up there, but I can tell you from memory here, my short reading of it, it was Pope Leo began with talking about enslavement and the enslaving possibilities of lives online. And then it I think in that context or around the context he comes out to talk about slavery largely writ and then I think in a very seamless way goes into other kinds of slavery and then follows that lead to the church's experience with it and calls it an open wound if memory serves.

[00:49:40]>> Yes.

[00:49:41]>> 176 I think.

[00:49:42]>> Yeah. You want to say anything there Chris?

[00:49:45]Um, well, yeah. So, I think it's fantastic that that apology is there. It reminds me of John Paul II's purification of memory as we approach the third the beginning of the third millennium. Um, [clears throat] and it's something that I think has really come to attention in a long in a uh in even more recent times since since the year 2000 or so. But I do think that um understanding that history and examining it in light of the kind of slavery she thinks that we're now subject to is really is really important. I think that seeing that the although we may have freedom of movement and the ability to buy our own property and vote and those kinds of things does not necessarily mean that we are immune from the kinds of slavery that that certain uh capitalizations of technology can bring about.

[00:50:45]>> Thank you. Anybody else want to weigh in here?

[00:50:49]That's okay. Um thank you Dr. Connor for your question. More to say there to be sure. Here's one for especially for Dr. Fukull from Felipe Legeretta. Dr. Fukol, could you please compare and contrast the understanding of quote intelligence in Magnificanas and the understanding of intelligence for instance in Anthropic or other you know AI companies? more could you please describe the understanding of consciousness in the tradition of of social teachings in the church and what it might mean in science conscience in science especially in maybe neurological terms I know all of our panelists can weigh in here let's start with you >> so first of all thank you so much for the the question and I'm trying to find um the chunk of the encyclical where he where his holiness starts to give us some kind of context here and I think really if we concretize this in the document um let's hit up you know the area around 97 through 99 um and I I really want to flag um and I had a call you know conversations with colleagues about this that I the question that's being asked is so incredibly important because I believe there's a termin you know the terminology causes a massive problem right um intelligence is something that I think all of us can get behind is um uniquely human, right? Um in particular in 99 um the word that I like to use in terms of this differentiation piece, something that we can kind of own here um is um what computers do they optimize. Yeah. But right from the encyclical itself, they imitate language, behavior and skills or even simulate. is imitation and simulation. And so I think that distinction just if I default to the encyclical as such is is very important.

[00:52:49]So for us we see that what goes on um in our minds as human beings exercising intelligence is getting an awareness of the thing. It is exercising virtue, right? It is an exercise of our freedom.

[00:53:03]We've all of us have said that what the computer does is that it imitates and simulates. All right? reproduces or optimizes. And I think that language is important in the encyclical. I would argue that what I see in terms of enthropic is a very interesting conflation of what I'm doing like you know those unique human things that I led with what um the machines are doing.

[00:53:28]Um and if you ever want to read something that kind of expands this I can't even you can't even see it. story that expands this kind of confinlation.

[00:53:36]Take a read of Claude's constitution in anthropic.

[00:53:39]>> Yeah, great idea.

[00:53:41]>> It attributes agency to the thing. Um it actually they actually want to create a situation where this thing can kind of reflect on its own ethics. And so in answer to the question um I I feel like there's a distinction in the document that's very helpful that um our our our friends in the inside to go back to what I said at the beginning either are unwilling or unable to make with respect to the neurological piece. Um in all intellectual humility I'm kind of speaking out of my swim lane. So I will kind of defer to my colleagues if they have more neurological training. But I I really pin a lot of uh emphasis on freedom uh on on virtue on the ability to wonder um as being uniquely ours that is reduced to code here and and conflated uh with the machine. So that's a great question. Thank you.

[00:54:36]>> It is Joe. Do you want to weigh in on anything neurological?

[00:54:39]>> Yeah. Um well I was just going to say um Heather gave some f future reading the the clawed constitution. I would second that recommendation. I'll give you one more um recommended reading. Um the document Antiqua at NOVA was released about a year ago. It's by a couple of the diccasteries. Um so you can just find it on online at the the Vatican's website. Does a really great job of working through the way in which a Catholic understanding of human intelligence differs in really important ways than other ways in which we might understand intelligence. So it talks about how a fully realized Catholic understanding of intelligence includes things like rationality and embodiment and relationality and being oriented towards like having a taos towards the truth. So there's all these things and it does a really good job of walking through here are characteristics of intelligence a robust human intelligence understood in the Catholic intellectual tradition. And when you start working through that list, it becomes very clear why intelligence, as it's talked about in things like the Clawed Constitution and just in ways that it's talked about in sort of AI circles more generally sometimes, are very different things and why the one can't be equated with the other one. So, I would recommend that.

[00:55:56]It's really good reading and it's it's a nice um they're not giant academic discussions. It's three or four paragraphs a piece. really nice how it just walks through all these different ways in which robust human intelligence is really different than the kind of intelligence that often gets talked about.

[00:56:10]>> That's great.

[00:56:11]>> Just threw in a kind of a genealogical point here too. So this way of thinking about computers versus humans goes back to early computer science. one of the great luminaries in early computer science and a guy named Yanosher Johnny vonoman wrote a book on the the computer and the brain and he what he tried to get intelligence together and it's and the way they think about it is in term he thought about it and sort of consistently thought about it in terms of input and output like given these inputs the function does its thing and then you get an intelligent out and then you get an output and as long as you have the right kind of output you say okay that algorithm does the same thing as this other algorithm maybe with some efficiency questions and whether it's sort of a meat computer as they would kind of think about it or a silicon one but that's kind of like I mean and then they make a lot of these stories take a while you know the computer took the bar exam the computer took the whatever but it's sort of it's it's kind of like getting into a race with a car but on the one hand you you find something important to say well the cars are generally faster than people but it sort of misses the important differences and and I do worry that sort of and it's not that these are not important questions to take measures of intelligence. I and it's not to diminish the incredible accomplishments of the computer scientists who are doing these things, but it's to say there there are relevant differences between uh sort of and the kind of input output model which is tried and true in computer science and and the way of thinking about computers versus human beings which goes back really probably at least into the 50s probably the 40s depending on how you do that genealogy um can be deceptive. So having a more holistic understanding of the way human beings work. Um I think this sort of shines a light on that and and so yeah very helpful all the way around. Um let me I make a couple announcements here because we are at time. We this doesn't cost us anything. Uh which is a benefit of technology for sure. So grateful for that. Uh I we're going to go 10 more minutes and and you know just kind we have some questions here. I want to get to them. Uh we Chris Bagel had to go off to his son's graduation. [laughter] Tis the season, but I want to say one thing about that this just that warms my heart before I go to the next question and that is this. Um we planned this Zoom a while ago. We kind of just, you know, Joe and I kind of put it on the board.

[00:58:30]We thought, yeah, let's get our friends Heather and and Chris from Notre Dame and then we'll ask Matt. And we did all that. That was our plan. Um, in the intervening time, we lost a giant of a man, a giant of humility, too. And that's Bill Hank, our founding benefactor at the Hank Center. A a a a true gentleman, uh, the kind of which I don't know if we'll see again. And what's really cool about this, and God rest him, Bill died in early May. We're going to celebrate his life on June 5th with a big funeral.

[00:59:05]But what's really great, and this is the grace that maybe a son of Augusta might like, is that Bill's a Notre Dame grad and he was a devoted dmer. Joan Hank is a Lyola grad and their family are are a peaceful, peaceable mix of both. And how wonderful it is that we've had this time together with Notre Dame scholars and Bill and the philanthropy is alive and well at Notre Dame and loyal to scholars. I wanted to note that because to my way of seeing the world, I don't know if AI would have picked that up, but I picked it up and it's important to me. Uh, this question here comes from David Hair and I don't know if you want to weigh this really goes, this is great because it's another part of the encyclical that we didn't talk about and this is just war theory and the explicit kind of update that began with Francis in in it. And so then David was uh kind enough to cite his source and the paragraph number uh in the normalization of war. Uh and here's what it says.

[01:00:06]Today more than ever without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, Pope Leo writes, "It is important to affir to reaffirm that just war theory, which has all too often been used to justify any war is now, here's the word, outdated." And David goes on to say this. Humanity possesses far more capable tools uh for promoting human life and resolving conflicts such as dialogue, diplomacy, and forgiveness. I think that's actually the pope. It is.

[01:00:37]So the pope is is privileging dialogue, diplomacy, and forgiveness. Here's what David asks. Do you believe the pope is calling for a revision of just war theory, a rejection of just war theory, or simply stating that we've always uh we always have the means to avoid war making and then making it irrelevant because of this? Who wants to weigh in here on an entirely different question?

[01:01:03]Although AI figures into war making and this we know.

[01:01:08]>> Yeah, I've I've got some initial thoughts here. Um, so it's interesting that this the the quote here about just war theory about being outdated is footnoted. And if you follow the footnote, it's it's to Pope Francis in Fellituti. Um, where basically the the quote it's um footnote 182 in case anyone wants to look it up. Um, I can read part of it here. It it is easy to fall in So he's talking about just war theory. Um, Pope Francis, it is easy to fall into an overly broad interpretation of this potential right. In this way, some would also wrongly justify even preventative attacks or acts of war that can hardly avoid entailing evils and disorders greater than the evil to be committed. So the footnote here is talking about not necessarily an intrinsic problem with just war theory, but rather an overly broad application of it in which any war can be justified by just war theory if you do the hermeneutics right. And of course, if you're justifying any war using just war theory, then all of a sudden it's not doing any lifting at all. And actually, if you if you go to the catechism when it talks about this, it's interesting that the paragraph that talks about just war theory gives you both conditions for just war theory, but then in the conclusion talks about but the crucial thing is here is the credential application >> of these of these principles. So, um, I that that's the way I on my initial read, even though the the outdated language is is bold in some ways. I I would read this more as saying we need to not a total revision of just war theory, but rather the credential application of the theory has gotten out of hand and has been overly applied and it's not doing the work that it's meant to be doing. So, that that's my initial read here. Father Matt, you had something?

[01:02:49]>> Well, I just also want to there's a the spectrum of conflict. I mean when just war theory was formulated people were going out on fields and it was very clear kind of when it was happening. Uh in times of cyber conflict that sort of the spectrum between conf between peace and war. There's a lot of gray states.

[01:03:06]There's a lot of asymmetric warfares.

[01:03:10]Um so it's [clears throat] not sort of it's not armies confronting themselves on fields anymore which was envisioned.

[01:03:16]Uh and you have to remember also just war theory is is in its intention meant to reduce wars to restrain violence. So it's uh just war theory is not let's definitely go to war. Just let's avoid this whenever it's possible. Um, and I mean I also I love the phrase um the relational poverty of that is in any of this warfare that's saying we've we've stripped out the from these important institutions like the United Nations which were meant to restrain and and say that's the forum to res respond to conflict. The security council was meant to do that in the disposition after uh the second world war. So we had this international system that now seems to be uh seems and which is something he also laments here which was meant to prevent these sorts of um conflicts and it's no longer doing its dialogical function and it's been sort of dis and um it's been defunded. So it's not that it was sort of it failed in principle.

[01:04:16]It's that it's been undermined in various ways. And so I think could have the better extension of just war theory was say well just war theory actually points to look we have these other mediating institutions that can be used instead and wouldn't that be better?

[01:04:30]>> Yeah. Well said. Thank you. Heather, you want to say anything on this?

[01:04:35]>> I'll just jump in really quickly and add the AI piece from paragraph 197. And I think an important piece to consider here >> is that the kind of rise in lethal autonomous weapons starts to make the practice of war, and it says this here, more feasible and less subject to human control, which we can all get. But also, we recall that cultivating peace is not just the absence of war, right? It takes care and attention and cultivation of relationships, right? It takes a while.

[01:05:04]And so I guess I just wanted to flag the additional piece here to our consideration of just war uh theory now in this age is the feasibility of going to war that these kind of systems that we are creating now make possible.

[01:05:19]>> Well, it it really it works. I mean everything works I suppose but it's relevant and it's apt because this kind of dust up that that really publicized republicized the just war theory tradition in in the in Catholic intellectual thought social thought you know hit the the current events news waves right with the dust up between it's not it's kind of a one-way dust up between the Trump administration and Pope Leo right uh ostensibly between is Iran a just before and you know Pope Leo says no it doesn't meet meet muster for the reasons that Matt has aduced you know the proper diplomatic parties were not engaged it was it was hasty all that stuff it would never pass just war theory even if you are one who doesn't agree with it the other part of it Heather is anthropic is is on the dis on Monday when this encyclical is dropped as the kids say right now there's a lot of ways to read that but anthropic was in the news we know because they said we don't want our technologies and claw to be used for autonomous weaponry. AI open AI stepped right up and [laughter] said you can use ours but like I don't know I'm just spraying here but this is all in the news. Any any responses on that panel? And also the agency point and something the pope brings up that that typically in war to say well there is a human being an agent that can be punished um if if I shoot a missile and it's lands on a on some civilian target or that's against the rules of war that civilians are are meant to be in violate. um if an autonomous system if an AI system does that well as we as Benle talks about they're not they are not fully predict uh predictable they why a system does what it does is actually a difficult research question and so then who do you blame when an autonomous system lands it's it's a difficult legal question and the law doesn't have a place for this the law um the law assumes that there is a human agent that is responsible ultimately for actions in war just like for parking accidents for traffic accidents.

[01:07:34]>> Before I forget, Matt, because this is where we are. It's wild west again, isn't it? And the law has to catch up to this as opposed to regulating in advance. Well, and there's a metaphys and that's something that the there's the metaphysical question which I think the encyclical pretty wisely ignores things like what is the AI system because it's there's a lot of open empirical questions and there's a lot of difficult like emergent properties and and sort of and we don't even agree about what human beings are in terms of emergent properties and physical systems and we've and humanity has had a long time to study ourselves. there are many mirrors to you know stare at but um and so it's it's a vexing question it's because the the legal question presumes wisdom in these other areas and it's in an nent technology that is a very different kind of entity in the world um it's it's difficult to say and that's I think why the pope is calling for let's slow our role here a little bit y >> uh because the technology is dramatically outpacing the mature reflection around these things. Amen to that. Joe, a quick word there.

[01:08:41]>> No, I I think this has been great discussion. Nothing to add at this point.

[01:08:44]>> Okay. [snorts] Well, you know, this kind of warfare thing, Star Wars, you know, all that kind of stuff. Star Trek. If I say Star Trek, I look over here on my screen and I see Ernie who says this 1967. He says, "What of?" He's asking this to Chris Bagler who has left us.

[01:09:01]Uh, what of the 67 Star Trek Warning by Donner Dr. Bones McCoy who says compassion Jim or compassion Spock I think that's the one thing that no machine ever had maybe maybe it's the one thing that keeps men ahead of them care to debate that Spock to which Spock replied no doctor so that's out there I think last question then we're going to take our final thoughts and this one comes um from I guess it probably this is a good one I think because I think this is a cautionary thing and Mary Lid makes a comment. She says, "Capitalism isn't all bad though. It has brought opportunities for economic growth. I do think that government has to provide though safeguards if companies are irresponsible.

[01:09:54]What is the regulatory way forward here, especially in environments that aren't always friendly to regulation?"

[01:10:02]Yeah, I I I think I'll bring it back to Heather's opening comments. I think that's one of the other parts of the symbolic gesture by having a Silicon Valley insider of insiders on stage with him is a nod to the fact that not that government regulation isn't important for many reasons, but that it's also very important that companies like Anthropic and OpenAI are also stepping up and doing some of this regulatory work for themselves. Um and yeah, so I think that was part of the sort of symbolic gesture there is that um sort of inviting not a political figure onto the stage with him, but rather a figure from the heart of Silicon Valley and sort of gesturing that we need to work on this together. I also think it's a reason why this encyclical is so welltimed and so needed is that I think it's just crucial because this is going to be more difficult in some ways when it comes to regulation because it's not going to just be a matter of governments. is going to have to be a matter of companies as well. Um, sort of injecting the ethical and spiritual and anthropological dimension into the conversation as it's going on and that we're not back treading 10 years from go 10 years from now and saying, "Oh, wait. We missed missed the chance to have this conversation." and the Holy Father is getting the voice of the church and the voice of ethical and spiritual reason into the conversation right away. So that's that's my hope is that you know there's never going to be a onetoone correlation of here's an encyclical and now we get regulation directly out of it. But what has happened is now this encyclical has been taken up by not just Catholic media but it's been taken up by everyone and now there's this voice out there that hopefully in a more indirect way leads to both governments enacting regulation but also policies doing some of that regulatory work on themselves.

[01:11:56]>> Thank you Heather. Just to jump in quickly here. Um I I think what is another valuable perspective on this question is that we are discerning together as a community a social encyclical right and so what can we draw from in the social doctrine and I think he uses that word doctrine repeatedly. I think that's telling in the church when we think about this question of the proper direction of AI. Um, and I think musing a bit more if we had the time on how we can think about this question of AI direction in relationship to the principle of subsidiarity and Catholic social thought uh would be an incredibly interesting um perspective. Um, I responded to a question offline when I made my opening comments. It's not that I nor uh the place where I was calling from in the text said that regulation is not necessary. It's just the point that regulation is not enough, right? A top- down approach from where is not.

[01:12:56]>> Yeah.

[01:12:57]>> Right. Um and so really thinking about how we can draw from the social doctrine of the church to not think about a top-down kind of regulatory piece um as being the only mains of means of directing AI but thinking about where authority properly resides and what social spheres need to kind of work in connection with the companies to kind of properly direct the technology. Right.

[01:13:21]It pulls in governments. Yes. it pulls in um kind of you know intergovern I guess places like the UN I'm losing my words but also we're not thinking about parishes and families and dasceses right so I think that this is not just a top- down regulatory question but a true kind of consideration of how the principle of subsidiarity can help >> yeah and that's addressed in the first part of the encyclical with a rehearsal or review of subsidiarity and solidarity and how that works um Matt Father Duns did you have any thought here on this one? I mean just to I resonate with what Heather said there and only to say that um there's a I'm struck Bernard de Mandavville was one of the first uh theorists of capitalism and in his poem the fable of the bees the bishop bees are the uh are the villains u because they say oh you know you got to be generous um and but then Adam Smith was worried about sort of the moral corruption of a capitalist system is left unchecked and I think the danger is is um for the AI companies is when the profits are on one side and the morals are on the other and regulation moves that away like in in nuclear industries are very heavily regulated. So their incentive structure is not to cut on safety and so I do think regulation in its sort of best case is to say that there is no profit motive to be unsafe.

[01:14:46]>> Now actually doing that is very difficult. The analogy we hear a lot and I think it it works for me is this AI arms race, a zero- sum game. We heard Pope Leo talk about disarming AI, but the the the kind of nuclear proliferation and AI proliferation, it's there there's a connection there.

[01:15:05]>> Um, and I think you're right to point it out, Matt. Um, okay, we're really over time, but it's been very good. I I would be remiss in my responsibilities as a good loyal Lyolan if I did not have an environmental we're we're very much a Lato Sea University and we're now we're very much a Magnifica Humanitas University we're very much a you know robust Catholic intellectual tradition and ecclesial engagement university and here was a question can you address the environmental aspect of AI um I don't there are some passages is but I I'll give one one fact that always helps for people who do not or who are not aware of the deep connection between artificial intelligence data centers high technology and the environment and I'll tell you this so if you are write if you say write me a 1word essay on Flannry O' Conor's uh vision of grace in uh green leaf into a chat GPT he wrote that for a query, it'll cost you 20 ounces of water to cool the electricity it takes to do that transaction.

[01:16:19]Quick thoughts on environment and AI, anybody?

[01:16:24]No. Final thoughts. Uh here it is. What excites you, my friends, about living in a time of artificial intelligence? What concerns you? What makes you ambivalent?

[01:16:35]What vexes you? And if you'd like, what's the role of the Catholic University in all this? It's a minute each everybody and then we'll wrap.

[01:16:45]>> I've got a quick closing thought picking up on some of what Heather was just saying about how regulation is a crucial part of the challenges that are being raised here, but can't be the only part.

[01:16:57]And this is something that I actually find pretty hopeful. Um that as we work to figure out how to stay human in an era of AI and how to continue to be close to God and each other and care for the environment in an era of AI, of course, the regulatory part has to be part of it, but our individual choices and individual ways of discerning how to engage with technology is really important as well. This is from paragraph 213 immediately following the Tolkian quote. The civilization of love will not arise from a single or spectacular gesture, but from the sum total of small and steadf acts of fidelity that serve as a bull work against dehumanization. And I find that very hopeful because all of us may not have the ability to regulate and we might be sometimes pessimistic about what kind of regulation is going to be enacted. But we certainly have the ability to take part in small and steadfast acts of fidelity and discernment as we try and figure out how we're going to act and how we're not going to interact with artificial intelligence.

[01:17:57]>> Thank you, Joe, for your interventions.

[01:17:59]Uh you want to go now, Heather?

[01:18:01]>> Can I? Just because this builds off of what >> Oh, yeah. Please, please, please, >> please, I want to backtrack ever so slightly and just echo his theme of hope, right? Um, and I'm going to draw from 211. Um, he's the Holy Father calls our attention to the fact that yeah, um, some of some of the themes that we have explored in this conversation are quite large, right? Regulation, huge problem.

[01:18:29]um this idea of disarming I wanted to speak to that but we didn't have the time right um and are the conversa are the solutions inconsequential right and he very much counsels as Joe mentioned hope but he draws on the tradition in a way that was very meaningful for me when he says and I quote in 211 that we must be reminded that the action of grace does not magically eliminate conflict right but is instead it inspires active resistance to evil and an astonishing creativity in doing gift good one person at a time in relationships. So I kind of wanted to build off the theme of hope and just remind people that the a the time scale we're thinking about here is we're called to speak somewhat uh nonacademically. We're playing the long game, right?

[01:19:18]>> And to really think about the action of grace in the world being this slow process that we need to be receptive to.

[01:19:24]So that's what I kind of wanted to add to this line of reasoning. Thank you for your thoughts there. They're beautiful.

[01:19:29]And thanks for your interventions throughout, Heather. The final word goes to Father Matt Dunge. I >> think the things that are good for their own sake in the AI are AI are the same as they were before other human beings, truth, goodness, beauty, communities, and it's the job of the Catholic universities to hold those things up.

[01:19:51]>> Yeah. A pathy, you know, arerodite. Uh true. I mean thank you Matt. You really have landed us where we began and also where we where we exist and where we we for on this call anyway can do our most immediate work. Our nearest duty I think. Uh viewer thank you for tuning in. Uh we appreciate your time. We'll have this video to share. So if you want to share with a family member we do promise further work uh on these questions, deeper work. You heard Matt mention a new minor here at Lyola. Uh we are vested in this in this um complex of topics, this these realities in the age of emerging AI. It's no longer emerging.

[01:20:38]It's here. And so um I'm grateful that we have each other to uh and we have the church and the Holy Father. And my my guess is you are as well. So until next time, thank you very much and take care.