Pope Leo is asking the question AI can’t answer

Pope Leo XIV has just given America something it desperately needs in the artificial intelligence debate: a reason to slow down and think about the human being at the center of it.

On Monday, while flying back to Rome after his visit to France, the pope was asked about growing concerns that artificial intelligence could pose serious risks to humanity. His response was striking. He said those concerns, raised by AI experts, should be taken seriously. He rejected the idea that such warnings are simply “fake news.“

Just days earlier, speaking in Paris, Leo had warned that technological development must remain at the service of the human person. He cautioned that our ideas and relationships can be impoverished by dehumanization and questioned what happens when human beings are judged primarily by efficiency and productivity.

That is what caught my attention.

I am excited about artificial intelligence. That may sound strange given what Pope Leo has been saying about the technology, but I think that is exactly why his message has caught my attention.

AI could make our lives better in ways we are only beginning to understand. It can help us work faster, discover new medicines, learn new skills and solve problems that once seemed impossible. I am not interested in pretending technological innovation is the enemy. Neither am I interested in putting the brakes on free markets simply because a new technology makes us uncomfortable.

But there is a question I increasingly find myself asking: What happens to us?

That is what I think Leo is bringing into the AI conversation. As politicians, businesses and technology leaders focus on what artificial intelligence can accomplish, the pope is asking us to remember the person standing on the other side of the technology.

What will it feel like to be human when AI can do most of the thinking for us? What happens when someone who is lonely, depressed or struggling with a personal problem stops calling a friend, family member or pastor and instead turns to a machine that is available 24 hours a day?

And perhaps most importantly, what happens to the dignity of work when machines can perform more and more of the tasks that once gave people not only a paycheck, but a sense of purpose?

Those questions aren’t arguments against AI. They are arguments for remembering why progress matters in the first place. I think conservatives should pay particular attention to that distinction.

Conservatives have traditionally understood that human beings are more than economic units. Work matters, but so do family, faith, community, responsibility and the relationships that give our lives meaning. Markets are incredibly powerful because they allow people to create, exchange and innovate. But markets cannot answer every question about what makes a society worth living in.

Neither can technology. We can create a machine that makes a decision faster than a human being. That doesn’t necessarily mean the machine should make every decision.

We can create an AI system that gives us an answer instantly. That doesn’t mean we should stop learning how to think.

We can create a chatbot that never gets tired of listening to us. That doesn’t mean it can replace the experience of sitting across from another human being who knows us, loves us and can tell us when we’re wrong.

And we can automate more work. But eventually we will have to confront a question that economics alone cannot answer: If a machine can do the work, what will give the human being dignity?

That is why Pope Leo’s message strikes me as bigger than an argument about artificial intelligence. He is showing us a different way to approach technological change: Put humanity first. That principle should not belong to the political left or the political right. It should be a starting point for anyone making decisions about the future of our country.

Before Washington asks what government can do with AI, we should ask what AI is doing to the people government is supposed to serve. Before corporations ask how much more productive AI can make their workers, they should also think about what happens to workers when productivity becomes the only measure of their value.

Before we celebrate machines becoming better at thinking, we should make sure we are still teaching human beings how to think. And before we allow technology to mediate more of our relationships, we should ask whether we are strengthening the human relationships that technology cannot replace.

None of this requires fear of the future. In fact, it requires confidence in humanity. I want my children to inherit a country where technology gives them more opportunities, not fewer. I want them to have access to tools that allow them to accomplish things that previous generations could only dream about. But I also want them to know that their worth isn’t determined by how productive they are. I want them to understand that a good life isn’t simply about being efficient.

Sometimes the most important things we do are inefficient. Raising a child is inefficient. Caring for an elderly parent is inefficient. Sitting with a friend who is hurting is inefficient. Going to church, having dinner with your family, mentoring a young person or simply listening to someone who needs to be heard may not show up neatly on a productivity chart. But these are precisely the things that make us human.

A society should not measure success solely by how quickly its machines can work, how much money its technology can generate or how many human tasks it can eliminate. We should also ask whether people have more freedom, more purpose, stronger families, deeper relationships and greater opportunities to live meaningful lives. Technology and markets should serve humanity.

That is why Pope Leo’s approach to AI deserves attention. He isn’t asking us to reject progress. He is reminding us to define progress correctly.

David Sypher Jr. is a freelance writer and commentator based in New Jersey.

Comments

Join the conversation: Sign in

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.