The significance and limits of the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas
We are encountering increasingly frequent and increasingly forceful expressions of the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI). However, the vast majority of these often desperate or even alarmist lines of thought treat the presence of AI in our lives as an accepted fact, thus not only not wanting to take up the fight, but rather as a fact that is now obviously accepted by everyone, both individually and collectively. Starting from this basis, we then encounter the moral approach, as Pope Leo XIV explains in his first encyclical: either by raising the need for legal regulation, as the EU aims for, or in a fiscal approach, as proposed in the United States by senator Bernie Sanders.
The initial theoretical approach
The purpose of this very brief analysis is not to provide a detailed description of the papal encyclical or the aforementioned approaches to artificial intelligence. Rather, it is intended to be thought-provoking.
The other general statement that serves as the starting point for the analysis is that AI has now infiltrated our lives to such an extent that we no longer even think about the consequences of this “express adoption” that could potentially overwrite our civilization. In our accelerated life, utilitarianism has received an unprecedented emphasis, as a result of which we are willing to sacrifice everything that constitutes the foundations of our human nature on the altar of (to use the term without a bad pun) “sacred and inviolable” efficiency. In other words, compared to the scale of the civilizational challenge we are talking about here, we have not encountered any form of political or intellectual action against it. And no one has ever talked about banning it. On the contrary, there is a huge contradiction between the significance of this historically serious process taking place right before our eyes and the enormous enthusiasm with which we have welcomed AI and thanks to which it has been integrated into our everyday lives in a matter of moments.
“Amazing Humanity”
The present analysis deals exclusively with the chapters of the encyclical on artificial intelligence, in a critical reading.
In his first encyclical, Pope Leo XIV emphasizes Mankind, its fundamental values that define it, when he draws attention to the need to “disarm” artificial intelligence as soon as possible. The papal directive, presented publicly and in an unusual manner by Leo XIV himself on May 15, has come to the center of attention not only because of its topicality, but also because it bears the name of the first American pope in history – and this is by no means an incidental factor given its subject matter.
The papal encyclical focuses on respect for life. His main question is how the emerging algorithmic civilization will transform humanity. Leo XIV speaks of a new reality that will fundamentally change our relationship with the world. The main danger lies in the fact that AI will transform the reality in which we live in such a way that we do not even notice its existence. The Pope warns that the cognitive collapse of humanity has already begun.
The indisputable virtue of the papal encyclical is that it firmly and unambiguously positions perhaps (if not unequivocally) the greatest, but in any case the most pressing challenge and danger of our time, and emphasizes the urgency of action against it (or in the case of the papal encyclical, more related to it). The indisputable and absolute virtue of the encyclical is that it treats AI as a civilizational issue. And it is precisely this anthropological approach that has been lacking in recent years, even decades, during which – to use the words of the Italian writer and philosopher Giuliano da Empoli – our political leaders have welcomed the “cool tech guys” worldwide with open arms, thereby greatly contributing to the establishment and takeover of the now enormous tech-oligarchy (or what many call techno-fascism).
The need to fight AI to protect our civilization
The papal encyclical identifies the main danger in the development of artificial intelligence as the decline of the meaning of human existence. Leo XIV emphasizes the need to recover the true meaning and greatness of humanity as God created it. The challenge is therefore not technological but anthropological, the use of digital tools must be put at the service of humanity, not to subordinate people to technology. He also draws attention to the dangers of technological development without moral reference points. The “diagnosis” can be considered exclusively well-founded, even downright radical. However, the plan of action that logically follows from all this can no longer be considered satisfactory in all respects.
Perhaps the most radical and consistent thinker on the civilizational dangers of artificial intelligence, French philosopher Éric Sadin, believes that the papal encyclical has many good intentions, but lacks a forward-looking and, above all, a “militant” dimension. According to the French philosopher, the pope should not be urging Silicon Valley to be sober and moderate, since the techno-oligarchy has already lost all sense of reality (incidentally, the presence of Christopher Olah, co-founder of Anthropic, at the event to present the circular is questionable in itself). According to Sadin, the papal message should have been about being proactive, giving up passivity, if we want to preserve our creativity and everything that makes us human. He also acknowledges that while the encyclical draws attention to many fundamental dangers related to AI, it does not contain any call to action, that is, it does not remind us that it is the task of society to take control. The papal encyclical, which urges the use of artificial intelligence at the service of humanity, does not mean its rejection. Although – at least according to Sadin – this is the only consistent way to defend human creativity and intelligence, the foundations of our civilization, from AI.
Sadin emphasizes that we are experiencing a possible, sudden and potentially tragic transformation of humanity. Our survival depends on whether we are able to defend against AI all the dimensions that contribute to our greatness (referring to the creative abilities of sentient humans). These technological developments have not only caused social upheaval in the past twenty years. A radical anthropological change has been taking place since the early 2000s. Little by little, we are turning our backs on everything that constitutes the essence of our existence. Humanity is breaking with itself. We are gradually neglecting our fundamental abilities. But then what will be our role on earth, what will be left for us? The danger of distancing ourselves from ourselves, a kind of overwriting of ourselves. We tend to think in terms of risk-benefit. However, in the current situation, the problem is poorly formulated: today we need to examine things from the perspective of a completely upset balance, that is, specifically in which areas AI represents a fatal imbalance for humanity.
We could also hear other critical voices regarding the papal encyclical. According to the French political scientist Raphaël Doan, the encyclical raises a cardinal question, but stops halfway. However, this was an extraordinary opportunity to outline an original approach that differs from the positions of both regulatory bodies and governments, as well as tech entrepreneurs. We now have a technology that promises, within a time frame that is difficult to define, to rival humanity in intellectual endeavors, cultural products, artistic and spiritual creations. So we are faced with something deeply disturbing, perhaps comparable to such notable and traumatic discoveries of humanity as the Earth’s orbit around the Sun or the naming of the subconscious. And now we are faced with another trauma, about which we might have expected a more radical position from the Pope. In contrast, the encyclical only half-heartedly, only extremely cautiously, condemns AI, as if it were afraid of being accused of technophobia. Accordingly, it seeks a kind of compromise: “We will not be able to exist without artificial intelligence, but artificial intelligence cannot be destructive to humanity,” meaning we must be vigilant.
The idea of taxing AI
US Senator Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a social democrat, is approaching the issue from a fiscal perspective and is taking up the fight against the techno-oligarchy that is forcing AI on all of humanity. He wants to introduce a law on state funds for artificial intelligence soon, the American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act. This legislation would give the public a direct ownership stake in the largest A.I. companies in our country. How? It would create a sovereign wealth fund through a one-time 50 percent tax — not on the profits of OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI and other companies, but paid with something far more valuable than that: the stock.
Sanders builds his bill on the social argument that “the question, then, is not whether A.I. will change the world. It will. The question is: Who will own and control that future? Who will benefit from it, and who will be hurt by it? Will A.I. be used to make life better for working families? Will it enrich our quality of life? Will it help us eliminate poverty, extend life expectancies and solve the climate crisis? Or will the future of humanity be determined by a handful of billionaires who have promoted and developed A.I., with virtually no democratic input, who stand to become even richer and more powerful than they are today?”
Then he continues with a moral approach: “Let us be clear. Artificial intelligence was not created out of thin air. The data and language used by generative A.I. tools didn’t just pop into Sam Altman’s head or Elon Musk’s imagination. A.I. is built on our collective intelligence: our books, songs, artwork, journalism, computer code, scientific research, videos, conversations, images and ideas spanning generations.” “Tech oligarchs have fed this knowledge into their A.I. models without permission, without acknowledgment, without compensation. In other words, the creative work of millions of people — writers, artists, musicians, journalists, teachers, scientists and ordinary citizens — has essentially been stolen by some of the wealthiest people in the world. It’s time for us to reclaim it.” And his conclusion is that “since A.I. is built on the collective knowledge of humanity, the wealth it generates must benefit humanity. Not just Mr. Musk, Mr. Altman, Dario Amodei and other moguls whose companies are positioned to dominate the industry. Not just venture capitalists in Silicon Valley or money managers on Wall Street who undoubtedly see A.I. as the next great wealth-extracting machine.”
EU regulation
At the end of this analysis, let us also mention, for the sake of a brief overview, how the EU is dealing with the issue of artificial intelligence. The Regulation on Artificial Intelligence ((EU) 2024/1689) was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 12 July 2024. The AI Regulation adopts a horizontal, risk-based approach, limited to the minimum requirements necessary to address the risks and concerns related to AI in order to ensure a consistent and high level of protection of the public interest. The harmonised rules apply not only to AI systems developed within the EU, but also to AI systems placed on the market there. The European Commission focuses on regulating high-risk models, while calling for the development of codes of conduct for non-high-risk AI systems and putting emphasis on the development of rules for market monitoring.
The risk-based approach aims to introduce proportionate and effective binding rules for AI systems, adapted to the intensity and scope of the risks posed by the AI system: certain unacceptable AI practices should be prohibited; requirements for high-risk AI systems and obligations for the operators concerned should be defined; transparency obligations should be established for certain AI systems. The really interesting question may be whether the approaches and solution attempts outlined above can have an inspiring effect on normative EU regulations, which obviously require continuous revision in the context of rapid technological development?
Opening image source: visuals6x / depositphotos.com
