One of the alternately terrifying and hopeful realities that current debates and concerns about Artificial Intelligence (AI) brings to the fore is our inherently communal nature. While Western culture tends toward individualism, the questions that result from the dawn of an AI age are inclined to shake us awake from our self-centered, individualism-induced slumber. Decisions about where to put AI data centers, how many to build, and how to incentivize (or de-incentivize) private corporations from building in particular areas are being contested in thousands of local communities across the United States. Their environmental impacts will, of course, touch not only these local communities, but the lives of people all over the globe.
The task of shaping this era of human history falls to us, which Pope Leo XIV reminds readers in Magnifica Humanitas through both a statement of this fact and through his decision to hinge the encyclical on Catholic Social Teaching. Humanity’s responsibility for their shared future is communal, and at this tipping point in human history, “Whenever humanity is in danger of marring its true identity, we Christians lift our eyes to the Incarnate God, knowing that it is ‘only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear.’ In Jesus Christ, this humanity in its grandeur becomes the Way, the Truth and the Life, opening the path for each of us to grow toward fullness.”[1] As a human family we do not stand before endless human identities, lost as to which one is the best or most advantageous. In the Incarnation, which transforms all of human history, history is both transformed from the inside out and humanity is offered a clear vision of the ideal toward which the human person should strive, individually and collectively.
Leo provides a vision (and anti-vision) for humanity’s engagement and future with AI by engaging the paradigm of a city—specifically, by telling a tale of two biblical cities, Babel and Jerusalem. In these contrasting tales Leo illustrates that technology is itself neutral, but how we engage it is not, and that the temptation to dehumanize “is an ancient and ever-new temptation that today takes on a technical guise.”[2] The encyclical acknowledges that technology can heal, connect, educate, and protect the world we share. Like Babel, however, it can “also divide, exclude and generate new forms of injustice” as it elevates “the exclusive love of self” over a love of God and neighbor.[3] Because the individual and collective are inherently intertwined, these two loves compete not only in the social realm, but “contend for dominance in our hearts today.”[4]
What might Leo’s tale of two cities illuminate about what is at stake in decisions about how AI is programmed and used? One of the first observations that Leo makes is that fear drives Babel’s construction as people search for the “guarantee [of] stability and power for themselves” and “above all to ‘make a name’ for themselves.”[5] Certainty in the form of stability, power, and pride are Babel’s aims—and therefore must not be ours. And while the people achieve an “impressive feat” in the tower’s construction it conceals “a profound danger” because it is “conceived without reference to God, supported by a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communication.”[6]Pride and self-sufficiency lead to the breakdown of communication, confusion of languages, and the antithesis of unity. The city of Babel demonstrates “the limits of any effort that, however grandiose, arises from self-affirmation, sacrifices human dignity for efficiency and aspires to reach heaven without God’s blessing.”[7] Leo identifies “Babel syndrome” as the “idolatry of profit” and the translation of the human person in a manner that flattens their nature as mystery into mere data.[8] In place of these false aims of humanity, God offers grace as an invitation to Christians to enable them to work together “to foster a peaceful, just and dignified life in community within today’s ‘cities.’”[9]
Babel tells a story of collective action and effort that leads to destruction and dehumanization. To avoid this end, Leo suggests frequent reflection on the question, “What are we building?”[10] In the context of AI databases and AI-powered technologies Christians must be intentional about what projects to work on (and how) with the aim of preserving our humanity. This is the same task entrusted to generations of Christians past, and Leo encourages not fear in its face, but listening with a “firm embrace” of our responsibilities to create “a more humane and fraternal society.”[11] The decision, Leo says, is not between fear and enthusiasm, but rather a progress that serves either individuals and communities or subjects both to power and dehumanizes.[12]
The rebuilding of Jerusalem, in contrast to Babel, offers a positive vision for AI discernment. In the Book of Nehemiah, Israel finds itself in a time of great vulnerability after exile in Babylon. Some of the Israelites returned to the city to find the walls destroyed and the gates burned.[13] Nehemiah, before approaching the king, fasts, prays, and intercedes for his community; he is one of his people, not imposing “solutions from above,” but rather gathering the families who returned with him and listening to them before implementing solutions.[14] He assigns each family part of the wall to rebuild, “coordinat[ing] their efforts and address[ing] any opposition.”[15] The city is reborn not through the efforts of one prophet or king, “but through the shared responsibility of all: men, women, priests, artisans, heads of households and young people…It is an undertaking with God at the center, which rebuilds relationships before rebuilding with stones.”[16] Unlike Babel, in this instance Jerusalem rediscovers a common language of communion, “namely the harmony that arises when all persons assume their own role and recognize that their strength comes from the Lord”.[17]Good ends are found and realized in community.
Delving into this image offers guidance on how advances in technology should be discerned. According to Mt. 25:14-30, scientific developments are “talents entrusted to humanity so that they may bear fruit”—again, technology is itself neutral.[18] Leo XIV identifies fear, pride, and a desire for stability, power, and accomplishing impressive feats as the drivers for Babel’s construction; if these three things are identified in humanity’s own reach for information access, the generation of content or images, or the over-development of data centers, this should indicate the need to evaluate communal decisions and their motivation: Is this the construction of a new Tower of Babel, or the construction of a city (and reality) in which God and humanity can dwell together, and toward which God calls us first?[19] Are humans seeking to “dominate the heavens” or work together in God’s presence, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to “rebuild the walls of fraternal coexistence”?[20] The “key question” is if AI makes life more human and “more worthy of man”?[21] As we strive to remain human, building a “holy city of coexistence and peace” Leo reminds us that this “building project is slower, less visible and less spectacular, and awaits a better understanding and greater coordination” that is the responsibility of each community—family, state, and nation—with the aim of building a “‘civilization of love,’” together.[22]
This civilization of love constitutes a “plurality of voices and visions” which represent not Babel’s confusion of language, but the “possibility of building together, of transforming diversity into a resource and of making listening and dialogue the common ground upon which to cultivate justice and fraternity” so that we might “work together in order to foster a peaceful, just and dignified life in community within today’s ‘cities’.”[23]
Let us conclude this brief tale of two cities with Leo’s four characteristics of a dignified life in community to act as guides for AI discernment. First, this life is one in which the happiness that God has inscribed on the human heart is safeguarded and directed toward its “natural end:” God’s own Self.[24] Second, it means working for the common good in which humanity’s limits and weaknesses are accepted, not seen as an error that needs to be corrected.[25] Third, this city is a world in which everyone can flourish as a result of the community’s shared responsibility and courage, for the gifts of each person are part of a creative endeavor and not a source of tension or intimidation.[26] Finally, Leo calls us to establish standards for discernment with dignity, the universal destination of goods, preferential option for the poor, and care for our common home and peace at their heart. With “God at the forefront of our actions, and the human person at the center of our choices,” so that humanity does not “lose its beauty” such that our creativity remains directed at alleviating suffering and opening up new possibilities for the common good.[27]
—
[1] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 1.
[2] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 10.
[3] Magnifica Humanitas secs. 9, 130.
[4] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 130.
[5] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 7.
[6] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 7.
[7] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 7.
[8] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 10.
[9] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 10.
[10] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 90.
[11] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 91.
[12] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 129.
[13] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 8.
[14] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 8.
[15] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 8.
[16] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 8.
[17] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 8.
[18] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 9.
[19] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 1.
[20] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 9.
[21] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 129.
[22] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 185.
[23] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 10.
[24] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 11.
[25] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 12.
[26] Magnifica Humanitas sec. 13.
[27] Magnifica Humanitas secs. 16, 129.