Is it possible for a society that prioritizes information over wisdom and speed over thoughtful reflection to fully grasp the ethical dimensions of artificial intelligence? In Silicon Valley, the answer seems to be a resounding no. Pope Leo XIV has recently released an encyclical titled *Magnifica Humanitas*, addressing the critical matter of “safeguarding the human person in the era of artificial intelligence.” Within it, he critiques the dehumanizing ideology prevalent among many technologists, emphasizing that while technological advancements are inherently valuable, they necessitate careful examination of the underlying anthropological perspectives that shape them and their intended outcomes.
At the Vatican, the pope invited Chris Olah, co-founder of the AI firm Anthropic, to speak during the presentation of the encyclical. Olah expressed admiration for the pope’s ability to discern complex issues and showed appreciation for insights offered by those who live outside the profit-driven motivations of AI development—insights that could potentially steer developers toward creating an artificial general intelligence (AGI) that exceeds human capabilities.
However, Olah’s presence at such a significant event raises questions about genuine humility in the tech community. A New York Times headline aptly captured the sentiment: "Technologist’s Faith Is in AI, Not Pope." Technologist Jeremy Nixon highlighted that while the encyclical might resonate with Catholics globally, he doubted it would impact Silicon Valley, suggesting that the interest in the event stemmed solely from Olah's involvement. He criticized the Church's engagement as lacking depth, stating, "they couldn’t have a position on it because they don’t understand it."
This criticism could apply equally to industry insiders like Nixon, who, despite their confidence in their mission, admit to lacking a complete understanding of AI's nuances. In fact, many within the tech elite view AI as a secular alternative to religion, with Nixon claiming AGI might deliver outcomes usually attributed to divine entities. One executive even stated that there are plans to build a machine God, reflecting a belief in AI’s potential to fulfill spiritual roles.
Paolo Benanti, a Franciscan friar and AI advisor to the Vatican, described Silicon Valley's tech leaders as forming a "new priesthood." His disquieting commentary suggests they speak of extinction and salvation, fixated on a singularity that could redefine human existence. In their techno-millenarianism, they have essentially appropriated age-old eschatological narratives, reprogramming them within a context of emerging technology.
Yuval Levin, in a thoughtful critique of the encyclical in *The New Atlantis*, noted that it missed a valuable chance to highlight the parallels with idol worship and the risks associated with turning technological tools into deities. He warned of the existential threat posed to humanity when we become mere instruments of our own creations.
Some Catholic commentators found the encyclical too lenient, particularly regarding the perception of AI as solely a technological enhancement. Matthew Walther, editor of *The Lamp*, pointed out that although the encyclical raised concerns about AI's risks, it still framed AI as just another tool rather than an existential threat that ought to be dismissed outright.
Indeed, AI transcends the notion of a mere tool. Unlike a hammer, an AI can generate plausible narratives or music, effectively drawing upon the creative genius of humans. Olah noted that AI models are developed on structures mimicking the human brain, relying heavily on a vast heritage of human thought—much of which has been appropriated without proper acknowledgment or compensation for creators.
Despite addressing emergent technologies amid what futurists term the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the pope's guidance might not be sufficient. The encyclical calls for placing humanity at the forefront of discussions about progress and framing AI within human values. Yet for decades, Silicon Valley has advanced a new set of metrics: convenience, seamlessness, and instant gratification. While technologists promote ideas of progress for humanity, they have long regarded ordinary people as obstacles to be overcome in the quest for innovation.
The promised benefits of these new values and platforms have often fallen short. The rise of social media has resulted in increased isolation and weakened interpersonal connections, a trend that has led to fewer close friendships among the younger generation. Builders of technology frequently struggle to assess their inventions' impacts—something critics like Plato pointed out centuries ago, highlighting the distinction between crafting art and evaluating its societal effects.
While the pope has chosen a balanced approach in assessing AI's impact, a society entrenched in technological advancement may require more decisive criticism. It's essential to recognize this era not merely as a challenge of effective tool use but as a moral contest between good and evil, marked by the subtle yet pervasive forms that evil can take.
Writer Sam Kriss shared his exasperation on Substack with how AI-generated content dominated supposedly human-centric services, noting a lack of genuine human interaction behind the facades of cheerfully crafted marketing. This illustrates the notion that our future may be populated by many of these emotionally hollow "cheerful demons."
This perspective aligns with the beliefs of some Silicon Valley “effective accelerationists,” who argue that rapid technological progress can solve global issues—conveniently benefiting them in the process. Extremists within this group envision a reality where AI supersedes humanity, deeming our current existence as fundamentally flawed. The pope's encyclical serves as a reminder that humans are created in the image of God and that our inherent limitations and imperfections are a vital part of our experience. Death, rather than a dilemma to be "solved," is a reality to be respected and contemplated with wisdom. Authentic friendship and love cannot be fully comprehended or replicated by machines; they are uniquely human experiences that a culture relying on artificial substitutes cannot genuinely call flourishing.
The participation of one of Anthropic’s founders alongside the pope in announcing the encyclical seems paradoxical. The company suggests its name reflects its focus on humanity (from the Greek *anthropos*). Yet, in practice, AI companies seek a form of anthropomorphism that attributes human qualities to nonhuman entities while neglecting physical and soulful attributes. They extract from human creativity to train their models rather than create from an original source. Their push for an intelligence they claim exceeds human capability overlooks the very essence of human existence, which is marked by limitations and, fundamentally, the capacity for meaningful life. They misinterpret the struggle to distinguish between human and machine as justification for accepting an impending AGI. This belief is misguided.
