Magnifica Humanitas

Yesterday was about a nice a day off as I could have asked for: slept in a bit, coffee, read through Magnifica Humanitas, cleaned up and straightened out the office, did a bit of planting, and so on. I had put some pork butts in the smoker the night before, so when we pulled them out yesterday morning, dinner was already done. The rainy weather kept us inside for most of the day and things stayed kind of low-key.

Herewith are some of my favorite bits and pieces of Magnifica Humanitas. I am still meditating on it though I’ve already adjusted a few things personally - first and foremost that the tools are not as morally neutral as I had originally considered. This was one of those “duh” moments for me; built-in biases have been in the back of my head since I completed Cathy O’Neil’s Weapons of Math Destruction a few years back.

I also very much loved the Babel/Nehemiah analogy used throughout. Beautifully done. One thing I’ll be watching for is how the social doctrines of the Church land on folks who may be encountering them for the first time in this document. The setup goes on for nearly the first 100 paragraphs before digging into the matter at hand. This observation is key - anything more particular risks becoming outdated before the week is out.

99. It is not possible to provide a single, comprehensive definition of AI. What can be stated, however, is that we must avoid the misconception of equating this type of “intelligence” with that of human beings. These systems merely imitate certain functions of human intelligence. In doing so, they often surpass human intelligence in speed and computational capacity, offering tangible benefits across many fields. Yet this power remains entirely tied to data processing. So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom. Even when these tools are described as capable of “learning,” their way of doing so is different from that of a human person. It is not the experience of those who allow themselves to be shaped by life and grow over time through choices, mistakes, forgiveness and fidelity. Rather, it is a form of statistical adaptation based on data and feedback, which can be very effective, but does not imply inner growth.

[…]

100. …The speed and simplicity with which information, complex analyses, media content and practical assistance can be accessed undoubtedly makes life easier. Yet they can also encourage excessive reliance and the search for ready-made answers, and weaken personal creativity and judgment. The apparent objectivity of the responses and suggestions these systems provide can lead us to overlook the fact that they reflect the cultural assumptions of those who designed and trained them, with all their strengths and limitations. The artificial imitation of positive human communication — words of advice, empathy, friendship and even love — can be engaging and at times genuinely helpful. However, for less discerning users, it can also be misleading, creating the illusion of a relationship with a real personal subject.

The built-in biases cannot be avoided, which leads to

…a simple but compelling consequence: we cannot consider AI to be morally neutral. In reality, every technical tool embodies choices and priorities through what it measures, ignores and optimizes, and how it classifies people and situations. If a system is designed or used in a way that treats some lives as less worthy, or excludes them without the possibility of appeal, then it is not merely a tool “to be used well,” since it has already introduced criteria that contradict the inalienable dignity of the human person. For this reason, ethical discernment cannot be limited to asking whether we are using a system for good or bad purposes; it must also examine how that system is designed and what vision of the human person and society is embedded in the data and models that guide it.

In paragraphs 115-130, the Holy Father takes on the latest re-brand of Gnosticism: the transhuman/post-human mindset which seeks to ‘upgrade’ humanity, promising an end to disease and death and an elimination of all suffering.

117. From the perspective of the Church’s Social Doctrine, the key issue is not the use of technology as such, but the vision that underlies it. If the human being is treated as something to be perfected or surpassed, it becomes easier to accept that some lives are less useful, less desirable or less worthy. In the name of progress, “necessary sacrifices” may begin to be justified, placing the burden on the most vulnerable in pursuit of a supposed optimization of the species. In this regard, the aforementioned warning of Saint Paul VI retains great foresight: indeed, scientific and technological advances, when detached from moral and social progress, end up turning against humanity. For this reason, a clear distinction must be made. It is one thing to integrate technology within a human-centered, relational vision; it is quite another to be guided by an outlook that devalues human limits and promises a purely technical form of “salvation.”

As the Pope points out, “humanity flourishes not despite our limitations, but often through them.” We can - and should - work to alleviate suffering while we also acknowledge our limits, our finitude. Not surprisingly, the Holy Father frequently invokes the Two Cities.

There is much more to be studied here; these are the bits which jumped out at me.