Tech Won't Save Us - Will the Pope Be An Ally Against AI? w/ Paolo Benanti

Episode Date: August 14, 2025

Paris Marx is joined by Paolo Benanti to discuss what Pope Leo XIV’s statements on AI, the publications under Pope Francis, and the ethics of AI from a theological perspective.Paolo Benanti is an author, academic, and priest. He teaches at the Pontifical Gregorian University and was an advisor to Pope Francis on artificial intelligence and technology ethics.Tech Won’t Save Us offers a critical perspective on tech, its worldview, and wider society with the goal of inspiring people to demand better tech and a better world. Support the show on Patreon.The podcast is made in partnership with The Nation. Production is by Kyla Hewson.Also mentioned in this episode:Paris wrote about what Pope Leo XIV and the Church have been saying about AI.In June, Pope Leo sent a message to the Second Annual Rome Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Under Pope Francis, the Church published a note on AI called Antiqua et nova. Here is a short breakdown of its content.Support the show

Because basically what the church has said on technology on AI until now is everything that is serving the human nature and the human beings, it's positive. Everything that is allowed people to flourish, it's really positive. So we don't have a problem with AI. We could have a problem with some hands of some human using the AI. Hello and welcome to TechMont Savas, made in partnership with The Nation magazine. I'm your host, Paris Marx, and this week my guest is Paolo Bonanti. Paolo is an author, academic, and priest. He teaches at the Pontifical Gregorian University and was an advisor to Pope Francis

on artificial intelligence and technology ethics. Now, as you probably know, we have a new Pope. Pope Leo the 14th was chosen to follow Pope Francis in May, and of course, there are are a lot of significant things about that development. But one of the things that stood out to me and one of the things that is relevant here on a critical technology podcast is how one of the first things that Pope Leo started talking about was AI, what it meant for people, what it meant for workers. And that really caught my attention for a few reasons. First of all, just to hear him talking about that seemed significant. You know, the question of what he might do in response,

whether the Vatican, the Roman Catholic Church, are going to take a position on artificial intelligence and wade more into this conversation is something that I think that we should be looking for, aware of, keeping track of, because obviously the Roman Catholic Church has a lot of influence, a lot of followers. And so that could really impact any conversation that we're having about this technology. Also, because by calling himself Pope Leo, the new modern Pope Leo was also kind of setting himself up to follow the previous one, who was a pope who talked a lot about workers' rights during the Industrial Revolution and did a number of important actions within the church in response to that. So it seemed quite clear that this Pope Leo, by choosing that name,

because of course Leo is not the Pope's actual name, you know, it's the name that he chose to represent himself, that it seems quite clear that he sees artificial intelligence and the digital technologies rolling out right now as ones that could potentially impact workers, in the way that the Industrial Revolution was and he's concerned about the impacts that that might have. You know, that's a suggestion that comes from that choice.

But then the other piece of this is how the church was already saying things about artificial intelligence before this, even under the tenure of Pope Francis. Things that, you know, when you go and read them, sound a lot like the secular critiques that we hear quite commonly of these technologies, picking up not on the idea

that artificial intelligence is about to become like a human or beyond it and a threat to us, but the real tangible harms that can come out of the rollout of these technologies into the world. So in the face of all those things, I really wanted to talk to somebody to learn a bit more about what is happening in the church in relation to artificial intelligence, how the church and the Pope might understand the technology and how they might approach it. And Paolo was the perfect guest to do that, not just because he has served that advisory role that I mentioned earlier, but also because he has a long training in the ethics of these technologies, thinks a lot about it. So I was really excited to have him on the show

and to get his insights on what we should be seeing here and whether we can think of the Roman Catholic Church as an ally in this fight against these technologies. So I hope you enjoy this conversation because I certainly found it quite insightful. If you enjoy the conversation, make sure to leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice. You can share the show on on social media or with any friends or colleagues who you think would learn from it. And if you want to support the work that goes into making tech won't save us

every single week, so we can keep having these critical, insightful conversations that explore different aspects of the way that technology affects the world and how different people are relating to it. You can join supporters like Lyric from Tulsa, Oklahoma, Nina from Germany, Marie from Bolivia,

Davy and Duncannon, and Shalene from Boston, Massachusetts by going to Patreon.com slash Tech Won't Save Us and supporting the show. Thanks so much and enjoy this week's conversation. Paolo, welcome to Tech Won't Save Us. Good morning, and thank you for having me. I'm really excited by that.

Thank you so much. I'm really excited to speak with you. I think a lot of people noted how the new Pope Leo the 14th was talking about artificial intelligence soon after he became the Pope. And I think for some people, that might have been a bit of a surprise, right? But actually, the Vatican has been working on artificial intelligence, has been publishing about artificial intelligence for some time. and you have been one of the advisors on that. And so I want to talk to you about that,

but first I want to learn a bit more about you and how you kind of came to this position. You know, I was reading that you studied engineering before joining the Franciscan Order, and then you worked on a PhD in moral philosophy. Can you tell me a bit about your journey to where you are today? Well, the journey was, I think, a really unique one.

I was born in 1973, and the real new thing was the computer at that time. If you see some series on Santi Bichu in the 70 was Dungeons and Dragons was BMX, the little computer like the spectrum was the first, and then we go to up to Amiga. So all this stuff was part of my childhood. When I grow up, I start with engineer just to understand how the work was. Well, then it was not enough for me, and my journey took another direction. I joined the Franciscan Order, thinking probably that that was a time of my life that was simple goal.

But at one point, when I was offered to make a PhD after I studied philosophy theology and ethics, I decided to make a PhD that could work at the intersection of this huge technological, digital technological revolution that I saw when I grew up. and what does it mean for the human beings in the contemporary age? And this is how it goes. I went to Georgetown University in D.C. just to make part of dissertation. And at that point, I took the intersection of three kind of technology, nanotechnology, brain implant, and AI.

Well, it was 2008. At that point, AI, simple, exploded. but now also brain implant are coming back pinging on us. But that was my perspective. What does it mean to be human in a such technological environment like the digital one is promising to us? Yeah, and the kind of relevance of those conversations have only become more important in the years

since you've been doing those studies, right? It's like we're all wondering today how we are going to deal with all these technologies. Yeah, today is easier to say, yeah, if I can be quite frank with you, at that time when I say to my people in the church, you know, I would like to study the intersection about that, and that lay, look at me in a really strange way, like to say, hmm, what you are talking about? Now everyone is okay and say, yes, it's a really important of it. But, you know, to build the first one in some way

is not the easy option sometimes. Definitely. And now they're even turning to you for advice, rather than kind of raising their eyebrows when you say you want to study the ethics of technology, right? So how did you then kind of make that pivot into doing these studies? You know, obviously you're doing your work and you've been teaching at the university. How does it happen that you then become an advisor to the Vatican and to Pope Francis on artificial intelligence then? When we say Vatican, we have to say different body. One that we collectively call policy is this idea that Vatican is also a state. And as a state, as different offices that take care of different direction of the everyday life. One, for example, is about health. Another one is

about education. Another one is about social justice. And so much more AI was pinging on the different part of our everyday life, much more there is a needing of reflection. And this body, like a ministerium for a government, simple take professor to have a discussion to know how the frontier is and things like that. And here I am. So I was involved. I was part of the discussion and then we are going on. That's fantastic though. Because a lot of people think of the church and they think of this religious institution, but of course it is also its own country as well for, you know, historical reasons. So when the Vatican or, you know, when various departments within the Holy See approach you to talk about artificial intelligence, what are the types of things that they are interested in kind of asking about

and learning more about? Well, first of all, it's not just the holicier, because if you look at the Anglican Church, for example, the bishop of Oxford is also one of the member of the House of the Lord. It was in charge of the law about the AI for the United Kingdom. So, you know, it's a way to be present of the church in everyday problem that ping on us also to have a reflection.

But this is old, old Franciscan arise in the 13th century and because we was in the square with people, all the problem that people have in the square was bring it to the church about the reflection. One of the most interesting thing probably is about the use of the money during the Middle Age, and the idea that merchant means this idea to have bank and things like that.

And Franciscan was in that moment with the reflection that produced that kind of changing. So I'm not the first in the order to leave this kind of pinging of history and church reflection, I'm not the only one. The problem is that theoretically someone see, you know, the religious life like something that is in a bubble outside of the everyday life, and that make it surprising. But if you think that the majority of the living people on the planet are religious, it makes sense that religion in some way can feel the problem

of the majority of people of that. The other thing. Of course. And you talked about how you are part of the Franciscan order, you know, obviously that is a bigger kind of dedication to a religious life than a lot of people tend to make. Was it difficult to make that decision to kind of commit yourself so clearly to this way of living and seeing the world? You know, joining a religious order is simple. It is like to marry a woman. At one point, you find something that say, oh, wow, if every day could be like this, it could be nice. And that's probably the best metaphorical images that I can find to describe what happened in me. Simple this idea to have a situation in which I can spend my life, simple studying, deeping the knowledge, questioning myself

and questioning the reality was something that amazed me. And so the idea that I can do day by day is what pushed me in this direction. What's happening now? So the idea that we are having such kind of conversation, it's a confirmation that this form of life, it's a form of dedicated life, that mean that you can do something in one direction during your life, and probably it was something that is still working for me like an engine for an everyday reflection on what's going on. You talked about how obviously there are other governments and other religions that are working with different governments, but you also, I read, advised the Italian government on artificial intelligence as well. Can you talk to me a bit about that and how you saw the difference

in speaking to, you know, the Holy See versus kind of the government of Italy and maybe the questions they were asking about or interested in when it came to artificial intelligence. You know, I'm also a citizen, like every one of us, no? And there is this idea to be a civil servant. And this is really Franciscan. Because I'm also a university professor, the knowledge that I have as a university professor is something that is in some way needed to different bodies that would like to have or contribute to a governance. And this has happened with the Italian governments. It happened with the United Nations, it had happened with Tunisco, and it happened also with the Council of Europe.

So the different body that would like to include the civil society, look at people that could bring a competence inside the debate. And it happened with Italian government. It happened with the other nation. It happened with other bodies. Well, my work with the Italian government is mainly focused into a area. First, we have a professor to develop a strategical view on AI for the government and the growth of the economics. But the other one, the commission that I'm the president now, is to study the impact of AI on journalism and on the news. Because, you know, every democracy stand on a core idea that the citizen can make their own opinion on fact and then

react on that. And so is it AI something that could make it better, worse? What else? This is part of the focus of the Commission that I'm working now with the Italian government. It's such an important issue as well, right? And I feel like when we think about, you know, these national governments, whether it's in Italy or in the UK or in Canada where I am, often I feel like the approach that they have taken to AI, especially in the past year, has been one of excited adoption and how do we get more investment in data centers and get more companies investing AI and in growing AI. And obviously, you come at it from a position of thinking about the ethics, of thinking about the morality and, you know, the potential impacts. Is that something that the Italian government

has been interested in hearing about or have they been more focused on, you know, how do we adopt AI for productivity and efficiency and all these sorts of things? Well, like every government, there are different ministry and different direction. And the real thing here is that AI is much more similar to a general purpose technology than not a special one. It's much more similar to electricity, for example. And like electricity changed from medicine up to the television, we are facing the same things with AI. And this is why the government has multiple table on AI, multiple commissions. And knowing what's going on and what will be next for how much is possible is something that is fundamental to have some kind of

politics and governance of the phenomenon, especially in this moment now in which the globalization, as we dream 10 years ago, probably is falling down, and the international cooperation is challenged now by a lot of international tension. It's a difficult time for a lot of issues and for a lot of cooperation, right? I wanted to go back to this kind of approach of the Roman Catholic Church under Pope Francis toward artificial intelligence, because there were actually, you know, a number of statements made and kind of writings released about artificial intelligence during that time. Can you talk to me a bit about how the Roman Catholic Church has been looking at artificial intelligence and has been understanding it?

First of all, we have to recognize that watching the technology and the impact of technology in society is not just something that belonged to this age. under than 50 years ago with the Industrial Revolution, Europe faced one of the most dramatically change in society and in demography that was also linked to political fight and struggle, strike, communist party, and things like that. So it's at least at that time that the church has started to develop this way to interact with the social phenomena

that are changing the society. In one way, AI is another least. of that kind of industrial revolution because one of the use of AI is for the automation. And so it's in some way natural that this 150-year-long journey of the church on social impact

of technology needs another link and this link of the chain is with AI. But AI is praising us because it's not just a new form of automation in production. Probably what we are seeing now is also with LLM and the Generative AI a lot of impact on culture and what we feel, what we believe,

what does it mean to know something, how we can give to people the competence to recognize if an AI is hallucinating and things like that. And this is what's behind the interest of the church. And it's connected to social justice, it's connected to migration, it's connected to the human dignity,

the nature of the work, and a lot of topics that already are in the reflection of the church, but then now are facing this new frontier of dialogue. I went back and read some of these, you know, writing some of the things that were released. And I was really struck just by how the Roman Catholic Church was reflecting on issues that you hear very commonly from other researchers, from other people who are working on these issues. For example, in January of 2024, when the Pope marked the World Day of social communications, he talked about the risk. that AI posed to digital communication, you know, how it could leave us prey to market forces,

and also talked about how algorithms can shape the types of things that we see online, and of course how we understand reality, which probably comes up when you're thinking about journalism and news consumption and things like that, too, when you're working with the Italian government, like these are issues that are present, right, but are things that the Roman Catholic Church is paying attention to as well. From some way, it's not so different when we introduce lenses in the 15th century, With telescope, we was able to see things that we was not able to see before. With microscopy, we discovered that reality it's much less unique or one thing as we think.

But we discovered also that with lenses, there are some bad effect that are diffraction. And diffraction is something that doesn't allow us to see how the reality is. Well, this time is not a matter of telescope or microscopy, but this new strategic, statistical tools that are the algorithm are introducing probably a new tool that we can define the macroscopy that allow us to find a scheme in reality among a huge amount of data. So there is one big question, and the big question is, science traditionally bring us technology, but not always technology growth in science. It will be AI, a technology that could bring more science.

We have to work urgently in such direction, because we need more. science for a lot of problems of the human community around the world, from environment up to health and things like that. And this is one question and it's about a systemology and what does it mean to know with AI. Then there is another thing that, you know, religions know very well, that the way in which you tell story produce also an understanding of the other's people. So, to tell you in an easy way, you can build a brother with a story, welcome to Franciscan, or you can build an enemy with a story. And so having a machine that is so powerful in building really powerful stories

could be the best tool to allow us to bridge together the differences and have a new future of prosperity, to understand us better and to avoid misunderstanding, or could be the most powerful tool for any kind of regime propaganda that simple would like to put people against people. And the problem, once again, is not in the technology, but in the human side of technology,

what are the ends of our use of technology? And if we talk about ends, that is something that is really near to religious discussion on reality. And this is why there is this deep echo between what's going on and what the church feel

that can help in fending things. Because basically what the church has said on technology on AI until now is everything that is serving the human nature and the human beings, it's positive. Everything that is allowed people to flourish, it's really positive. So we don't have a problem with AI. We could have a problem with some hands of some human using the AI. I think that's a really important way to frame it, right? Is always to focus on this human element and this human aspect of it and really placing that at the center because I feel like, That can be something that we really lack in the discourses that we hear from some of the tech sector and some of these leaders of these tech companies today, right?

And it's so damn old, 60,000 years ago when we was in the cave and one member of our species taking his hand a clapstep. Was it a tool or a weapon? Well, so the discussion is really old. And then there is something that is the distribution of a technology inside society that can change the nature of technology. simple thing what Nobel did. And Nobel tried to stabilize the explosive to allow the miners to not die making their job. And then he found that it became the unit of measure

for the bombing world. And so this multistability of technological element is something that we have to be aware of. But this is not new. If I can be a little bit a theologous now, Isn't it what we find in the Bible, you know, when you have cane and an apple in which something become from a fruit of the land to survive, it become the source of a conflict? Or try to think to the book of Isaiah, where the prophecy of the prophet Isaiah say that we can convert sword and lands to tool to cultivate the land. So when church is trying to speak about these things, is this idea that there is nothing.

that come out from the genius of the human beings that is not able to participate to what God the Creator thinks for us. This is the really core positive approach that the church has on technology. Because the human being is made by God, everything, the ratio, the rationality, rationality is a gift of God.

So everything that is according to rationality is not a gain the faith. Because we have this core understanding and comprehension, there is not technological tool that come out from our mind, from our imagination, that is not in some way part of Godwill on us. The problem is it remain a tool or for other reason could become a weapon. And so there is a really positive outlook on that. And then we know the human nature that

not always is well aligned, but that we are back to our mission. That is another thing. I think that's such an interesting observation though, right? Because it even aligns with a lot of kind of secular, you know, approaches to technology as well. And as I hear you talking about, you know, how technology kind of emerges from the mind and the question is, is it a tool or is it a weapon or how is it being used, it brings me back to something that was written in Antica A Nova, this note that was published by the Vatican under Pope Francis in January of 2025, where near the end of that, that note, they talked about how technology can have really good applications in society. It can improve people's lives,

but not every technology is inherently, you know, something that is good for the world. And we need to be able to properly assess those things, right? And of course, I'm paraphrasing. I don't have the exact quote in front of me, but it was something along those lines, right? You are totally right. And I think that we need to be really clear on this positive base outlook on technology. Because, you know, it not always was so clear that the church has no problem with innovation and technology. And I think that it's also a huge service to the gospel to be really clear on how we have to

understand reasoning, reason and mind and technology and the ability of the human beings to be in some way, someone that is cooperating with the will of God through the reason. And this is urgent too. But this is for the church. For the public good, it's simple keeping alive this questioning in the public space. Is it a total or a weapon that is one of the services that the church can do with other religions in this time? And I think that this idea of being inclusive and different is at the core base of the wrong call for AI ethics. This initiative that was making 2020 started by in Rome.

The name was Role Call for AIAetics and not Patagon called for AIAetics to make it plural. And beside the church at that time, there was Microsoft, IBM, the FIU organization was there. So we have these plural things. That it happened that two days later we have the lockdown for the COVID. So we stopped a little bit for one hour and a half because the international relationship was really tough. But then we enlarge it and the abramitic religion, Muslim and Jewish, sign it. So it's the first document in which the three Abramitic religions signed together on a topic, and the topic was AI. And the core element is the same.

Let's make a tool for the common good. In the last summer, at Hiroshima, 21 different religion of the world signed the document. Meanwhile, a lot of university and other government, another institution and other tech company signed the call. The goal is not a proof of ethicality of a product. It's not a checklist for ethicality. It's not a mandatory list of things, but it's a cultural push. The success of the goal will be the day

in which there is not more needing for the goal. There is no need. It means that such kind of ethical question are spread in society and they are keep alive. But the Hiroshima Signature was really important because at that point, the majority of religion,

that mean the majority of human beings on the planet, say that we need to say not more to a weaponization of a technology like the one that happened with the bomb. And religion has to take side, and the take side that they have to take is the side of the peace. And today it's really prophetic,

and it's really powerful. But we have to work for that. So it's a plural, inclusive, diverse, multi-stakeholder initiative. In this moment, the church do not feel the urgency, do something that is church-branded. but to understand themselves as a square in which different people with different perspective

can convene to talk about the challenge of today. And I think that's a really useful role to play, right? I wanted to go back just for a moment to what you were talking about there of all of these religions, first the Abrahamic face, but then these global religions really coming together to have this agreement. How difficult is it to get all of these religious leaders, all of these representations of these different religions to come together? on an issue. And why was it that artificial intelligence and thinking about the role that

these technologies play and wanting to stop weaponization, how did that become something that so many religions were able to come together to put out kind of a joint agreement on? Well, first of all, with Abramitic was easy because we was before the Gaza fact. And it was a really quiet moment that made it happen impossible. For a broader approach to religions, if there is something that is everywhere, is a smartphone. On the smartphone, the effect of AI, the algorithm of kids, are visible everywhere. So the addictive nature of some kind of social platform is really visible for the power element of this kind of AI algorithm.

And that is not religious leader that do not feel talking with people, how the parents are in struggle to keep the child in a safe zone facing this tool. And so looking at the next generation, looking at the idea that we need to offer our voice as a religious people, to simple say that the most fragile in society has to be taken in account and not exploited, it was the common ground where it was really easy to find a commonplace on AI. And then let me tell with a joke. AI is too fast and too young to have time among religions, to fight among us. what is. So that's helped you. But this is a joke, but just to tell you that, you know, it's new. It's for

everyone. It's in everyone life. And it's touching every religion on looking at what's going on with the youngest. Yeah. No, again, I think it makes complete sense for why that would be, right? Especially as we see, you know, more and more concerning reporting on the impacts of these technologies and questioning about, you know, what the response is going to be. And on that, I wanted to briefly go back to that note Antica A Nova that was published. As I was reading it, it really stood out to me, one, how it centered humanity and was also skeptical of some of the claims about artificial intelligence, what it was, how it worked. For example, there's this quote that reads, AI, quote, lacks the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness

of the human heart to truth and goodness. Its capabilities, though seemingly limitless, are incomparable with the human ability to grasp reality. Then it goes into issues of how AI is deployed in, you know, whether it's health care or education or even warfare, and expresses a concern about the type of technocratic world that we're seeing created where efficiency is put above humanity, right? And so I wonder if you could just kind of broadly give us your thoughts on that note, what it communicated about the church's approach to AI. And if there was anything that really stood out to you from what was kind of contained in that

and the argument that is made? Until a year remains a tool, it has all the ability of a tool. And probably in someone there is this, let me use a religious word, temptation to make of AI something that is more than a tool. But once again, the problem is in the human beings

not in the tool. So if you would like to make of a car, your God, you can. But it remains. in a car. You can in some way adore your car. Someone is adoring or also his own cat. They was called a gypsy at that time. But, you know, just to make a joke. So this is possible for the human beings to not be focused on the nature of things. But the real knowledge start when you know what you have in front of you. And, you know, this is, sorry, I'm a philosopher. So let me move a little bit on the philosophical side.

If you have a square, the limit of the square, the fourth side, is the nature of the square. If you have a circle, the limit of the circle is the nature of the circle. What makes of this portion of space that thinks and not something else. So when we talk about what is AI, we are talking about the limit of AI. So limit is not something that from outside is pinging on the nature of AI. So the limit of the engine of a car is not the speed limit that you put on the street, but the fact that if you don't put oil inside the car, it does not work. And the same things happen with AI.

So when we talk about limit of AI, we are not talking of the willing to simple constraint or deny what AI is able to, but the need that we have to understand the nature of the tools to allow it to serve us in the better way that we can imagine. So, we don't want to stop AI, but we would like to know the limit, and if the limit is that you need some kind of oil to make it work, let's work on that. And guardrail on the street is not because we don't want to make you free, but to avoid accident, because the car has a huge limit that you have a frontal collision, you can be died. And here we have on the same situation. But I know that today we are in a culture in which sometimes when we say limit, someone can say something that is, you know, making it uncomfortable.

Like if the limit is someone else will on you, that's not the case. In an age in which we develop a so powerful culture, we have to know where and how the technology is stable to use it in a trustable way for the human beings. So if the technology is not stable and can hallucinate, no one would like to have a doctor that misunderstand your symptoms and give you the wrong kind of cue. I appreciate you moving into the philosophical realm to flesh that out for us because I do think it gives us a different perspective, right? And that is part of the reason why I wanted to have you on the show is to explore this issue through a bit of a different light than maybe one that we hear about really frequently, right? And so I wanted to ask you, obviously we've been talking about some of the things that have been published by the church. we've been talking about what we saw under Pope Francis, but obviously, Pope Leo the 14th

became the Pope a few months ago now in early May. And one of the initial issues that he highlighted was artificial intelligence. And, you know, again, talking about what it might mean for workers, what it might mean for the public, the broader humanity, these issues that we've been discussing, right? And one of the things that really stood out to me was how people really paid attention to that because it comes at a moment where so many people are talking about AI. What have you taken of Pope Leo's talk about AI and do you have an idea of what his approach to it is going to be and do you see it still being in line with what we saw being published under Pope Francis? Well, first of all, Pope Leo is a human beings. So it would be a predictive algorithm to know

what he would like to prefer or not. So let us be surprised from his reaction. Let me see. start to answer into you from a personal side and then from an interpretation of the words that he said. My personal side, as I told you before, you know, I was starting to deepen my connection between philosophy and theology and AI in 2008. And if in 2008, when I say I'm studying AI, other people in the church look at me and how strange is this guys? That in 2025, the Pope say that is the first element in the list, isn't it amazing? Isn't it shocking? So, first element is, wow, so short, so deep changing. Second things, I think that the Pope need time to produce an answer that makes sense and is able to face the rapid changing of AI. So we don't have to

be in a rashy on that. This is the tradition of the church, slow, but I'll be a think of topic on some element. Element number two, when he say the day two of his after his election the next day to the cardinal, I took the name Leo Xil 14, for a lot of reason, but also because

like Leon 13 face the Industrial Revolution, we are facing something that with AI is a really deeply changing of time. To this, the church has to offer the social doctrine of

the church. Well, this is a really interesting point, you know, because we are not in the Galileo style to bless or damn. But social doctrine means easier. The genius is out of the battle. Let's ask us together how much is too much on how we could serve to the global good. So it's a really standing position. So AI is something that we have to cope with. Let's put the church in a perspective to help humanity to understand what is the best use of this. And I find this is already a program, you know, it's already a plan, it's already an agenda. But then he says something else.

Two, look at the human dignity and the impact on the work. So one thing is the human dignity. And the human dignity is a really interesting and powerful element. There are a serious of situation in which someone could be tempted to allow an algorithm to take a decision on human life. They treat the human life as a bounce of data and not like someone that deserve the maximum respect. So this is another really strong point in the agenda. And then the third is work and work is connected to social justice because AI is a multiplier and could be a multiplier of justice or a multiplier of

inequality. So I think that Leo give us three powerful directions, then give him time to understand how to play it in which way, in which table. Don't forget that the church is present as a diplomatic presence everywhere. And so one diplomatic way will be a really important one. Then we have also the ability to talk to all the people. And this is important too, because you know, you have to bring out a culture of human dignity and AI. And then there is this idea of having also document that could inspire some kind of public debate. So the frontier of the action is really big,

and I think that we need to give the hope time to organize a systematic approach. But the three core element that is simple highlighted, I found them really clear, powerful, and strike, you know. So, yes, I think that we will have interesting, time. Yeah, so did I, right? When you talk about those three elements, I thought it was really interesting to see how he laid it out and provided me some hope for the role that the church and that the Pope might play in the discussions that continue on these issues, right? And you talked

about the diplomatic role that the Vatican and that the Pope can play. Of course, we saw that with Pope Francis on climate change and the encyclical that he released on that and how he was trying to move conversations forward on taking action on climate change, not to mention the other issues that he was particularly concerned about. And so it would be interesting then to see if the church under Pope Leo wants to do something like that with artificial intelligence and with the ways that we think about digital technology, I think that there's a real opportunity there, right? Yeah, yeah. I think it's a huge thing. Something that probably we are not really used in the contemporary culture is this dense way to express that Pope Leo has. Because I quote

one sentence. In one sentence, there is so much. So in a, you know, in a 150 charter time, having so much content in one phrase, need that probably we have not to look just at what Pope Leo say, but also an action of a lot of people that can help us. to in some way get inside the sense of what Pope will say to us. And that could be a challenge because, you know, we are in a tweet age. And if it's not straight, clear and simple, could not have so much impact. But when you have a complex reality, there are not simple solution. Sometimes simple solution, we call simple solution populism.

So if we don't want to have such kind of answer, then the, action and the words of the Pope need to be in some way explained, diluted in a more broader discourse. And that could be the challenging sides. You know, I'm talking now as a member of the church for the future, because a Pope that is able to express so much in so few words, probably need to be diluted and make it understandable to a lot of people. I don't know. He is also able to be really clear and strike when it was. But in that speech, big, huge and intense in one sentence. Definitely. And, you know, there's the opportunity to do both, right? To make it very clear and understandable for a wider public and then to publish something that is much longer and much

more detailed that goes into the specifics, right? And to show that there is a reflection behind. It's not something that simple fall out from the sky, you know? Exactly. I think through this conversation, you have also given us insight. into the approaches that you have toward technology and the ethics of technology. But I also wanted to ask you, obviously you are also pulling from, you know, more theological inspirations when you're thinking about these issues, but also the contemporary discourses that happen around technology. And so I wonder what type of things inspire your work and what are things that really stand out to you that are really important when you think about the ethics of how we approach

these new technologies that we're dealing with. I really thank you for this question because give me the opportunity to clarify my rides on when I say ethics of technology. What does it mean? Well, ethics of technology arise around the understanding that every time that you release a technology in society, it acts as a form of order and displacement of power. So if I build an highway, where I put the entrance and the exit to the highway is allowing someone to get in and someone to get out and is denying to someone to someone to. someone else. So ethics of technology is not about the nature of technology, but is about the

social use of technology. So ethics of technology is simple, a perspective that would like to have all the different stakeholders to discuss about the social effect of a technological deployment in society. Now, we use the example of the highway, concrete and asphalt. What we are looking at now with the algorithm is not anymore concrete and asphalt, but a conditional structure of an algorithm, if this, then that, is powerful enough to allow someone else to do something and to deny to someone else. So this is where ethics of technology arise. And I think that this is one of the most interesting and arguing debate that we should have, in which, and this is the beautiful side of my job, I have the absolute pleasure to bring in the question and to run away

before giving any kind of answer. And this is really nice. It's what I love of my job. You know, being aneticist means, well, are we, everyone equally in face of this algorithm? And then you run away. No, it's a joke. But just to say, it's a nice way to say, because I'm not pretending to have the answer. Because the answer is really complex and has to arise from a plurality of approach, from the communion of different understanding, and also from a mediation between different possible positive goals. this is the nature of ethics. You know, there was one of my professor that say,

you don't come out from an ethical choice with clean hands. At one point, you have to choose a compromise, and it's the maximum good that you can have. And this is a little tragic side of our life, human life. We are not caught that can make everything. We have to take truth. And this is also the knowledge of the limitation of the discipline. It's powerful.

It's pinging you to the core question of your life. but it's a voice. Sometimes we need something that is much more solid and we call it low. And sometimes it's enough to have this simple disquestion because the question can allowing people to have a process and you can have an indirect impact in the question that you leave to people.

So this is the limitation of the discipline. This is the amazing for me that I choose. Nature of ethics and ethics of AI now is simple asking which kind of form of order and displacement of power we would like to have in our contemporary democracy, to allow the democracy to remain in such way. Really well put, right? These are such important questions to be asking, and even if the answer isn't always present, at least it gets us thinking, right? It gets a discussion going so we can actually consider whether we want certain technologies to be rolled out or how we want

them to be rolled out and in what parts of society, what we are collectively okay with, Rather than just leaving those decisions or those questions up to, you know, very powerful people who lead these tech companies, rather than having these broader conversations, whether it's in churches or religious institutions or in other parts of society that try to exert some power over technology and make sure that it serves these human and social uses, right? Yes, absolutely, absolutely. But this is a question that is old as the human beings in society, you know? And when we invented the oil lamp, the question was the same. And this is the human nature, and there is something really human. And this is why we talk of ethics, that is a humanities, you know. But the object now is not anymore something like a club stick

that end at the end of your hands. But when you deploy an algorithm in a giant cloud, the algorithm is not sleeping, is not stopping itself. And so the effort could be simple, multiplied, and be in some way globalized in a way that has an unprecedented. time. I have a few final questions for you before I let you go. The first is that one of the things that really seems to stand out in Silicon Valley and in these tech communities, especially in the past few years, is this seeming increasing focus on religion, but a religion that kind of fetishizes

technology rather than looking to faith or anything like that, that is kind of seen in this effort to try to like create a god through AI, right? When they talk about AGI and superintelligence and this computer that is going to be all-knowing and can do anything. When you hear something like that, is that something considered like heresy, like this notion of kind of praising the AI God? How do you relate to that as someone who worships a very different kind of God? I think that the first threshold that activating me is the engineer side. And because, you know, as an engineer, I know that a touring machine can only solve touring computable problem and conscience is not a touring computable problem. So it does not raise up to the fate level, you know? A simple something that is

technically not possible. And I feel really at easy with that. Then if one day we develop a computer that is not a touring machine, well, let's save another podcast and we talk on that. But for now, there is no way of that. So I feel at easy with these things. Nevertheless, every one of us, this is what the fate, remember to me, believe in something. If I ask you, do you think that the reality is made by atoms? Probably you say yes because you are really wise and tech guys. Did you see them? Actually, not.

You believe in a trustable source. So believe is something in which we work because we cannot have a real first-person experience of everything. So I spent a lot of time in my elementary school, drawing and painting, red mushroom with white dots. then someone convinced me that it's better to not eat it. I never tried such kind of mushroom, but I know that they can kill someone, poisoning someone. Well, welcome to the human beings. So we are human beings because we are the ability

to have much more knowledge than our instinct and to transmit such kind of knowledge in generation by generation. One of the form of AI that we have today is a knowledge form that give us answer on our question. But it gives answer in a really, different way from the way that we found with, you know, the scientific revolution. From the scientific revolution, we found an architectural way to keep the knowledge together. You enter in a

library and the medicine scaffold has all the knowledge on the medicine. So if during the pandemic, someone tell to you, you know, it's enough that if you eat a teaspoon of sugar and you will don't get COVID, you put this notion not in the scaffold of medicine, but in the scaffold. Okay, don't let me say, bad words, or something else. They're not deserve your attention. Now, when you are interacting with an AI, like an LLA, there is not any more architectural displacement of information, but there is an oracular displacement of information.

Well, we miss the training to understand which kind of information deserve to be believed. And here is where we can have some kind of, you know, blurring in which kind of belief could be understood as a scientific. and which one has to be classified as a religious one. And I find that a lot of things you are talking about happen in this, you know, dusk side of the technology. But once again, it's not a problem with the technology.

It's a problem with the human beings that has to be trained to cope and to coexist. Well, I would like to stress this term, it's time to coexist with this new kind of machine. I feel like as we have been talking, right, we've been talking through these important issues in relation to artificial intelligence and digital technology and how we relate to them in the contemporary world. And I feel like there might be some people who would hear a Pope start to opine on technology and might be not really sure how that relates to the types of discussions that we're having or might be uncomfortable with seeing kind of the church as an ally in thinking about the role that technology should play in modern society.

And I wonder what your message would be to people who might be skeptical of seeing the church as an ally or listening to the types of things that the Pope would have to say on digital technology to maybe help them see the church as another player that is trying to do good with the technology that is present here. I agree that it's not time to believe to answer, but it's a good time. to ask together a lot of new questions. So until the church is someone that with you is questioning technology, I think that could be something that make it easy to perceive the church as an ally.

So if I can express with one sentence, the difference is between question mark and exclamation mark. We have to in some way to be diffident with exclamation mark in this age, and we have to be allied with all the question mark that are around us because they probably are looking for the truth like every one of us is. And so I think that this is the perspective of the church to be allied with every man of goodwill

that is looking to understand what is the best things that we can do with AI in this contemporary season. Then I know people in the church that are biased, probably there are also people outside the church that are biased. Well, we need time to go over the bias. Definitely.

You know, I think this is a moment, especially when these 10, tech companies are so powerful to be looking for allies, you know, where we can find them. And if the church wants to be an ally, even for people who consider themselves more secular, I don't think that should be a relationship that they should be passing up on, right? There is not such thing as the intention to bring someone to the mass. This is the point. But to be in the square and asking Franklin and honestly, what does it mean? And until we are leaving this, that could be an open space. I completely agree. And just to end our conversation, I wanted to come back to this

focus on, you know, the human at the center of things, right? I feel like right now we have these powerful people who lead these tech companies, some of them who seem to want us to constantly engage with machines, to replace our friends with machines, to see us even become more machine-like when we talk about automation and things like that. I was just wondering, you know, as a final reflection, what is the importance on making sure that, you know, we keep that focus on, you know, our collective humanity in the face of these pushes. to have these technologies proliferate into even more areas of our life? Well, I think that the important core point is to not understand

in a conflictual way, the relationship between ourselves and the machine. So this is the basic element point. If I understand AI as a competitor of the human beings, I'm in the wrong position. I've retained that AI could be an extender or an answer of my humanity, I don't think that that would be a problem at all. And so if technology is like a mirror that do not allow me to see beyond the glasses, but just to see myself, it will be a really individualistic life

and not really something that my heart will be happy with. There was, okay, this is a Jewish way to say. You know what is the difference between a glass and a mirror? a really thin part of silver. So sometimes I think that much more than believing it's a matter of economy and, you know, making money that transform the glasses in a mirror in which you can see just yourself.

But every time that we ask to ourselves about human dignity, social justice, and some global issues like environmental one, well, I think that we are removing such kind of, you know, peel of silver from, I think a good way to put it. And Palo, I really appreciate you taking the time to come on the show to dig into all of these important issues with us, especially at a moment where obviously the church has already been engaging in these technology issues, as you're talking about for a very long time,

but more specifically on AI and these kind of contemporary issues that we're seeing with it. And with a Pope that seems to be clear that he sees this as an important issue that he wants to focus on in his papacy, I don't think that that is going to end anytime soon. And so it's important for us to be considering it. But I really appreciate you taking the time. I appreciate you giving us your perspective on all of this and on the ethics of technology. Thank you so much. I'm thanking you for all the show that you are going on because it's a really precious moment to, you know, make some question loud voice to share with other humans. Thank you very much for your service. Paulo Benanti is an author, academic, and priest who teaches at the Pontifical

Gregorian University. Tech Won't Save Us is made in partnership with the Nation magazine and his hosted by me, Paris Marks. Production is by Kyla Houston. Tech Won't Save Us relies in the support of listeners like you to keep providing critical perspectives on the tech industry. You can join hundreds of other supporters by going to patreon.com slash Tech Won't Save Us and making a pledge of your own. Thanks for listening and make sure to come back next week.