Seven Takeaways From Pope Leo XIV's AI Manifesto

Last month, U.S. publisher Melville House announced that on August 18 it will publish a U.S. trade paperback edition of Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas: Encyclical on Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence.  While the roughly 42,000-word encyclical is freely available online, and already available in several book editions (including an audio edition crated hosted by Vatican News) the idea of the book being widely seen in bookstores and libraries across the U.S. is an appealing prospect. Regardless of one's religion (or one's feelings about the Catholic Church) the encyclical is a remarkably cogent and humane take on AI.

In writing the encyclical, the Pope leaned on a somewhat unusual collaborator: Anthropic co-founder (and atheist) Christopher Olah. As Wired reported after the encyclical's release in May, the pairing of Olah and the Pope was not accidental.

"Unlike other Silicon Valley companies that have built their reputations primarily around innovation and growth, Anthropic has made AI safety a core part of its identity," Wired reported. "In essence, the connection between the Vatican and Anthropic lies in a shared fear: that increasingly powerful systems could end up shaped solely by the economic, geopolitical, and competitive incentives driving the global AI race."

Why the Vatican Invited Anthropic to the Pope’s AI Encyclical Presentation

Pope Leo’s first encyclical marks an unprecedented alliance between the Church and Silicon Valley.

WIREDDaniele Polidoro

Indeed, citing the biblical story of the Tower of Babel, the manifesto cautions against "the pretense that a single language—even a digital one—can translate everything, including the mystery of the person, into data and performance.” And while the Pope writes that technology is not “a force antagonistic to humanity,” he points out that the AI arms race now underway must not be allowed to to take us to a technocratic future that obscures the very humanity technology it is meant to advance.  “It now falls to us to face the challenges of our time with clarity of thought and responsibility,” the Pope implores.

With Anthropic in the headlines this week after the final approval of a $1.5 billion deal to settle copyright infringement claims brought by a group of authors, we thought it useful to share some of the Pope's key observations on AI.

1. “It is necessary to establish adequate regulatory tools capable of upholding justice and curbing the distorting effects of technological power...”

In his encyclical, the Pope astutely points out that the AI era is accelerating a power shift from democratic institutions to “private” entities, a movement that must be addressed.

“In the past, it was largely up to the State to guide and direct innovation. Today, however, the main drivers of development are private, often transnational, parties that are endowed with resources and the capacity to intervene that surpass those of many Governments,” he writes, calling for governments to establish “fair rules and effective safeguards” that allow people to have a meaningful say in choices “that affect people’s daily lives,” such as employment, access to services, and data management, and care for the environment.

“We cannot allow a handful of actors to dictate these processes on their own; instead, we must build forms of cooperation that respect the various levels of the global community, and make them jointly responsible for the common good,” the Pope writes.

On this score, a frequent theme throughout the encyclical is the environmental impact of AI.

"The gains in efficiency and the potential to improve certain services are clear, yet rapidly and uncritically adopting them exposes us to a range of risks, including the tendency to overlook the environmental impact," Leo observes. "Current AI systems require enormous amounts of energy and water, significantly influencing carbon dioxide emissions, and place heavy demands on natural resources. As their complexity increases, especially in the case of large language models, the need for computing power and storage capacity grows too, which requires an extensive network of machines, cables, data centers, and energy-intensive infrastructure. For this reason, it is essential to develop more sustainable technological solutions that reduce environmental impact and help protect our common home."

2. “Prudence, rigorous evaluation, and even, at times, a slower pace in adopting AI does not mean opposing progress...”

Citing the “imbalance between the speed of technological growth and the slower development of awareness, norms, safeguards, and institutions capable of governing its effects,” the Pope writes that slowing AI’s roll should not be viewed as anti-progress.

“It is not enough to invoke ethics in the abstract,” Leo argues. “Robust legal frameworks, independent oversight, informed users, and a political system that does not abdicate its responsibility are required,” he writes. “Otherwise, change will be governed only by technocratic thinking and presented as necessary and inevitable, ultimately imposing rules shaped by those who control data, infrastructure, and computing power.”

In a particularly searching section of the encyclical, Pope Leo offers two important caveats: “First, any statement regarding AI risks becoming quickly outdated, given the remarkable pace at which these systems are developing.” And, second, it is “not possible to provide a single, comprehensive definition of AI.”

But what we can say with certainty, he continues, is that AI is not human, and we cannot allow ourselves “to equate AI’s ‘intelligence’ with that of human beings.”

AI systems “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,” he writes. “For this reason, technological progress—valuable in itself—requires careful discernment of the anthropological vision that guides it and the ends it pursues.”

AI can “undoubtedly make life easier,” the Pope goes on to acknowledge. At the same time, however, he warns that “excessive reliance” on AI “and the search for ready-made answers” can “weaken personal creativity and judgment.”  

3. “We cannot consider AI to be morally neutral...”

As AI becomes embedded in more and more systems “that affect people’s lives,” and impact “rights, opportunities, status, and freedom,” this may be one of the Pope’s more important observations.

“Important and sensitive decisions—concerning employment, credit, access to public services or even a person’s reputation—risk being fully delegated to automated systems that do not know compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able to change, and can therefore give rise to new forms of exclusion,” Pope Leo warns. While there are obvious harmful uses, “such as the manipulation of information or violations of privacy,” the Pope warns of a “subtler” danger.

“When AI systems present themselves as neutral and objective, they end up reflecting and reinforcing the stereotypes or ideological bias of their designers and developers,” he writes. “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.”

He goes on to argue that responsibility for AI must be “clearly defined at every stage: from those who design and develop these systems to those who use them and rely on them for concrete decisions.”

“We cannot be satisfied with merely calling for the moralization of machines—the so-called ‘alignment’ of AI with human values—without also having the courage to insist on a further condition: the possibility of openly discussing the ethical frameworks involved and subjecting them to shared standards of social justice. Otherwise, those who control AI will impose their own moral vision, which will become the invisible infrastructure of these systems.”

4. “Ownership of data cannot be left solely in private hands but must be appropriately regulated...”

“Data is the product of many contributors and should not be treated as something to be sold off or entrusted to a select few,” the Pope writes.

“In a world where data, computational resources, and regulatory influence remain in the hands of a few, to speak of the common good means exposing this new form of epistemic, economic, and political asymmetry and naming the new monopolies of AI,” he goes on to explain. “To speak of justice requires questioning the global distribution of power that decides who in fact can train these models and who is merely subjected to them. Likewise, it means acknowledging that social justice is not only a goal to be safeguarded after technologies are deployed, but a condition that must shape their very design from the outset.”

Later in the treatise, the Pope writes of a desire to “disarm” AI.

“To disarm does not mean rejecting technology but preventing it from dominating humanity. It means freeing technology from monopolistic control and opening it to discussion and debate, therefore making it human-friendly, and restoring it to the plurality of human cultures and ways of life,” he writes. “The quality of a civilization is measured not by the power of its means,” he goes on to stress, but “by its ability to recognize the other as a face, not merely as a function.”

The Pope later cites a further risk: the "social control" made possible by the massive collection of data and use of algorithmic systems.

“When every action—movements, purchases, relationships and preferences—leaves a trace, a new form of power emerges, namely the power to profile, predict and influence behavior, often without individuals being fully aware of it,” he writes. “If such kinds of data are used to make decisions affecting concrete opportunities—such as access to credit, employment or essential services—there is a risk of undermining freedom and discriminating against the most vulnerable.”

5. “The use of digital platforms and AI systems is driving profound changes in public and political communication...”

As the Pope acknowledges, this is a trend that predates the current AI boom—Fake News, anyone? But the Pope is certainly right to note AI’s role in supercharging misinformation and disinformation. “Tools that could foster dialogue and participation are often used to construct distorted narratives and blur the boundaries between truth and falsehood, mixing facts with opinions,” he writes.

Noting that “those who control digital platforms and means of communication have a considerable ability to affect the collective imagination and to present a particular vision of reality as desirable,” the Pope writes that such vast power must be “constantly guided by the pursuit of truth and respect for human dignity, so that the culture fostered on the internet does not become an instrument of excessive distraction, homogenization, or dominance, but rather a setting in which inner freedom and critical thought can mature.”

The Pope goes on to point out that communication is not only about “the transmission of information,” but also “the creation of a culture,” and cautions that “those who command powerful technological and economic resources, along with substantial human capital for intervention, possess significant capabilities for influencing cultural change.”

Furthermore, the “search for truth” is an “essential element of democracy” he writes, adding that truth is “not the property of those with power or influence,” and warning that “indifference to the truth” ultimately leads to totalitarianism.

“Only the shared pursuit of the veracity of facts, perceived as a common good, can provide a solid foundation for just communication,” Leo concludes. “On the level of public policy, this entails establishing norms so that the decision-making behind content selection and its development becomes more transparent and protects personal data. Regarding social and cultural aspects, this requires a strengthening of intermediary organizations, serious journalism, and forums for debate, where reasoned argumentation and verification carry greater weight than immediate reaction.”

6. “Rapid technological transformations reveal just how unprepared we are on the educational level.”

The rapid rise of AI has wide-ranging implications, Pope Leo writes, and the current education system is simply not able to keep up.  

“The speed and ease with which answers or summaries can be obtained risk extinguishing the desire to ask questions, which is a process that bears fruit only over time,” the Pope observes. “We must learn, then, how to exercise restraint in the use of AI and to protect our young people from the promise of the perfect machine, from that subtle temptation which renders human thought seemingly superfluous precisely when it is most needed.”

In a passage that personally hit home as a parent of two teenagers, the Pope acknowledged that it is “difficult for parents by themselves to resist the influence of business models that monetize attention and time,” and called for an “alliance" among policymakers, educational institutions, and families.

7. “The convergence of automation, robotics, and AI is rapidly transforming the very structure of work.”

The Pope also centers questions about how AI will impact workers. “It is said that [AI] will bring great improvements for everyone. In reality, however, the ‘new ways’ of working are not necessarily better, for while AI promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines, rather than machines being designed to support those who work.,” the Pope writes. “Precisely in order to avoid this drift, it is necessary to design systems that are centered on the human person and not solely on performance.”

While the Pope acknowledges that it is “desirable” for technology to “relieve humans of arduous, repetitive or dangerous tasks and to provide intelligent support for human activity,” “the protection of employment opportunities and the irreplaceable role of the individual must remain the general rule.”

The Pope goes on to note disparities in various parts of the world. “Wealthy societies automate rapidly and chaotically, reducing the need for a workforce and creating room for unemployment and institutional friction,” he observes. “Vast regions of the world, by contrast, remain trapped in hybrid economies, where underpaid human labor and partial technologies coexist without achieving genuine transformation. These areas become places of precarious labor, and hotbeds of instability and forced migration.”

In what he calls a “time of transition,” the Pope calls for the establishment of “social criteria for innovation” in which “automation and AI” should be accompanied by verifiable measures to protect the employment, retraining, and participation of workers; “proactive policies” that make training and professional transitions accessible to all, ensuring that “the cost of adaptation” does not fall solely on individuals; and finally, “a corporate commitment to include quality and dignity of work” as indicators of success.

“To think that new technologies will automatically benefit everyone is to ignore the evidence,” the Pope writes. “The pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs, because the human person is an end, not a means, and the economic order must remain subordinate to human dignity and the common good.”