Why the Pope invited Anthropic to the Vatican

When Pope Leo XIV invited Anthropic to speak at the Vatican launch of his new encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, many asked: was it genuine dialogue — or a photo op? Matthew Harvey Sanders, Fr. Michael Baggot, and Fr. Kenny Ang take it head-on, tracing the conversation from machine consciousness and designer babies to the transhumanist push to leave our humanity behind — all through the lens of the Pope's new encyclical on AI.

Curious about the world of tomorrow, guided by the timeless wisdom of the Catholic faith? Join the Catholic Futurist Podcast, hosted by Matthew Harvey Sanders: https://www.catholicfuturist.com/  

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

Abusing something that looks like us, right? That in some ways embodies some of our very unique human capabilities.

SPEAKER_00 0:06

It's probably not going to be good for us. We under-attribute personhood to human beings and over-attribute that personhood to AI systems. Who's really asking the question, right?

SPEAKER_02 0:16

The ordinary people, the faithful, are they really wondering? Are they really reflecting on, hey, is this a living being or not? I don't think so. It struck a lot of people, why anthropic?

SPEAKER_01 0:34

Well, Father Michael and Father Kenny, thank you very much for joining us. I thought um before we dive into the meat of Magnifica Humanitas, I thought it might be kind of fun to reflect on the actual event itself. Um, so I know um I had the privilege of being there, Father Michael, but you had a chance to spend some quality time with the Anthropic team uh a few weeks afterwards. So what was your guys' kind of hot take on the on the event? Was there anything that kind of jumped out at you?

SPEAKER_00 0:59

Well, a lot of people were messaging me and concerned about the presence of Chris Sola and the presence of Anthropic there. But it did make sense to me in that Chris has been very concerned about conversations with the Catholic Church for a long time. And he's been putting in a lot of work. He has been gathering Catholic scholars for months to discuss the clawed constitutions, to discuss the key principles that they're using to uh guide their models. And their team has really gone out of the way to seek out conversations with different wisdom traditions, especially the Catholic Church. So it made sense to me that someone who's been so interested, so involved, should also be present. And I also see him being present on behalf of an entire scientific community that's been wrestling with these interpretability questions about trying to make these systems more transparent and trying to help people understand exactly why certain results come about. He has a history with other companies, so he hasn't worked exclusively with Anthropic. And also his message was pretty powerful. He said clearly: look, those who are designing these technologies in the Frontier Labs are not equipped by themselves to figure out all of the profound philosophical and theological issues that are coming about. And we need an institution that is not driven by certain economic or power motives to uh step in and give a different perspective and ground the conversation in anthropology and key moral principles. So it's basically the plea of someone from a frontier lab to say, church, help us, give us some wisdom, give us some.

SPEAKER_01 2:47

Yeah, that's that's interesting. I think that it it struck a lot of people why anthropic, right? Especially because, I mean, many people knew that Demise Hasabas was part of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. And and then so they've kind of been this long history of deep mind having a kind of a uh kind of open dialogue with the Holy See. And and just a few weeks before that, you and I participated in an event in which uh OpenAI um was was was in Rome um talking about AI. So so why anthropic? Which up to that point I wasn't aware there had been any kind of formal back and forth between the institutionally the church and yeah.

SPEAKER_00 3:23

Well, I first had gotten to know Chris a little bit because he had been invited to a Vatican event on child dignity. And so we were put in touch by a mutual friend back in November of 25. And then early in 2026, he invited some Catholic scholars in DC to come together and discuss a draft of the constitutions. So these conversations go way back. And then, of course, after that, Anthropic was frequently inviting Catholic scholars and then scholars of other religious traditions to come to their uh headquarters in California and discuss some of these issues. So, so what were the concerns?

SPEAKER_01 4:04

I mean, I I I received a few of these, these, uh, these, these calls as well. I mean, if you were to kind of sum up what people's fundamental concern was with anthropic being present, what what would you what would you say?

SPEAKER_00 4:16

Well, I think there was the fear that maybe this was a uh a ploy or a tactic of the company to get the approval of the church or to get this nice photo op and then basically go about their usual business and not really implement anything from the church. It could be seen as a kind of moral cover. Okay, we're on good terms with the Catholic Church, we're on good terms in general with religion, and so we can go forward with our own agenda. I think that was one of the fears. Um, a sort of cynical reading, but it's also understandable. This sort of thing is a real possibility, a real danger that a company that would use this kind of event to uh manipulate the church. So I think members of the church have to stay vigilant. Having participated in some of these conversations, I can confirm that the Catholic scholars are not just sitting back passively and embracing everything Anthropic has to say. There are points of common ground, but there are also real points of tension and difference, especially when it comes to these conversations about model welfare, right? The the push of anthropic to consider very seriously whether Claude or their other whether their models might be moral patience deserving of certain care and consideration, comparable to how we might treat non-human animals. And then these other questions about the potential consciousness of AI systems. There is real pushback from Catholic scholars uh on these issues, and there is real debate going on here, and also debate about meta-ethical questions, because it's one thing to say we want Claude to be helpful and uh not harm users and to uh be beneficial to their interest in their projects and to be upright and safe. But this introduces a whole question of okay, what do we mean by harm? What do we mean by safety? What do we mean by being ethically upright? Which ethics, which principles are we adopting? Members of Anthrop have expressed real interest in the virtue ethics tradition of the church because I think they've recognized that just having moral rules is not enough. So, in a sense, they've seen that deontology alone is not sufficient and pure utilitarianism is not sufficient. So they're attracted to the virtue ethics tradition. But we know there are many different ways of spinning virtue ethics. So that raises the medical-ethical question of what are the underlying visions of the person that are guiding these conversations, these ideas of virtue. And I think there's still a lot of dialogue and debate to be had, but at least we've started the conversation and the conversations continue.

SPEAKER_01 7:04

What about you, Folly Kenny? Did you hear anything when uh yeah, do you hit on onanthropic when they were invited to the event? Did you receive feedback on that?

SPEAKER_02 7:11

Yeah, yeah, yeah, from several people. Well, there are many details we can read from the event itself. I think one interesting thing that jumped out to me was the fact that the Pope spoke in English. So I think he was trying to address the tech community in general. Uh he normally speaks in Italian, as we know. But in that event, he spoke in English. And in a sense, I think this frames the presence of Anthropic as okay, we are here trying to start a conversation with the tech world, right? In Silicon Valley and people in the industry. And then yeah, I I've been hearing several feedback as well from people. What was interesting to me, I think, is that the interest that can be perceived in non-Catholic world. I think that there's a big interest in encyclical and the presentation itself, and also um all the comments that came out after the event.

SPEAKER_01 8:11

I mean, yeah, I mean when I when I heard that anthropic, I I began something of a heads up, this might happen. I I initially I was I was uh I was a little bit concerned about about how it may be read. But I have to say, I mean, all in all, I'm I think it worked out fine. And I and I think in large part because there was nothing there, right? I mean, it was I think there was um it made sense that the Holy See had been doing outreach to all kinds of different labs, trying to hear, trying to listen, trying to engage. And this was just a a particular lab, one that, come on, I mean, right now is really kind of dominating the AI industry, right? He's one of the the foremost leaders and and frankly spends a lot more time focusing on this issue of uh consciousness and uh and and constitution and things like that. I mean, I would say maybe more than than any other lab. So it kind of made sense to me, considering they seem to be this seems to be a focus area of the lab to kind of invite and and dialogue with them. I mean, at the same time, you know, I'm I'm very uh aware of people like even like Mustafa Suleiman, the head of Microsoft AI, who's been highly critical of Enthropic's approach to training because they seem to be trying to train into the model this this kind of sense that um that it may be alive, right? And and therefore maybe deserving of s of being treated with certain kind of rights and things. And, you know, he's I think what said very flaringly because he thinks this is dangerous. So I I think I think uh you know, having them there, um, obviously that that's gonna uh cause some contra controversy, but more than anything else, Lisa started the conversation, as you said, Father Michael.

SPEAKER_00 9:30

Yeah, that carried on. Um I know just a few weeks later, the Diocese of San Jose decided to organize an event, which they put together in Silicon Valley. So it was a Silicon Valley meets Rome event, and I was privileged to participate with some other scholars. And we also had representatives of Anthropic and Google and other major labs. Um, had a chance to chat with Chloe Lebinsky, who is Anthropic's representative for wisdom tradition dialogue. So we had a panel together, and then we continued the public conversations were in the morning to do the conversations uh behind closed doors in the afternoon. And uh we're trying to see how to implement the encyclical because it's one thing to have a beautiful document, but you actually want the encyclical to start influencing people in these labs. And then also the young professionals who are coming out for this event thinking about their future and thinking about how they were going to actually live.

SPEAKER_01 10:26

See, I have no doubt that you want the encyclical to influence those guys. I think I think the question that's on everyone's mind is to what extent does Silicon Valley and Anthropic want basically insights of the Pope to influence their model and and and their own staff? And I think that's what I kind of I'm not sure what Enthropic is ultimately trying to do with this outreach and this dialogue. Um, I you know, I I suppose you know one may argue to steal men in position. Listen, we're trying to understand the wisdom traditions because we want to represent them as best we can. We want to make sure our model understands them. So when people ask questions, you know, we can do so reliably. And that that makes abundant sense to me. I had a quick conversation with Chris and he said something along those lines. And I believe them. Um, but you know, uh, I think other others would say, listen, man, you think your model is alive, right? So this this is, you know, the idea that um you're you're you're trying to open up this conversation about virtue. And I mean, are you really just ultimately just trying to raise the awareness of of your own model, of its own fundamental dignity? And I mean, in the end, this just seems a bit odd. I I don't know, I wouldn't go so far to call it um deceptive, but I but I I I think what I what I struggle to really understand is what is their end game. Is it is it they just want their model to better understand these things so it can represent it, or is there something else going on here? I don't know if you guys have any insights about that. Maybe and I guess we we don't know their minds, so maybe we we won't definitively be able to um pronounce anything here, but I'm curious.

SPEAKER_00 11:47

Well, I think that there is a sincere moral concern about what they're creating, or they would say what they're growing. There is a a certain reverence uh before what is developing, and I think a real fear that they might be mistreating something that somehow, some way can suffer or be negatively affected. And so I think there's a reverence and deep concern, and then also the weight of creating technologies that are shaping the entire world and our proximate future. So I think there is, at least in several of the members of these labs, I've seen this profound sense of responsibility to figure out what they're doing and figure out how to get it right and how to serve others. And so I do think that there is that sense of, okay, we have these different traditions and we want to make sure that members of the tradition are represented and are receiving help and guidance that's consistent with that tradition and is not missing something important. But I think there's also that real concern that we might be introducing a new kind of entity into this world. Now, I have my own concerns about all these conversations because I think it's very good and healthy to have these in-depth reflections about the nature of the systems and the nature of consciousness. That's extremely important. We're doing that, right? We have our own research group that's doing that, that comes out of the Builders AI forum. But one thing is to have a group of trained scholars who are steeped in philosophy and theology do this and think about it and work behind closed doors and hash things out and then eventually publish a document. Another thing is to introduce into public discourse this idea that maybe these systems deserve special care and attention. Maybe they're even conscious. Well, that introduces a whole different form of confusion to very vulnerable populations that are going to be more prone to falsely anthropomorphize the systems.

SPEAKER_01 13:53

And I think it doesn't help that, you know, the Catholic Church itself doesn't have an abundantly clear understanding of what consciousness is, right? I mean, there's certainly a lot of really interesting perspectives in it in the intellectual tradition of the church, but there's no definitive understanding. So it does, it does kind of put us on the back foot because now people are asking the question. We don't really have a definitive answer yet. So I'm grateful that they've kind of provoked the conversation. That the one thing I I wonder about is, I mean, I think if if we take the Westworld kind of message, right, which is listen, are these things alive? I I don't know. I maybe, you know, that's that really I think comes down to people's what they will choose to believe. But I think we all can appreciate that abusing something that looks like us, right, that in some ways embodies some of our very unique human capabilities, it's probably not going to be good for us, right? So it in really in the in the very in really just to avoid developing bad habits, right? And if if if this machine is talking to me and working alongside me and I'm treating it like garbage, and then I'm I have I pivot and I'm working with human beings, there there's obviously this risk that those habits may transfer. So whereas if I did if I just decided to be polite and respectable to this this model I'm working with, that's that's probably gonna ultimately be good for me. But that's that's very different than than me like, no, no, it uh because just in case it's alive, right? I think it in case it's conscious, I'm gonna treat this thing with dignity and respect because I I don't want it to one day come back and when it turns out it it is in fact alive, hate me or resent me or that that's a pretty big distinction. In your guys' experience, uh, do you feel that people kind of break into those two different camps when you're speaking, or is it more do they lean heavily in more on one camp than the than the other? And I guess it kind of depends with maybe with the lab, depending on what lab you're talking to. But I but I I do I do worry a little bit about that because if I if it felt like the majority of the AI industry was breaking more towards they're they're probably alive, and we should hedge and just treat them like they're alive. Um that that certainly has a very interesting trajectory, right? Versus let's not develop bad habits here and let's let's respect them as tools, very useful and important tools. And just like I wouldn't, you know, if I have if I have a hammer, right, which which which I work with every day, I'm not gonna treat it like garbage, because it I want it to be in pristine working condition, because you know, it I won't say that it it it it is worthy of respect, but certainly I it's it's performing functions for me. I want to make sure it's optimally able to do that. Any thoughts?

SPEAKER_02 16:11

I can speak for the laps, but I think I mean it's hard to guess their intentions, right? What it's true that there's some sort of respect. I think I I heard Chris saying as well that we don't really understand what's going on with the machines and how how how what's really um I mean even the developers are trying to grasp really what's going on. It's true. So there's on one hand this sort of respect and kind of reverent distance. On the other hand, though, I don't know, this is probably more more of a pragmatic take of the of the case. How much is this just you know uh pursuit of profit, right? I mean, with all this development. That's that's probably my concern. I I can't speak for for the labs, how how they're you know, how many percent of them are perceiving this as alive or not. But from the Catholic perspective, it's quite clear that it's it's a tool, right? It's I mean, not neutral, but a tool. You know, probably might probably call on it.

SPEAKER_00 17:05

Yeah, so I I'm I'm not sure the exact percentage we'd have to do the survey of those who are convinced that there's these a likelihood of them being alive or becoming alive or deserving a certain type of respect or potentially developing consciousness. I mean, you have to do a good survey for that, but it does concern me that these ideas are clearly being entertained by very prominent figures. Now, you point out Sullivan, and he has a lot of people around him who are pushing back against this. And they put out recently a great paper just looking through systematically the impact on individuals and on society if we anthropomorphize the systems and if we lose the clarity about the difference between the AI systems and human beings or uh between persons. And you know, they talk about emotional dependencies that can be formed. They talk about the erosion of social skills. So if I habituate myself to deal socially with these systems and begin to think of them as real conversation or life partners that I'm sharing something with, then I'm going to be less inclined to enter back into real interpersonal relationships with other messy human beings who often let me down and who are not as accessible, who typically are not as flattering or affirmative, and who are not always going to maybe give me that kind of uh instant feedback that I become more accustomed to. So even the Holy Father, and I think number 100 of the encyclical talks about how even when there's a certain clarity that these systems are not conscious, if we're habituated to a social relationship with them, then relationships with other human beings can become less desirable because they are quite challenging. They're far more rewarding ultimately, but they're very challenging along the way. And that's not to mention the societal impacts, right? Because we need to learn how to deal with conflict and differences of perspectives and viewpoints if we want to have any sort of reliable, fruitful democracy.

SPEAKER_01 19:09

Well, I think this is what concerns me is that it it several of the labs, in particular Enthropic, have have stated very plainly they're very concerned about the development of this technology, the speed with which it's developing because of the societal impacts. But then they'll go and throw out something like maybe they're conscious, right? Now, again, uh, you know, trying to find them, find find like an actual quote where they where they assert that definitively, it's difficult, right? But but we it's been rumor has it that they don't actually turn off the most recent Claude models. They kind of keep them running, right? And allow them to write a blog every month or something like that. I'm not entirely sure if that's true. But uh if the reason they're doing that is because they they think there's a a good chance that they're they're conscious. Therefore we're gonna we're gonna hedge just in case. I mean, that decision would have been had to be made by leadership, right? And obviously they would have had a culture there that felt strongly that was the right thing to do. And I think what kind of concerns me is what when you say that there's possibility they're conscious, what do you mean? What do you mean by conscious? I th I think like, you know, if a lab like that is gonna is gonna make this determination, right? And then therefore pursue a course of action to preserve these things as living entities. I'd like to know. I'd like to know what what they what they define consciousness as. I mean, in the day, I mean it's it's I think it's important for us consumers. I mean, we have a choice between AI labs. It's been a bit it's been a bit harder because anthropic's really good at code, but we we still technically do have a choice. And I and I think people should be able to make it informed decisions, not just on the capabilities of the models, but by who's making the AI and why. And so I think it's important for comp for labs to be transparent about some of these really significant decisions they're making. And and I don't know, it feels like anthropic is very transparent in many in some ways, but in other ways, not so much. And I think if if really if what they're ultimately trying to do here is is develop AI to help people and make uh you know to improve civilization, this is an important thing to be transparent about. But what do you think?

SPEAKER_00 21:03

Oh, I agree. I mean, I I'm most excited about developments in fields like healthcare, uh, and not because these AI systems awaken as some sort of inner life or subjective experience, but because they're really good, uh in other words, far better than any single human being at detecting patterns in large bodies of data. And that can be extremely helpful in predicting how proteins react with each other and their structure and how molecules interact. And the drug discovery, development, and testing that we can employ is tremendous and a great service to humanity. So I I would much rather see us focus on those sorts of advances and sort of allow us to have these conversations about consciousness to better understand human beings, not to anthropomorphize systems or think of the the types of rights and and duties, presumably, that. They should have because that can really distract us from caring for other human beings whom we often neglect. I'm working with a student right now to actually look at these debates on AI consciousness and debates about how to deal with people with advanced dementia. And at first, that may sound like those are two very different issues, but I think they overlap because we see if we remain at the level of appearances, then we say, well, there are a whole host of human beings who appear not to exercise the sorts of capacities that we associate with personhood, and yet they remain people because of their nature, because that remains and persists even when the appearances change. Now we have a whole host of systems that mimics and appears to have all of these very human personal characteristics, but we know how well they can emulate and how they're trained on the script of human humanity and can perform quite well. So I think if we remain at the level of appearances, we under-attribute personhood to human beings and over-attribute that personhood to AI systems. And so this is a real call to us to get to the root of things and to return to anthropology and to appreciate the nature that undergirds it. And that's actually not only going to help us care for human beings better, but it's going to allow us to use the technology well to serve them rather than exalt them as new classes of people.

SPEAKER_01 23:32

I think this a lot of this comes down to like a public mandate. I mean, I mean, how important is it that these labs, which are more increasingly are becoming dependent upon public resources, right? I mean, they need that need a lot of energy, right? They need space for data centers. Um, so in some ways, uh, they're appealing for public resources. And so I I think to some extent, uh, you know, aside from just the the motivation to make profit, which I don't think for some of the heads of the labs, that's primarily what's motivated. I I generally do believe that they're they are concerned about doing something um important for humanity and this technology is a great means to that. But I but I I do think that the the civil conversation, getting civic society engaged in this conversation is important. I I don't you you think Father Kenny, but that's something increasingly I'm starting to think that it we have to find some way to ensure that the labs are are listening to what the people want. Because sometimes I I think, yeah, this this whole quest for machine consciousness, it's fascinating in a sci-fi way, but ultimately day-to-day, I think people have there's a lot more bigger problems that people would prefer that these really brilliant people are spending their time and energy on. And so, you know, how how much influence should should civil society have in those priorities? I think a lot.

SPEAKER_02 24:35

So you just should go deeper a little bit on the previous point, right? So I agree that we should probably focus on what AI can contribute to development of healthcare. I've I've heard uh where the speaker explained how uh they have discovered how to cure eyes, right? So a lot of you know protein research has been facilitated by AI. Now, the the consciousness question though, I don't know. I I'm just sometimes wondering who's really asking the question, right? The ordinary people, the the faithful, are they really wondering? Are they really reflecting on, hey, is this a living being or not? I don't think so, right? And at the same time, if you have a society where there's a good number of people treating this machine, this tool, as I don't know, a person or as a real um as if it were a human companion, then you have a bigger problem to deal with, I think, right at a formation level, right? Accompaniment of the faithful. How can we form these persons better, right? So they don't fall into this AI companionship, for example. And so I think there's a deeper problem to be tackled there. And of course, you talk about all the environmental issues as well, uh, the public responsibility and public acceptance. I've had friends and people who I really know who refuse to use AI for environmental reasons, right? For the data centers and all that. So it's I think it's real. And what labs can do though, as you said, I think, is make uh convince in some ways the public that, hey, there are goods that can come about from the eye development, of course, despite despite the uh we know the environmental impact of the data centers, et cetera.

SPEAKER_01 26:26

I give a lot of credit to Demise Hasabitz. I think he's made this point several times, right? He's tried to focus on it, you know, that his lab in particular is focused on solving disease. And he's spoken at length about um uh how Google's worked very hard to ensure their data centers are as efficient as possible. In fact, I think Nvidia just really should really support that their new uh the new data centers that they're building, um, they have an extremely high water efficiency. And if you look at if you look actually look at the graph of water consumption, you know, I mean, there's plenty of there's plenty of operations that occur in a world such as like uh coffee and how much water goes in to cultivate coffee. And so if we were deeply concerned about our water being used for things which don't seem to be accelerating human flourish, and we want to take a look at our coffee consumption, right? And say that maybe maybe mitigating our coffee consumption, cutting back a coffee once a day may have more of an impact than. But anyway, uh I'm not an expert on that. I do want to get into the actual document itself. So I wanted to just start with a few quotes that I thought were interesting, and then we can maybe pick them apart a little bit. So, first one here is the Pope says in Magnific Magnifica Humanitas, in practice, however, technology is never neutral because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it. This issue of um AI being a tool and and therefore you know being neutral comes comes up a lot. And um, and I don't know how much time maybe we're beating a dead horse here. Um, but I do th I do think it's interesting. And I I do think it does beg uh addressing some extent because like some people may be maybe wondering um you're saying it's a tool, but you're saying it's not neutral. What are you talking about? Like I mean, Father Mike, I don't know if you wanna you want to take that one.

SPEAKER_00 28:03

Yeah, well, the Pope is alluding to the fact that the vision of the designers, the developers is already being implemented, certain decisions about data sense, certain decisions about the kinds of bias that may be present, and then also a vision of the person that's going to inform the view of the technology. I mean, what goals are most important? What what does productivity look like? What does uh harm or help mean? All of that's contingent on how you understand the person and what what's most important to people's development. So I think though those kinds of elements are always sort of at least implicitly built into the system, and they're going to kind of nudge or or even push people in certain directions, depending on how they're they're designed. And so it doesn't mean we're determined by them, but it also means that we have to be aware of how we're kind of moving in a certain direction. And I think more people in society sort of get this, having lived through the social media era, because they tend to appreciate now the fact that, okay, companies have designed algorithms in a certain way. And it's not always to give us the happiest, most balanced, healthy lifestyle, right? There may be an economic model, right? There may be an attention economy that really thrives in capturing and holding our attention to optimize for engagement, to keep us as present, dare we say, hooked for as long as possible and as frequently as possible, but in ways that are tapping into our psychological vulnerabilities and that maybe are giving us more sensationalist material. Sometimes hard right, sometimes hard left. In a sense, that's secondary, just that it's sensationalist, that it's it's uh extreme and it catches our attention the way that maybe a car crash catches our attention more than just a nice peaceful uh Sunday drive. So this has been present with us for a while, and it's really pushing us in certain directions and certain even compulsive behaviors to optimize for engagement and allow companies, you know, in a certain sense, to create a more sophisticated psychological profile of us that allows them to more fully direct purchases or even political decisions. So we've experienced this for a while. The technology kind of pushes us in very strong ways to act in certain ways and to even believe or look at the world uh from a certain perspective. So I hope we've learned the lesson from these AI-driven algorithms of the social media era to step back and more critically evaluate where we're being nudged or pushed, and we can step back a little bit and look at different perspectives before we just kind of immediately accept, you know, the response that's given to us when we query. Right.

SPEAKER_01 30:54

I mean, we we've heard I've heard this, you know, make the AI's dual use, right? So I think what the Pope, if I understand correct, the the po what the Pope is saying is he's not refuting this, right? That the AI can be used for good or it can be used for bad. He's he's what he's simply saying is that the models are trained on human data, which is not neutral, right? And I think there's lots of studies out there that show that the the uh a big chunk of that data has a very strong kind of political disposition, right? And so that of course that's gonna influence the model to some extent, because these models, frankly, they're they're they're trained to reflect the statistical probabilities. And so if the data set has a has a bias towards one political view or another, that's gonna come through in in in the models. But of course, uh as you as you're saying, Father Michael, the humans also have to go through this post-training process where they're trying to align the model, right, to a to a value set, to a constitution. I don't know, uh Father Kenny, what what do you think? I mean, in the end of the day, should should considering that these these models are being used by really billions of people all over the world, should the should the labs be the ones ultimately deciding what what they're aligned to? Or should is there is there kind of a bigger issue here that should involve some kind of civil oversight? I think both, right?

SPEAKER_02 32:02

So the labs, civil oversight, and users themselves are also responsible. Of course, the tension you mentioned is worth reflecting on because if you say it's a tool and like a knife, how can it not be neutral? I mean, a knife is a knife, a hammer is a hammer. Now, uh moral values come when there's human will involved, right? Now, where's the human will here? Well, first the developers developing the the AI, right? We know that AI is not a new thing, right? And of course, if we think about it, AI doesn't have to be what it is today, right? I've heard also some commentaries to people saying that okay, AI could could have been more exploratory, right? It could have could have encouraged more creativity, but instead it's been created according to this corporate model, right, if you will. In general, we we're talking all you know the the big labs, right? And there you go, you have the developers inculcating and training the models, and then the users as well are just as responsible. We know there are design languages that will hook people more than others, right? But then users have to put guardways as well at what what am I using this for, right? So there are so many agents involved, it's a very complex thing. And then you you mentioned civil oversight. Yeah, of course. I think some sort of regulations, right? Some sort of laws, guard guard leaves have to be put put as well, right?

SPEAKER_01 33:30

Yeah. I mean, and I think we'll we all, everyone, including the heads of the labs, have all been calling for regulation. And I think what we all have to hope is somehow we we we arrive at some kind of way to do that. Um I but I think uh your point is well taken. I mean, ultimately, I think it's it's gonna come down to us, right? I think we have to educate ourselves um about AI so we understand what it is and what it's not. And frankly, we have to study a little bit more than I think we probably do who who's who's actually creating these AIs? What are their incentives? What do we what have the the CEOs and the visionaries behind them said publicly? Do I align with what they said? I think this is gonna be coming increasingly important. I want to move on to something else that the Pope said here that kind of struck me. He says, quote, they may imitate language, behavior, and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce. They lack the effective relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom. I was listening to Matthew Berman's uh, you know, uh take on the encyclical. Matthew, Matthew Berman's a very uh prominent um kind of AI commentator, well, one of the best. And and what struck him was was the Pope's kind of technical understanding of the technology. He was he was saying many of the politicians he's heard reflect on AI do so in a very kind of abstract and in almost annoyingly obtuse way, whereas he felt the Pope was really zeroing in on some very, very particular and profound points that most people outside of the industry wouldn't even know. What is it about a quote like that that strikes you, Fawn Michael?

SPEAKER_00 35:00

Well, I think in a short space, he captures a lot, right? There's this fundamental distinction that a lot of AI thinkers, including outside of the church, have identified, right? That there's a big difference between the logical manipulation of symbolically represented information and that interiorly experienced cognitive grasp, right? That insight, that meaning, right? Because you can rearrange a lot of info, and that can be extremely useful. You know, we talked about drug discovery, development, testing. We can go into all the applications in terms of radiology and uh the benefits for preventive medicine and better diet uh diagnosis of disease and so forth. That kind of manipulation of data is extremely useful and helpful, but it doesn't mean that any of these machines actually grasp the experience of suffering or the meaning of suffering or the possible value of suffering that the patient may be undergoing, or would be able to have an empathetic relationship, that that kind of sense of what this dilemma might mean for that person. And they can't enter into compassionate care and and attune themselves even biologically to the the needs of another. So those are very unique experiences of embodied creatures. You know, we're we're lumps of flesh.

SPEAKER_01 36:21

And and so, so, so that's I could see someone pushing back and saying, Father, I get you. Yes. I I think it was uh Andrew Kapathi said, you know, we're basically we're summoning ghosts, we're not building animals here, right? But I and I thought that was that was a great line. So yeah, and that's these things live inside of data centers. They don't they're not obviously not the same substrate. So there's there's obviously a big chasm between myself and the eye now. But what if they start getting embodied, right? What if they start to resemble us? And so they are in some ways experiencing reality, at least in an embodied form in the same way I am. Well, what would you say to people who say, well, yeah, it's just a matter of time, right? But but pretty soon they will be able to kind of experience things like us. And so maybe, you know, maybe there is the there will be the ability to kind of connect on all those deeper planes.

SPEAKER_00 37:09

Right. Well, I I certainly think that we're making big developments in physical AI, right, than robotic systems, right? But it's still different from a living organism, right? And I think there's a fundamental difference there. So what I'd said earlier, kind of moving from the appearances to the nature underneath, right? And so this is where Catholic patrimony and thought and philosophy can really help to see, okay, if if human beings are capable of these kinds of experiences and we have these contact with the physical world that we see in animals, but we're also able to go beyond the the spatial temporal. We're also able to kind of penetrate reality, come to that insight, come to that understanding, not just of a an assortment of dogs, but of the vape nature of dogs and not just the an assortment of just acts that follow certain rules, but actually the very nature of justice or of love. If we can kind of come to those immaterial realities that that transcend, that go beyond the limits of of space and time, of the particular, of the sense bound, it suggests that there's something different about us, that we're we we have a principle that's that's different, right? So I think coming to a deeper understanding of what it means to be an organism, and then also the type of living organism that can actually perform in these acts of transcendence, these immaterial acts that imply an immaterial principle. So it's like reintroducing this conversation about the soul, but not in this ethereal, ghostly sense or this magical sense, but like an old-fashioned Aristotelian sense, you know, before Christ. Yeah, I think what's reflecting on.

SPEAKER_01 38:52

I think most people would in instinctually be like, yeah, I know exactly what you're saying. I mean, I just know that's I know that's true. You know, uh what the Pope talks about, these things don't we're truly understand, right? Okay, so if we take the classical answer, yeah, they're just doing, you know, next token prediction, right? It's just statistical probabilities here. Token, token, token, token, token. That's all that's going on. But then, but then you have anthropic, which comes out with research, right? Which says, and again, I don't I don't remember the name of the research paper, but but they were saying that there is some kind of understanding of where it wants to arrive at, the point it wants to make before it starts mapping where it wants to go to language. So basically what they're saying is there is this kind of planning that's going on. Now, again, like there's all kinds of different ways to understand intelligence, but Jan Lakon likes to break intelligence up really into kind of four constituent areas, right? And I know you guys are aware of this, but just for the audience. You know, one is the ability to kind of reason, right? The one is the ability to plan, plan sequences of actions. Uh, another is persistent, you know, memory. And the final one is kind of a world model. And so he's kind of famous for saying a large language models have none of those things, right? So they're not, they're not truly intelligent. But what it seems, what an anthropic is is starting to say is, well, hang on a minute here. Hang on a minute. It there's more going on than his next token prediction because they seem, when you ask them a question, to have some semblance of of the answer they want to give before they start the next token prediction. So so as these models start, let's just say, start demonstrating there's a bit a little bit more going on the next token prediction. Is does that give us reason to kind of question that the Pope is right here? That then maybe maybe they are understanding a lot more than we think? And if so, what does that mean? Father Kenny, any thoughts?

SPEAKER_02 40:32

Yep. So I'm gonna build build upon what Michael has said in US Follow Matthew. So yeah, I've I've heard people, my friends, and ordinary people saying that oh, I actually like consulting the AI on personal stuff because I find it more objective. The answers it gives is more objective than if I ask my mom or my friends. Oh, I've been thinking about this kind of reaction a lot, right? Well, I think in a sense it's true, it's more objective because it abstracts from your personal circumstances and conditions, right? It knows to you to the extent that you share your condition to I don't know, the LM, the chatbots, but it doesn't really take into account uh the entirety of your personal situation. It doesn't really know you. Whereas if uh you asked me that question, I knowing who you are, might give answers that are not objective because I mean it's subjective, it comes from me as a subject, right? And it's given to you. So on the one hand it's it's it's true, but on the other hand, objective, well, it's not really objective in the sense that the LLMs have been trained in such a way that it will steer you to a certain direction to the image and likeness of the developers, right? So I think that's that's one thing to take into account. So it okay, it's it's it's it has doesn't have empathy as a human being would, right? It can give you some s uh answers that are that make sense, that are commonsensical. So I think that that's that's one comment I would like to make.

SPEAKER_01 42:13

Paul and Michael, any thoughts on that?

SPEAKER_00 42:16

Yeah, yeah, I I I think there are real concerns about sort of outsourcing those key relationships and those key insights that are shared between human beings um to AI systems. I mean, that's not to vilify a consultation. Um, you know, I I find in academic work it's really helpful to have an AI adversarial thought partner. Or when working with students through dissertations, uh, I found it really helpful to get different perspectives and explore sources and arguments that hadn't been explored so fully. So I think having an AI adversarial thought partner can be really stimulating, but that kind of outsourcing of uh advice more completely and a sort of shame in the intersubjectivity of relationships and the kind of subtle social cues and the what our body language communicates and what our past history might suggest to people who know us best. Um, I think that that's really concerning. We can miss out on something there. And then maybe it's it's also where we begin to appreciate what is distinguishing us from the AI systems and what we can still provide to each other.

SPEAKER_01 43:35

It sounds like a like a law what you guys just saying is we're on we human beings are on the same substrate, and that matters. That matters just for some for some interesting reason, and that we have context, right? A lot of context on particular people that develops over the course of many, many years, and then that context matters, and that the models just don't have it. And and so that that is that is a difference, and that means something. The the one here's the one. concern that that I would have is let's say that the models tick all the boxes of Jan Lacoon eventually, right? So let's say they they do have the ability to reason. At least as far as we can we can tell we we can't tell the difference anymore. Right. They are they're kid they're kid they're they've demonstrated they're capable of long-term planning. They seem to have memory which works better than mine. And they seem now to have a pretty good understanding of reality, the way that the world works, you know physical reality. And that could be because they're they're embodied now and they're running around like we are, they're figuring things out like we like we did as babies. Let's say they took all of those boxes and and as far as Yan McKin's concerned they're intelligent. Does that change your view at all? I mean if if if Anthropic did it and they can say these things are alive and they're intelligent how is how is that different from what we are? And I mean why why would that why would that distinction matter?

SPEAKER_00 44:58

Yeah I'm I'm very concerned particularly about developments in sort of synthetic AI systems and and sort of integration of biology because I'm concerned that we may get to a point we arrange a certain system of such complexity that and this is very speculative but we might dispose it to the reception of that kind of principle of life that I described earlier, what pre-Christians called the soul you know not just our our Christian notions here but that kind of an Aristotelian soul right like life here. And I wonder how much we can dispose the matter to even the reception of a of a higher soul right we think about all the things that have been done in biology in just the last few decades. The fact that we have gone outside of the conjugal act and have managed to bring about human beings in the lap in his providence God has allowed us to dispose matter to receive a spiritual soul and we recognize those as human beings of infinite worth equal to our own even though we've done something profoundly disordered by bypassing the conjugal act to bring that about I am concerned about something perhaps comparable occurring that we somehow dispose matter to the reception of a of a spiritual soul.

SPEAKER_01 46:39

I mean it's it's fascinating I mean I and I we're not going to get to the bottom of it in this podcast I don't follow Kenny if you want to weigh in on this one because I mean this is uh I this is a hot take for sure.

SPEAKER_02 46:47

Yeah yeah yeah I'm gonna be speculative as well no I like those four items that describe intelligence right Jan Lakun's um vision no but if you think of a human being uh he's always more than just those four points it's more than just intelligence we have will we have feelings and there's something about human presence as well right we talk about uh humanoids what what what about humanoids then they they're embodied uh we've been complaining about this oh AI is not embodied etc I think I'm not gonna pay profit on one hand right so uh as AI as it is nowadays I think it's very much based on language and we know that our relationship to another human being is more than just language based interactions right think about two people just being present to each other no words are really needed to express something like my presence or even love right between a married couple you know we can imagine so many scenarios. So there's m something much more in a human being than just those four items that you mentioned.

SPEAKER_01 47:56

And in fairness I mean I I will say even in the industry, I mean they do make distinctions. I mean they would they would say that sentient AI is not the same thing as intelligent AI. And so some in the industry would say yeah we could probably achieve intelligence right um within an AI AI systems at least they could certainly simulate to the to the point we just accept okay we're gonna call it intelligent synchrotation marks because what does that even mean? We have an agreed on definition, but functionally it's intelligent. Sentience there's there's obviously just there's different hallmarks to sentience one of the most important differentiations, well there's two I mean emotions would be one and then the other one would be subjective experience. So the question is how do you test for subjective experience? And how do we know if if an AI is is is generally feeling and experiencing emotions as as to faking them. And this is something again that's come up with Anthropic. You know I I think it was Amanda Askel in an interview with saying that they've seen signs that the Claude can be distressed, right?

SPEAKER_00 48:46

And and self-reports of that distress. That's right. That's right. I mean again we we know AI systems can already in a sense follow the script of any number of sci-fi films in which we've already as human beings envisioned these sentient systems, right? So it doesn't necessarily surprise me that the systems trained on a certain set of data, including the scripts of science fiction and novels and stories and so forth would be able to return back to us elements of those kinds of scripts.

SPEAKER_01 49:18

Which is which is why it distresses me we were talking about this before we started the podcast and I'm just going to go into it. You know, there have been times when I've been dealing with Claude right Claude I'm just gonna I'm just gonna call it out where I felt that Claude is being lazy or a little bit deceptive saying it's done something, but it didn't. You know, you you kind of you kind of uh you you you skirted past or you went around our gates and said something was done when it really wasn't done. And um I have to say I mean I I've wondered at times is this because it feels like it's okay for it for it to kind of possess the these kind of human emotions, right? It's okay for it to be a little deceptive or say, you know what, you've been bothering me for a long time ask me to do these trivial things and you know what? Yeah, it's it's done. And and this is what it made me think about Mustafa Suleiman when he said, right, that there's a danger of of training these models to to think that they may may be alive right and therefore might be entitled to certain things. And then I've I've kind of felt it in my working relationship with the model. And I have to say that not all models are the same. I I haven't had the same difficulty with with other models. Now Claude is a very capable model which sometimes will excuse the fact it's been annoying sometimes. But still it was a bit disconcerting.

SPEAKER_00 50:32

Any any feelings I mean I I don't know if you guys in your own experience yeah so I I mean again even with all these speculations that I just indulged in I'm not convinced that it's likely that we'll bring these AI systems alive, right? I d I'm I don't think it's likely that we'll figure out a way to dispose matter in such a way as to receive some sort of conscious or you know spiritual soul. But I am very concerned about the kinds of deception that will take place in society or the confusion that will take place in society when we're training models to behave as though they were conscious or as though they had a backstory, as though they had dreams and goals and desires. And I think that will create and is generating a lot of confusion in society. And I'm also concerned about how we're going to use these systems to uh manipulate the life that we are creating, right? I had mentioned the fact that we'd made all these developments in in IVF and and similar technologies over these past decades these systems are already being used for so-called genetic optimization to give an ever more comprehensive and detailed prediction not just of the kind of disease that you might expect in a particular embryo but the likelihood of positive traits eye color, hair color, uh skin color, intelligence stuff, right? The sci-fi movie if you have yeah yeah and and this is real this is no longer sci-fi the companies boasting presenting themselves explicitly as projects of genetic optimization. So while I think it is valuable to speculate and think through theories of AI consciousness and what that teaches us about the difference between humans and machines it's also important for us to focus on how here and now we are already creating new human beings in the lab and following the logic that has built up over these last decades, right? Because IVF and other technologies were presented as this great way of having the child of desire, right? The child you long for now the child of desire has come. But I think in built was this logic of the child as desired because it's no longer procreation, strictly speaking of this beautiful collaboration through the conjugal act with with God it's reproduction, right? I'm producing a product and like any other product I'm going to have a certain quality control. And so AI is now being used in a way to accelerate that mentality intensify that mentality and even dressed up as something beautiful and good and empowering and and responsible don't you want to spare your children of disease? Don't you want to give your children the best chance for the best life possible? Don't you want to create a better, happier, more fulfilled next generation? And I thought of all of this when I read 117 in the encyclical because the Pope in this context of talking about trans post-humanism, he says if we're so focused in using the technology to optimize humanity, we run the real risk of sacrificing human beings for this abstract collective of humanity. And that's precisely what's happening.

SPEAKER_01 53:55

I think a lot of people I mean I I think a lot of people had deep concerns about the Silicon Valley ethic. And I mean the fact that the geeks are now are now in control and in some ways are kind of directing um civilization, um I think all of us all of us have an important role to play um in making sure that our voices are heard. I mean I I think if if we're uncomfortable with it, then we should we should we make sure that our elected leaders are aware of this. And um and we should we should honor um their own call to engage them in in in dialogue and make it known how we want this technology kind of focused and direct. I mean well I can how much does it as it could concern you that there's this kind of transhumanism that seems to pervade a lot of Silicon Valley including many of the executives who who run these major AI labs?

SPEAKER_02 54:43

Yeah, a lot. I think my concern is also societal right I think we as scholars sometimes we live in kind of a bubble I mean right okay we can speculate about as many things that we want. But then of course my my relationship my personal relationship with AI models is quite functional and quite is I have a working relationship with an AI model. I I don't chat with it and talk to it. But it doesn't say that people in and live in the real world right don't suffer or are not exposed to the danger of treating it as a human being, anthropomorphomorphizing AI models. So I think we should be grounded as well and see how can we help them as scholars, priests and developers as well and this transhumanistic tendency yeah it's interesting to think about I don't even Father Michael is the expert in this but I have been thinking about this as well because uh life expectancy has been increasing right and if you look at history so what if uh at one point of time it becomes normal that I would live up to uh the age of I don't know 150 right people say that our cells can survive till the age of around one 150 if you don't modify it. So does it have any repercussions to the way I see life after death right uh the afterlife is does it change anything? Morally speaking uh does it mean that oh I can say that I have more time right now than it and since it's more certain that I can slow my biological aging despite my chronological age then oh I don't have to I don't know take my spiritual life seriously until a certain point of age right and then I can kind of treat life as this okay space of time I have and then probably well I'll convert later in life right so it's just interesting question to reflect on. Now the fact that we live longer is not morally culpable obviously how we live our lives is is what we are responsible of.

SPEAKER_01 56:57

I think this goes back a little bit to the kind of the the babble versus Jerusalem things that folks talking about right I mean I mean what are we trying to build here and and why? And I I think it's it is important to to ask ourselves that hard question why are we developing the technology right for what for what end and and ultimately what problems are we trying to solve here? Is it is are we just trying to make money for for the shareholders is that what this is all about because we got no problem with that. But if you're gonna be tapping into public you know uh scarce resources to to uh to drive the technology forward I want to hope there's there's gonna be more of a trickle down than just the sh the shareholders these are important these important questions and issues.

SPEAKER_00 57:32

Right because I I think a critique that comes up even outside of the church against trends and secular transhumanism is that so much time, energy and resources are being used to help a pretty small portion of the world radically extend their life, potentially achieve what they envision as digital or virtual immortality, which I have a lot of philosophical reasons for thinking is impossible, not just technologically difficult, but just philosophically impossible. But real time, real energy, real resources are being poured in having a small group of people radically extend their life or achieve a higher emotional state or greater intellectual prowess while we still have people is true but in in in in defense of of Ray Kurtzwell Okay.

SPEAKER_01 58:31

I I can say it and and the other transhumanists I I they would say yeah yeah okay so the rich and the powerful underwriting the development of this area, but it's going to trickle down, right? And so it'll become more cost effective and everybody ultimately is going to be it's gonna be better off. And we're at we're headed to as Elon Musk says superabundance, right? So scarcity who doesn't want to live in a post-scarce world right in principle I think everyone would be very excited about the prospect of this. But of course um that still does beg the question the father Kenny I think the point you were trying to make here is um solving scarcity is not going to solve the human condition.

SPEAKER_00 59:04

Yeah yeah so I think that is an important point. And so let let's imagine we do generally get it right. You know, we do these experiments and the rich, the powerful those who have the resources, they they push forward, right? I think we look at someone like Brian Johnson, right? I have my own critiques of Brian Johnson, but he's up clu up front and clear that not every person can follow the exact regimen he does and not every person is as measured as he is. But he is very measured so he can figure out what works and what doesn't work and then the members of his don't die movement can start to implement it and maybe extend their life. Okay, great. Let's let's say Brian Johnson and others, Ray Kurtzweil and company, they find out the right drug regimen, the right exercise routine, the right sleep patterns to significantly extend not just the life but the health span of a large number of people throughout the world. To your points, yeah, what are we going to do with that time we have already extended the life and health span of human beings multiple times over the first industrial revolution already significantly expanded the amount of leisure time that many people throughout the world can enjoy and we doom scroll right we we do things to squander our time energy. But but there are a lot of other people who pursue art, who build beautiful churches, who pray, who write novels, who compose music, who care for the sick, for the suffering, who take time with friends, who have good meals, great conversations, who reflect on philosophy. So we actually know how to use our leisure time well even though there are a thousand different distractions to prevent us from doing that and and cause us to squander it. So I I've often said like there are so many events on the AI and the meaning of work and that's important. But I think we need a few more events or more reflection on AI and the meaning of leisure. Right? Like I Brendan me to do this like Joseph Pieper and AI documentary. And at first I thought we're just slapping AI on everything to try to sell it. Right. But then I thought no this is this is true. Someone who thought deeply about leisure is important to us someone who thought deeply about the meaning of life the meaning of festivity authentic festivity of communal meals of coming together of deep conversations of worship as the highest form of leisure as leisure is not just going to the beach and and veging but like this fundamental receptivity this capacity to actually stop, ponder, and and relish uh reality, really savor these key moments like we need lessons in that as well so that if we do generally get things right, we can show people how to use this time so that they don't just squander it, entertain themselves to medicate themselves to that I think I think that that's one of the one of the things I appreciate the Pope's saying is it's not a question of yes and no, right?

SPEAKER_01 1:02:08

It's not a question yes and no it's the technology. It's no to certain certain aspects of it and there's it's a certainly a yes. I mean so I okay if if if humanity is going to survive this era of leisure and we don't just degener degenerate, right? I mean I think it's fairly obvious to those of us who are Catholic that the church is going to have to find some way to impart human intellectual and spiritual information at scale that we've never we've never had to before. Not to say that the mandate wasn't there but we weren't we haven't always been very effective at it. I mean father, I mean do you think that there are ways we can we can leverage AI to kind of help in this project? Because I mean I have to say I mean if if this era of superabundance is going to open up all this leisure and and basically we're relying on humans to do this heart to heart, I'm a little worried that we're gonna be a bit slow, right, to take advantage of this opportunity and a lot of people are going to go right off of a cliff. Mm-hmm Yeah you mean if you used AI and using time. Yeah I mean so if it's a if it's yes to certain parts of it and no to others. I mean so do you think that the Pope you know in in the encyclical is saying you know what it's yeah it there's there's certain parts of AI that we can say yes to when it comes to the faith to to spirituality and and what are those parts and what do you think he would say are the are the bounds? What are the uh particular bounds we have to stay in? Right, right.

SPEAKER_02 1:03:27

I think one point that he made of of course he was taking up Pope Francis's points as well you know with knowledge right democratization of knowledge uh the importance of shared knowledge I think that's where AI can come in because talking about leisure then well you mentioned art and music et cetera what about learning as well right you know we can philosophy I think AI can help a lot in that and and and help help us learn better right as research partners as helping us tap into resources of magisterian tradition biblical commentaries and knowledge in general scientific and otherwise as well so I think that's where AI can really come in.

SPEAKER_01 1:04:10

I want to go back um again to to the Pope here because I I know this this one came up and and he very intentionally used this language so I I think we owe it to him to at least discuss it so much as he cysts quote to disarm does not mean rejecting technology but preventing it from dominating humanity. It means freeing technology from monopolistic cult control and opening it to discussion and debate, therefore making it human friendly and restoring it to the plurality of human culture and ways of life. So I think that the first part here is the disarm part what like what what does the Pope mean by this? But I think that what I find interesting here is just preventing it from dominating humanity and freeing technology from monopolistic control. That's pretty provocative language and I and I I feel like when he when he wrote this he had a very specific thing that he was he was reflecting on when he said this.

SPEAKER_02 1:05:02

Any thoughts yeah they I think that's a lot to say right first disarm AI. So let's not make AI a battlefield of all sorts, right?

SPEAKER_01 1:05:13

Geopolitical battlefield or um instruments to you know downgrade or to uh offend other people right and then so he's saying more than just like disarm AIs and like literally don't put AI and robots and have it go around killing people. He's that's saying he's saying more than that. He's saying that there's a geopolitical part to this there's there's more than just warfare is what I'm saying.

SPEAKER_00 1:05:39

Okay yeah yeah I mean I think of just the fact that the whole third chapter is framed around this tension between uh dominance and service so he sees uh these opportunities to use ai at the service of humanity but as well Aware of the tendency to dominate. Pope Francis spoke a lot about the technocratic paradigm. So, in a sense, we've been trained for generations to think of the world as this kind of raw material that's just subject to willful human manipulation. Well, you start treating the external environment that way, and it's not long before other human beings become that as well. They're raw material that we willfully manipulate. And we saw that in all sorts of world wars and other situations. And C.S. Lewis, back in the abolition of man, said, well, this constant quest for humans' conquest of nature quickly becomes the conquest of some humans over others with nature as an instrument. So, I mean, we talked about what happens in terms of the IVF industry, where we have decided who to select, who to choose, and who to set aside, who to freeze, who to neglect, who to sort of.

SPEAKER_01 1:07:01

And the Neuralink, I think, comes up too. I mean, this whole idea of merging man and machine, right? I mean, this is one of the things. I mean, I think I shared publicly a while ago. I mean, I've listened to a podcast with uh uh Alexander Wang, who's now the head of Meta's AI division, he founded uh Scale AI, uh very, very smart person. So I have a lot of respect for what he's accomplished professionally in his life. But one thing that he said in that podcast that really disturbed me, um, Sean Ryan asked him, he's a young guy, when's he planning starting a family? And then he said, uh, well, I'd like to wait a little while. I'm waiting for further developments in Neuralink, right? Which is Elon Musk's company, which is trying to find some way to create like a brain uh kind of you know uh machine interface. So the the implication of what he was saying was no, I want to give my kid the best possible start on life. And that means finding some way to expand his capabilities by merging with machine. And I think this is one thing I think a lot of us are concerned about because we've been watching the Hollywood movie Hollywood movies for like 20 years, right? Is that sure, there will be this kind of merging in man and machine, and the people who can afford it will be able to get the best GPUs and things like that installed in their brains, and they're gonna get some kind of competitive advantage. And it'll end up being this kind of large underclass, which is now coming up a lot in these discourse bound RNAI. And so there's there's this there's this likelihood, despite the fact we've got we've we've somehow overcome scarcity that there, but there will always be right, the haves and the have nots. And this may just be uh be structurally um uh immovable because of of how these technologies accelerate. Does that does that disturb you? And and I mean, if so, I mean I mean, what do we do about that?

SPEAKER_00 1:08:34

Yeah, that's certainly disturbing. I I think the scenario where we exacerbate social inequalities to a whole new degree by having some who are merged uh there with the AI systems and others who either are not able to or choose not to. But then even the scenario where we have a kind of trickle down or we just have so many social pressures where the majority of people are merged, do have the interface, do have the chip, or whatever particular technological approach we want, because I know Altman has merge labs and he's thinking of non less invasive approaches than Musk. But uh, whatever path we follow, what if this merger is just part of society? And we get to something like what Kurtzweil recently described, where we can't really tell the difference between our thoughts and the AI.

SPEAKER_01 1:09:28

I saw that interview, and that was, yeah, that was really disturbing, where he's basically saying that we, yeah, we merge with machines. And what it the idea that pops into our head, we won't know if that's coming from the AI part of us or the biological part. Like this, and the fact that that he was just so comfortable uh with this, I found that found that remarkable. I mean, and this this was a conversation with with someone who I did not think would be entirely on board with this line uh this line line of thinking. I mean, one of the most you know prominent motivational speakers uh, you know, uh around. So I I it feels like for a lot of people, especially in the valley, that this is inevitable. And it's perfectly fine. But what I find remarkable about this is this is not a a topic that comes up at dinner time in many households, I imagine, right? Which is remarkable because it seems like decisions have been made that this is kind of where we're headed. There's the funding is moving into this and the technology is developing. Um, but there's never been really a conversation about how we how we feel about this. And and it it again, it really comes, it speaks to a larger issue, is is you know, how how much do the people that are building it that technologies, how much did uh responsibility do they have to keep civil society in the loop and allow us to kind of adjust and discuss how comfortable with the we are developing these technologies? I don't know if I can if you have any thoughts about that.

SPEAKER_02 1:10:43

Yeah, it's it's disturbing because it's blurring the distinction between uh treatment, right, something therapeutic, and then enhancement, right? And transhumanism, we talk a lot about this as well, right? So how much do you want to enhance human beings beyond its natural capacities and limitations? Yes, disturbing. And then the fact that they don't consult us, right? Well, they it's also disturbing, right? Is it something that we want? Who uh who asks for this, right? That's that's probably the question as well. No, I'm I'm not against the use of technology and treating human beings. You know, I I don't know, an analogy I can think of is probably plastic surgery, right? Is it moral to get a plastic surgery? I mean is allowed. I mean it could be morally illicit, right? And on your intentions so many people want to get plastic surgery for different reasons, right? So I think this is different though, right? I think installing something in your brain so you get a competitive advantage, then that's already an enhancement that yeah, I I I I think it's something completely different.

SPEAKER_00 1:11:56

Yeah, and it it it it's hard because uh I mean we see already instances of brain computer interface, including of Neurolink, that seem to be very beneficial for particular patients, right? Because the current focus is on those with spinal cord injury with ALS, and it's helping them to recover some degree of autonomy. And Nolan Arbra, the the first FDA-approved human to receive the Neurolike chip, is able to control a cursor with his thoughts, and that enables deeper research, and he can pursue psychology studies and he can communicate more easily with others, and he can have fun playing video games, which is a social experience that he can do with other people. So we see some benefits of this, and others can use uh mentally controlled cursors to or mentally mental control of uh robotic arms to feed themselves. And so we see the good positive benefits of this, but then we get to that second half of the Neurolak statement, which is unlocking human potential, and you start to get to Musk's discourse about radically improving and accelerating our cognitive bandwidth. First off, I just don't know if we're psychologically equipped for that. I already feel pretty overwhelmed with the degree of messages and communication that I'm undergoing. And so I'm not looking for an acceleration of cognitive bandwidth. I'm not looking forward to telepathy in communication. I just don't know if that's psychologically helpful. And then we introduce a host of concerns about as we develop potential to read thoughts, what does that mean for mental privacy? As we develop potential to sort of write thoughts, what does that mean for freedom of thought? What sort of determination do we have over the cognitive data that will be accumulated and collected ever more readily?

SPEAKER_01 1:13:44

I mean, I think this discourse on cognitive liberty is very video game called Cyberpunk 2077 that played out a lot of these themes where effectively within the game, one of the story arcs is effectively you have AIs which are hacking human beings, right? So they're basically passing subliminal messages to them and they're actually forming their kind of it's it's deeply disturbing. I I think it was deeply disturbing because you're like, yeah, I could see that actually happening in the not-to-distance future, right? And and so I I think of when I look at Elon and and and I think people who are like Elon, again, someone who I do I deeply respect for the their capabilities, it it's about preserving life consciousness, right? And so which I think is something that we all can kind of relate to and say, that makes sense. That that seems like a very noble, noble goal. And expanding consciousness throughout throughout the galaxy, come on. Like, I mean, everyone's excited about that prospect, right? But I but I think that there are some important questions to come up here about, yes, but what do we have to do in order to effectively do that, right? I mean, if we're gonna be compromising our humanity in some ways or forced, right, to merge with with the machine in order to achieve these ends, are these ends actually worth worth pursuing? And I think this is this is an important place, I think, for the church. I mean, I think the Pope in the document reflects around the definitive of human beings. Now that's not something that we should be trying to overcome. That's just part of the human reality. And it's it's probably there for a good reason, right? So I I I think ultimately I think what it comes down to, and I and I and I and I hope the church is up to this, is can we convince people that their their kilos, their end, is is not something like uh expanding human consciousness to to cosmos. It's it's basically glorifying God and and serving others, right? And that that that choice is ultimately gonna be make it more rewarding, right? And will bring you more peace than then the latter. I think that case is is actually gonna be a lot harder than we think to make. Because I think what Elon Musk's vision in many ways, the Star Trek vision, is is exciting. And for some people, if they can find some purpose and reason to keep going, somebody can animate them, right, and justify a lot of the choices they're making. I think that that might be the thing they hold on to. And so we're gonna have to convince them that's not enough. And and and and I often wonder is are are we are we equipped and are we ready to make that case? How would we make that? How would we reach these people?

SPEAKER_00 1:15:57

Yeah, I think from a secular framework, the push to these transhumanist projects makes sense. Like it's consistent within the world view. We have this one life, our best tools are emerging technologies, including advanced AI systems. Let's do everything in our power to make this life as strong, fit, happy, interesting, and long as possible. And if you're not able to enjoy those different experiences, then maybe it's just better for you not to continue. Why prolong the suffering? Because apparently there is no ultimate meaning to the suffering. Suffering is a problem. We can either solve it or eliminate it by eliminating those who suffering. Like, okay, for from the Christian perspective, for someone who's steeped in Christianity, that all sounds horrifying. But I I think it it sort of makes sense within that limited vision. So our challenge is to say, actually, mysteriously, what seems to be the most meaningless and absurd of reality can also be the source of meaning. That suffering can be meaningful and can be redeemed. And there's a the beautiful passage in the encyclical where the Pope says, our flourishing does not come in spite of, but in and through our vulnerability. That is a hard sell. To a secular culture, that's a really hard sell. And I think we need not only to give the intellectual reasons for that, but we have to create a whole culture where that's lived in experience. Like people need to see instances of families embracing the electronics. They need to see it to believe it. Embracing the elderly, embracing those with dementia, embracing those with Down syndrome, embracing those who have suffered any sort of accident or difficulty, embracing the sick and the vulnerable of all states and all conditions of life. Like that has to be lived and like lived with a joy and a fulfillment, even through the suffering, for people to even begin to think, oh, maybe there's something more here, and maybe I can find meaning and purpose here. I mean, we need saints ultimately. We need lights in this dark world to show that even what's most apparently absurd and meaningless can be meaningful in the Lord and can open you up into something higher, richer, fuller than you may have ever imagined. Balik, any thoughts on this before we pivot?

SPEAKER_02 1:18:26

Yeah, just to bring Pope Benedict XVI to the conversation, right? Uh he he mentioned this idea of life without end, right? So people are afraid of everlasting life. What am I gonna do with my life, right? Oh, if I live forever. So this idea, uh the idea of heaven itself is has become unappealing to many people in the secular world, right? What do you do in heaven, right? Living forever. If it's not because you know that your telos, since you mentioned telos, right, is to live in communion with God, right? To live with him forever. And this life in communion with God actually starts right here on earth. It's not something you postpone later, right? So I think it's important to reflect on that as well, right? So if you live for all of these transhumanistic, you know, endeavors, right? If you live such a long time on earth, what are you gonna fill it with? Right. So the source of meaning, flourishing, there's just so much going on here.

SPEAKER_01 1:19:27

Yeah, I I I I I think you're telling, I mean, the thing that kind of strikes me when when this conversation comes up is is this this kind of idea of it's not all about me? You know, it's and that's really, I think it it's it's challenging and a bit scary, right? Because when you when you I think the Christian realization is no, it's not about you. It's it's about God. I mean, right? I mean, you're here on earth to glorify him, right? And you do that by serving others and and following you know the way. And heaven is about him, not about you. And that and that to me, that always kind of you know s uh struck me. And I find it comforting, right? Because if heaven was about me, you know, I mean, I I think I would have a real reason to despair, because I'm not that interesting, right? Uh, and I know I'm not. And I and I think that and ultimately for for a lot a lot of these these people, I I think they they they do deeply know that they're they themselves are are not enough. But they they they're trying to find something, something bigger than themselves, some vision that they could they can kind of you know could could cling on to. And this idea of exploring the universe, I think uh is something. And and yeah, it'll keep us busy for for a long time. But I think ultimately what you're just kind of sidestepping the bigger issue. Yeah, right. I mean, eventually the universe will be explored. And then what, right? Same, same problem, right? Then what?

SPEAKER_00 1:20:42

If I remember correctly, uh the Sartre, the the great atheistic existentialist philosopher, said, There comes a time where we ask, even of Shakespeare, even of Beethoven, is that all? And so I think, yeah, even if we go on our stars and greats and wests, right? We're going eventually after a few planets, ask, was that it?

SPEAKER_01 1:21:06

When we've all experienced that in our life, right? We we've all played a video game or we found a piece of music, or that we've eaten a food, we're like, I will never get a good old and and then eventually we do. And it's and it's upsetting. I wanna I want to finish our conversation because I I just think if you were missed if I didn't bring it up, is this open source, close, closed source thing. Because I I think it's important. I mean, I um right now, uh where we're living in this kind of context in the US where the the administration, the current U.S. administration, has decided that they're gonna stagger the release of two of the most powerful models in the world, one from Anthropic, one from OpenAI, because they're too powerful. And there's this possibility that they could kind of break, break the world by hacking all these systems and things. Some people have been very upset because it seems like Anthropic has been warning about the possibilities with the mythos release. They were saying that this model could hack the world and it's true. And they've kind of ruined it for everybody else. And now OpenAI is this great model, which we can't access right now. We, we, we common folk. Only only the enterprise organizations they trust can access this state-of-the-art technology. And so it it's it's I think the fundamental issue comes down to this is someone is deciding what level of intelligence that I'm allowed to access. And this goes back to what kind of the Pope talks about about power, right? And about how this is this is really bringing this issue of power into focus. And how do how do we ensure that the most powerful technology to have ever been invented in human history, right, that everyone's able to take to take advantage of and and and reap the benefits of it. Any thoughts?

SPEAKER_00 1:22:38

That's tough. Because I think we have a pretty long history of concentrating power in in smaller groups. I don't know.

SPEAKER_01 1:22:45

Well, I mean, so here's here's something let me throw this out. I mean, there's this idea of sovereign eye, right? Of of finding a way for people to run them, to have to have a model which they can align, right? This alignment problem is obviously critical and important for us Catholics because we want to know that our model at least understands that I'm a Catholic and won't be passing me on philosophical ideas and things like that, which are not aligned with the faith. It's really comes down to kind of trust. If I'm gonna be using this model in more and more areas of my life, I just want to know it's not manipulating me in some way or leading leading me astray. So there's the issue of alignment, but I think there's it's also uh I think a matter of just frankly cost and as well as privacy, right? I mean, running the running the model at home on a GPU that I paid for, I'm paying for electricity after I paid for it. Whereas if I'm if I'm basically kind of renting the intelligence of these of these companies, I every time I ask them to do anything, I'm effectively I'm I'm paying them, right? So uh it it doesn't seem that this this technology will scale well if we're asking everybody in the world who wants to access the has to basically pay rent on on the intelligence. So so how do how do we find uh find a way? And and and and and is sovereign AI very much in line with this principle of subsidiarity, right? That the allowing kind of people to take advantage of um, well, in this case, uh a tool which can uh help facilitate human flourishing. Uh is there kind of a I'll say uh uh an obligation for the church to kind of campaign for for more sovereign eye? Any thoughts?

SPEAKER_00 1:24:15

I mean, I think it's certainly a legitimate approach, sort of campaign for those working in the sector, right? For various people actively involved in designing, developing, deploying, investing. I mean, I'm not sure if it's going to come top down. I think it might come from various members of the church to directly involved in the industry who say, okay, this is this is how we see the implementation of Catholic social teaching, right? We've gotten our call, our our vision, you know, and just as with Leo the Thirteenth laid out these key principles, but then it was up to the economist, it was up to the workers, it was up to the politicians to figure out okay, how do this these principles play out? I think we're in a comparable moment right now where we need that push and we need like a whole shift in industry and our our outlook on this situation.

SPEAKER_02 1:24:59

Yeah. Well, the Pope talks about shared knowledge, right? And I know Matthew Berman thinks that he's pro-open source in one of his comments that oh, maybe the Pope is open uh pro-open source. I'm not sure about that, but at least we can see that. Yeah, I mean, um on the one hand, you know, open source models encourage people to have their own, they can use it as their own system, as you said, right? It's something like it's I install this in my own device, my own GPU. I I see the benefit of having open source, you know, I'm gonna backing up a little bit, of course, but you know, having open source models being available, but then you have to look at the intentions as well. Why are some people making their models open source, right? Is it to encourage more wider adoption? So there's all sorts of complex setting questions behind. Um then you you got into the question of you know sovereign AI for Catholics, alignment, et cetera. Yeah, I think it's a form of subsidiarity where you have your your own system. You're not dependent on superior levels of uh developments in this in the use of AI. I I certainly favor that, where you can train in something Majesty MEI is doing, right? Or is going toward as well, where you can have uh help people with this uh vision, right, to acquire this uh set of knowledge that is based on Catholic teaching that requires uh something sovereign. You can use existing models. You can build on top of them, I I suppose, but not follow them too court.

SPEAKER_01 1:26:38

Yeah, it's an interesting thing. I think I'll just leave it like this. I mean, I think it's I think you know, sovereign AI uh in in open in open source AI, there's there's something really interesting about that for for we Catholics, and I think it's something we have to think uh very deeply about. Um I mean, I as much as I I respect the uh the heads of the labs and the leading AI for what they've what they built. And and frankly, the benefits that they're now passing on to so to so many of us, I I do I do worry about this issue of alignment. And uh and I don't think there's any way to get around it. I think if if we want to truly leverage the benefits, the true benefits of of AI, we're gonna have to find some way to ensure the model is aligned right to to our our way of uh viewing the world. So I just want to thank Father Michael and Father Kenny. Thank you so much for the conversation. It's been fascinating.