I appreciated understanding how the church stays informed about scientific technologies and informs the industry. I have deep respect for Pope Leo and completely agree with his moral guide about using AI intentionally for promoting good in the world. I just wrote an article about the mindful use of AI with a similar perspective.
It was interesting to see Anthropic actively seeking moral guidance to shape its constitution. As users of AI we can do our part by supporting companies that are trying to be ethical despite political and financial pressures.
Your insight drawn from data that the church didn't shift followers behaviors but has most impact on policy is compelling. Thank you for this interesting and insightful article ☀️
This was one of the most fascinating, insightful and well written dives I've experienced in at least the past month, which is like 12 months in AI years. Bravo.
Thank you for this article. I also recommend reading "Quo Vadis, Humanitas, thinking through christian anthropology in the face of certain scenarios for the future of humanity" by the International Theological Commission (march 4, 2026), which was certainly instrumental in preparing Pope Leo's encyclical. I believe the semantic similarity of the titles is also intentional. Thanks again!
I was really interested to hear about the structural underpinnings of Pope Leo's new encyclical - all the teams invested in the background. It's pretty cool to think that although he "authored" it - certainly, some of his personality can be found there - it is ultimately a synthesis of a gathering of great minds dedicated to identifying risk and encouraging the good wherever possible.
What makes Rerum Novarum stand is that is speaks about the human condition, which is constantly subject to new circumstances in time, but has an eternal dimension that simply cannot be altered. I hope that over time we will see that the same is true for Magnificas Humanitas - it speaks to us about ourselves with fatherly guidance. It's not necessarily a novel idea to think that we are leaving our imprint on the tools we create - I'm thinking of the movie Iron Giant, for example (Avatar is a weaker example). But it is a truth we need to be reminded of in this unique instance of concern. If we had to articulate the character of an encyclical that resonates over time, (why is it a fruitful expression of the Church) it would be a document that guides in generalities and as you said, gives structure to thought about a topic with sufficient room for various specifities to play out in whichever locality it is being read (or heard).
I am thrilled seeing this up on ProfG; kudos to you for following your curiosity, and to the team there for encouraging this level of inquiry under its helm!
Kristin, one line in here does more work than the piece may realize it's doing: "Whoever controls AI will impose their own moral vision." I've just published a post about a different version of exactly that sentence. I wrote it after watching the movie Nuremberg starring Russel Crowe as Hermann Göring. The man who signed an order in 1941 calling for a "total solution" to a problem he named as emigration and evacuation. The ambiguity of that phrase—not its clarity—was what let dozens of men authorize an atrocity without any of them having to sign their name to the word genocide. The framework a euphemism builds isn't neutral scaffolding. It's the thing that decides, later, what's permitted to grow inside it.
That's why Pope Leo's insistence on the plain word matters more than it might look like it does from the outside. An encyclical isn't legislation, and Rerum Novarum took fifty years to become the New Deal. But language that names the moral stakes plainly, at the moment a technology is still soft and undecided, is doing the opposite of what "total solution" did—it's building a framework that resists being hollowed out into something worse later, precisely because the words were chosen to mean exactly what they say. Chris Olah asking the Church for "moral voices that the incentives cannot bend" is asking for the plain word, publicly, on the record, before the euphemisms arrive. That's not a small thing to ask for. It's usually the only thing standing between a technology and whatever quiet phrase eventually gets used to launder its worst version.
I read (most) of the encycical and I liked that the Pope and the catholic church took time to understand pretty accurately the issues of the current AI tech.
However it is impossible not to remember what the church is in general vis-a-vis to sciences.
I wonder if the PAS is just a watchdog for the church used to sniff the next danger for the church old problem of dominating population psych and squash the next Bruno without burning at stake as they did not so long ago.
This AI has a lot in common with the religious thinking since they both heavily rely on superficial correlation instead of seeking causal pathways in the world.
AI unfortunately is a crazy thing that can be worse than science an fact for any religion since it can become competition for them and I suspect they realized that well.
I know I sound cynical but in this world we are now swimming in being cynical is just common sense I guess.
Interesting thought Romeo — the church does have a complicated history with science. It strikes me that PAS is more substantive than a watchdog organization, and the church does seem committed to influencing how this AI dialogue plays out… I guess we’ll see if they follow through.
I think you buried the modern John Ryan in your own piece. The theologians helping draft Claude's constitution are the same channel he used, doctrine going straight into an artifact without anyone's opinion needing to change first. Except this time it's one company's product instead of a wage law, and I'm not sure if that's a bigger lever or a smaller one.
It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher-order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of sophisticated language (especially math and logic). A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first.
What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461, and here is a video of Jeff Krichmar talking about some of the Darwin automata, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Uh9phc1Ow
I appreciated understanding how the church stays informed about scientific technologies and informs the industry. I have deep respect for Pope Leo and completely agree with his moral guide about using AI intentionally for promoting good in the world. I just wrote an article about the mindful use of AI with a similar perspective.
It was interesting to see Anthropic actively seeking moral guidance to shape its constitution. As users of AI we can do our part by supporting companies that are trying to be ethical despite political and financial pressures.
Your insight drawn from data that the church didn't shift followers behaviors but has most impact on policy is compelling. Thank you for this interesting and insightful article ☀️
This was one of the most fascinating, insightful and well written dives I've experienced in at least the past month, which is like 12 months in AI years. Bravo.
Thank you for this article. I also recommend reading "Quo Vadis, Humanitas, thinking through christian anthropology in the face of certain scenarios for the future of humanity" by the International Theological Commission (march 4, 2026), which was certainly instrumental in preparing Pope Leo's encyclical. I believe the semantic similarity of the titles is also intentional. Thanks again!
I was really interested to hear about the structural underpinnings of Pope Leo's new encyclical - all the teams invested in the background. It's pretty cool to think that although he "authored" it - certainly, some of his personality can be found there - it is ultimately a synthesis of a gathering of great minds dedicated to identifying risk and encouraging the good wherever possible.
What makes Rerum Novarum stand is that is speaks about the human condition, which is constantly subject to new circumstances in time, but has an eternal dimension that simply cannot be altered. I hope that over time we will see that the same is true for Magnificas Humanitas - it speaks to us about ourselves with fatherly guidance. It's not necessarily a novel idea to think that we are leaving our imprint on the tools we create - I'm thinking of the movie Iron Giant, for example (Avatar is a weaker example). But it is a truth we need to be reminded of in this unique instance of concern. If we had to articulate the character of an encyclical that resonates over time, (why is it a fruitful expression of the Church) it would be a document that guides in generalities and as you said, gives structure to thought about a topic with sufficient room for various specifities to play out in whichever locality it is being read (or heard).
I am thrilled seeing this up on ProfG; kudos to you for following your curiosity, and to the team there for encouraging this level of inquiry under its helm!
Kristin, one line in here does more work than the piece may realize it's doing: "Whoever controls AI will impose their own moral vision." I've just published a post about a different version of exactly that sentence. I wrote it after watching the movie Nuremberg starring Russel Crowe as Hermann Göring. The man who signed an order in 1941 calling for a "total solution" to a problem he named as emigration and evacuation. The ambiguity of that phrase—not its clarity—was what let dozens of men authorize an atrocity without any of them having to sign their name to the word genocide. The framework a euphemism builds isn't neutral scaffolding. It's the thing that decides, later, what's permitted to grow inside it.
That's why Pope Leo's insistence on the plain word matters more than it might look like it does from the outside. An encyclical isn't legislation, and Rerum Novarum took fifty years to become the New Deal. But language that names the moral stakes plainly, at the moment a technology is still soft and undecided, is doing the opposite of what "total solution" did—it's building a framework that resists being hollowed out into something worse later, precisely because the words were chosen to mean exactly what they say. Chris Olah asking the Church for "moral voices that the incentives cannot bend" is asking for the plain word, publicly, on the record, before the euphemisms arrive. That's not a small thing to ask for. It's usually the only thing standing between a technology and whatever quiet phrase eventually gets used to launder its worst version.
In case it's of interest, my article is here: https://erictelltales.substack.com/p/the-word-that-did-the-work
Been meaning to read Magnifica Humanitas but now I'm inspired to, thank you.
Great explainer, thank you. Sounds similar to issues explored in Synderesis, also here on Substack.
I read (most) of the encycical and I liked that the Pope and the catholic church took time to understand pretty accurately the issues of the current AI tech.
However it is impossible not to remember what the church is in general vis-a-vis to sciences.
I wonder if the PAS is just a watchdog for the church used to sniff the next danger for the church old problem of dominating population psych and squash the next Bruno without burning at stake as they did not so long ago.
This AI has a lot in common with the religious thinking since they both heavily rely on superficial correlation instead of seeking causal pathways in the world.
AI unfortunately is a crazy thing that can be worse than science an fact for any religion since it can become competition for them and I suspect they realized that well.
I know I sound cynical but in this world we are now swimming in being cynical is just common sense I guess.
🥂🖖🇨🇦
Interesting thought Romeo — the church does have a complicated history with science. It strikes me that PAS is more substantive than a watchdog organization, and the church does seem committed to influencing how this AI dialogue plays out… I guess we’ll see if they follow through.
For me the Church has no right to guide me on ethical issues while they broke every single rule (10 commandments) they imposed...
I wrote about how influential this letter is, to me the most important document written in modern history.
https://exploringhumanedge.substack.com/p/the-water-current-will-decide-unless?r=6qr1v9&utm_medium=ios
Thank you for sharing this. I am not Catholic, however learning how the Church is recognizing the growth of AI has been an eye opener.
I think you buried the modern John Ryan in your own piece. The theologians helping draft Claude's constitution are the same channel he used, doctrine going straight into an artifact without anyone's opinion needing to change first. Except this time it's one company's product instead of a wage law, and I'm not sure if that's a bigger lever or a smaller one.
And lest we forget, one of the immutable pillars of the Catholic faith is Charity.
We’re blessed we have such opportunity.
What a country!
It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher-order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of sophisticated language (especially math and logic). A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first.
What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461, and here is a video of Jeff Krichmar talking about some of the Darwin automata, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Uh9phc1Ow
🤓❤️🤓