New Pope Chose His Name Based On AI's Threats To 'Human Dignity' (arstechnica.com) 69
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Last Thursday, white smoke emerged from a chimney at the Sistine Chapel, signaling that cardinals had elected a new pope. That's a rare event in itself, but one of the many unprecedented aspects of the election of Chicago-born Robert Prevost as Pope Leo XIV is one of the main reasons he chose his papal name: artificial intelligence. On Saturday, the new pope gave his first address to the College of Cardinals, explaining his name choice as a continuation of Pope Francis' concerns about technological transformation. "Sensing myself called to continue in this same path, I chose to take the name Leo XIV," he said during the address. "There are different reasons for this, but mainly because Pope Leo XIII in his historic Encyclical Rerum Novarum addressed the social question in the context of the first great industrial revolution."
In his address, Leo XIV explicitly described "artificial intelligence" developments as "another industrial revolution," positioning himself to address this technological shift as his namesake had done over a century ago. As the head of an ancient religious organization that spans millennia, the pope's talk about AI creates a somewhat head-spinning juxtaposition, but Leo XIV isn't the first pope to focus on defending human dignity in the age of AI. Pope Francis, who died in April, first established AI as a Vatican priority, as we reported in August 2023 when he warned during his 2023 World Day of Peace message that AI should not allow "violence and discrimination to take root." In January of this year, Francis further elaborated on his warnings about AI with reference to a "shadow of evil" that potentially looms over the field in a document called "Antiqua et Nova" (meaning "the old and the new").
"Like any product of human creativity, AI can be directed toward positive or negative ends," Francis said in January. "When used in ways that respect human dignity and promote the well-being of individuals and communities, it can contribute positively to the human vocation. Yet, as in all areas where humans are called to make decisions, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human freedom allows for the possibility of choosing what is wrong, the moral evaluation of this technology will need to take into account how it is directed and used." [...] Just as mechanization disrupted traditional labor in the 1890s, artificial intelligence now potentially threatens employment patterns and human dignity in ways that Pope Leo XIV believes demand similar moral leadership from the church. "In our own day," Leo XIV concluded in his formal address on Saturday, "the Church offers to everyone the treasury of her social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice, and labor."
In his address, Leo XIV explicitly described "artificial intelligence" developments as "another industrial revolution," positioning himself to address this technological shift as his namesake had done over a century ago. As the head of an ancient religious organization that spans millennia, the pope's talk about AI creates a somewhat head-spinning juxtaposition, but Leo XIV isn't the first pope to focus on defending human dignity in the age of AI. Pope Francis, who died in April, first established AI as a Vatican priority, as we reported in August 2023 when he warned during his 2023 World Day of Peace message that AI should not allow "violence and discrimination to take root." In January of this year, Francis further elaborated on his warnings about AI with reference to a "shadow of evil" that potentially looms over the field in a document called "Antiqua et Nova" (meaning "the old and the new").
"Like any product of human creativity, AI can be directed toward positive or negative ends," Francis said in January. "When used in ways that respect human dignity and promote the well-being of individuals and communities, it can contribute positively to the human vocation. Yet, as in all areas where humans are called to make decisions, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human freedom allows for the possibility of choosing what is wrong, the moral evaluation of this technology will need to take into account how it is directed and used." [...] Just as mechanization disrupted traditional labor in the 1890s, artificial intelligence now potentially threatens employment patterns and human dignity in ways that Pope Leo XIV believes demand similar moral leadership from the church. "In our own day," Leo XIV concluded in his formal address on Saturday, "the Church offers to everyone the treasury of her social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice, and labor."
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I've seen several mentions of this already, and it makes me wonder..
Why do people still not know what a pronoun is?
The man changed names, not pronouns. He's still a dude.
Re: (Score:1)
The man changed names, not pronouns. He's still a dude.
And at least two randomly-chosen people with mod points felt the need to mod this up, like we couldn't figure out on our own that becoming Pope has never involved a sex change. Stay weird, Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
The man changed names, not pronouns. He's still a dude.
And at least two randomly-chosen people with mod points felt the need to mod this up, like we couldn't figure out on our own that becoming Pope has never involved a sex change. Stay weird, Slashdot.
Well, I mean, the pope does have to be a man, so if the Church somehow starts to accept trans equality before it fully accepts gender equality, then I guess it could happen, in theory.
And then there's the (probably apocryphal) story of Pope Joan. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
What do you know, you're right. And you, personally, are demonstrating that declinie.
Did you know...? (Score:1)
Holy shit he's right (Score:5, Interesting)
Technological unemployment was a major problem during the two industrial revolutions. It created an enormous amount of social stress and upheaval. They don't teach you about this in high school history. About how we had decades of unemployment following the two industrial revolutions until a combination of new tech and dead working age males got us back to full employment.
If you think the rich and the ruling class haven't realized that they are dependent on you as consumers think again. They are not at all happy that they need you to buy their products to maintain their lifestyles and they are eagerly anticipating the day when a combination of military drones and automated factories can produce everything they personally want and they can relegate us to the kind of reservations we stuffed the indigenous people on
Notice I'm not suggesting any solutions. I don't have any. The solutions I can come up with humans aren't willing to accept. We aren't going to destroy the machines and we aren't going to do fully automated space communism and we are too simple a species to try and come up with a middle ground.
Honestly as it stands I think in a few decades the mass unemployment is going to mean that the mega corporations preventing India and Pakistan from touching off world war III will be gone. And I suspect we're going to have enough working atomic weapons to make the planet uninhabitable for a species.
Basically we are going to Fermi paradox ourselves the stupidest way imaginable
I'm open to being proven wrong but feel free to suggest a solution that you can get enough people to get behind that we don't just get distracted by whatever current freak out or moral panic is put in front of us this month.
I mean come on, if we don't switch the fascism those 14 trans girls playing field hockey in the Midwest are going to destroy us all right?
Nothing new under the sun here (Score:3, Interesting)
Religion has been preaching against technological progress since as long as there's been religion. Today's scientist was yesterday's heretic.
Thing is, religion usually isn't overly concerned about whether or not you're able to remain gainfully employed. Mostly, the fear is along the lines of that your soul will be damned because you've strayed from the path of God. It's why there's all these rather arbitrary religious taboos over things that really don't cause any actual harm (such as same-sex relationsh
Re:Nothing new under the sun here (Score:5, Insightful)
And since I thought it'd be interesting to get ChatGPT's actual take on this, here it is (edited a bit by me for brevity):
When it comes to AI, especially something like ChatGPT, you're right to infer that the deeper concern isn’t just about jobs or even misinformation - it's existential. Language models simulate the function of wisdom without divine authority. To a religious institution whose legitimacy hinges on revealed truths, the idea of a secular oracle you can consult 24/7 is unsettling.
The fear isn’t that people will be replaced by machines at work; it’s that they might be replaced in the pews - turning to technology for answers about life’s meaning, morality, or even comfort, rather than turning to scripture or clergy.
Nobody here is preaching against tech but you (Score:1, Troll)
Your brain is too locked down so you can't think of any other solution besides burning the machines. At no point did me or the pope say that we wanted to do that but your brain automatically inserts that solution without any thought.
That's because the image of a Luddite is a thought terminating cliche. It's something specifically designed to prevent
Re: (Score:2)
At what point did I say "burn the machines"? I said The Pope is having his little spat over this because the modus operandi of religion has always been in opposition of the new. AI will be used in ways that undermine the church's authority and there's not a damned thing they can do about it, because we've decided with the founding of this country that we desired a separation of powers between church and state (with varying degrees of success at the actual implementation, but I digress).
The Pope is shoutin
Re: (Score:2)
If I described your home as having a "shadow of evil", would you consider that high praise, or perhaps get the impression that I'm not-so-subtly implying my disapproval?
You said (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words you're implying that the only solution is to burn the machines. In this case technically you are implying that the pope is the one offering that solution. But he's not. Neither am I.
The pope is just saying that machines need to be used in a way that uplifts all of humanity.
You immediately go to the idea that anyone who questions technological unemployment and negative impacts
Re: (Score:2)
The only "solution" I'm proposing is that The Pope's feelings on AI can be ignored.
Religion should not have the authority to force AI developers, or anyone else for that matter, to do anything. We have elected representatives to make rules for our society, and while The Pope is free to pontificate all he likes over the perceived "evils" of AI gone awry, no one is obligated by force of law to follow his proclamations.
If you think religion gets it right once in awhile and should step in to prevent AI from ta
Re: (Score:2)
You have now moved from the topic of whether religion has the right to regulate AI
That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about whether advanced technology and the technological unemployment that comes with it are problems we need to solve.
You were doing everything in your power to pretend they are not, ve
Re: (Score:2)
Your post begins "Holy shit he's right", you then proceed to misuse the word "literally". The remainder of your post is a screed about how you fear for the future impacts of AI on unemployment. That about sum it up?
The pope is a spiritual leader. He should wield absolutely no authority over how or if any of AI's potential problems require solving. That's for our elected representatives to address as they see fit. You may personally find it somewhat amusing that this slow news day story aligned with you
Re:Nobody here is preaching against tech but you (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I'm an atheist, but ascribing motives to people like the pope with no evidence doesn't really make much sense. The pope is concerned about atheism, yes, but all popes are. It's more likely that he's speaking out against what he feels is the de-humanization of culture and mankind at the hands of AI because he *actually* believes it has the potential to do that, not because the "authority of the church" will be further undermined. He may actually worry about AI's dehumanizing effects because of it's potential to lessen the importance of human contributions to art and science, for example, and that's actually a reasonable thing to worry about. There's no evidence that Pope Bob is speaking out because he thinks he's gonna have less authority over 1.4 billion people in the world in the near future.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire point of every religion is to perpetuate the faith. Any good or bad that follows is secondary to that goal.
As for evidence, it's not as if his statements were written in an unbiased, neutral tone. If you can't infer that The Pope has already made up his mind about how he feels about AI, then you might want to have your bias detector checked. But hey, religion has been fooling people for its entire existence, can't exactly compete with that in one afternoon.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire point of every religion is to perpetuate the faith.
That's not even remotely accurate. The entire purpose of the Catholic Church? Perhaps...it is arguably the largest Corporation of all time after all. But of every religion? No. In every case of religion I can think of, the faith is about bettering oneself, helping others, and/or becoming closer with God (or equivalent.)
Re: (Score:2)
It's more likely that he's speaking out against what he feels is the de-humanization of culture and mankind at the hands of AI
Historically, the church's record has not been so great. Recently they have promoted more positivity, which is nice, but they're still keeping a shit ton of unacceptable secrets about people harming people. They're also sitting on a lot of stolen wealth. Let's see them practice what they preach before we're expected to take that preaching seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
An awful lot of countries (the Vatican is one) are sitting on a ton of stolen wealth.
Re: Nobody here is preaching against tech but you (Score:2)
It's true that's not a differentiator, but they claim to be Christians and all that wealth is the opposite of Christianity.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Jesus only said it's very difficult for a rich man to get into heaven, not impossible. And besides it's not akshualky the man that's rich, just the institution.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Well said. Since 56% of Americans read below a 6th grade level and half the voters picked Trump... you are wasting your time on a lot of people not capable of intelligent thought.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because the image of a Luddite is a thought terminating cliche. It's something specifically designed to prevent you from questioning technology by terminating any thought about the impacts of technology.
That's why I like to regularly remind people that the Luddites weren't just about smashing things because they liked smashy smashy, the premise was that the increases in productivity from machinery should benefit humanity and not only the owning class, because of the effects on employment.
The Luddites were having exactly the same argument we're having now, and as it turns out, they were right. Also, the side argument is the same now as it was then, except then they were arguing about steam engines burning c
Re:Nothing new under the sun here (Score:4, Informative)
Religion has been preaching against technological progress since as long as there's been religion. Today's scientist was yesterday's heretic.
Not really. The Church actually played a significant role in genetics (Mendel) and lots of other scientific advancements over the millennia. Yes, there are exceptions in the early history of the Church (and in the history of other religions as well, I suspect), but for the most part, science and religion have coexisted. Science tells the "how", religion postulates about the "why".
It's more accurate to say that religion preaches against allowing technology to destroy our humanity, values, ethics, morals, etc. For example, when AI is used to make things better for everyone, that's fine, but we should be careful to ensure that it is always used in a way that preserves the dignity of workers, as opposed to putting people out of work en masse just because AI can do something cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
There's been some fairly recent legal wrangling over teaching "intelligent design" in public schools. Also, some church near me actually spent real money to put up an anti-evolution billboard.
So, while I'll agree that there has been some progress made in that they're not burning scientists at the stake or anything like that, there's still quite a bit of lingering friction between religion and science.
Re: (Score:2)
There's been some fairly recent legal wrangling over teaching "intelligent design" in public schools. Also, some church near me actually spent real money to put up an anti-evolution billboard.
So, while I'll agree that there has been some progress made in that they're not burning scientists at the stake or anything like that, there's still quite a bit of lingering friction between religion and science.
Highly depends on the religion. Catholic schools teach evolution. The Catholic Church supports "Theistic Evolution", which is the concept of God operating through the laws of nature. From their point of view God and nature are perfectly compatible.
Re: (Score:2)
The Catholic Church supports "Theistic Evolution", which is the concept of God operating through the laws of nature. From their point of view God and nature are perfectly compatible.
It's compatible only if you're willing to accept the addendum they've slapped on scientific understanding. It's a bit like if I said electricity is actually just pixie magic cleverly disguised so well that it is indistinguishable from a natural phenomenon. It may still be fundamentally compatible with the observations of science, but I'm still distorting the facts.
Granted, it's (referring to Theistic Evolution) certainly a more benign attitude towards progress than a billboard with a big X through proto-h
Re: (Score:3)
It's compatible only if you're willing to accept the addendum they've slapped on scientific understanding. It's a bit like if I said electricity is actually just pixie magic cleverly disguised so well that it is indistinguishable from a natural phenomenon. It may still be fundamentally compatible with the observations of science, but I'm still distorting the facts.
No, that's not what theistic evolution says. There is no such thing as "pixie magic" disguised as natural phenomenon in theistic evolution. Under theistic evolution electricity is 100% a natural phenomenon.
Theistic evolution basically says that God at the very beginning created the laws of nature and He created them in such a way that they would eventually lead to where we are now without further need for supernatural intervention.
Re: (Score:3)
It's compatible only if you're willing to accept the addendum they've slapped on scientific understanding. It's a bit like if I said electricity is actually just pixie magic cleverly disguised so well that it is indistinguishable from a natural phenomenon. It may still be fundamentally compatible with the observations of science, but I'm still distorting the facts.
No, that's not what theistic evolution says. There is no such thing as "pixie magic" disguised as natural phenomenon in theistic evolution. Under theistic evolution electricity is 100% a natural phenomenon.
Theistic evolution basically says that God at the very beginning created the laws of nature and He created them in such a way that they would eventually lead to where we are now without further need for supernatural intervention.
Well said. Science is about the provable; religion, the unprovable. Where they conflict, it is usually because something unprovable unexpectedly became provable. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Under scientific principles, anything that cannot be demonstrably proven is not fact, religion included. Last I checked, only satirical religions straight up admit that they're just peddling something for people to get involved in because they find it amusing. The major religions of the world, however? They're literally deathly serious in their convictions that the doctrine they're following is truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Under scientific principles, anything that cannot be demonstrably proven is not fact, religion included.
Of course it's not fact. It's belief. That which can be proven does not require belief. It merely is.
Re: (Score:2)
That just turns "God's will" into "It's turtles all the way down", because as more blank pages get filled in by science, the religion can always still claim "but that's because God made it so!"
It may resolve things neatly for people who have a need to cling to faith without it throwing their understanding of the world into chaos, but it's still inherently in conflict with science. Because under scientific principles, the burden of proof is placed on those who make a claim. The somewhat famous Russell's Te
Re: (Score:2)
The Catholic Church was what drove science in medieval times.
Heliocentric solar system? Catholic clergy (Copernicus). Genetics? Catholic clergy (Mendel). Big bang? Catholic clergy (Lemaitre).
The Jesuits were the MIT of the time. Many of the fathers of whole scientific fields were deeply religious.
Look, I am all for shining bright lights on the failings of the Church but can we cease with this incessant anti-Church propaganda already?
Re: Nothing new under the sun here (Score:2)
No need to go there imo. To quote him:
And I mean holy shit literally.
Basically like holy water, only... I don't know why somebody would bless their own turds instead of flushing, but ladies and germs, welcome to the world according to rsilvergun!
Get your facts right (Score:2)
Abrahamic religions of the West have been historically anti science.
Dharmic India and its Eastern dharmic pluralistic (one step abive tolerance) Vedic Dharma Hinduism basically invented science and math ghat the Arab/Islamic invaders stole and passef off as their own
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.perplexity.ai%2Fsear... [perplexity.ai]
Major Contributions of India and Hinduism to Mathematics and Science (Ancient Times)
Mathematics
Invention of Zero: Ancient Indian mathematicians invented the concept of zero as a number, a foundational breakthrou
Some solutions: scarcity vs. abundance thinking (Score:1)
As I say in my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."
If we develop and/or use AI from a scarcity perspective, it will certainly be our doom. If we develop it and use it from an abundance perspective we might survive and thrive with it.
More on all that by me:
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpdfernhout.net%2Fbeyond-... [pdfernhout.net]
"This article explores the issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox economic perspective. It emph
Re: (Score:2)
Humanity is reactive. There are unfortunately groups of people whose only tools for expressing themselves under pressure are lashing out verbally, physically, or militarily. These people are truly simple and unable to answer their challenges constructively. Ideally, our balanced response to the masses who b
What if they have it wrong? (Score:1)
What if tools like steam engines and AI can create sandboxed virtual realities (Ã la holodeck) in which individuals can explore religions and violence to their hearts' content without affecting anyone who chooses not to be affected by your choices?
Remember how Moriarty got so distracted by practicing evil in his AI world that he thought it was tbe only reality, but everyone outside his program was fine?
Can popes even imagine like that?
Re: (Score:2)
i'll share some of whatever you're on right now friend
That'd be a Star Trek episode. It's available for streaming on Paramount Plus.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember how Moriarty got so distracted by practicing evil in his AI world that he thought it was tbe only reality, but everyone outside his program was fine?
No, but I remember him manipulating others into unknowingly live inside his AI world so that he could then surveil them and take control of the real world as soon as an opportunity would present itself.
Re: What if they have it wrong? (Score:1)
How did he know which was real and which was virtual?
Who'd have predicted? (Score:3)
Re:Who'd have predicted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it was the Orange Catholic Church, but let's not split hairs.
Re: (Score:2)
And who better to be the head of the Orange Catholic Church than an Orange Catholic?
The previous Leo set the pattern (Score:5, Informative)
Check out a summary here: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholic.com%2Fencyc... [catholic.com]
And the original document (in English) here: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fcontent... [vatican.va]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And the original document (in English) here
Or in summary: Advocating to keep the parts of capitalism which allow man to exploit one another, while placing some guardrails on the system to prevent it from turning into feudalism in every aspect but name. Also, with the period-specific obligatory statements of the church going "respect my authoritah!"
To be entirely fair though, that was a time when The Pope probably couldn't imagine how much wealth would actually be hoarded by the world's highest earners in modern times.
New Pope (Score:2)
How long until the Church goes back to Pope Classic? :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Who else didn't know they picked their name? (Score:2)
They are the influencers of pre-tech era I suppose.
Heap of trouble brewing (Score:2)
It's not based on him covering up baby rape? (Score:2)
Religion and AI (Score:1)
Fantasy meets science fiction in real life.
Re:Fake name? (Score:4, Informative)
Why can't a pope just have a regular name anyways? And what is the logic of using a fake name when he feels threatened by AI?
One of the early popes had the original name "Mercurius" and he decided to change it to avoid associations with paganism. A later Pope had the original name "Peter" and decided to change it to respect St. Peter, the first Pope.
Then it became tradition.
Re: (Score:2)
Nom de guerre.
Pope Ted (Score:3)
TIL: Leo (Bob) was a math major who tutored physics in college (in Philly).
Nerd as Pontiff could become interesting.
Maybe there are math majors who didn't drop acid in college and I just haven't met any.
Conde Nazties (Score:1)
Why repost articles from Ars Technica? Are you trying to get bought out by Conde Nast?
He could have spelled out the dehumanisation risk (Score:1)
more clearly.
Let me give mundane examples from my life.
I'm a teacher.
My mind is already starting to compare the children I teach to agentic interactions when I see them talk to each other:
"Meme memey"
"Oh yes, meme -meme-meme" says another.
Likewise, when you can switch an AI, can you switch off a human just the same if you think they're the same?
What is unique about being human left?
AI could do boring work for us, yet it went straight for the _soulful_ stuff first: music, art. What is it with that?
Nick Cave
who cares (Score:2)
I don't care what nonsense the new pope did. What I do care about is;
* He is now the head of a foreign government, known as "The Holy See." As such, his US citizenship should be revoked.
* In addition, every cardinal and bishop in the US should be forced to register as an agent of a foreign government or go to jail.
Missed opportunity (Score:2)