๐๐ถ๐ฟ๐๐ ๐๐ป๐ฐ๐๐ฐ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฃ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐ผ ๐ซ๐๐ฉ: ๐ ๐ฎ๐ด๐ป๐ถ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ ๐๐๐บ๐ฎ๐ป๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐
๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ฝ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ฏ โ ๐ง๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ต๐ป๐ผ๐น๐ผ๐ด๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ผ๐บ๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป. ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ถ๐ด๐ป๐ถ๐๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐๐บ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฃ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ผ๐ป ๐ถ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐
At the heart of Chapter 3 is an analysis of the relationship between technology, power and the human person, with a view to situating the promises of artificial intelligence within a broader cultural transformation that questions the very meaning of progress. Technological development is recognised as an expression of human creativity, but the text also warns against the risk of it becoming an absolute criterion of judgement, giving rise to what the text defines as a technocratic paradigm, capable of reducing reality to what is measurable, calculable and optimisable.
In this context, artificial intelligence appears as a powerful tool, capable of offering real benefits, but also of amplifying forms of domination when separated from an ethical and anthropological orientation. The text warns that the growth of technical power does not automatically coincide with the good, recalling that โmore powerful does not necessarily mean betterโ. The decisive criterion is the dignity of the person and not the efficiency of the means.
The fundamental distinction between human intelligence and artificial intelligence runs throughout the chapter. Although AI systems can imitate certain languages and behaviours, they remain foreign to truly human experience. The text states, in fact, that โartificial intelligences do not experience life, do not possess a body, do not experience joy and pain, and do not know from within what love, work and responsibility meanโ. For this reason, they cannot assume moral responsibility nor understand the ultimate meaning of the decisions they help to generate. The risk becomes particularly serious when artificial intelligence is involved in decision-making processes that directly affect peopleโs lives, reputations, access to opportunities and rights. In such cases, the apparent neutrality of algorithms can lead to exclusions that are difficult to avoid. The text warns that โentrusting an algorithm entirely with the power to declare who deserves and who does not means redefining the boundaries of human possibilitiesโ, with a consequent loss of political and moral responsibility.
Considerable attention is devoted to a critique of transhumanist and post humanist narratives, which interpret progress as the overcoming of human limitations. These are countered by a vision in which limitation is not a flaw to be eliminated, but a constitutive dimension of the person. It is clearly stated that โthe human being does not flourish in spite of limitation, but often through limitationโ, recognising in weakness and vulnerability the places where relationships, care and openness to others flourish.
Read the full document by visiting: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html