Pope Leo’s manifesto on artificial intelligence has sparked various reactions. Liberal humanists appreciate it, while digital-consciousness believers criticize it. However, A.I. skeptics express disappointment, believing the pope should have gone further.
Greg Conti from Princeton, writing for Compact magazine, questions the necessity of declaring an A.I. age. He suggests that the pope could advocate for resistance to A.I. Anton Barba-Kay, in The Hedgehog Review, argues that treating A.I. as a valuable tool is misguided. Comparing it to calling cocaine a beneficial drug, his metaphor highlights the perceived risks.
I share some sympathy with these critics. Pope Leo could have explored the strangeness of A.I. more deeply. This technology challenges human exceptionalism, evokes messianic aspirations, and fuels apocalyptic fears.
A call for comprehensive resistance may seem inappropriate for 2026. The timing feels both too late and too early. Too late, because technology has already permeated society, creating wealth, infrastructure, and benefits. These factors make it difficult to envision the total removal of the A.I. revolution. Too early, because humans often react only when harms are undeniable.
Historical examples illustrate this tendency. Regulations followed industrial abuses. Nuclear restraint movements hinged on the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The backlash against children using smartphones only gained momentum after clear consequences appeared.
Ideally, society would respond before suffering. But in reality, both humanist skeptics and A.I. safety advocates likely require undeniable incidents before taking action.
Leave a Reply