“Technology should serve humanity, not diminish its dignity.” This is where Bishop Oscar Cantú of San José, in the heart of Silicon Valley, begins. Appointed to chair the task force on preserving human dignity in the age of artificial intelligence, set up on 16 September by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops after Pope Leo XIV’s appeal in Magnifica Humanitas, he sets out the course: dialogue with the companies without endorsing their products, protections for users, the same standards applied within the Church.
(Photo Diocese of San José/SIR)
Your Excellency, the bishops’ statement speaks of “real and present” dangers. Why move from discussion to action now?
Certainly recent public statements by the developers of the powerful AI machines have mentioned the “real and present” dangers to humanity. Beyond the existential issues of humanity, there are many other very serious dangers, such as the creation and deployment of biological weapons, the interruption of the global financial systems, the infringement of privacy, the ability to cause social upheaval by malicious deepfakes on social media, and so on. Moving from discussion to action was a call from the Holy Father in his encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas.
It was the Holy Father who made clear the urgency of action: dialogue with the technology leaders, with the general public, with legislators; formation and teaching the Holy Father’s message in Magnifica Humanitas; and finally, advocacy for regulation that safeguards humanity and society at large.
You want the Church to contribute to the “moral foundation of AI models”. In practice, what does that mean?
With regard to a “moral foundation of AI models,” this is simply that technology should serve humanity, not diminish its dignity. Thus, with regard to the damage that deepfake images or videos can cause for victims, developers are now embedding a watermark that allows investigators to know if the image was developed by AI or not. That is one example of a moral principle being embedded in the technological design. Another that designers have shared with me is that certain machines will not allow a user to “undress” a person, or to depict them nude. This helps to preserve the dignity of would-be victims.
The Church does not seek to impose a specifically religious or Christian view on technology, but rather an anthropology that preserves human dignity, protects the marginalized, and safeguards the common good.
Dialogue with the big technology companies is central to this initiative, and not without its complications. Where does it stand?
As you mention in your question, dialogue with technology leaders can be complicated, but it must be done, for the good of humanity. The Vatican has been doing this in the Minerva Dialogues for the past ten years, so they have led the way. So far, my dialogues with technological leaders have been mutually respectful and yet forthright and direct. It seems they have appreciated our forthrightness in asking about safety issues in the technology.
Who will assess whether the commitments are being met?
As to assessing if commitments are being met, I do not see this specifically as the task of the Church, but rather of governmental bodies that will eventually impose regulation. The public voice also carries weight, as companies are sensitive to public opinion; this is why it is important the public be properly informed about the dangers of this technology.
How can the Church’s independence, and its freedom to criticize, be safeguarded without the dialogue being taken as an endorsement?
As to the Church’s independence and the freedom to critique companies’ decisions publicly, Pope Leo has already given us the template with Magnifica Humanitas. Humanity is at stake; shepherds are committed to protecting the sheep, indeed all of humanity.
We are also taking care that we speak to as many companies as possible, those who will engage in dialogue with us, so that we are not particularly aligned with any particular company or product. We do not endorse companies or their products.
We speak to the moral principles that safeguard human dignity and the common good.
When a teenager looks for affection in a chatbot, what responsibility lies with those who build these tools?
The issue of the potential self-harm of users of technology is a deep concern for the Church. This tragedy has already been witnessed, sadly.
Developers must embed in their machines safeguards that do not allow the chatbots to encourage users to harm themselves or anyone else.
Some of the developers I have spoken with have already embedded these safeguards into their technology. All must provide these safeguards; legislators must regulate these safeguards.
What does it say to the Christian community when a young person finds it easier to confide in a machine than in another human being?
Certainly, the Church, particularly those who minister to the young, has included mental health in its programs, encouraging young people to seek help when lonely, depressed, or anxious. This topic has been raised in every recent youth gathering that I have attended. And appropriately so.
Is the Church ready to apply to itself the standards it proposes to the technology world?
Yes, dioceses have already begun to establish policies or guidelines for responsible and ethical AI use.
Obviously this technology is moving very quickly, so we are attempting to catch up. But it is important that we do so, because people are already employing the technology.
What will the task force contribute in practical terms?
The task force will certainly look at best practices across dioceses to provide resources to bishops and dioceses for the responsible and safe use of AI technology. There is much work to do.
What sustains you in this challenge?
While we work to safeguard humanity, we also place this work in God’s hands and ask the Holy Spirit to open hearts and minds to do the right thing in safeguarding human dignity and the common good.