Excellent reflection. Thanks for sharing your accurate critical thoughts. It is an intellectual pleasure to read. Help me clarify a lot of issues and this is one of them. I basically agree totally with you in your arguments.
Thanks Massimo, a quick thought after reading the encyclical:
The defense of human dignity and the foundational legacy of Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum remain essential. Yet, what happens when a machine can perform a task much more safely—for instance, preventing fatal accidents through autonomous driving? What if this trend expands across other fields and daily professions?
I envision a future where we may need to decouple our identity from our occupations and refocus on what truly makes us human. How should we respond to that shift? While the encyclical touches on some of these dynamics, it ultimately leaves the door open for ongoing reflection.
Demian, I think relatively few jobs fall into the category of self-driving cars, while AI is potentially threatening pretty much all jobs. Hence my agreement with Leo that having a job is an integral part of the dignity of a human being. Unfortunately I'm rather pessimistic about what would happen if nobody really needed to work in the future: instead of a Star Trek-like society I'm afraid of a population who turns to drugs and video games.
That is what worries me the most. More than the possibility of a Skynet-style future where machines take control, it is the existential threat that could lead some people to lose meaning and hope and end up engaging in that kind of activity. Thanks Massimo!
I used to think that it would take a supreme existential threat to humanity to get everyone on Earth to unite in a common cause.
As a child I thought that would be alien invasion from another planet.
Growing up I thought the spectre of nuclear war would be it.
Latterly I thought climate change would be the threat that unites all of humanity in a common cause.
Now I think the rise of AI is this danger to the human species.
It also comprises all of the above if you think about it. Alien indifference to our existence, the capacity to launch death and destruction on us all given the nature of nuclear weapons and technology and the potential of an autonomous AI to manipulate the climate or create new viruses and diseases toxic to humans.
Massimo, I wonder if in fact there are foundational principles that you and Leo share. I’d call these foundational principles dispositions, and they precede your stoic background or Leo’s Catholicism. Dispositions are innate, drawn from one’s character, and are not easily undone by doctrinal teachings. This is how one can account for fundamental agreements between individuals of incompatible metaphysical attitudes.
Daniel, as I was saying above, I accept the notion of natural law, so yes, natural selection has built into us (and other social primate species) certain dispositions. The rest we have discovered empirically by trial and error.
Thanks Massimo. great article and to the point. It is startling indeed to find such convergences as you point out! Also, those areas of divergence could have been placed in another encyclical, as none of them are germane to the central argument. After all, the definition of a "family" seems almost thrown in to placate hardliners.
I reached a similar conclusion at the end of my article on "The Renaissance Library vs. the AI Data Center," which you might want to take a look at, Massimo:
If you strip away the theological language, you are basically left with core ideas developed about human dignity by the Renaissance humanists, which appeal to both secular and religious readers alike today. This particular quote from the encyclical stood out:
"In the era of artificial intelligence, when human dignity is threatened by new forms of dehumanization, ours is the pressing duty to remain profoundly human."
That's a good call to action, regardless of belief.
Yes, I totally agree that in terms of ethics we should stand together regardless of our creed. It has always amazed me how, despite some striking differences, most religions and philosophies converge in the field of ethics no matter what reasons they have for it. After all we all want to be happy and we don't want to suffer as the Dalai Lama often says...
I believe the reason for that convergence is that ethics is, in the end, an empirical discipline, concerned with what favors or obstructs human flourishing.
Excellent reflection. Thanks for sharing your accurate critical thoughts. It is an intellectual pleasure to read. Help me clarify a lot of issues and this is one of them. I basically agree totally with you in your arguments.
Thanks again,
Ernesto
🙏
Thanks Massimo, a quick thought after reading the encyclical:
The defense of human dignity and the foundational legacy of Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum remain essential. Yet, what happens when a machine can perform a task much more safely—for instance, preventing fatal accidents through autonomous driving? What if this trend expands across other fields and daily professions?
I envision a future where we may need to decouple our identity from our occupations and refocus on what truly makes us human. How should we respond to that shift? While the encyclical touches on some of these dynamics, it ultimately leaves the door open for ongoing reflection.
Demian, I think relatively few jobs fall into the category of self-driving cars, while AI is potentially threatening pretty much all jobs. Hence my agreement with Leo that having a job is an integral part of the dignity of a human being. Unfortunately I'm rather pessimistic about what would happen if nobody really needed to work in the future: instead of a Star Trek-like society I'm afraid of a population who turns to drugs and video games.
That is what worries me the most. More than the possibility of a Skynet-style future where machines take control, it is the existential threat that could lead some people to lose meaning and hope and end up engaging in that kind of activity. Thanks Massimo!
Exactly, I'm not worried about Skynet, I'm worried about the (further) loss of meaning for human beings.
I used to think that it would take a supreme existential threat to humanity to get everyone on Earth to unite in a common cause.
As a child I thought that would be alien invasion from another planet.
Growing up I thought the spectre of nuclear war would be it.
Latterly I thought climate change would be the threat that unites all of humanity in a common cause.
Now I think the rise of AI is this danger to the human species.
It also comprises all of the above if you think about it. Alien indifference to our existence, the capacity to launch death and destruction on us all given the nature of nuclear weapons and technology and the potential of an autonomous AI to manipulate the climate or create new viruses and diseases toxic to humans.
No longer the stuff of science fiction.
I had the same thought, but given the way the first three have not united us...
Alas, I have come to the same conclusion Massimo.
I don't know if anything can unite humans to work for the common good. Incredibly.
Excellent piece. We all need to work together to prevent AI from becoming an existential threat to humanity.
We all have more in common than differences when it comes to this.
Let's hope humans can engage in much more of this style of enquiry.
Massimo, I wonder if in fact there are foundational principles that you and Leo share. I’d call these foundational principles dispositions, and they precede your stoic background or Leo’s Catholicism. Dispositions are innate, drawn from one’s character, and are not easily undone by doctrinal teachings. This is how one can account for fundamental agreements between individuals of incompatible metaphysical attitudes.
Daniel, as I was saying above, I accept the notion of natural law, so yes, natural selection has built into us (and other social primate species) certain dispositions. The rest we have discovered empirically by trial and error.
Thanks Massimo. great article and to the point. It is startling indeed to find such convergences as you point out! Also, those areas of divergence could have been placed in another encyclical, as none of them are germane to the central argument. After all, the definition of a "family" seems almost thrown in to placate hardliners.
Well, you know, one has to cater to one's main audience...
I reached a similar conclusion at the end of my article on "The Renaissance Library vs. the AI Data Center," which you might want to take a look at, Massimo:
If you strip away the theological language, you are basically left with core ideas developed about human dignity by the Renaissance humanists, which appeal to both secular and religious readers alike today. This particular quote from the encyclical stood out:
"In the era of artificial intelligence, when human dignity is threatened by new forms of dehumanization, ours is the pressing duty to remain profoundly human."
That's a good call to action, regardless of belief.
https://davidfideler.substack.com/p/the-renaissance-library-vs-the-ai-data-center
Agreed!
Let us build that tower strong and high.
Yes, I totally agree that in terms of ethics we should stand together regardless of our creed. It has always amazed me how, despite some striking differences, most religions and philosophies converge in the field of ethics no matter what reasons they have for it. After all we all want to be happy and we don't want to suffer as the Dalai Lama often says...
I believe the reason for that convergence is that ethics is, in the end, an empirical discipline, concerned with what favors or obstructs human flourishing.
Exactly!