Initial Thoughts on Magnifica Humanitas

[00:00:03] Today we'll take a look at Pope Leo's highly anticipated encyclical on artificial intelligence, which was released this week to much fanfare. Hello, I'm Eric Sammons and welcome to Crisis Point. [00:00:30] Okay, so like I said, I want to talk about the Pope's. Pope Leo's new encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas. I think that's how you pronounce it. Correct me if I'm wrong, you Latin scholars out there, but before I do, I just want to remind everybody that Crisis magazine right now is doing our twice a year fundraiser. We really need your help. I will admit we're behind where we want to be this, this year at this time. We normally would have raised more by now. So I'm just asking you guys to come through. We have one week left before we end it. You know, end of the month, we're going to end it. So if you could go to crisis magazine.com and you'll get a pop up asking you to donate, please do donate whatever you can, however little, however big, we definitely appreciate. So please go to crisismagazine.com to donate. Okay, so the Pope's new encyclical, it just came out. It's been a big deal. And we've anticipated this since literally the day after he was elected Pope. And the reason I say that is because he took the name Leo xiv. And he said the reason he took that name was to connect him to Leo xiii, who wrote Rerum Navarum during the time of the Industrial Revolution, to really kickstart the Catholics Catholic social teaching in the modern world. And he wanted to do something similar in an age of artificial intelligence. He linked the Industrial Revolution with the AI revolution. And he wanted to write something specifically and he wanted his papacy to be in response to that in some ways. And so this encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas basically is that first effort. And it was, it was released in the anniversary, 135th, I think, anniversary of Rare Navarro, or at least was signed, I think. [00:02:13] And it's intentionally, it's intentionally written with that inspiration, with that document as its inspiration. It mentions it a number of times. [00:02:22] And so what I want to do here is it was released just yesterday. I just got. Yesterday. I did not get a pre copy like that. However, I did, because I may not be a boomer in age, but I do act like one sometimes. I literally had it printed out at Staples. [00:02:36] I cannot read things online. [00:02:39] It just. I can't really. And I can't make notes and all that I know there's apps to do. I've tried them all. None of them work for me. My brain. And by the way, I think there was a debate in the comments at this is pretty small type and it came out to like 52 pages, eight and a half by 11 single sided. But anyway, I printed out, I read the whole thing. But what I want to do today is just give my initial thoughts on now obviously it's been less than 24 hours, about 24 hours or so since I finished it, maybe less than 24 hours. And so it's not like this is going to be some super deep theological treatise on it or anything like that. But there's a lot in there and there are. I do have some takeaways and I think that hopefully will help everybody who's listening to understand a little better if they decide to read it or even if they don't decide, understand what it's all about. [00:03:27] I'm not going to cover everything in the encyclical. For example, I'm not going to comment on what he said about apologizing for slavery or about just war theory being outdated. Those are important things to discuss. I think. We have an article at Crisis coming out about the whole slavery apology in a couple days. I'm just going to focus mostly on the AI comments, the, the, the, the crux of the point of the encyclical. [00:03:52] And I want to say that I, I just want to make it clear I eagerly anticipated this encyclical goal unlike any I can think of since, like JP2 in the 90s when I heard Evangelium Vitae was coming out. [00:04:05] I've not anticipated encyclical as much as this one, and that's partly because it's mostly because it's my own interest. I signed a contract to write a book called the Catholic Guide to Artificial Intelligence about a month or so before Pope Leo became Pope. And I had already started it. And so when he took the name and I realized he's going to talk a lot about artificial intelligence, I was excited. And in fact I, I could have the book was supposed to be finished draft sent to the publisher at the end last December, December 2025, however, I asked the publisher, can we hold off on publishing it until I can incorporate whatever the Pope writes about AI because we know an encyclical is coming out. So I put it on pause and now what I'm doing is I'm working on that draft and I'm incorporating what he said as well. Fortunately, he didn't say anything that surprised me. In fact, I knew what he was going to say in a general sense, before beforehand. In fact, I, I posted on X yesterday. [00:05:02] For those anticipating Pope Leo's AI encyclical, here's what likely we'll see. I posted this actually last Friday. [00:05:08] Artificial intelligence is a powerful technology that can be used for human flourishing, but it has dangers we must guard against, particularly the blurring of the distinction between man and machine. And ultimately, in reading the encyclical, that's exactly what it said. This isn't. This wasn't some shock for those who kind of keep up with this stuff. [00:05:26] One of the ironies is how I wrote this. [00:05:29] I said, it's a powerful technology we use for human flourishing, but it has dangers. [00:05:35] That way of writing that. I did that on purpose. I didn't realize how prophetic I would be. [00:05:43] If you read enough Church documents on moral issues and things like since Vatican ii, what you'll notice there's always a construction that they have a lot of which is they will say something good about something and then they'll say, but. And they'll say the dangers. That is very common. And in fact. And that's how I wrote my, my post. Well, I did a search in the encyclical 143 times does the word but appear? And in almost every case, it's what I say. They say something good, but they warn about the dangers. That's what Pope Leo does. And that's a very common construction. [00:06:18] So anyway, I, I knew this is what, what Pope we would do. Some people were hoping or expecting maybe he would condemn AI or something like that. [00:06:28] But I think, though, ultimately that was never going to happen. If you look and I've researched this, what the Church says about technology is the reality is what it always does. What the Church always does is it doesn't reject them out of hand. It's not like Amish, but it doesn't say it's all great and we shouldn't be worried about certain aspects. It always says it can be used for good, but it has many dangers, can be used for evil. I mean, Pope said this about television, the Internet, you know, so it's not surprising. That's what the Pope said here. [00:06:59] Okay, so what I want to do then is give kind of an overview of the document and what it says and, and what we can take away from it. And I am, I will be honest. Let me not bury the lead. I don't. I try not to do that. [00:07:14] I was disappointed. [00:07:16] I was disappointed. Now I will get into details why. And it might just be me. And I'm not saying it's bad or it's off or anything like that. I'm just simply saying I was disappointed overall. That's my overall impression after reading it. My first impression. Now I might go back and see things like, oh, that's much better than I thought. Or maybe I'll see some things like, ah, that really was worse than I thought. But right now, that's my general impression, is I'm disappointed. [00:07:41] So let me look at a few things. I want to look at the structure of the document, the style and the content. [00:07:45] First. Let's look at the structure. [00:07:48] I'm just going to say it, and I'm just going to say it bluntly. This document needed a better editor. [00:07:54] I have been an editor for many years. [00:07:57] I have been on editorial committees of publishing houses that receive submissions, decide whether or not to publish them. [00:08:06] And I can just say this. If this document were submitted as a book, a Catholic book, to a Catholic publisher, it would have been rejected. Or at least it would have been like, you got to clean this up a ton. [00:08:17] It just needed a better editor. It's far too long. [00:08:22] Now, I know it's not a Catholic book like a Catholic publishing house would publish. It's an encyclical, a papal encyclical. That's different. I get that. [00:08:30] That being said, it just, it, it, it needed a better editor. It is way, way too long. I mean, it was about 42,000 words. The translated version in English, it was about 42,000 words. To put that in perspective, Humana Vitae, which was talking about a very important issue by Pope Paul VI, was 7,000 words. 7,001,6 of the size. So this is six times longer than Humana Vitae. [00:08:58] Now, I want to make sure I'm clear. I'm not placing the blame on this, on Leo. This is just something that's happened since John Paul ii. John Paul ii, he's the one who really introduced the super long papal encyclicals as, as the norm. And like I will say, if you read them, you can see why, because he really gets into a lot of the philosophy behind what he's saying. He talks about a lot of stuff. Okay. I still don't think that's really what should be done with encyclicals. I think encyclicals should be short and sweet, get the point across and you can support it with other church documents and by people and by bishops, you know, talking about and teaching about things like that. The encyclical itself really should be much shorter. [00:09:38] But it wasn't just that it's too short because you could write. [00:09:42] I mean, heck, I'm writing a 50,000 plus Word document on artificial intelligence, Catholic Guide Artificial Intelligence. So it's not like you can't say a lot of things about it. [00:09:52] The problem was not just too long, it's that it really just has a lot of stuff in there that doesn't drive home the point. Okay, so my wife, who's the better editor of the family and she edits all my books. One of the things she, in all my writings, one thing she always hammers on is what is your kernel? Meaning what is the main point you're trying to make? And does everything in your writing direct the reader towards that kernel in some way? [00:10:20] And that's a very good practice for all writers. If you're, if you're a prospective writer out there, somebody wants to be a writer, always remember that you have to kill your babies. I mean, there have been passages I've written, paragraphs, even chapters I've written in previous books that I loved, I end up killing because ultimately I realized they don't really further my driving point. The colonel, this just, this document had too much extraneous stuff. Remember the subtitle of it was is On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence. So what that means is the document everything should be based upon gearing towards that goal of talking about what is it? The Safeguarding the Human Person in Time of Artificial Intelligence. [00:11:09] So why is it that the entire second chapter, there's five chapters in the book, in the encyclical, why is it this entire second chapter was basically history of Catholic Social teaching? [00:11:20] We can, anybody can get that if they want it by just by asking AI for example, or just doing basic research. [00:11:29] Like I thought that was incredibly unnecessary to have a whole detail. It really, it really came across to me as look at how great we Catholics are. We have this Catholic social teaching. Okay, fine, I'm not. This is not a commentary for or against Catholic social teaching. [00:11:43] It just simply stating, did we need a whole history of it in this document? I don't think so. I don't think, I don't think we did. People can just look it up who are interested and a good writer, if you want to include some of that history, because it really, and I understand he had like the five points of Catholic social teaching, a subsidiary solidarity, you know, justice, some other thing. I can't Remember, all five of them, off top, my head. And he brings them back in later. I get that. [00:12:10] But a good writer can weave that in there. It doesn't have to just have a whole chapter that loses most readers on just a history. They're going to be like, where are you going to talk about artificial intelligence? [00:12:21] And you know, he's not. And so I really thought that was a big problem. Chapter three was by far the best part that, I mean, honestly, chapter three was the encyclical that at least people were expecting. That's where he talks about artificial intelligence. He defines it. He, he talks about some of his dangers, his promises, things like that. [00:12:39] And so that, that really is, that was the core. And then chapters four and five, the last chapters, frankly, I thought they were mostly unnecessary as well. They were mostly boilerplate, even distracting. There was just lots of post Vatican II type calls for dialogue and fraternity and things like that. I didn't really think they hit. I really felt chapter three of the five chapters was the only one that hit. Chapter one's introduction. Okay, you're gonna have just some, that, that's understandable. You're going to have like, you're introducing it that I, I can understand that. But chapters two, four and five, I honestly just didn't feel war that were totally necessary. And here's the other thing I would say about the structure and as an editor, who was, who is the audience? [00:13:25] That's the other thing. As for you writers out there, people who want to become writers, always know what your kernel is and also know who is it you're writing to. Now he states in there, it's to all the Catholic faithful, to all Christians, and to all men and women of goodwill, basically saying, everybody. If that's your audience, okay, guess what? Those people don't give a flying rip about the history of Catholic social teaching. [00:13:52] I'm sorry, they just don't. [00:13:55] They just. There's a lot of inside baseball language in the document. I mean, when it brought C, I cringed. I, I, I think I physically cringed when it brought up C. [00:14:05] Not because that term is cringy. It is. [00:14:08] But just because I'm thinking, if you're writing to Christians and all Christians and men of men and women of goodwill, you know, non Catholics, they have no idea what you're talking about and they don't care. [00:14:18] That just is a buzzword that means nothing to Catholics, but it definitely means nothing to outside people. So who's your audience here? [00:14:26] You know, it's like, decide if you're going, if you're addressing knowledgeable Catholics or if you're addressing the wider world, the truth is, either way you don't need chapter two. Because if it's a knowledgeable Catholic, he knows the history of Catholic social teaching. And if he's not, if it's, if it's like the wider world, they don't care about the history of Catholic social teaching. So either way it's not, you know, it's not that it wasn't necessary. I get there might be people would say, well, you can't understand Pope Leo's arguments without understanding Catholic social teaching. And that's true, but you could say that about everything the Pope writes. Well, you need to understand biblical theology, you need to understand scholasticism, you need to understand what the Church Father said. I mean there's just so much that are assumed in any Catholic document. We're not going to write all that, are we? No, of course not. So I really thought that was a mistake and kind of harmed it. I posted on X that I thought this document could have been 80% shorter, 80, only 20% the length it is now and it could have gotten across the same message. In fact, it would probably be more powerful if it did it like that. If it was like humana vitae, length of 7,000 words and you just hit home now. I will, I'll mention later though that there are ways it could have been expanded. That it wasn't that I think would be acceptable, would have helped it. So that's, that's my basic criticisms of the structure. I really just, that, that I really, that was disappointing, that part of it. Now I want to talk about the style. So that's the structure. We'll talk about the style when we get to the content. I'm actually going to have some praiseworthy things to say about. So this is not like a whole negative. Let's, let's, you know, dump on the, on the encyclical. I thought there was parts of it that were very good, but I just, I got to say what I really think about, about the document. [00:16:11] So the style, this is where you get most Catholics who are like more traditional Catholics or even conservative Catholics. Anybody who's read a lot of church documents from before Vatican ii, this is where they get tripped up. And I, I understand that. [00:16:28] I understand that because it's written in the typical post conciliar style of lots of talk of dialogue and you know, fraternity and like really an over emphasis on man and humanity and not a lot of emphasis on Christ. I mean he does, he does mention. He does talk about the importance of Christ. I'm not saying he doesn't. I'm just simply saying is, what's the emphasis? It's very typical. Now, I will say he's nowhere near as bad as Pope Francis, but he's not good as good as Pope Benedict or even Pope John Paul II when it comes to kind of using this, this language. [00:17:06] And also there was too much of church language in there. Too much church language. Like I said, know your audience. If you're writing to, for example, bishops, then absolutely throw out all the church language you want and then the bishops will go out and interpret it to the world. This is actually how encyclicals used to be. Most encyclicals were written to the bishops of the world and the bishop's duty was to read it, digest it, and then to preach it and teach it in their diocese. [00:17:35] So when that's the case, be as you know, technical as you want, as church language as you want. I still think it's not always the best way to write, but okay, fine. But if this is really to the wider world, if you want Elon Musk to read this or Jack Dorsey, by the way, Jack Dorsey does seem to like the quotes because he's retweeting them on Twitter. [00:17:56] Then, okay, then you need to drop a lot of that church language. [00:18:00] You need to drop a lot of that church language. [00:18:02] But, but so it's very much that. That's a style problem as well. There's not a lot of plain language, what I would call plain language, where you just kind of state things out just very directly without a lot of flowerly language, without, without a lot of caveats and things like that. [00:18:19] I mean, honestly, when I write, I try to do that. I don't, I don't always succeed. Sometimes I fall into the, the problem of inside baseball language or beating around the bush. You need to be direct. And I think a pope particularly does. And again, I will note the whole but structure of 143 times. It has a sentence that says this but this. [00:18:42] That's a little bit. [00:18:45] It's just, it's a little bit tiring after a while. You need to liven it up a little bit, I guess. [00:18:53] I will say another thing about the style. [00:18:57] I will commend Pope Leo. He does mention the importance of Christ and of God, the importance of what the church offers to the world. That's not just another, you know, what we offer is the most important thing. He does mention that. However, there was a way Too much an overemphasis in my mind on the import on humanity and man and kind of this again, what's your audience? If you're writing to the world, okay, I will get that on some level, but you still got to make sure it's very clear. But the problem is if you're writing to them, that over emphasis means they can gloss over the parts about God and Christ. They can just be like, oh yeah, that's just what Popes say. They're going to have to mention Jesus. The guy mentioned God a few times. I can skip that because what I really care about is what he says about humanity. [00:19:43] Now, I don't think he's heretical in here when he talks about humanity. I know some trads were kind of trying to say that, that, you know, really criticizing for that. I don't think that. I just think what happens is the average reader, heck, Catholic or non Catholic, will read that and will take away from it that the Pope was really looking at from a very horizontal view rather than a vertical view. [00:20:08] And, and I think that's, that's unfortunate. I do think the Pope does think it's important that we include Christ in this and God. I don't. I'm not saying he doesn't. I'm just saying again, we're talking about writing style here. You can believe something, but you write in a way that people don't understand what you believe very well. And so I think that was a problem. [00:20:26] And I also think it's problem because that's the key. [00:20:31] That is one of the key heresies or problems of today is that man exalts himself over God. In fact, I would argue that one of the main dangers of AI is it fosters this belief of man over God that we can even create intelligence. Now we're so great, we can create intelligence. So if you're, if you're encyclical by AI harps over and over like kind of the greatness of humanity, then I think that you can understand even if you throw in a few times there about like the importance of Christ in God, I think you can have easily people misunderstanding it, misinterpreting it. So, okay, now let's talk about the content of the document itself of the encyclical. Again, too long. [00:21:15] I'm not going to go over, frankly. I'm just going to talk about chapter three because that's, that's the most important part. There are a few things in the other chapters that are pretty good and, or pretty not so good. But really chapter three is what matters and it's called, you know, in the, it's the chapter title is Technology and Dominance the Grandeur of Humanity in Light of the Promises of AI. [00:21:37] And so it's very good and very clear this chapter about what artificial intelligence is and aspects of it. I want to pull up one of the chapter paragraph 99, which I would say is probably the most important. Let me pull it, make it bigger on the screen here. [00:21:53] Nope, that's not it. There we go. Okay, might hide the comments for a second. So I want to read paragraph 99 in full because it is probably the most important one. [00:22:03] It is not possible to provide a single comprehensive definition of AI. What can be stated however is, is that we must avoid the misconception of equating this type of intelligence. He puts that in quotes with that of human beings. [00:22:16] This is important, is an important part point here. [00:22:20] These systems merely imitate, imitate certain functions of human intelligence. In doing so, they often surpass human intelligence in speed and computational capacity, offering tangible benefits across many fields. Yet this power remains entirely tied to, to data processing. [00:22:38] So called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships, and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. [00:22:52] Nor do they have a moral conscience since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. [00:23:01] They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce. But they lack the effective relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom. [00:23:16] Even when these tools are described as capable of learning, their way of doing so is different from that of a human person. Is not the experience of those who allow themselves to be shaped by life and grow over time through choices, mistakes, forgiveness and fidelity. Rather as a form of statistical adaptations based on data and feedback, which can be very effective but does not imply inner growth. I thought that was excellent. I, I, I probably wouldn't change a thing about, I mean he does mention they don't possess a body. Well, unfortunately, when robotics with AI in it comes they will possess a body and they will have experiences like that. But generally what he's saying I think is absolutely true and accurate. [00:23:53] And I, and I and I'm glad. That's a great, it's a great way of stating what the church teaches when it comes to AI as far as what do they mean by intelligence and to compare it to artificial intelligence. [00:24:05] So great, I will say this Though nowhere in the document, in this very long document, nowhere does he actually defend that belief, though explain it, give the basis for it. And I think that was a missed opportunity. I think that was really missed opportunity. I mean, if you're going to write an entire chapter on the history of Catholic social teaching, you could write a whole chapter on the philosophical and theological foundations for what intelligence means for Catholics and why we believe that artificial intelligence is not actual intelligence. I actually do this in my book. I will say that. So maybe I should just promote the fact, wait till my book comes out, hopefully this fall to read that. [00:24:49] But I was really hoping the Pope would do that, really explain that. Because, again, I feel like this is where sometimes church bishops and clerics, and even those of us like me who are quote, unquote, professional Catholics, where we get a little bit too insular in our own bubble, and so we start talking about things that matter to us. Like to the average Catholic bishop, Catholic social teaching might be a big deal, but it's not to the average person yet. What matters is they want to know, why do you think artificial intelligence isn't real intelligence? I mean, the Pope states it very clear that it's not. And he gives some. It's not like he doesn't say anything about it. I mean, he says, you know, they don't have. [00:25:33] They don't undergo experiences, do not possess the body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships, know from within what love, work, friendship and responsibility mean. Okay, yes, all that's true. And like I said, it's a great definition. I love it. That being said, I would have liked him to explain why we believe that. Why is it? Why, why, why is this a philosophical problem more than a theological problem, really? [00:25:56] It's an anthropological problem, too, not understanding what intelligence really is, what human intelligence really is. So, so, like I said, I commend him for that, but I just say that's where if he's gonna. If you're gonna make it a long document, that's where you really spend your meat. You have paragraph after paragraph explaining what intelligence really is and why machines can't have it. [00:26:18] Okay, Another great chapter, paragraph, I mean, was paragraph 100. So he was hitting it, you know, with paragraph 99, paragraph 100. [00:26:27] I'm not going to read all of this. Let me see, where's the part. Okay, this is where he's talking about. [00:26:34] Oh, yeah. Talking about relationships. In light of what has been said, we can better understand why AI can be a valuable tool. And at the same Time. Why? It calls for a measured and vigilant. Vigilant approach. Because I said in my expos last week. In recent years, its private use has expanded significantly, prompting growing reflection on both the opportunities it offers and the risks tied to its rapid spread in personal use. Three aspects in particular deserve careful consideration. [00:27:02] The ease at which results are obtained. The impression of objectivity and the simulation of human communication. [00:27:09] The speed and simplicity with its information. Complex analyses, media content. Practical assistance can be. I'm going to skip this part. [00:27:16] I want to get to the relation part. Okay, okay. The art of. Here we go. The artificial imitation of positive human communication. Words of advice, empathy, friendship, and even love can be engaging and at times genuinely helpful. [00:27:30] However, for less discerning users, it can also be misleading. Creating the illusion of a relationship with a real personal subject. [00:27:41] When words are simulated, they do not build genuine relationships, but only their appearance. The artificial imitation of care or support can become particularly risky when it enters contexts where real relationships and emotional bonds are lacking. [00:27:56] Here, the danger is not so much that a person may believe they're communicating with another person, but rather they may gradually lose the very desire to form genuine human connections. I love that. That paragraph. I love that last line. [00:28:09] Let me read it again. The danger is not so much that person may believe they're communicating with another person. Yeah, that's me saying, oh, you're thinking you're talking to another person. You're talking to a robot. No, the real danger is rather that they may gradually lose the very desire to form genuine human connections. [00:28:25] That is it. In my book, I write about the relationship apocalypse. I say that the AI apocalypse is not what you think. It's not Terminator or Matrix. [00:28:34] There's multiple apocalypses under it. A Jobs apocalypse, also a transhumanist apocalypse, but really a relationship apocalypse is when I worry about the most that people will feel like they're satisfied by just simply interacting heavy relationship with a computer. And so they won't be able to form genuine human relationships. This is a literal potential apocalypse because it could. I mean, how does a human species propagate through human relationships? We literally would die out if we didn't have human relationships. And I think the Pope is right and I. I'm so glad he brought that up. That was. Honestly, I thought the relationship apocalypse is the number one concern of mine about AI over everything else. I was so glad that that Pope Leo sees that and that he brought that up and he said it very well. I thought so. Paragraph 99 is one of my favorites. Paragraph 100 so he's just a banger. Banger right there. Again, this is all in chapter three. Also, he has a very good condemnation of transhumanism and post humanism, especially where he notes. I love this. Where he notes that the exaltation of the perfect, like getting the perfect body, living forever, things like that leads to a looking down on the weak and the vulnerable. In paragraph 117. [00:29:49] No. Is it? Oh, I, I don't, I don't have it here, but I'll just read it. [00:29:53] He says, I love this one. My favorite lines. If the human being is treated as something to be perfected or surpassed, it becomes easier to accept that some lies are less useful, less desirable or less worthy. In other words, transhumanism is the child of the eugenics movement. [00:30:12] It's the childhood eugenics move. This idea to have a perfect human that leads to eugenics. It leads to not valuing the. The weak and the vulnerable, the disabled, people like that. And I think that. And we already do that in our culture and that just makes it worse. [00:30:27] Now some people noted, like, well, I thought Christian. I thought the Christian goal is to perfect humanity. And it is, but it's a completely different game. [00:30:36] I mean, theosis is the perfection. That's what our goal is. Trans. The aspirations of transhumanism is, you know, the only way it will be fulfilled is through theosis. But they're not understanding that. They're trying to make it a human constructed thing. Perfection through technology, better living through medicine, things like that. When really it's only in theosis, us becoming divine, becoming, taking on the divine nature, you know, obviously by grace, not by nature. That is the true goal of our perfection and our humanity. [00:31:09] And, and the Pope does very well on this. I think he does a great job of distinguishing that. He talks later about. He doesn't use word theosis or divination, Div. Civilization. But he does talk about that we find our fulfillment in Jesus Christ, in that becoming like him, God becoming man, so that man might become God. So that was also a great point. [00:31:32] Oh, and I also thought he did a good job. Pope Leo again, this is all chapter three against the Technocrats. I mean, really kind of calling out this, the, the Sam Altman's, Elon Musk's, Mark Zuckerberg's in, of course, course, name them. And he has a lot where he emphasizes the dangers of private ownership of AI tech, that a very small number of billionaires are basically controlling this, that controls our lives. [00:32:01] And I think he's right, absolutely right to warn us about that. [00:32:07] But I don't think he acknowledges, I don't think he probably recognizes the likewise dangers of state control because he mentions the state and he talks about paragraph 95. Let me pull this up where he says here we must recognize another crucial aspect which I have noted earlier. In many cases within the digital context, control over platforms, infrastructure and data and computing power does not rest with states but with major economic and technological actors. That's true. These entities effectively set the conditions for access, determine the rules of visibility, and shape the very possibilities for participants participation. True, we know that us conservative Catholics, we know that from the big tech, you know, censoring us during COVID and times like that. [00:32:51] Then the Pope goes on to say, when such power is concentrated in the hands of a few, it tends to become opaque and evade public oversight, increasing the risk of disordered forms of development that give rise to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities. By the way, the last part of that sentence I just think is kind of Babel. I mean, it's church Babel. It doesn't really work. But his point is true that we have a small number of people where all the power rests. My problem though is, is that he's not acknowledging his line where he says when such power is contrary in the hands of a few, it tends to become opaque and evade public oversight. Talking about when the tech, our technocrats or tech overlords control this. [00:33:32] But isn't that also true of the state when power is concentrated in the hands of a few? You could say that about politicians. It tends to become opaque and evade public oversight. I mean, hello, I mean, only in a kind of cartoon character version of the world do we think the state doesn't do that now. [00:33:49] I mean, the reality is the state and these technocrats are wedded together. It's like when people said when we complained about big tech tech during COVID censoring us, they're like, well, it's private. [00:34:00] It's not censorship, it's private. But then we found out later what was happening. The state was basically directing them, threatening them. You got to do this or else we will shut you down, we will punish you, whatever. [00:34:10] And so do you really think that's not going to be the case here as well? Of course it is. Yes, is a real danger that Sam Altman has so much power over our lives. But it's also a danger if, you know, Joe Biden or Donald Trump or Barack Obama or whoever, the next president has that much power, or Congress. [00:34:28] The issue Is how do we do this correctly, you know, so that it's best for the human flourishing. And I don't have the answer. I don't know the answer. I just think that what happens is often the church officials tend to trust the state more than they should. They're rightly skeptical of big business, of big, big tech, but they're not, they're not skeptical enough of big government. [00:34:54] And so that, that's why I'd say it's not like I'm saying, oh, we just need to have an anarchy free market completely. Lots of. I'm just simply, you know, I'm just simply saying is let's recognize the state poses just as many, if not more dangers than the, the big business because the state also has the power of the gun of violence. They have a monopoly on violence, which big business does not have, at least not yet. [00:35:15] Okay. So that I, I'm, I'm going to kind of. [00:35:18] Those are my overall thoughts on the, the structure, the style and the content of this document. I also though, want to say I know I've been pretty critical of it and pretty. I am disappointed. That being said, I do want to address how it is being received, how others received it, because I recognize I am not like the average reader of this document. I am first of all already knowledgeable of Catholic social teaching. I'm knowledgeable of Catholic theology. I have a master's degree in theology, but I'm also well versed in artificial intelligence. I was a computer developer for many years. I've researched it. I've read lots about this. So I had probably too high expectations. [00:35:56] So when I say I'm disappointed, I'm disappointed based on my very high expectations and maybe they shouldn't have been as high. [00:36:02] Also, there was nothing new in here that he said. There was nothing in here new that I thought was new that I didn't already know the church basically thought or basically was just common sense. That being said, most people, this is their first time they're hearing the church talk on this. And so for that reason it's very valuable. [00:36:22] It's very valuable. Like chapters, I'm sorry, paragraphs 99 and 100 are very valuable to get out there and be part of the conversation, help and help to set the debate. So I do think that's good. I don't want to be overly critical of the impact it could have. I do think there are and I already saw people who are not Catholic reading it, like Jack Dorsey, who were praising parts of it. And so that I think That's a very good thing. [00:36:45] Yes, I do think it could have been better, but it is a good start. [00:36:49] And, and the truth is I'll just say this, it's a good setup for my book because really I'm going to go in much more detail. I'm going to talk, you know, much more detail. I won't go into a lot of the church language. I hope not. But I, I do appreciate the Pope that Pope Leo is taking this issue seriously. It's probably the most important cultural issue of our time and I think he has some very good things to say about this as an editor. Yes, I do want to cut out most of what he wrote because I think it was unnecessary. I wanted to add more things to it, but I'll try to get over that. Okay, let me go to the live chat. I appreciate everybody jumping in. Okay. Antonio says not really here to comment on today's topic. Just want to let you know I am a fan. Well, thank you. And I finally made it to one of your shows live. Oh and I like your political takes. God bless for Bogota. Okay, thank you. I said and yeah. [00:37:38] And to Neo. I'm sorry I mispronounced it. Thank you though. I really do appreciate that. Those nice words, those kind words that you have to say. [00:37:46] Sean says on a positive note, I had a bunch of non religious engineers texting me about, about the document this morning. Yes, that's what I noticed too. A lot of people who are not Catholic, who aren't really in the Catholic world. [00:37:57] It's a good thing. I think it's being received well and I think that's good. And I think that the parts that, that need to be received are being read and I think that's great. [00:38:06] And a Kate the Great says hi Eric, hello to you. [00:38:10] Elizabeth says Rarum Navarrem condemned socialism. I don't think this document does. I think it's a little bit more nuanced than that. To use the Michael Lofton term. [00:38:20] I don't think he was supposed to condemn socialism. Again, what's the point of document supposed to be talking about AI? So I'm okay with that. [00:38:28] K. Bear says printing encyclical is in the direct opposition to la. [00:38:33] Yes, it is. And so I, I'll need to go to confession and get my, my penances for my, my printing out this document, you know, having, you know, hurting the environment. Sorry about that. [00:38:47] Cigar mode says the length and linguistic machinations in the encyclical obscure any good intent, weighing any potential with the millstone of Social justiness should have stuck solely to AI matter. Yeah, you're saying a little more harshly than me, but I don't disagree with your basic point. I do think it would you could have had chapter three go a little bit deeper in some of these on chapter three and I think it would have done even it would have done better. I think it's, it's been. [00:39:12] I don't think it fully is obscured is what I'm trying to say. But I do think you're right that it definitely deflates the message a bit and that's why you stick to your kernel and why you know, your audience. [00:39:23] Phoenix XP says the document really doesn't understand its audience. It says everyone, but it really is an echo chamber. It sounds desperate by trying to squeeze in all new Speak talking points. Yeah, I think you're probably right. [00:39:35] David says how can Pope Leo XIV reassert church authority today by addressing a major issue? What steps should he take to convert tech leaders like Elon Musk or Jack Dorsey? Yeah, I think that's a great question. I think, you know, he's better set up for it than most Popes would be than have been in the past. I think there's a certain willingness to listen to him from the Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey's of the world, which I think is good. But I think honestly what I've been saying here is that he needs to escape from the echo chamber, as somebody else, as Phoenix put it, of, of the. The church and really reach out and talk to them. I do think it was good. By the way, I know people criticize this. I don't know why they had the Anthropic guy there. I can't remember his name. The founder of Anthropic. [00:40:18] If you are well versed in these different AI companies like I am, you know, Anthropic is the one that is probably the most serious about the ethical issues around AI. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Anthropic is ethical. I mean it's moral in a Catholic way. I'm just simply saying they seem to care about it more than the rest. They actually have a, like a, a full time person on the ethics now. They have a guy. I can't remember if he's the ethics guy or something else. But I was listening to a podcast with them and he was crazy because he's talking about like Claude might already be conscious and stuff like that. So I'm not praising Anthropic in that sense, but I do think having an AI foundation, tech company founder there to speak about it and to engage with him, I think is a very good thing. I think that is how you take steps to convert tech leaders, is you invite them into the conversation. You just got to be clear about what the church believes and do it in language that church, that non Catholic, non inside baseball people would understand. That's what I would say. [00:41:18] Okay, I'm gonna cut off there. [00:41:21] Please go to christmas.com give to our fundraiser. I would really appreciate it. I won't bug you probably anymore. In fact, I'm probably not gonna have a live podcast next Tuesday, by the way. I'm not going to be able to, but please do that. I appreciate that. And until next time, everybody, God love you. And remember, the POD.