Reflections on Pope Leo’s Stance on Artificial Intelligence

Pope Leo’s recent manifesto on artificial intelligence has elicited reactions ranging from praise to disappointment. Notably, some A.I. skeptics feel the statement falls short. Among these is Princeton’s Greg Conti, who, writing in Compact magazine, questions the inevitability of the current age of artificial intelligence. He suggests that a call for resistance might have been more fitting.

Anton Barba-Kay, a cultural critic for The Hedgehog Review, critiques Leo’s characterization of A.I. as a valuable tool requiring caution. He equates this to suggesting the careful use of cocaine, highlighting the absurdity he perceives in treating A.I. as merely a tool.

My own perspective intersects with these critiques. While Leo acknowledged A.I.’s complexities and its challenge to human uniqueness, I wished for a deeper exploration. The manifesto touches on the A.I.-induced mix of messianic hopes and apocalyptic fears.

A call from the pope for broad resistance to A.I. might seem ill-timed. Society in 2026 is perhaps both too entrenched in and too divided regarding A.I. to heed such a call. The technology has pervaded society, built infrastructure, and promised benefits. Conti’s suggestion of halting A.I. may be impractical at this point.

Historically, humanity’s response to technology follows its manifest dangers. Regulatory actions often succeed after witnessing the technology’s detriments. Industrial abuses prompted regulation; nuclear restraints took shape post-Hiroshima. Similarly, backlash against excessive smartphone use by children arose a decade after its widespread adoption.

In an ideal scenario, proactivity would prevent regrettable lessons. In reality, the undeniable manifestations of A.I.’s risks might be necessary for meaningful change.