Shane Tews , American Enterprise Institute; How the Vatican Is Shaping the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence
"Father Paolo Benanti is an Italian Catholic priest, theologian, and member of the Third Order Regular of St. Francis. He teaches at the Pontifical Gregorian University and has served as an advisor to both former Pope Francis and current Pope Leo on matters of artificial intelligence and technology ethics within the Vatican.
Below is a lightly edited and abridged transcript of our discussion...
In the Vatican document, you emphasize that AI is just a tool—an elegant one, but it shouldn’t control our thinking or replace human relationships. You mention it “requires careful ethical consideration for human dignity and common good.” How do we identify that human dignity point, and what mechanisms can alert us when we’re straying from it?
I’ll try to give a concise answer, but don’t forget that this is a complex element with many different applications, so you can’t reduce it to one answer. But the first element—one of the core elements of human dignity—is the ability to self-determine our trajectory in life. I think that’s the core element, for example, in the Declaration of Independence. All humans have rights, but you have the right to the pursuit of happiness. This could be the first description of human rights.
In that direction, we could have a problem with this kind of system because one of the first and most relevant elements of AI, from an engineering perspective, is its prediction capabilities.Every time a streaming platform suggests what you can watch next, it’s changing the number of people using the platform or the online selling system. This idea that interaction between human beings and machines can produce behavior is something that could interfere with our quality of life and pursuit of happiness. This is something that needs to be discussed.
Now, the problem is: don’t we have a cognitive right to know if we have a system acting in that way? Let me give you some numbers. When you’re 65, you’re probably taking three different drugs per day. When you reach 68 to 70, you probably have one chronic disease. Chronic diseases depend on how well you stick to therapy. Think about the debate around insulin and diabetes. If you forget to take your medication, your quality of life deteriorates significantly. Imagine using this system to help people stick to their therapy. Is that bad? No, of course not. Or think about using it in the workplace to enhance workplace safety. Is that bad? No, of course not.
But if you apply it to your life choices—your future, where you want to live, your workplace, and things like that—that becomes much more intense. Once again, the tool could become a weapon, or the weapon could become a tool. This is why we have to ask ourselves: do we need something like a cognitive right regarding this? That you are in a relationship with a machine that has the tendency to influence your behavior.
Then you can accept it: “I have diabetes, I need something that helps me stick to insulin. Let’s go.” It’s the same thing that happens with a smartwatch when you have to close the rings. The machine is pushing you to have healthy behavior, and we accept it. Well, right now we have nothing like that framework. Should we think about something in the public space? It’s not a matter of allowing or preventing some kind of technology. It’s a matter of recognizing what it means to be human in an age of such powerful technology—just to give a small example of what you asked me."
