In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Peace be with you.

I welcome all of you and thank you for your presence this morning. You come from many countries, bringing with you a wide range of questions and perspectives. At the same time, I believe you share a certain sense of unease regarding the development of artificial intelligence. We recognize the direction we should take, yet not enough is being done to move forward. I am grateful to you for sharing your concerns, as well as your ideas and proposals for the future. These are the first fruits of a transdisciplinary approach, which is increasingly necessary if we are to address the complexity of the great challenges of our time.

The Pontifical Academy for Life, which organized this meeting, is well aware of the challenges that arise wherever human dignity is threatened. In this regard, addressing the G7 leaders, Pope Francis described artificial intelligence as “at the same time an exciting and fearsome tool,” and affirmed that no machine should ever be entrusted with the decision to take a human life (cf. Address to the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence, 14 June 2024). Those words remain as relevant as ever. In the Encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, I sought to address these questions in greater depth. Today, I would like to offer five considerations in particular.

First, the future of artificial intelligence is not pre-determined. As a technology developed by human beings, its future depends on the choices we make. We therefore have the responsibility to guide, change and, when necessary, reject its applications (cf. nos. 97, 104). The decisive question, then, is not simply “What can AI do?” but rather, “What purpose should it serve?” Those who regard its development merely as a race to be won risk focusing exclusively on the finish line, forgetting those who are left behind. A reliable system that serves the human person is of greater value than one that is exceptionally powerful but whose consequences cannot be adequately foreseen or controlled.

Second, machines are tools, not persons. “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” (no. 99). Today, some propose granting these systems rights, or even legal personhood. Such an approach risks obscuring human responsibility and leaving those who suffer harm to confront a faceless entity.

Third, certain decisions must never be delegated. When a person is placed on a target list or entered into a border control database, there is a danger that he or she will be reduced to a mere data point. Decisions affecting human life, freedom and the use of force must always remain subject to effective, informed and responsible human oversight (cf. nos. 198-200). For this reason, artificial intelligence must be “disarmed” (no. 110), and I encourage the States meeting in Geneva in November to take concrete steps toward banning lethal autonomous weapons.

Fourth, intelligent technologies must be directed toward the common good. “Justice requires access to the benefits of innovation, including care, knowledge, tools and opportunities” (no. 161). Indeed, they must never become ends in themselves or serve merely the interests of a privileged few. Rather, their development should foster solidarity and participation at various levels of the global community, ensuring that the benefits of progress are shared equitably, especially with those most in need (cf. nos. 71–72).

Finally, I would like to emphasize a challenge, which is perhaps the most urgent. We already know many of the ethical principles that should guide the development of artificial intelligence. What we currently need are institutions capable of putting these principles into practice, particularly effective international institutions that can safeguard the global common good (cf. no. 64). This calls for shared standards, independent oversight and clear mechanisms of accountability, so that decisions concerning the development and use of AI can be examined, challenged when necessary, and accompanied by appropriate remedies for any harm caused (cf. nos. 105, 107).

Dear friends, with these thoughts, I thank you once again for your valuable contributions in this field and encourage you to persevere in your efforts, working together in a spirit of dialogue and shared responsibility for the common good. I accompany you with my prayers, and to each of you I cordially impart my blessing. Thank you.