Papal Reflections on AI and Its Implications

In response to Pope Leo’s manifesto on artificial intelligence (AI), various perspectives have emerged. Some liberal humanists appreciated his views, while others who believe in digital consciousness criticized them. Notably, AI skeptics expressed disappointment, feeling the pope’s message did not go far enough.

Greg Conti from Princeton, writing in Compact magazine, questioned the inevitability of an AI age. He wondered if the pope could have advocated for resisting AI advancements instead. Similarly, Anton Barba-Kay, a cultural critic from The Hedgehog Review, criticized Leo’s approach. He compared the notion of AI as a tool requiring vigilance to viewing cocaine as a drug to use cautiously.

While I share some agreement with these critics, I believe a call for massive resistance to AI would not align with the reality of 2026. Such a call seems both too late and too early. It’s too late because AI is already deeply integrated into society, creating wealth and infrastructure, and offering short-term benefits. Attempting to roll back these advancements, as Conti suggests, is not feasible.

On the other hand, it’s too early because humans typically respond to technology only when its harms become undeniable. Historical examples support this. Regulations followed the abuses of industrialization. Nuclear proliferation faced resistance after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The backlash against children’s smartphone use surfaced long after the devices became widespread.

In an ideal world, responses would prevent bitter lessons. Yet, for skeptics and those fearing potential AI threats alike, visible and undeniable negative consequences are often necessary to prompt action.