en
Slovenščina
Italiano
Professor Noreen Herzfeld, PhD, is a member of the Artificial Intelligence Research Group (AIRG), affiliated with the Holy See’s Dicastery for Culture and Education. She is also a co-author and co-editor of Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations, a publication associated with the broader intellectual background of Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, which focuses on safeguarding humanity in the age of artificial intelligence.
Professor Herzfeld, your work has recently attracted wider public attention in connection with Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical on artificial intelligence, which was presented in May this year. How did your research and involvement in the Artificial Intelligence Research Group contribute to the development of the encyclical?
The Artificial Intelligence Research Group (AIRG), operating under the auspices of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, has been meeting since 2020 to explore the implications of the rapid development of artificial intelligence. In 2024, we published Encountering Artificial Intelligence, the first of several books to emerge from our discussions. Following its publication, we presented its main ideas at a meeting in Rome, attended by representatives of other Vatican dicasteries and working groups. Shortly afterwards, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, in collaboration with our dicastery, prepared the doctrinal note Antiqua et Nova, which is also referenced in the encyclical.
Turning briefly to your academic background, you initially studied mathematics and music, continued into computer science, and later pursued theology and the study of spirituality. How do these different disciplines come together in your research on artificial intelligence?
Back in the 1990s, as a professor of computer science, I was already teaching courses on artificial intelligence. At the time, philosophers such as Hubert Dreyfus and John Searle were questioning whether it was possible to create human-like artificial intelligence, or artificial general intelligence (AGI). What interested me, however, was not so much whether we could achieve this, but why we wanted to do so in the first place.
It seemed to me that computers were most useful precisely when they were unlike us and performed tasks that humans were not particularly good at. During my first sabbatical, I attempted to explore this question, but without success. As a computer scientist, I lacked the appropriate tools to answer a question that was fundamentally about human motivation.
In fact, through artificial intelligence, humanity was attempting to create an Other in its own image. This led me to the first chapter of Genesis and prompted me to reformulate my research question: Is the way we want computers to reflect ourselves the same as the way we imagine ourselves reflecting God? I began to understand the desire to create human-like artificial intelligence as a spiritual quest.
In his first encyclical, Pope Leo XIV presents artificial intelligence as one of the key anthropological questions of our time. Do you agree with this view, and why?
Yes, I agree. Our desire to create artificial intelligence in our own image reveals a great deal about what we value most in ourselves. We live in a culture that prioritises doing over being and measures value in terms of productivity. We create artificial intelligence to do what we do, only faster.
Yet human beings are creatures who need relationships with others. This is why we design artificial intelligence not only as a tool but also as an Other with whom we can establish a relationship. Artificial intelligence is a mirror of ourselves, but that mirror works both ways. We create it to imitate what we value in ourselves, yet the more we enter into relationships with machines instead of one another, the greater the danger that we ourselves will become increasingly machine-like.
The encyclical rejects both transhumanist and posthumanist conceptions of humanity. Could you briefly explain these two concepts? Where do you see the boundary between the positive and responsible use of technology and the more dangerous idea of technologically “transcending” humanity?
Transhumanism is the desire to create better human beings through technology. In a sense, we could say that we are already transhuman, since we wear glasses and hearing aids and use pacemakers and prosthetic devices. However, the term generally refers to more recent and far more extensive interventions in human nature, such as genetic engineering involving modifications that can be passed on to future generations, or the implantation of computer chips in the brain.
Posthumanism, on the other hand, is based on the idea that humans are merely a transitional species in the evolution of intelligence and consciousness, and that artificial intelligence could eventually replace us as it continues to develop.
Pope Leo XIV rightly criticises posthumanism and much of transhumanism because they are based on a mistaken understanding of perfection. He points out that although the Gospel calls upon us to care for the sick, it is misguided to believe that we can overcome all human weaknesses and suffering. In fact, we should not even attempt to do so, because “it is precisely within our limitations that space opens up for compassion, genuine care for the needs of others, generosity that can emerge even amid darkness and failure, spiritual experience, and the worship of God” (Magnifica Humanitas, MH, 119).
It is precisely by confronting our own limitations, including our mortality, that we learn patience and come to recognise our need for one another and for God.
The encyclical also expresses serious concern about the concentration of power in artificial intelligence in the hands of a small number of technology corporations. However, representatives of the industry, including Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah, were also present at its presentation in the Vatican. What is the significance of including such voices in the discussion, and where do you see possible solutions to the concentration of power in artificial intelligence?
Historically, encyclicals were teaching documents addressed to bishops, priests and Catholic believers. Pope Francis departed from this tradition when he addressed his encyclical Laudato si’ to all people of goodwill. Pope Leo is continuing in this direction.
I believe that with Magnifica Humanitas, he intends to address not only the Church but also technology leaders who have the power to influence the direction of artificial intelligence research. Silicon Valley is currently heavily influenced by transhumanist and posthumanist narratives. Through this encyclical, Pope Leo seeks to offer an alternative that could guide the development of artificial intelligence in a safer and more responsible direction.
I do not believe we are on the verge of developing artificial general intelligence (AGI) in the near future. First, large language models such as ChatGPT and Claude will always produce hallucinations and will therefore never be entirely reliable. Second, the larger these systems become, the more energy they require, not only for training but also for everyday use. They cannot be used by everyone, everywhere, without placing serious pressure on our energy and water infrastructure, thereby further accelerating climate change.
Much smaller artificial intelligence tools designed for specific tasks are considerably more efficient and accurate, and can be more easily adapted to particular needs. China is following this approach, which could lead to much better integration of artificial intelligence into existing systems.
The Pope also draws attention to the impact of artificial intelligence on education. In your opinion, what can we do to ensure that it supports learning without undermining critical thinking and the holistic development of individuals?
Studies have already shown that people who rely heavily on artificial intelligence risk gradually losing certain abilities and weakening their critical thinking skills. The risk is even greater for children. They may never develop the reasoning, research, problem-solving and comprehension skills that education is supposed to foster.
The solution is not to ban artificial intelligence, but to restrict its use to particular situations and areas where it can serve as a tool rather than a substitute.
In the United States, many schools have moved a large proportion of teaching and schoolwork onto laptops and tablets, and are now realising that this was a mistake. Children can easily become distracted and tend to avoid the demanding intellectual work that learning requires. Artificial intelligence, which simply provides them with answers, exacerbates this problem. On the other hand, artificial intelligence could be designed to help students formulate better questions or encourage them to think more deeply.
One of the most pressing ethical questions concerns the use of artificial intelligence in warfare. AI is already being used to assist in target selection, and the world appears to be moving increasingly towards algorithmic warfare. What does this tell us about our understanding of human life, responsibility and human dignity?
The conflicts in Ukraine and Iran demonstrate that the nature of warfare has changed. Drones have altered the balance of power and, in a sense, levelled the playing field between opposing forces. Iran can effectively close the Strait of Hormuz with a single drone. Through drone attacks on Moscow and refineries located as far as 2,500 kilometres from the border, Ukraine has extended the theatre of war deep into Russian territory.
Compared with missiles or heavy weapons such as tanks, drones are relatively inexpensive and easy to manufacture. Their use also reduces another “cost” of war: soldiers’ lives.
In his encyclical, the Pope observes that “the increasing ease of deploying autonomous weapons systems makes war more ‘feasible’ and less subject to human control” (MH, 197). This threatens two principles of just war theory: the principle that armed force should only be used as a last resort, and the principle that weapons must always remain under human control.
There is also the danger of losing moral responsibility. At a workshop I attended, organised by Penn State Law, participating military commanders expressed strong opposition to autonomous weapons. Their greatest concern was the speed at which computers operate.
Is it even realistic to keep humans involved in the decision-making process if decisions are made at speeds that humans cannot keep up with? If the pace of warfare exceeds human capabilities, military officers may be forced to delegate decisions to machines.
Leo XIV warns that some “speak of ‘artificial moral agents’ as though machines were capable of distinguishing between good and evil, yet moral judgement cannot be reduced to calculation, since it involves conscience, personal responsibility and recognising the other as a person” (MH, 198).
Accountability in warfare could rapidly collapse if states and military commanders began shifting blame onto artificial intelligence. This is why the Pope calls for decisions to “remain under effective, conscious and responsible human control” (MH, 200). Whether this will actually happen amid the current AI arms race remains to be seen.
As a researcher who has spent many years reflecting on the relationship between artificial intelligence, religion and humanity, do today’s technological developments fill you with more hope or concern?
Artificial intelligence has the potential to become an extremely useful tool if it is developed and used responsibly and within appropriate limits. However, it also has the potential to cause considerable harm.
Those who imagine artificial intelligence in Terminator-style scenarios, in which it independently decides that humans are no longer needed, are focusing on the wrong danger. The real concern is that malicious actors could use artificial intelligence to threaten our systems, from critical infrastructure to democracy.
My greatest concern, however, is that in our rush to develop and deploy current AI models, we will fail to give sufficient consideration to their environmental impact and will consequently accelerate climate change, the effects of which we are already experiencing through the heat and wildfires of this summer.
What do you think of the direction Pope Leo XIV has indicated at the beginning of his pontificate? Which issues might define his papacy?
I believe Leo XIV is continuing Pope Francis’s approach of addressing the most pressing issues of our time.
The Pope has a voice and an authority that most other religious communities do not possess. I expect Leo XIV to continue using that voice as he has already begun to do: fearlessly challenging political leaders and advocating for peace, social and economic justice, and a responsible approach to technology.
Although he only briefly addressed environmental issues in Magnifica Humanitas, I hope he will continue Pope Francis’s intention to explore this vitally important subject in greater depth.
Your connection with Slovenia comes through your work at the Institute for Philosophical and Religious Studies of the Science and Research Centre Koper (ZRS Koper). How did this collaboration begin, and what topics are you currently working on?
In 2008, I taught in Sarajevo as part of the American Fulbright Programme. Subsequent trips to the region and the contacts I maintained there brought me into contact with a researcher at ZRS Koper, who invited me to participate in a project exploring humanity in the digital age. This developed into a longer-term collaboration.
I am currently involved in a project examining ecotheology at the intersection of the green and digital transitions, as well as another project dedicated to the work and thought of Nikola Tesla and their relevance to contemporary society.
We also recently submitted a research project proposal together with ZRS Koper to investigate the effects of human–computer companionship.
PHOTO: Personal archive
This article was produced as part of the research programme Constructive Theology in the Age of Digital Culture and Anthropocene (P6-0434), led at the Science and Research Centre Koper (ZRS Koper) by Dr Nadja Furlan Štante. The research programme is funded by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (ARIS).
- Source: Delo
- Author: Nataša Čepar, ZRS Koper
- Publication date: 22 September 2026
- Publisher: Delo mediji d.o.o.