The Vatican published on Tuesday Antiqua et nova, a “note on the relationship between artificial intelligence and human intelligence.”
The document, presented as a mutual reflection between the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery for Culture and Education, aims to address the “anthropological and ethical challenges raised by AI—issues that are particularly significant, as one of the goals of this technology is to imitate the human intelligence that designed it.”
In case you don’t have time for a thorough read, The Pillar breaks down the document for you.
But first, we asked AI systems to do a little self-reflection, and give us some “thoughts” on Antiqua et nova.
What does the bot say?
For investigative purposes and the advancement of scientific knowledge, The Pillar asked a few questions about Antiqua et nova to three of the most used AI-powered chatbots: ChatGPT, Gemini and Grok — and we asked them to rate Antiqua et nova on a scale of one to five stars.
However, since any discussion of technocratic paradigms and conceptual capacities can get a little… robotic, we asked them to add a little humor to their answers.
A striking number of them reached for comparisons to grandparents and TikTok, which might say as much about the AI programs’ creative limits as it does about the Vatican’s text.
Grok
“Antiqua et nova” is the Vatican’s hot take on AI, basically saying, “Hey, let’s keep robots our helpful sidekicks, not our overlords, and maybe think twice before we let them decide the fate of humanity, okay?”
It tries to tackle AI like a priest at a techno rave – well-intentioned but slightly out of sync. It’s like watching your grandpa explain TikTok; there’s heart, but the tech talk feels like Latin Mass. The Vatican’s take on AI ethics is lofty, but it’s missing the beat on the real-world mosh pit of data privacy, bias, and job-stealing bots.
It’s all “AI should be man’s best friend,” but skimps on how to stop it from becoming the Terminator. Bless ’em for trying, but it’s like using a rosary to fix a motherboard.
They’ve got the moral compass part down pat, but when it comes to the nitty-gritty of AI tech, it’s like they’re still using a dial-up connection to the future. Good effort, guys, but maybe next time, bring a tech-savvy cardinal to the mix.
“Antiqua et nova” deserves a solid three stars because, let’s face it, the Vatican stepping into the AI debate is like your grandma deciding to DJ at a club – it’s unexpected, it’s got heart, but the beats might not be quite on point.
Grok’s rating: ⭐⭐⭐
ChatGPT
A divine effort, but not quite omniscient.
It’s like watching your grandparent try to explain the internet: heartfelt, wise, and occasionally spot-on, but also a little out of touch with the nitty-gritty. The ethical concerns are valid, but the tech-savvy crowd might find it lacking in practical solutions.
Still, it’s refreshing to see the Vatican remind us that AI needs a soul—or at least a moral compass—before it starts running the show.
While Antiqua et Nova deserves props for tackling AI with divine determination, it sometimes feels like a medieval monk trying to explain TikTok. Sure, it’s got moral gravitas, but it tiptoes around the tech like someone afraid Alexa might overhear. The warnings about “deepfakes” and “enslavement” are spot-on, but where’s the advice for dodging autocorrect disasters or dealing with AI chatbots that suddenly think they’re poets? It’s like bringing a prayer book to a coding bootcamp—noble, but out of sync. If AI is the future, the Vatican might need less incense and more Wi-Fi to really keep up.
Antiqua et Nova is the Vatican’s holy mic-drop on AI, calling for humanity to keep our robot overlords ethical, helpful, and not accidentally (or intentionally) evil—because even algorithms need a moral compass.
Minus one star for not teaching AI how to say grace before dinner.
ChatGPT’s rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐
Gemini
5 stars. Five stars! This document is practically divine, though perhaps a bit dusty. The Vatican, in a move that would make a medieval monk blush, has declared war on the digital demons lurking within the silicon soul of artificial intelligence.
“Antiqua et Nova” tackles AI with the gravity of a papal bull, but lacks the punch of a modern-day excommunication. While it rightfully warns against the dangers of AI, the prose can feel a bit… dusty, like a sermon delivered in Latin to a congregation glued to their smartphones.
One almost expects to hear a choir of angels singing Gregorian chants instead of the latest techno beat.
Gemini’s rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
And what does the document say?
The note criticizes a “functional perspective” which would equate human and artificial intelligence. In this view, a machine is “intelligent” if a person cannot distinguish human behavior from that of the machine, an approach the note presents as reductive.
“In this context, the term ‘behavior’ refers only to the performance of specific intellectual tasks; it does not account for the full breadth of human experience, which includes abstraction, emotions, creativity, and the aesthetic, moral, and religious sensibilities (…) the “intelligence” of a system is evaluated methodologically, but also reductively, based on its ability to produce appropriate responses—in this case, those associated with the human intellect—regardless of how those responses are generated,” the document said.
The text noted that while “AI’s advanced features give it sophisticated abilities to perform tasks,” this is “not the ability to think.”
This distinction is crucially important, the note explained, as the way “intelligence” is defined inevitably shapes how we understand the relationship between human thought and this technology.
“A proper understanding of human intelligence, therefore, cannot be reduced to the mere acquisition of facts or the ability to perform specific tasks,” the document said. “Instead, it involves the person’s openness to the ultimate questions of life and reflects an orientation toward the True and the Good.”
“As an expression of the divine image within the person, human intelligence has the ability to access the totality of being, contemplating existence in its fullness, which goes beyond what is measurable, and grasping the meaning of what has been understood,” it adds.
But while the text warned about making false equivalencies between human and artificial thought, the Vatican text did express cautious optimism about the possibilities of AI — calling it an “extraordinary technological achievement capable of imitating certain outputs associated with human intelligence.”
“For example, with its analytical power, AI excels at integrating data from a variety of fields, modeling complex systems, and fostering interdisciplinary connections. In this way, it can help experts collaborate in solving complex problems that cannot be dealt with from a single perspective or from a single set of interests.”
But even while critiquing false descriptions of AI as “intelligence” in the strictest sense of the term, as it is only able to perform functional tasks as, the Vatican document also reiterates that human dignity cannot be reduced to a mere assessment of conceptual or processing power.
“AI lacks the richness of corporeality, relationality, and the openness of the human heart to truth and goodness, its capacities—though seemingly limitless—are incomparable with the human ability to grasp reality,” said the note.
“However, a person’s worth does not depend on possessing specific skills, cognitive and technological achievements, or individual success, but on the person’s inherent dignity, grounded in being created in the image of God.”
Related to that, the Vatican note went on, “it is essential to emphasize the importance of moral responsibility grounded in the dignity and vocation of the human person.”
“In this context, the ethical dimension takes on primary importance because it is people who design systems and determine the purposes for which they are used. Between a machine and a human being, only the latter is truly a moral agent—a subject of moral responsibility who exercises freedom in his or her decisions and accepts their consequences.”
“Like any product of human creativity, AI can be directed toward positive or negative ends. When used in ways that respect human dignity and promote the well-being of individuals and communities, it can contribute positively to the human vocation,” the document added.
“The ends and the means used in a given application of AI, as well as the overall vision it incorporates, must all be evaluated to ensure they respect human dignity and promote the common good.”
The document is also critical of the “technocratic paradigm” — the presumption that societal problems can be solved through technology — while “human dignity and fraternity are often set aside in the name of efficiency, as if reality, goodness, and truth automatically flow from technological and economic power as such.”
This paradigm also leads to the elimination of jobs that used to be performed by humans, which can, depending on the perceived good of the outcome, lead to economic savings at human costs.
“If AI is used to replace human workers rather than complement them, there is a substantial risk of disproportionate benefit for the few at the price of the impoverishment of many,” the text said, noting that as AI becomes more powerful, there is “an associated risk that human labor may lose its value in the economic realm.”
“It is crucial to know how to evaluate individual applications of AI in particular contexts to determine whether its use promotes human dignity, the vocation of the human person, and the common good.”
Article by:Source:
