Pope Leo’s recent manifesto on artificial intelligence has sparked varied reactions among different groups. Liberals and humanists find value in the discussion, while others who deeply believe in digital consciousness disagree. Notably, AI skeptics express disappointment, feeling that the pope didn’t go far enough in addressing the issue.
Princeton’s Greg Conti, writing in Compact magazine, questions whether the pope’s focus on AI should have been different. He asks if, instead of embracing the age of AI, there could be a call for resisting this technological advance. Cultural critic Anton Barba-Kay, in The Hedgehog Review, critiques Leo’s approach to AI as merely a ‘valuable tool.’ Barba-Kay compares it to the misguided belief that cocaine might be useful if approached cautiously.
My own view aligns partly with these critics. I believe that Pope Leo missed an opportunity to delve deeper into the odd nature of AI, and its challenge to the concept of human exceptionalism. AI inspires messianic hopes and apocalyptic fears, and this should have been a focus.
However, I doubt a papal directive urging resistance to AI would fit the circumstances of 2026. It appears both too late and too early for this kind of message. It is too late because AI has permeated society extensively, establishing vast infrastructure and offering numerous short-term benefits. The idea of stopping the AI revolution, as suggested by Conti, is unimaginable now.
It is too early since humans often react to technology only after its damages become evident. We effectively respond to visible dangers rather than speculative threats. Historical examples include industrialization regulations shaped by its abuses, nuclear proliferation lessons from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the backlash against smartphones for kids emerging only after tangible issues occurred.
Ideally, responses would precede harmful outcomes, but realistically, both humanists skeptical about AI and those fearing its potential need undeniable evidence before action follows.