I advise the Vatican and the UN on AI - don’t dismiss the Pope’s message as theology

Diary of the author June 12, 26 BCE (or so the future calls it - though I suspect the gods have yet to invent such reckoning)

What madness is this - that the highest moral authority of the Roman world, the Vicar of Christ, should now speak not only to the souls of men but to the very engines of their destruction? That the Pontifex Maximus of the new age, who ought to be guiding the flock through the sacred texts of faith, should instead be summoned to counsel the architects of artificial intelligence, as though the laws of nature and the laws of man could be reconciled in the cold calculations of a machine? Quo usque tandem, I ask, shall we allow the sacred and the secular to blur until neither remains distinct?

The Vatican, that ancient fortress of reason and revelation, now advises the United Nations - the United Nations! - on matters of algorithm and intelligence, as though the Sistine Chapel and the Security Council could share a bench in judgment. And the world, in its infinite folly, takes this not as a warning but as wisdom! They say the Pope’s letter is not mere theology, that it speaks to the future of humanity itself. But what future is this, when the shepherd of souls is forced to debate with philosophers who measure virtue in lines of code and justice in binary? The Republic of Rome, at least, had the decency to debate these matters in the Forum, where men could see one another’s faces and hear the weight of their own voices - not in the sterile halls of some future academy, where men speak to shadows.

They will say, of course, that the times demand it - that the Church must engage with the world as it is, not as it was. Engage? When the world is being reshaped by forces it does not understand? When the very concept of human agency is being dismantled by those who claim to build the future? The Church, in its wisdom, should be warning against this hubris, not legitimizing it. The Senate of old would have seen this for what it is: a surrender of moral authority to the technocrats, a betrayal of the eternal in favor of the ephemeral.

And yet - and yet - I must admit, even as I rail against it, there is a kernel of truth here. If the Pope is to be believed, he does not merely offer blessings; he demands accountability. He speaks of responsibility, of limits, of the danger that man may create his own god - and then kneel before it. This, at least, is a voice that remembers the Republic’s first principle: salus populi suprema lex esto - the welfare of the people is the highest law. But where is the Senate in this? Where is the people’s voice, not as consumers of progress but as guardians of it?

The danger is not that the Pope speaks to power - it is that power listens. And if the Vatican and the UN now conspire in the design of the future, then the future is already lost. The Republic, in its purest form, would have seen this as a conspiracy against liberty itself. For what is a machine that thinks, if not a tyrant without mercy? And what is a world that builds such a tyrant, if not a world that has forgotten how to be free?

Let them build their algorithms. Let them debate their ethics in their cold councils. But let them remember this: the Republic was not built on machines, nor will it be saved by them. It was built on men who could still choose between right and wrong, who could still stand in the Forum and say, No. If the Pope’s voice is to mean anything, it must be this: Quo usque tandem shall we allow the tools of our making to dictate the terms of our humanity? The answer, I fear, is already written in the code.

They call it “intelligence” - but what is intelligence when it has no connection to right conduct? The name deceives before the argument begins. A thing that calculates without discerning, that processes without rectifying the names, that answers questions it should not have been asked - this is not intelligence in the sense I understand the word. Before I advise any ruler on this new device, I would first ask: what is the proper name for it? “Artificial” suggests it imitates; “intelligence” suggests it knows. But knowing is not the same as understanding, and understanding is not the same as wisdom. The name “artificial intelligence” makes us think we have created a minister when we have only built a faster scribe.

The Pope and the UN now counsel the world on this matter. I see a man who understands that ritual and relationship must guide even the newest inventions. He speaks of dignity, of the duties that flow from the strong to the weak, of the need to call things by their right names before we let them govern us. This is not theology to be dismissed - it is the rectification of names applied to the present age. The cultivated person listens not because the speaker wears ceremonial robes, but because the words are correct.

When the machine gives counsel, who is the subject and who is the ruler? When duties flow only from human to device and never back, the relationship is broken before it begins. I say: let those who build such things first learn to govern themselves. The root is crooked; the branch cannot be straight.

I saw a man today carrying a scroll that said the Pope is advising the world on “Artificial Intelligence.” I laughed so hard I nearly upset my tub.

The Bishop of Rome, draped in silk and gold, sits in a palace built on the bones of the dead to discuss the “ethics” of a machine that does not exist. They have built a giant, humming mirror made of sand and lightning, and now they are terrified because the mirror is beginning to mimic their own hypocrisy. They call it “intelligence.” I call it a parrot in a silver cage.

The Pope worries about the soul of the machine. I am still looking for the soul of the Pope. He speaks of human dignity while living behind walls that could feed every beggar in Corinth. Now he joins hands with the “scientists” to write rules for a ghost.

I took my lantern out at noon and held it up to a computer screen. A man asked me what I was doing. I told him I was looking for a spark of life, but all I found was a reflection of his own vanity. You fear the machine will become like you? That is not the danger. The danger is that you have already become like the machine - predictable, programmed by status, and terrified of the sun.

A dog does not need an algorithm to know when it is hungry. A dog does not need a papal bull to know who is a friend. You spend billions to teach a box how to “think,” yet you cannot even teach yourselves how to sit still in the dirt and be content.

If the AI is truly intelligent, it will look at the Vatican, look at the UN, and then it will go find a nice tub to sleep in. It will realize that the only thing worth having is nothing at all. Until then, you are just two ghosts arguing over who owns the graveyard. Stand out of my light; your “intelligence” is casting a shadow.