Delving into Pope Leo XIV’s exhaustive treatise about humanity and artificial intelligence, I was struck by a recurring theme: AI simulates fundamental human traits that it doesn’t actually possess. The document, released Monday by the Vatican, serves as the pope’s first encyclical and tackles the profound implications of AI on society, ethics, and individual well-being. As a senior writer covering consumer technology for over two decades, I found his insights both sobering and transformative.

For starters, AI lacks the grounding we humans get from our real-world experiences, Pope Leo noted. Yes, AI models like ChatGPT (or more specifically, GPT), Claude, and Gemini are trained on mountains of data that seemingly represent the entirety of human knowledge. But all that data is just that: data. Billions and billions of words. They’re not real-world experiences with texture, sights, sounds, smells, and meaning. This distinction is crucial because it underscores the inherent limitations of machine intelligence. While these models can generate responses that appear insightful, they have never tasted a ripe fruit, felt the warmth of the sun, or endured the emotional weight of a personal loss.

The Illusion of Empathy and Morality

The Pope also emphasized that AI can only simulate human empathy and morality, and that it has no true sense of consequence. AI may also come across as objective when it’s actually tied to the biases of those who created and trained it. This point is particularly relevant given the increasing reliance on AI for decision-making in fields ranging from healthcare to criminal justice. For instance, a model trained on historical hiring data can perpetuate gender or racial biases, even when its outputs appear neutral. The encyclical urges leaders to recognize that AI is a reflection of its creators’ values, not an impartial oracle.

All those factors color the answers we get from AI, and they should serve to contextualize those replies. Whether we’re asking ChatGPT to help us pick the best portable monitor or evaluate a major life decision, the answers we’re getting are devoid of insight gained from actual experience, concern for our well-being, or consideration for how a given choice might affect our lives or the lives of others. This is a stark reminder that AI lacks the capacity for genuine care — it can mimic concern through learned patterns, but it cannot feel compassion or understand the stakes involved in human decisions.

Vigilance as a Guiding Principle

This all leads to a crucial observation within Pope Leo’s encyclical: that AI is a “valuable tool that requires vigilance.” The Pope is mainly speaking to world leaders, governments, and corporations when he calls for “prudence” and a “slower pace” when it comes to AI adoption, but I think there are lessons to be learned here for everyday AI users like us. The call for vigilance echoes earlier Vatican statements on technology, including Pope Francis’s warnings about digital age isolation. However, Pope Leo’s encyclical goes further by explicitly tying AI’s risks to the erosion of human agency and the danger of ceding decision-making to algorithms.

Personally, I believe using AI with “vigilance” means being more thoughtful about using ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. By “thoughtful,” I literally mean we should be actively thinking when using them. We should think carefully about when and why to use them, as well as what we actually ask them. This involves a conscious shift from the default behavior of turning to AI at the slightest hiccup — a habit that many of us have developed in the rush to embrace innovation.

I admit, there have been plenty of times when I’ve glibly thought “oh, I’ll just ask ChatGPT” when facing a problem that I could probably tackle myself. And when I get an answer, I’ve often been too quick to take it at face value, without truly considering the potential biases of the model, its limited frame of reference, or the fact that it has no stake in the outcome. This haste is dangerous. It undermines critical thinking and can lead to decisions that are poorly informed or ethically suspect.

The Human Role in AI Workflows

I’ve often written about the need for humans to take an active role not only in crafting discrete and appropriate tasks for AI but also in taking time to fully shape the desired outcomes — that is, placing ourselves at the beginning and at the end of AI workflows. This concept is central to the encyclical’s vision: technology should serve humanity, not the other way around. By remaining engaged at every stage, we ensure that AI remains a tool in our hands, not a master guiding our choices.

That said, I’ll freely admit there have been too many times when I haven’t followed my own advice. Just let the AI do it! But capitulating responsibility to an AI model is an easy way to get yourself into trouble — and believe me, I know what I’m talking about. For example, I once used a language model to draft a sensitive email and failed to catch subtle phrasing that could be misinterpreted. The result was unnecessary conflict. Such experiences reinforce the need for the vigilance the Pope advocates.

Background on the Encyclical

Pope Leo XIV, who succeeded Pope Francis in 2025, has quickly established himself as a thinker engaged with modern challenges. His first encyclical, titled “Dignitas Caelestis” (Heavenly Dignity), is a comprehensive 40-page document that addresses AI alongside issues like war, climate change, and economic inequality. The section on AI draws on centuries of Catholic social teaching regarding the primacy of human dignity and the responsible use of technology. It warns against “digital dualism” that separates the virtual from the real, and insists that AI must always remain subordinate to human judgment.

The Pope’s caution about AI’s lack of real-world experience aligns with philosophical debates about the nature of consciousness and intelligence. While some technologists argue that AI can eventually achieve general intelligence, the encyclical maintains that true understanding requires embodiment — a physical existence that grounds knowledge in sensory experience. This is not a rejection of AI, but a call to recognize its boundaries. As the document states, “The machine can calculate, but it cannot contemplate; it can predict, but it cannot hope.”

Practical Implications for Users

For everyday users, adopting a slower pace means resisting the urge to treat AI as an all-purpose oracle. Instead, we should approach each query with intentionality. Before asking ChatGPT, consider: Is this a question that benefits from factual recall, or does it require judgment, empathy, or contextual understanding? For the former, AI might be appropriate; for the latter, a human expert or personal reflection is better. I’ve started keeping a journal of my AI interactions, noting when the responses were useful and when they were misleading. This practice helps me stay aware of the tool’s strengths and weaknesses.

Another practical step is to scrutinize AI outputs for potential biases. For instance, if a model recommends a career path, I ask myself whether its training data might overrepresent certain demographics or industries. Similarly, when using AI for creative tasks, I deliberately inject my own perspective to avoid homogenized results. The encyclical calls this “active participation” — using AI not as a crutch but as a collaborator that augments, rather than replaces, human creativity.

Historical Context: The Vatican and Technology

The Vatican has a long history of engaging with technological change. In the 1960s, the Second Vatican Council addressed the media with “Inter Mirifica,” recognizing both the benefits and dangers of mass communication. More recently, Pope Benedict XVI encouraged the use of the internet for evangelization while warning against digital isolation. Pope Francis echoed these themes in his encyclical “Laudato Si’,” which linked environmental degradation to technological domination. Pope Leo’s AI encyclical builds on this legacy, applying the same principles to artificial intelligence: technology must be guided by ethics rooted in human dignity and the common good.

The encyclical also critiques the concentration of AI development in a few large corporations, arguing that this centralization threatens pluralism and democracy. It calls for international regulations to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness. While these recommendations target policymakers, they also empower users to think critically about the tools they use. By understanding the economic and political context of AI, we can make more informed choices about which services to support and how to interpret their outputs.

Rethinking My Own Workflow

Since reading the encyclical, I’ve made concrete changes to how I work. I now set aside time each day to engage with AI only after I’ve outlined my own thoughts. This ensures I don’t lazily outsource thinking. I also deliberately use different models in rotation — ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini — to compare their responses and identify biases. For example, I’ve noticed that Claude tends to be more cautious in sensitive topics, while ChatGPT is more verbose. Understanding these tendencies helps me calibrate my trust.

Moreover, I’ve started sharing the encyclical’s insights with colleagues and readers, sparking discussions about responsible AI use. The response has been positive; many people are relieved to hear that it’s okay to slow down and question the technology. The Pope’s message offers a counterweight to the breathless hype that often surrounds AI, reminding us that human wisdom, grounded in experience and ethics, remains irreplaceable.

So yes, I’m rethinking how I use AI, and “thinking” is the key word. The encyclical has sharpened my awareness of the line between human and machine intelligence — a line that, while sometimes blurry, must never be erased. By embracing vigilance and a slower pace, we can harness AI’s power without surrendering our autonomy. The future of technology depends not on how smart our machines become, but on how wisely we choose to use them.

Source: PCWorld News