Terror around the world - AI reaches tipping point of human extinction - Destroy the data centers or die trying - Robots seize the Capitol - US bishops form task force on human dignity in the age of AI

Even the most virulently secular media outlets and companies see the Church as an important part of the AI conversation,and they're correct, but for the wrong reason.

A coordinated media exercise took place in the past few weeks aimed at convincing the populace that AI regulation is needed NOW. We must stop or, at the very least, slow the advance of AI research and development so that we can eke out a few more precious years before the clankers harvest our organs and crush us under their metallic boot heels.

At least, that's the cynical take. What's undeniable is that certain people stand to gain rather a lot from legislative movement and state control of AI. A betting man might wonder why, if the danger of AGI exterminating the human race is higher than 10%, it seems to be business as usual in San Francisco, New York, and Austin. Why would they say "build a bunker" on Monday and release a new model on Wednesday?

Meanwhile the Church, enjoying an unusual influx of AI-related secular relevance (and at least a certain amount of accompanying capital), continues to be quoted in the media in support of what sounds like regulatory capture at best and Luddism at worst. But what they're missing is the actual point the encyclical, and the new USCCB AI task force, seem to be aiming at. It's not primarily about human extinction, it's about human dignity. (Even humans can use "not X but Y" framing sometimes, OK?) The Church isn't so much charting a path between the two extremes of Doom and Full Steam Ahead as it is focusing on something that supersedes both.

There are very sober and trustworthy voices within the Church warning of the need for AI slowdown on existential grounds - Charles Camosy, amongst others - and unlike the labs, their analysis is uncomplicated by the massive financial benefits of regulatory capture. Camosy is the preeminent reason I can't personally pooh-pooh the chance of an existential threat from AGI. His call for the Pope to go to Silicon Valley and summon the labs is less far-fetched than it might sound. But even if this were to happen, it's only one part of what the Church can accomplish, and not really the part that has much immediate bearing for most Catholics.

If you actually read the encyclical, rather than the headlines, you'd see that "calling for prudence, rigorous evaluation and even, at times, a slower pace in adopting AI does not mean opposing progress; instead, it is an exercise of responsible care for the human family." (¶106) The initial reporting on the AI task force does suggest that lobbying will be a part of their remit, and the bishops did head straight to Capitol Hill, but I suspect that this is merely the most obvious and immediate item on the agenda.

But I agree wholeheartedly with JD Flynn that the much longer lever the bishops can pull is in working on standards and guidance for the ecclesial body they head. This is something that can happen right now, and can have an enormous impact on the people of the Church. Legislation is downstream from Culture, but the Church is on the banks.

The questions on Flynn's list aren't hypotheticals. "If a deacon or priest explains from the ambo that AI 'helped' with his homily, can he deliver one written mostly by a robot?" "Can seminarians practice hearing confessions with AI avatars?" These are real dilemmas encountered across the Church today. And they aren't always easily answered, even working from Magnifica Humanitas' principles. What if an AI-generated homily delivered by a pastor brings a person to a deep personal conversion, or gives someone the strength they need to shake off despair, where the human-drafted homily would not have?

Right now most Church AI policies, if they exist, stop at disclosure. That's where a policy should start, not end.

-- Sid