Moral, ethical, and practical issues of AI

[John F Sowa]

This topic is rarely discussed on technical enail lists, but it has important consequences that people working on technology must consider.   Following is a slightly edited version of my note to another list.

One of the cofounders of Anthropic (which produced Claude AI) was an advisor to Pope Leo XIV for his recent encyclical on AI.  The main point of the article I quoted below is that experts and consultants from every aspect of society must collaborate.  AI experts have a very narrow view on their subject, and they need to consult and work with leaders from every branch of society with every perspective on life.

David    The effect on employment is likely to be catastrophic. It's unlike any previous "revolution".

That is indeed a danger.  And that is why the cofounder of Anthropic was a consultant to Pope Leo.   He was also one of the speakers who commented on those issues after Leo's opening presentation.  (And by the way, that expert happens to be an atheist.  But he and the pope agreed on the need for collaboration.)

Larry:  Perhaps the best answer is to have many powerful AI systems with competing points of view?

An emphasis on competing points of view is essential.  But the cofounder of Anthropic emphasized that they need people from EVERY branch of society to contribute their views on how to take advantage of the new possibilities.

Instead of putting people out of work, AI technology could provide a minimum living wage for everybody in every branch of society.   There would be no tuition for education of every kind at every level.  

Researchers could pursue any subject at early stages where the return on investment was nonexistent.  College graduates could try their skills in literature and philosophy where there was little or no funding.  Explorers, inventors, and entrepreurs could work in areas that did not generate any funding.in the early stages.

A guaranteed minimum wage opens up an immense number of opportunities.  That is not socialism.  It's a kind of capitalism that provides equal opportunities for beginners in every branch of society.  It also provides a basic income for people with serious inabilities at any age.

In fact, AI technology could provide the funding for EVERYBODY in every country in the world.  Nobody would need to migrate to the US or Europe, since they would get a basic minimum income in their home countries.

This is not a topic that AI people discuss.  It's a topic for leaders in every field to discuss and do something significant -- that includes leaders in every country of the world.  There is no need to wage war against some leaders, religious or political. If they do somehting bad, just cut the funding for them and their followers.

Summary:  AI technology could bring danger or opportunity -- hell on earth or heaven on earth   We have a choice, but it requires collaboration among everybody everywhere.

John

 

---

From: Robert,

David,

Time will tell .

Maybe, AI will allow us to reliably predict the future

Robert 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: David

Robert,

It'll be much bigger than the printing press. The effect on employment is likely to be catastrophic. It's unlike any previous "revolution".

David

On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 8:28 AM Robert  wrote:

John ,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I feel that AI will have an impact on current society that will be in same league as that of the printing press in its time.

Robert 

On Thu, Jun 4, 2026, 4:46 PM John F Sowa <so...@bestweb.net> wrote:

The recent encyclical by Pope Leo raises ethical, moral, and practial questions about AI that affect every aspect of society.  Following are some excerpts from a recent article that discusses the issues:

For the complete artiicle:  www.ncronline.org/opinion/guest-voices/magnifica-humanitas-pope-leo-proposes-synodality-whole-world 

 

John

____________

Public debates about artificial intelligence tend to revolve around familiar binaries: regulation or innovation, optimism or alarm, acceleration or restraint. Magnifica Humanitas reframes the debate. The real challenge is not whether humanity adopts powerful technologies, but whether societies can govern them without sacrificing human dignity, pluralism and democratic responsibility.  

 

Engineers understand systems but not always their social consequences. Politicians regulate technologies they often struggle to comprehend. Economists measure efficiency while overlooking dignity and social cohesion. Educators witness how digital culture reshapes attention and imagination but cannot redesign technological infrastructures. Theologians defend moral anthropology yet cannot resolve technical governance questions. . .. 

Artificial intelligence intensifies this temptation dramatically. A small number of institutions increasingly mediate how people communicate, work, remember, consume information and even form political judgment. Leo observes that technological development is increasingly shaped by "private, often transnational, parties" possessing resources greater than many governments. This concentration of power begins to resemble Babel: one language, one logic, one direction.  The technocratic temptation promises efficiency but risks marginalizing the plurality that sustains democratic life. . . .

Artificial intelligence, then, cannot remain the concern of engineers, regulators or corporate executives alone. It is also a question for schools, families, religious communities, universities and democratic institutions. Education becomes especially important. If digital technologies increasingly shape attention, truth and moral imagination, schools cannot limit themselves to technical training. They must cultivate discernment. . . .

That vision feels increasingly urgent in democratic societies fractured by mistrust, polarization and algorithmic fragmentation. AI does not simply distribute information; it shapes memory, attention and public discourse itself. The challenge is no longer misinformation alone but the erosion of a shared moral horizon.

Technocracy cannot repair this crisis. Faster systems cannot rebuild trust. Better algorithms cannot substitute for civic responsibility. Efficiency cannot create solidarity.

[James Davenport]

IT is indeed comparatively rarely discussed on these lists, though it is a major topic on EU AI standardisation lists.

It is remarkably difficult to do though - after three years we have failed to get lawyers to give an effective definition of "infringes fundamental rights".

A rare article that gets somewhere here is https://medium.com/data-science-collective/ai-compliance-is-creating-a-new-class-of-300k-tech-jobs-95b5234d57aa, though it's still cast in terms of tech jobs.

An interesting read, when it emerges, will be EN 18274 "Competence requirements for professional AI ethicists".

James Davenport

My workload obliges me to work, and send e-mails, outside working hours, but I don’t expect recipients to respond outside their working hours 

 

---

From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of John F Sowa <so...@bestweb.net>
Sent: 05 June 2026 20:54
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>; CG <c...@lists.iccs-conference.org>
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Moral, ethical, and practical issues of AI

 

CAUTION:  This email came from outside of the University. To keep your account safe, only click on links and open attachments if you know the person who sent the email, or you expected to receive this communication.

 

--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/e4e8ade429d741de97f11f9a9f7d51a2%40e54c4b69a0fb4b1b816cf8566c52a21c.

[John F Sowa]

James,

The examples you cite are typical of "major topics" and failures of lawyers to give "effective definitions".  But the collaboration of the largest religious organization in the world with one of the largest AI organizations is unique in its scope and range of possible participants.

It's also unique in the leaders:  a Catholic pope and an atheist cofounder of one of the largest AI companies in the world.  Either one would have considerable influence within the scope of religion or AI.  But in a collaboration, their breadth and depth are unique.  

Vatican City and the worldwide distribution of cardinals,bishops, priests, and churches dwarfs any other organization in the world.  The UN building in NY and its branches worldwide are tiny by comparison.  Islam also has billions of members, but there is no international leadership.

In the presentation of the encyclical on AI,  Pope Leo did not outline a project, he began an international movement that could involve millions of people worldwide.  There is no limit to the number of "projects" that could be created or the range of topics, subject matter, and applications.  And the emphasis on all of them would be interdisciplinary collaboration that involves atheists as well as people who observe any religions of any kind.

In summary,  I'm hopeful that this beginning can inspire an open ended number of international projects that could relate all aspects of society to the best aspects of AI.  It doeesn;t control or limit AI.  It builds on the best aspects.

John

 

---

From: "James Davenport' via ontolog-forum" <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>

IT is indeed comparatively rarely discussed on these lists, though it is a major topic on EU AI standardisation lists.

It is remarkably difficult to do though - after three years we have failed to get lawyers to give an effective definition of "infringes fundamental rights".

A rare article that gets somewhere here is  https://medium.com/data-science-collective/ai-compliance-is-creating-a-new-class-of-300k-tech-jobs-95b5234d57aa, though it's still cast in terms of tech jobs.

An interesting read, when it emerges, will be EN 18274 "Competence requirements for professional AI ethicists".

James Davenport

From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of John F Sowa <so...@bestweb.net>