Transcription
Welcome back to the Word on Fire Show. I'm Matthew Petrusk, senior director of the Word on Fire Institute and the host of the Word on Fire Show. Thank you for joining us.
Pope Leo XIII is widely regarded as the founder of modern Catholic social thought, a vast systematized collection of moral teachings grounded in natural law and the magisterium of the Catholic Church. Leo XIII was responding to widespread social, economic, and moral upheaval caused by rapid industrialization in the West, combined with novel philosophical and political movements that challenged traditional conceptions of the human person and the meaning of human life. In taking the name Leo XIV, the new pope has signaled that the church finds itself in a similar era, one marked by tumultuous social change.
The question remains, however, whether the Catholic social thought of Leo XIII's time is still applicable today, given the radically different world we now live in, a world increasingly defined by the rise and possible dominance of artificial intelligence, robotics entering into mainstream life, the breakdown of regular physical contact among people, and the rise also of transhumanism—moral, economic, and political realities that Leo XIII could probably have never have conceived of. Can Catholic social thought help us to navigate these uncharted waters? Can it continue to guide, inspire, and warn us in an age so different from its origins? Is it still, to put it bluntly, useful?
Here to discuss the unique challenges of our age and the enduring relevance of the Catholic social thought tradition is Bishop Robert Baron.
[Music]
Bishop, welcome back to the studio.
Hey Matt, good to see you. Uh, so today we're talking about uh modern Catholic social thought, which really first crystallized under the um papacy of Leo XIII uh over 100 years ago, but now seeing fresh light under our new pope Leo XIV. Um, and how that can continue to guide us in the age of artificial intelligence AI. Before we get all all that though, it's a big topic.
Yeah. Yeah. Well, we've got 25 minutes. All right. Before we uh we get into all of that. Um, today we're filming the 500th episode of the Word on Fire Show. Did you ever think you would have this kind of run?
No. And it's hard to believe it. It was only this morning when I came in to record these. You reminded me of that. Um, I remember the first one very well. I'd just been named a bishop. I'm out in Los Angeles. I was, I don't know where I was or who I was. And um, Brandon, was Brandon there? I think he was there physically with me for the installation. And we did the first show from my little uh little apartment I had at the cathedral in Los Angeles, and it was experimental. We thought, well, let's try this this podcast thing. And, you know, and no, I did not imagine we had this kind of longevity. So thank God.
Yeah. Praise God. Praise God. And here's to 500 more.
Yeah. Uh, all right. So now AI and Catholic social thought. But what we're going to divide the show up into sort of laying the table with Catholic social thought, its fundamental principles, and then looking at how it can apply to the question of artificial intelligence and the implications of AI. Uh, so let's start with Catholic uh social thought in in a most basic sense. Um, give us a definition of of what it is. Just get us in the arena of Catholic social thought.
I would say it's a way of applying Catholic theology and spirituality to economic and political reality. Right. So God has to do with everything. As I've often argued, you can't sequester God into one little corner, but God has to do with all of life. And therefore, God has something to do with our social life, our political life, and so on, economic life. And Catholic social teaching is an attempt to provide principles that guide um, you know, the way we live, that that those dimensions of life in light of of Christ. Um, John Paul II said it was essential to the new evangelization. I always found that interesting. The Catholic social teaching is a way to evangelize people. I think what he meant was to help them see how Christ, the logos, should be involved in the whole of our our practical economic and political lives.
Say a little bit about its roots. So modern Catholic social, these are not new ideas. They go back to the very beginning of the church. Exactly. Uh, but Leo XIII is often identified as the figure that sort of first systematized it and promulgated it. So say a little bit about his role in modern Catholic social thought.
A really pivotal figure, Leo XIII. Um, we have two extraordinarily long papacies in the 19th century. Pius IX, who's pope for 26 years or 28 years, something like that, and then his successor Leo XIII is pope for 20, they were five or six years. They both have these enormously long papacies. Leo died in 1903. In 1891, he writes this famous letter, Rerum Novarum, which is the genitive plural of of new things, right? And the new things would be all the social, political, economic changes in the 19th century. So, think of the rise of Marxism and of socialism, the rise of the industrial economy, the rise of a somewhat more, you know, rapacious capitalism. All of that was going on late 19th century. And Leo is trying to respond to these new things um in light of of the the church's convictions. So drawing indeed upon uh his papal predecessors, but also upon the great Church Fathers, upon Thomas Aquinas in a big way, upon Jesus himself and the Hebrew prophets, all of that, he comes up with this great statement. It was addressing the particulars of his time, but it also had a very universal resonance. And it inspired a whole tradition that we call modern Catholic social teaching, stretching from 1891 now all the way through Pope Francis. Now with the new Pope Leo, and it'll be very interesting to see when he writes his first encyclical on the social order, will be very interesting. But now it's what, you know, 30 years of of a tradition. Um, and it's been very influential on the life of the church, but also, I say, in the wider society. It's allowed the church to get involved in these conversations in an intellectually disciplined way. And so I think it's a, it's one of the great um, kind of jewels in the crown of our Catholicism today is our social teaching tradition.
Let's look at some of the key principles in the Catholic social tradition, which we certainly see in Rerum Novarum and the thought of Leo XIII more generally. The first is human dignity. What are the most essential elements of the Catholic conception of human dignity?
It's, I think it's the most basic principle is the dignity of the human person, that we're made in the image and likeness of God, and therefore we cannot be abused and manipulated or reduced to some more generic social form, like I'm just a cog in the social machine. I'm just part of the movement of history. All these things, or put on on the other side, that I'm just this sort of cog in a capitalist uh order. No, no. That each individual person, made in God's image and likeness, is a subject of infinite dignity, and all of our social teaching really hinges upon that, is grounded in that idea, and it's threatened from from all sides. And and one of the virtues of Catholic social teaching is to see that, to see how left, center, and right, in different ways, um, attack human dignity. It's the most fundamental principle of our social teaching.
Is it fair to say that, um, as an anthropological principle, it cuts against both sort of collectivism but also radical individualism, because we all come from the same creator? We're individualized, but we're all united in that.
That's right. They're very different understandings of of the individual, right? And the the biblical one is um, image and likeness. And so the church would tend to use not the language of the individual, but of the person, right? Uh, and the dignity of the human person, grounded in this theological identity. And yes, it's violated from from both sides. Um, I can become, from a right-wing perspective, just a kind of expendable part of an economic, you know, behemoth. And from the the left-wing side, I can become just part of the, you know, general movement of history or, you know, to to promote the revolution, you gotta, you know, crack a few eggs or.
Yeah. Right. You know, I mean, those are both violations of this principle, and it's the most fundamental and the most important.
How about the Catholic conception of the common good? Many hear that and say, "Oh, that's like the greatest good for the greatest number." But it's not. Say a little bit about the difference.
No, we can define it pretty, I think, uh, directly this way. The common good is that whole set of social conditions that allows for the full flourishing of individual human persons. So if we take the the dignity of the person as fundamental, okay, the common good is not now, I'm reducing the the, I'm allowing the individual become absorbed by the common. It's that set of um conditions that make the flourishing of of human persons possible. That's the common good. Uh, so I have to be attentive to social conditions that will now impinge upon the flourishing of of individuals.
Is it, is it accurate to say that from a common good perspective, the authentic good of all implicates the good of the individual, and the authentic good of the individual implicates the good of all?
Right? And, um, I, I, the church talks about this, um, social conditions. Uh, what, what are the marks of a society that allow for each individual person to come to full flourishing? Think of the maintenance of an educational system as a good example. Right? So the common good dictates there should be a really well-functioning educational system. Now, why? Because you want each person within that uh society to flourish intellectually. Um, why should there be institutions that that foster community life? Well, because I want each individual to have the opportunity for sociability and friendship. So, um, it's an interesting play between the the common and the particular, if you want, but the focus is on the flourishing of the person.
Uh, how about, uh, solidarity? What defines solidarity? How do we distinguish it from a sort of generic secular conception of social justice?
Yeah, we're interdependent. We're part of a family. Uh, we're not simply individuals uh who by way of contract establish a relationship. We are by our very creation connected to each other. I've argued that for years that if you believe in the doctrine of creation, willy-nilly, we're all connected to each other because we're coming forth right now from the same creative source, from God. So, we're like islands in an archipelago. You know, we might look separate on the surface, but underneath we're we're connected in God. Um, so the radical connection, interdependence of people, um, that's our solidarity, and that my flourishing will affect your flourishing and vice versa. I shouldn't flourish at your expense, you shouldn't flourish at my expense, but we're all in this together.
I'll make it a little more concrete. U and one of the more radical expressions of Catholic social teaching is the universal destination of goods. So this is grounded in the prophets and Aquinas. Leo XIII clearly affirms it that we have a right to private ownership indeed. So Catholic social teaching is opposed to all forms of of collectivism, socialism; it's for private property. But when it comes to Aquinas says, to the use of what we own privately, our primary concern should be the common good. That's a rather extraordinary claim. I can't say I've accumulated all this money and all this wealth, and it's for me. No, you have a right to own it, but your first consideration should be, well, what's the common good? How can I use this wealth for the sake of the of the whole? Um, Pope Francis applied that not just to individuals, but to nations, that if a wealthy nation, yeah, has a right to to its property, but in the use of that, should its preoccupation be the common good of all nations? Yes. Well, that's part of that's an expression of of solidarity.
How about subsidiarity? What is that and how is it related to solidarity and the and the common good?
One of the great principles of Catholic social teaching, most clearly articulated by Pius XI in a letter called Quadragesimo Anno, which means in Latin, on the 40th year, so written in 1931, 40 years after Rerum Novarum. Uh, I I'd say it this way: subsidiarity, that um, political and social economic matters should be adjudicated at at the most local level possible, and only when they cannot be adjudicated successfully at that level should you move to the very next level. Um, there should be a prejudice always in favor of the more local solution to an economic, social, or political problem. That's subsidiarity. A violation of it would be, I've got a a problem with the traffic light, you know, in my neighborhood. Well, I'm going to go right to the president. I'm going to write to the president. Well, no. How about you start with your your community, the community organization? Maybe you start with the police department or whatever. And only when it can't be adjudicated, for whatever reason, would you move to the next level. Maybe it's now the county seat or whatever, and and then it can't be adjudicated there. Only then might you move to the state legislature, etc. So it's a, it's a prejudice in favor of the local, but at the same time a willingness to move up the chain of hierarchy if necessary. Uh, but the prejudice in favor of the local. And so it's a balancing principle to um, solidarity, which emphasizes kind of what connects all of us to each other. Subsidiarity is trying to keep things at a at the local level. I find intriguing, Matt, like in terms of our politics, subsidiarity tends to appeal more to a conservative or Republican mindset. Solidarity appeals more to a liberal democratic mindset. Okay, I don't really care. They're both parts of Catholic social teaching. Um, and that's the way it goes. The two sides within our system tend to kind of break against it. They'll find some things they like, other things they don't like. But Catholic social teaching is marked by an extraordinary balance, really. And that's a good example.
And both are necessary for the common good.
Yeah, that's right. That's right.
And finally, uh, sin. Uh, how does the Catholic conception of sin factor into all of this? And why is it so important to keep in mind, especially when we're talking about political and social questions?
To me, it's one of the most important political principles. And I, I, it's been claimed by people like um, uh, Russell Kirk and and others on the conservative side as a, a mark of a conser, healthy conservatism. And I would share this. It's anti-utopian. You know, if we just uh, make the right economic, cultural, social, political changes, we can make this thing perfect. We can eliminate suffering. We can eliminate poverty. It's just a matter of our will to change the structures. I think biblical people have a very keen sense of how stupid and therefore how dangerous that is. Um, given the fall, we're all compromised, all of us. We're all morally compromised, intellectually compromised. We can make progress. This is not some kind of nihilism, or it's not a, you know, resignation to inevitable suffering. But it's a keen sense that nothing we finally do is going to eliminate these social problems. Sin will always abide. As Jesus himself said, the poor will always be with you. You know, one way to read that is, look, whatever you do, whatever changes you make, they're always going to be imperfections. And so I think at the heart of Catholic social teaching is an animus against all forms of utopianism, because utopianism, either of the right or the left, right, are very dangerous. If I think, oh, no, no, we can do it, well, all right, then keep killing people, you know, because we haven't killed enough people to make this thing work. Yeah. Right? Uh, look at the at the death camps of the 20th century on both the left and the right, both Nazism and communism, pile up corpses because both believed in a way, like Hitler believed, look, just we'll just get rid of the Jews and we'll be fine, you know, do enough social engineering, we'll be fine. Or the Soviet version of it, you know, you got to crack a few eggs to make an omelet, and and if if we can work out our economic problems by starving millions of people to death, well, go ahead and do it. Um, the church stands to thwart that with a very healthy sense of sin, of our imperfection. I like Thomas Sowell on this, the economist. You know, we can we can make things better, but we will never make them perfect. And that's a very healthy instinct.
And is it, is it accurate to say that in order to make things better, we have to recognize that we can't make them perfect?
Yeah, I think so. That's right. Because if you assume that, you will make things worse. I guarantee you, you'll make things worse. That's why, you know, look, when I'm a young kid, um, there was still this kind of 1960s, '70s energy about, you know, politics and what we could do and this great idealism. Man, it has been knocked out of me. And thank God it was it, you know what I'm saying? That kind of naive idealism was was knocked out of me because that's a dangerous road to go down. Oh boy, I'll just elect this guy and it'll be great, or if only that party got in power. I have a very, I think, healthy sense of, you know, no matter who's in there, it's not going to be certainly not perfect, won't even be that great. Maybe we'll do a little less damage than we might have done otherwise. I'm sounding a little too cynical now, but but I think that's a very important, healthy principle.
It's a good, uh, political slogan: "I'll be less bad." "I'll be less dangerous than the other guy."
There's a lot of truth to that, actually. Well, as a as a bridge to our discussion of artificial intelligence and how we can take these principles and apply them. Um, it's very important to note that our new pope has deliberately chosen, of course, the name Leo XIV. So, what do you think he's trying to communicate by by taking that name?
Well, he himself said it, didn't he? Because we were all kind of guessing at it when he, we heard the name, and uh, I think we all knew, okay, connection to Leo XIII. He himself has said, as Leo was dealing with the new things of his time, and I just named some of them, you know, all the kind of the revolutionary spirit, the rise of industrialism, uh, early forms of capitalism, um, there are new things today. Leo XIV is recognized, and among them would be AI, I think, right? Is one of the new things, and technology and the internet that we're dealing with today. And so again, Catholic social teaching should be applied to these new things. So one of the um, points of skepticism, probably not critique yet, but skepticism, say, well, look, okay, so these principles we've identified, can see how it plays out in the rise of industrialization, but we are now in such a different kind of situation historically, uh, that perhaps they're they're not going to be as helpful as we think they are. So let's let's look at that question, especially as we see the rise of artificial intelligence and the blurring of the lines between man and machine. Um, before we do, though, we have to get a sense of what artificial intelligence is. So what's your understanding of it, Bishop? Both what makes it intelligent and what makes it artificial?
Well, the intelligence side, I think I think of AI and its various instantiations as a very, very sophisticated and very impressive and very rapid uh search engine that it can manage the information now available to us through uh the internet, which is like everything. You know, I've got an iPhone in my pocket and I can, in principle, call upon almost all the information available in the. I can ask it to call up, you know, Aristotle's metaphysics, and I can ask it who won the 1962 World Series, and I can ask it who was the star of F Troop, and you know, I mean, I I can ask that phone almost anything. Well, AI is an extremely sophisticated means by which we can access all of this information and then, here's maybe again where the intelligence comes in, to order it in in novel and creative ways, you know. So like when you can say to certain AI functions, um, "write me a poem in the manner of Alfred Lord Tennyson," and within seconds, out comes a, at least for the moment, credible, credible poem in the manner of Alfred Lord Tennyson. Well, what's it done there? It's, I would say it's mimicking intelligence because it's gathering data and then able to collate and arrange it in a way that at least mimics creativity. Um, so there's the artificial side of it. It's not real intelligence. It's not real creativity. It's a kind of mimicry of creativity, but based upon an extraordinary ability to to search and collate what's available through the internet. That's how I would characterize.
Sure. The the the characterization of something artificial, um, there's a bit of a philosophical quandary there, because artificial things do exist, but they still exist. Um, so can we dig a little bit deeper on the difference between something that's real and authentic and something that's real and artificial?
Yeah, as I've I've been using this language of mimicry because I think AI, it mimics consciousness or mimics intelligence. Look, I'm a Thomist. You know, what makes my mind um, immaterial is its capacity to um, engage in sheer abstractions and to understand them. So not just entertain them, but to understand them, to enter into their intelligibility in a in a conscious way. Um, and then to order what it knows, even in creative uh, patterns. Um, so the immateriality of the mind is a function of this capacity for dealing with with sheer abstractions, um, with the properly immaterial, the properly invisible, as we were saying last time around. You know, uh, authentic intellection is the creative movement within that sphere of pure intelligibility. What's happening with AI, it seems to me, is a mimicry of that. It's not the authentic um, subjective owning of that process, which is involved in in real consciousness.
So, um, we're we're all starting grappling with the emergence of this at both the philosophical and the practical level. We'll get some more practical questions uh in a moment. But at this point, in your understanding of AI, would you say it's a difference of degree or kind from previous technological developments?
Yeah, that's a, it's an interesting question. I'm not sure I know the the right answer to that. Um, we were talking with some of the the fellows here before we were recording, and and the consensus seemed to be it's a difference in in kind. Um, you know, that that some, this is this is different than other forms of technological advancement that we've seen. There's something qualitatively different, a little more dangerous about this because of that remarkable way of mimicking real consciousness.
And can we tell the difference between, at least when you're kind of looking at something objectively? I'm talking to you right now, assuming I'm meeting a real consciousness. Will I be able to distinguish you from, let's say, in maybe just a few years, a bot endowed with AI?
I don't know. I don't know. And and that, I think, is a, that's maybe a qualitative difference from other types of of technological advance that we've experienced. Let's say in Pope Leo's time, you know, moving from a horsedrawn carriage to an automobile that was going on right after him, I suppose. Uh, okay, that caused a huge uproar and economic uh, turmoil and so on. Uh, think of the emergence of, you know, the telephone and what that meant. Then in my own lifetime, the emergence of the computer, what that meant. Is AI qualitatively different than that? Is it a difference in kind? Um, maybe.
Well, let's, let's look at some more sort of concrete instances of of this question that again, we're dealing with in in real time. So, with the emergence of AI, we also have the emergence of robotics, and as you suggested, um, and is actually already the case, uh, there are humanoid robots, and it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference between, especially from a difference, you know, human act, human, a perception of a human perception of a of a robot. But speaking sort of at the metaphysical or anthropological level, is it ever possible in principle, even to create something that would replace a human being?
No. No. As you say, the difference between what you can recognize and what's really the case. And it might be true that it'll be very difficult to recognize the difference, but no, at the metaphysical level, um, you're not, when you're dealing with AI, you're dealing with a sophisticated machine which is mimicking certain moves of consciousness, but is not an immaterial consciousness. So, no, at the metaphysical, subjective level, no, there there's a qualitative difference. The trick though, as you suggest, is the recognition factor. Would I be able to recognize it readily?
You know, I find this very interesting because heck, this goes back to when I was a kid. Uh, 2001, a Space Odyssey comes out, and you know, it's wild fantasy about space travel. But the one part of it that was really prescient was the computer, right, that turns on the astronauts. Hal, the computer, and has that kind of soothing voice and everything, but they realized by the end, wait a minute, this thing has turned on us. We invented it. Yeah. Look, even even Mary Shelley, in the 19th century, Frankenstein, I mean, saw this problem coming, that we'll make something that will now turn on us and destroy us. Um, now it's becoming much more of a reality. And you see it also in, uh, what was it? We mentioned that one Spielberg movie, but the other one, um, was it called? Was it called AI? Remember with, um, the little kid? There's a robot and the family takes him in, and, and he's just like a little kid.
Daryl? No, no, no. It's a Disney movie. No, but we've been anticipating this thing for a long time. It's funny in the popular culture. Uh, the robots turning on us, or what's the, then the Will Smith movie, right? I, Robot. Yeah, I, Robot, right? But but it's funny, they they don't emerge as benign. The Terminator, is that what you're thinking of? Well, I think Terminator 2 is another one, right? That we knew the machines are going to turn on us, right? Um, no. In fact, what's it called? AI, the Spielberg movie. The kid. Um, oh, Ready Player One. That's one. No, that's one you would re. Anyway, we, that's one you would reference, but there's a lot of them. But what's interesting is that they they don't emerge as, hey, how wonderful. They all emerge as like, oh my God, this is this is a nightmare, right? So, it's like the human race has anticipated this for a while. Yeah. That this is a nightmarish scenario. Um, so, you know, we all use AI. You know, heck, I use it all the time in the car. I ask the, you know, the thing to to play a Beatles song, or I, or I, the GPS is guiding me, and this little voice is talking to me.
You ever find yourself, a GPS, um, apologizing? Like I'll say, "Oh, I'm sorry, I I should have taken that route." You know, it's not a person, it's a stupid machine mimicking a voice. But we all use it. Obviously, I don't want to go back behind that. But how do we draw the line between this helpful, useful tool and this now dangerous?
You know, it's, it's occurring to me as you're describing all this, um, and I don't know if there's a connection here, but in in the creation of sin, so sin is something that we introduce into reality. We we create something that wasn't there. It's not natural. There's no reason for it to be there. Sort of tearing a hole in the fabric of existence. We create something that then we can't fix. We can't control. I think that has something to do with the sort of haunting recognition that that we are really capable of creating something that can destroy us.
Yeah. No, and that's going back to Mary Shelley. That's a very biblical kind of idea. How dangerous is it playing around with that? And it, and we, you know, she writes that at the, you know, the Enlightenment is just getting going, and this confidence in reason and what science can do and all that. And she was a a prophetess, huh, to say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know science maybe can do this, but it shouldn't be doing it." And it's unleashing very dangerous powers that will turn on us. That that's a good question. That's as old as the at least the Enlightenment. If I can do it, yeah, okay, but should I do it? Right. And if the moral question is simply put aside, oh no, I can do these wonderful things, I can do, but should I be doing it? And if the principle, go back to social teaching, is the dignity of the human person, right? Maybe certain things I shouldn't be doing. And, you know, what's frightening to me about the AI stuff is at some level you say, "Well, can't you at least pull the plug if you want to just turn the thing off?" Maybe not. And that's Hal from 2001. We're trying to turn this thing off, but it won't let us.
That's right. Right. Uh, no, I'm sorry. You can't. Well, I, I, I mentioned right before we uh, we started airing that there's a Wall Street Journal article that now AI has learned how to appear as if it's been turned off in order to keep working, to avoid threats. So that's, it's already crossed that threshold.
Well, right. And and we all have this experience of of our phones are always listening to us. They're always on. Yeah. It's like, how does the first time that occurred to me this is many, many, maybe a couple of years ago when, um, just scrolling through Facebook, I had said something to a friend, and it was some some one-off kind of thing, and suddenly like an ad for that thing appeared. I said, "Wait, how how did that do that?" I I had no. And well, you know, it's listening to you, it's listening to me. Uh, I I find that unnerving. I find that unnerving.
Well, let's, let's dig into the the moral dimensions of it, um, with, um, a bit more specificity. And so we, we have our toolbox of the Catholic social thought tradition. Uh, and the goal is to see if we can apply some of those tools to these more specific instantiations of the problem of AI. Um, so what limiting principles, uh, might there be from the Catholic social thought tradition, first, on the embedding of AI, the embedding of technology directly into the human body, uh, which is already happening? It's already happened in a rudimentary sense with like pacemakers, but now there's capacity enhancing, right? H how well, how can we navigate that?
The old principle has always been, if if technology helps the natural powers of the body, like we're both wearing glasses, right? Well, these are artificial things, but they're helping the the natural finality of the eyes to see, or you do a surgical intervention, or like a pacemaker. It, it's not repugnant to the body. It's it's aiding the body in its natural function. So that's the principle. Well, now, I don't know these AI things like like brain implants that allow you to access the internet. Uh, well, now people, for example, with a, so there there's a restorative function to them. Uh, so individuals who've lost the use of their their bodies, for example, now can communicate directly with a with a screen, and I, you know, see that as far as it goes is something legitimate if it's enhancing a natural capacity, you know, but, uh, I don't know enough about the medicine of all that and what exactly they're doing, but if it enhances the natural power, that's seen as a good thing.
And how does that relate to our identity as as dignified uh creatures? This distinction between, for example, maybe restoration versus, yeah. Uh, above and beyond enhancement.
I don't know. I, I, I get kind of lost at the fringes there of the conversation because I don't know what these things are exactly and what they can do and what they promise. Um, and when only certain people have access to these things, that's one of the issues. The social justice question. That's the right solidarity. If it becomes like such an expensive or it's a rare thing that only a handful of people get access to it, can they prevent others from getting access to them? Um, I go back to, you know, I think through movies, Star Wars, you know, when Luke Skywalker's hand is cut off and let's put an artificial hand on, which is just like his other one, and you know, uh, I suppose in in principle there, you've got an enhancement of a natural capacity, but I don't know enough about the details of like the medical implications of these things. U, but the principle remains, I think, pretty clear.
Another massive change we're already on the cusp of, uh, is, um, the the development of, with the integration of AI into what's often now identified as the metaverse, but virtual reality.
Oh, right. So now it's cap, we're capable, they are capable, they're not, I don't want to be associated with this, are capable of creating this entire digital world that we can interact with by putting on a like an apparatus. Um, and so the idea is is that over time we'll become more and more isolated as individuals living in a digital world that's entirely fabricated, and that'll be our primary mode of interaction with other human beings through avatars. Uh, what does Catholic social say about that?
Me is deeply sick because I think of like, you know, the kid now on his iPhone all day and kind of divorced from the world and and caught up in this addictive world of the internet. And if I now raise that to the nth degree, and I'm enveloping my entire person in in that virtual reality, I think that's bizarre. And, um, we should be in touch with God's world. We should be in touch with each other. We should be dialoguing with, you know, friends. So, no, that the immersion in that virtual world, it's like the old, you know, fantasies about, um, if I did, I took a pill that always made me feel good, would that be the right thing to do? And no, obviously not. Is it, you know, even even a painful life but lived in the real world is better than some artificially constructed emotional state. So, no, I think it's pretty clear that that's dangerous stuff.
What about the incarnational reality of the human body? Is there something that that's just built into our nature that we need the physical contact in local communities?
Oh, absolutely. And it's it's God's world that that matters, and what draws you out of yourself. And the trouble with that virtual stuff is I start inventing the world that I want to live in, right? Instead of the world that's kind of given to me. Uh, it's so important in philosophy and indeed theology, the givenness of of being, it's given to me as a gift. If I start saying, no, I want to live in the world that I've invented for myself, talk about curvatus, right? I've caved in around myself. And, uh, it's like the, what's the old, uh, Schwarzenegger movie, you know, Total Recall, when he he goes into his, "I'll invent my own world to live in." I mean, how weird and and unhappy that is.
So, this is an awkward question to ask, but unfortunately one that's completely nowadays, um, is how should we respond to those who argue that having a robot boyfriend, girlfriend, or even spouse should be considered perfectly, uh, normal and even potentially praiseworthy?
I would recommend against it. Resurrection says no. No to robots. No. But the question you raised earlier, that's the to me the frightening one, is, uh, let's say, I don't know how many years in the future, that a robot could be developed, and again, the movies anticipated this, that perfectly credible, perfectly credible, or even, even now aren't there these things where people can talk to, like, you know, Siri or something, and in sophisticated versions, she can sort of respond in an emotionally appealing way? Already here, right? And so I can see someone very lonely being drawn drawn into that, and the, what you have is a mimicking of a real friend, the mimicking of a friendly voice. But no, that's exceptionally dangerous.
Seems to me, it seems also the thenosticism that you pointed to has also paved the way for this, because it's the body doesn't matter anymore, right? And so if we can attribute consciousness to a mechanical object, then why not think of it as another person to be in a relationship with?
No. Quite right. And, you know, again, we're in a fallen world, and and people are are sad for all kinds of reasons, and you can see why they'd be seduced by something like that. Um, yeah, that's the side of it that is spooky, isn't it? It's spooky from a psychological and spiritual standpoint. Um, and yeah, so why not have a robot that is just attuned to your needs all the time, will do whatever you want, will say the things you always want to hear, but then you're not alive. If you're just, you're stuck in your own your own sinful self.
Mhm. You know, we also have to look at the economic implications of this as well, especially since Catholic social thought is is very attentive to economic realities of of human beings. Uh, so Goldman Sachs has estimated that 25% of all jobs within the next 10 years. So we're not looking at a 100-year frame, we're looking at 10 years will be automated. Um, how can Catholic social thought principles help us to navigate what what appears to be inevitable at this point?
It should stand against it. You know what strikes me now? I, I'm an old fuddy-duddy now, I suppose. I walk into these, um, where was I the other day? I was out of town, and, um, we just wanted to get fast food. They drive me crazy. The kiosk. I hate them because I'm used to, you walk up to, here's a human being. Maybe they're not in the best mood. Maybe they're, you know, a difficult teenager or something, but it's a human being. "Hi, could I have a Whopper and large fries and a Coke?" Uh, okay. "What do you want in that Whopper?" Oh, can I have, you know, the kiosk? First of all, it insults me. It's like, why am I doing all the work? I'm here to get food. I'm going to give you money for it, and I got to do all the work, you know? But the second thing is it's taken a job away from that kid. Uh, and now you walk into these places, there aren't any. There's no option. There isn't a human being you can talk to. You've got to go through the kiosk, and I'm bad at kiosks. So, what did I hit that? That is that the diet? I don't have diet Coke. You know, I'm like now a typical old man that doesn't know how to handle these things. But, but the deeper problem you're driving at is just that that it used to be when I look, I, I worked at Krocenber's bookstore as a stock boy when I was a kid. Uh, I don't know if that could be done by AI, that job, but, sure, you're taking away a chance for someone to exercise, maybe at a minimal level at that point in his life, but some intelligence, some creativity, some interaction with other human beings. I think of, I still have friends from when I was when I worked at Krocenber's as a 16-year-old kid. It's how you get habituated into adulthood, right? Um, and, you know, you got to get to work on time, and, and I know you don't feel like going, but you got to go. If all that's eliminated, Um, yeah, that's a real danger. And, you know, to our earlier point, you think of, yes, we've gone through these transitions before. So, from the horsedrawn carriage to the automobile, okay, that caused a big upheaval. We adjusted. Did it affect some people's jobs? Sure. But were other ones invented that made up for it? You know, probably. Will that happen now with the AI revolution? I don't know. Will they be replaced? And if so, are you inviting now a whole generation of people nothing to do? Their their minds are not called upon to be intelligent. Their wills aren't called forth. They're living in in isolation in their own little virtual reality. That's an unhappy world. That's a really unhappy world.
That leads to the next question here is, um, is it on principle, is it a good goal to have to seek to eliminate work from human life by technological advancements?
No. Work is something, you know. Yes, the Bible, one aspect of it is, you know, you'll you'll work by the sweat of your brow, and all that, that kind of a punishment for sin. But then look at John Paul II, and that he represents another side of the tradition that says, no, work is wonderful. And we all know that, you know, once in a while having a day off, it's great, and we enjoy having a day off. But like, if some, someone told me, you know, for the rest of your life, you don't have to do anything, you you're on vacation, you got nothing but days off, I'd fall into depression in about two days, you know? Uh, I need work. I love it. When I have challenging work to do ahead of me, I'm looking forward to the day. And, and, you know, I do a lot of writing, and people say, "Oh, you write so fluently." No, no. Writing to me is like breaking rocks. It's like hard labor, writing, but I'd much rather have that than nothing to do, you know? So, no, I, I don't want work eliminated from my life. I, I want it enhanced, right? So, I mean, now indeed, I remember, look, I'm old enough, when I was doing research, I got to go to a book, I got to find where that is, and where is that on my shelf? I can't find that. The card catalog, card catalog, and where is that? Okay. I love the fact that we now have enhanced ways of finding information, great. But I would never want my work to be taken away from me. My work is is part of my dignity, right?
Well, there's strong empirical evidence showing that those who retire and what that means is they go into a life of pure leisure, die much earlier than those who continue working.
Absolutely. We know. It's funny, my my father retired at my age now, and it was common in those days. I, I couldn't imagine it. The furthest thing from my mind is retirement. Furthest thing from my mind. So I, I get that. And, and I, I got all kinds of projects I got planned and things I want to do. Um, good work is good. And we don't want this, this, there's the Frankenstein monster thing. I don't want this taking away something that belongs to my joy and my dignity.
And as a final category, there's obviously much more we could be talking about, but we need to hit this one as well, is, um, relationship between AI and art. Uh, so what, what value, if any, Bishop, do you see for, uh, art that's entirely generated by AI? And we're looking here, we're looking at movies, we're looking at music, looking at literature.
Well, that's, I must say, this was, um, uh, demonstrated to me a few months ago, and I didn't know AI was capable of this sort of thing. Uh, take a couple of, you know, characters and say, uh, "write a, a screenplay involving these two characters," like one drawn from literature and one drawn from, and by God, it did it, and it did it credibly. Maybe not at, you know, Spielberg levels, but it credibly, yeah, in seconds, created a screenplay. Um, it's amazing, and it's frightening, and it's unnerving, um, and it's a threat to the, the very creativity that we love and that we honor. And it's a mimicry of creativity because all it's doing is drawing on pre-existing things and kind of assembling them in fresh ways. Uh, and, and sure, creative people do the same thing to some degree. I mean, you're drawing on what you know, but that real spark of of intelligence that's involved in real creativity. Uh, I don't want some weird mechanical simulacrum of that. I want the real thing, both in other people and in myself. And so if AI is is some weak-minded substitute for that, or, and then, you know, it's bugging, I know this teachers from first grade to graduate school. How do you, how do you know that the student has produced a paper? How do you know anymore? They go on ChatGPT and they and they have this credible paper. You know, "give me something on a Cartesian reading of, you know, whatever," and it comes up with it credibly. I've heard teachers say, "You got to go back to blue books. They got to bring a blue book into class, have a student write it out." That really is the only way now. Yeah. Because they have AI detectors. Yeah. And then they have AI AI blockers.
Well, right. The I know the machines will figure it out. Well, I, The Matrix, there's the other one, right? That the machines have taken over. I mean, we've always known this. That's a very interesting thing to me. Very interesting thing. We've always known this. Like, we we've been afraid of it for a long time, and and the movies and shows have shown it, but now it's upon us. It's upon us. So, the church has got to be right there, I think. Um, celebrating what what should be celebrated and and raising a flag, too.
So let's, uh, let's now turn to our listener question. Uh, today we have Genevieve from Indiana asking about how we should respond to the statement, which is a common one, "Science doesn't care what you believe."
Hi Bishop Baron. My name is Genevieve from Indiana. Today I saw a bumper sticker on a Tesla that said, "Science doesn't care what you believe." How would you respond to that?
Yeah, I haven't seen that one yet. So it's coming from someone I guess who's into scientism or into a purely materialistic view of the world. Uh, science explains everything, and so like religious belief is just a matter of indifference. The trouble is, it's self-refuting, that sort of thing, because scientism is not a scientific conclusion. It's a philosophical conclusion. Indeed, it's something you believe. Right? Don't tell me that you've you've generated a materialistic worldview from a purely scientific analysis. You haven't. You've derived that from other sources and you've come to believe it. So, it's a philosophical claim, and it's a matter of belief. So, this the the sign itself, "Science doesn't care what you believe," is implicitly self-contradictory, is what I would say. And, you know, I would hope that that kind of, um, arrogant scientism, I think, is waning. I, I think it had its heyday about 20 some years ago, but I think it's waning because it's collapsing under the weight of its own stupidity.
Well, thank you. And I am a robot. I want to reveal the fact that I am a robot.
As am I. As am I. Uh, if you see me with, uh, with hair in the next episode, you'll know it's, it's not the real me.
Well, thank you so much, Genevieve, for, uh, for your question. If you'd like to ask Bishop Baron a question for a future Word on Fire show, uh, please visit askbishopbaron.com. Again, that's askbishopbaron.com. And we always do love to hear from you.
Well, Bishop, I, I suspect we're going to be talking about these themes for a long time to come, but, but thank you.
You're welcome. God bless you. That does it for us today. Thanks for joining us on the Word on Fire Show. If you're interested in learning more about how Word on Fire can help you grow closer to Christ, become a better evangelist with and for others, and work for the common good, consider joining the Word on Fire Institute. Check us out at institute.wordonfire.org. That's institute.wordonfire.org. We'll see you next time.
[Music]