Pope Leo’s address to Participants In “The Future of AI:
A Dialogue Between The Vatican and The Scientific World
on The Developments and Applications of Intelligent Technologies”,
Organized Jointly by The Pontifical Academy for Life and The Future of Life Institute
Consistory Hall – Friday, 30 October 2026
“The decisive question for AI is … What purpose should AI serve?”
In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Peace be with you.
I would like to welcome and thank all of you for being here this morning.
You come from many different countries and bring with you a wide range of questions and perspectives.
At the same time, I believe you share a sense of unease about the development of artificial intelligence.
We recognize the direction in which we should move, yet not enough is being done.
I am grateful that you are sharing your concerns, as well as your ideas and proposals for the future.
These are the first fruits of a transdisciplinary approach, which is necessary to address the complexity of today’s great challenges.
The Pontifical Academy for Life organized this meeting and is well aware of the challenges that arise when human dignity is threatened.
Addressing the G7 leaders, Pope Francis described artificial intelligence as “at the same time an exciting and fearsome tool,” and affirmed that no machine should be entrusted with decising to take a human life.
(cf. Address to the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence, June 14, 2024).
These words remain as relevant as ever.
In the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas. (MH), I addressed these issues in greater depth.
Today, I would like to offer five considerations.
First, the future of artificial intelligence is not predetermined.
As a technology developed by humans, its future depends on our choices.
Therefore, we have the responsibility to guide, change and when necessary, reject its applications (see. MH. 97, 104).
The decisive question, then, is not simply “What can AI do?” but rather, “What purpose should AI serve?”
Those who regard AI development as merely a race to be won risk focusing exclusively on the finish line and forgetting those who are left behind.
A reliable system that serves people is more valuable than an exceptionally powerful system whose consequences cannot be adequately foreseen or controlled.
Second, Machines are tools, not people.
“So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences. They do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain. They do not mature through relationships or know what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean from within” (MH. 99).
Today, some people propose granting these systems rights, or even legal personhood.
Such an approach could obscure human responsibility, leaving those who are harmed to confront a faceless entity.
Third, certain decisions should never be delegated.
For example, when a person is placed on a target list or ‘entered’ into a border control database, there is a danger that he or she will be reduced to a mere data point.
Decisions that affect human life, freedom and the use of force must always be subject to effective, informed and responsible human oversight (see. MH. 198-200).
For this reason, artificial intelligence must be “disarmed” (MH. 110), and I encourage the states meeting in Geneva in November to take concrete steps toward banning lethal autonomous weapons.
Fourth, intelligent technologies must be directed toward the common good.
“Justice requires access to the benefits of innovation, including care, knowledge, tools and opportunities” (MH. 161).
They must never become ends in themselves or merely serve the interests of a privileged few.
Instead, they should foster solidarity and participation at various levels of the global community.
This ensures that the benefits of progress are shared equitably, especially with those most in need. (see MH 71–72).
Finally, I would like to emphasize what I believe to be the most urgent challenge.
Many of the ethical principles that should guide the development of artificial intelligence are already known.
What we currently need are effective international institutions capable of putting these principles into practice and safeguarding the global common good (see. MH. 64).
This requires shared standards, independent oversight, and clear accountability mechanisms so that decisions regarding AI development and use can be examined and, when necessary, challenged.
Appropriate remedies must be in place for any harm caused. (See MH. 105, 107). Dear friends,
With these thoughts in mind, I thank you once again for your valuable contributions to this field.
I encourage you to persevere in your efforts and to work together in a spirit of dialogue and shared responsibility for the common good.
I accompany you with my prayers and cordially impart my blessing to each of you.