Pope Leo XIV has, on May 25, 2026, in his Magnifica Humanitas, issued his inaugural encyclical letter concerning “safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence”, running over 35,000 words. He is the first among all global spiritual leaders to have done so, and one hopes that the other religious heads will swiftly follow his distinguished spiritual leadership. That will also help overcome the gulf that exists among Catholics, comprising about 50 percent of Christians worldwide (16 percent of the total global population), and the rest of the world’s religious faiths. The interfaith commitments to peace, planet, and prosperity sound shallow without such periodic religious summons to the state, society, and industry to perform the right and the just.
CONSTRUCTING BABEL OR REBUILDING JERUSALEM
His Holiness the Pope eloquently begins his epistle by stating, at the very beginning, that “the primary choice is not between a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to technology, but rather lies between constructing Babel or rebuilding Jerusalem”. The contrast here is between a power that “claims to dominate the heavens and a people who work together in the presence of God to rebuild the wall of fraternal coexistence”.
The Papal Encyclical rightly asserts that: “Technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate and use it,” and that “the primary choice is not between a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to technology, but rather between constructing Babel or rebuilding Jerusalem”; between “a power that claims to dominate the heavens and a people who work together in the presence of God to rebuild the walls of fraternal coexistence.” This maxim also contains a truth extendable to politics everywhere, exposing the myth of neutrality.
However, Brad Smith, the vice chair and president of Microsoft, is reported to have said that while all the religions find terminus in placing “humanity first”, the people in the tech sector sort of start from the other direction. They start with the technology they’re creating, and then they think about its impact on people. In this sense, Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor rightly suggest that the term “AI Snake Oil” extends to signify “pseudoscientific AI products that fail to work as advertised”, maintaining that many AI tools “sold for hiring, criminal justice, or healthcare are underperforming technologies fuelled by hype” and are marketed to those “desperate for quick fixes”. The real risk thus identified by them is not a “superintelligence apocalypse, but the immediate harm caused by deploying flawed, fraudulent AI systems in critical sectors”.
Yet, even the otherwise devout in Silicon Valley are irked by the Papal message. A former AI policy advisor in the Donald Trump administration, Dean Ball, has called the Encyclical a “pretty weak document”, embodying “essentially a deeply anti-American creed in favour of the technocratic regulation of artificial intelligence; that’s just not what I needed from the Church”.
In fact, some AI billionaires have frequently criticised regulatory reach by maintaining that “building, and building quickly, is the best way to serve God”. The billionaire Peter Thiel, in his Rome lectures, suggested that the antichrist “is likely a luddite figure” who wishes to “slow or stop progress”.
Clearly, these apocalyptic overtones, as has been argued by many, provide a narrative strategy to maintain the regime of “unfettered capital”, even when many leading Catholic commentators have labelled the interpretations as bordering on heretical. Asking the State to regulate a runaway emerging technology is, however, not any mortal sin! We also reach a similar result on a secular framework.
Leading AI companies have already declared the stated goal to create “superintelligence” that will outpace biological intelligence. And Ray Kurzweil, in The Singularity Is Nearer (2024), has further infallibly predicted (all his predictions have so far come true) that superintelligence will occur in 2047, where AI systems will be poised to “significantly outperform all humans on essentially all cognitive tasks”. Starkly put, the silicon brain will replace ordinary flesh-and-bone thought, imagination, and the performativity of the human brain.
A PLEA FOR MORATORIUM
Of course, pleas for moratoria have greeted every new and pathbreaking scientific research endeavour (such as forms of genetic engineering) and technology (such as cloning and geoengineering). There is no doubt that there is a human right to continuing scientific research; this may even rightly be thought of as integral to the right to freedom of speech and expression. But at the same time, no human right is absolute, and it suffers some limitations arising from constitutional proposition or adjudicatory interpretation. Under Indian constitutional provisions and principles, every right is subject to some limitation on the grounds therein specified.
Even so, the concern has grown so much that more than 700 prominent public figures have signed a statement declaring the prohibition of AI superintelligence until its development can be done safely, and until there is a strong global public opinion that brings the scattered AI industry into the prison-house of ethical and moral do’s and don’ts.
What are the potential use cases of AGI—Artificial General Intelligence? The development of AGI, it is said, could bring numerous social benefits, potentially “revolutionizing fields like healthcare and climate change mitigation”. AGI systems could, moreover, make “education more accessible and effective”, significantly enhance productivity and efficiency in various industries, and thereby “free up human time for more creative and fulfilling tasks”. Furthermore, AGI-controlled systems could enhance safety in areas like transportation through self-driving vehicles, reducing accidents and increasing overall well-being; and nothing more needs to be said about the manifold “virtues” of the convenience of virtual assistants and chatbots and their virtual (even when not always virtuous) 24/7 support and assistance. Last but not least, AGI has been said to foster “unprecedented levels of innovation and creativity, leading to technological advancements and societal progress”.
However, one needs to distinguish between Artificial Narrow Intelligence (ANI), Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), and Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI). ANIs are the most common, everyday type, focusing on specific tasks such as image recognition or natural language processing. In contrast, AGI can learn human-like reasoning and intelligence and is capable of performing any intellectual task that a human may. Research is ongoing to bring it into existence. ASI may potentially solve problems that are currently beyond human capabilities, but it is still “largely theoretical and remains a topic of debate and speculation”.
The development and implementation of AGI through the arts and crafts of the twin processes of automation and optimization are said to be fraught with numerous societal benefits that may greatly enhance “productivity and efficiency in various industries”, potentially extending even to spheres like healthcare and climate change mitigation. It could thus theoretically present an emancipatory moment in the life of labour. But the flip side is massive and systematic unemployment and underemployment, as the US Senator Bernie Sanders tirelessly keeps reminding us.
This emancipatory effect (even when one may doubt the emancipatory intent) must be weighed against future social changes forecast by more accessible and effective education and healthcare systems, and greater safety in e-transportation through self-driving vehicles, reducing accidents; not to mention further hype about AGI-powered virtual assistants and chatbots “providing round-the-clock support and assistance”.
We are constantly told that AI will “foster unprecedented levels of innovation and creativity, leading to technological advancements and societal progress”. Is this utopian vision just an example of a global advertising blitz, with all its hype and branding, not easily overcome by social critique that advocates severe self-regulation and, where necessary, third-party law?
One must constantly ask: What is not possible for HI (Human Intelligence) that is, or would be, made possible by AGI? Indeed, it is HI which, in the first place, generates AI. The latter—the machine intelligence—lacks empathy and fraternity. Humans, it is said, “excel in emotional intelligence, reading nonverbal cues, building trust, and navigating complex social dynamics”, even if they are much slower in the computation of massive data. They “excel in contextual reasoning, prioritization, and multitasking.” Human brains and minds, it is true, are “energy-efficient”, but they need rest, sleep, and nutrition and are full of physical limitations. Unlike algorithmic machines, which can be programmed to work 24/7, the human brain can operate only within physical limits.
Ultimately, while AI “dominates in speed, accuracy, and scalability for structured tasks”, HI leads in “ambiguity resolution, ethical judgment, and creative innovation”. All too often, AI handles “data-heavy processing” and humans provide strategic direction and moral oversight; and the most worthwhile outcomes often arise from collaboration with HI.
We all need to rethink together, to reiterate the words of the Vicar of Christ: “a power that claims to dominate the heavens and a people who work together in the presence of God to rebuild the walls of fraternal coexistence.”
—The writer is Emeritus Professor of Law, Warwick and Delhi University
The post Babel or Jerusalem? Pope Leo XIV’s Challenge to the Age of Artificial Intelligence appeared first on India Legal.