Don Luca, speaking of artificial intelligence we talk about post-human. Is there a limit to the use of technology compared to humans?
«The human being is the crossroads of two fundamental tensions: the first is that of overcoming one’s limits, a healthy desire, which has always lived within us. At the same time the human being suffers from original sin which risks turning this desire into idolatry, that is, exceeding the “original” limit, a child who does not want to have fathers, a father, God. This dynamic has always run through history of the human. And it is no coincidence that technology has been used in many respects not as a driver of development but of oppression, almost always in its military version. From a research point of view, it would be wrong to set limits. From the point of view of the outcome of that research, the limit is human dignity, the entirety of the human as a creature.”
For theology, what are the positive things in the evolution of robotics? And the threats?
«Talking about advantages and threats places us in an either/or situation (either this or that). Catholic theology is always et/et (both this and that), because the Christological dynamic is a dynamic in which the human and the divine coexist in the same person. There is no such thing as positive and negative, black and white, right and wrong, threat, fear and on the other hand success. It is always an operation of continuous dynamics and discernment. The question is not whether the robot is a threat or an advantage, but with what purposes I build it.”
In addition to mechanics, the cognitive and emotional level for robots is also studied. Will we be able to talk about robot-people, about the dignity of robots?
“Absolutely not. The machine is an object, we cannot give it rights just because it becomes anthropomorphic. It does not feel emotions, has no self-awareness, can imitate some human functions, but is ontologically different from the human. From a phenomenological point of view we invent machines that resemble and imitate, but from an ontological point of view the difference is unbridgeable, they are machines and nothing more.”
But who decides where we want to go, who controls where we go?
«State control is a reasoning that adapts to nineteenth-century society. The problem is to develop a conscience and share information, wisdom and knowledge, an education that allows us, as partners, to look together towards certain horizons. Today the technological transition is governed by a few subjects, super monopolists, extremely rich and powerful, who direct people’s thinking with the algorithmic power of which they are capable. It is a great question of democracy, in the sense of government by the people who know what we are talking about. Therefore, at this moment in history, information that is not alarmist or enthusiastic, but formative, is fundamental, an ability to educate a shared human desire, a collective reformulation of the reasons why we are together. With a focused and informed public opinion, those who govern these processes will adapt to the market, because they are private companies.”
The Council spoke of the signs of the times. What sign is this technological revolution?
«It is the first time in the history of the Church that we are on track. The Synod is a demonstration of this, we are not unprepared. It is an ongoing process which is the subject of discernment and indications by the magisterium. And it matters because we live in a time when organized thinking is dead and governing the future is impossible. The fact that the Church offers the world its thoughts starting from its own code of reading reality, such as Scripture and ecclesial Tradition, is certainly good news for the Church, but also for the world as a whole” .
Qui il post originale