About the Encyclical Magnifica Humanitas. Can it be called Luddism?

The publication of Pope Leo XIV's Encyclical Magnifica Humanitas has prompted some people to accuse it of being an exercise in Luddism and a return to the Middle Ages (many of these people know little about the medieval period), sometimes accompanied by gruesome images of robots being burned at the stake, undoubtedly generated using AI tools. The speed of their responses is so surprising that one may wonder if they are judging the text without having read it. Are they right? Can the encyclical be accused of Luddism?

Let's begin by defining the word Luddism, as it appears in the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

The beliefs or practices of the Luddites: one of a group of early 19th century English workmen destroying laborsaving machinery as a protest. Broadly : one who is opposed to technological change.

It is, therefore, a term primarily applied to the use of violence against technological advancements. Violence is certainly difficult to justify, although in Ned Lud's case it is understandable, considering what happened at the time as a consequence of the introduction of machinery (looms) in textile factories. Some employers took advantage of this to dismiss their workers, telling them something like this:

Send us your children, for they will be able to operate these simple machines as well as you.

Of course, they paid them half the wages earned by their parents. Fortunately, these abuses have been abolished.

Let's look at a few paragraphs from the encyclical that some might mistake for Luddism:

95. When such power is concentrated in the hands of a few, it tends to become opaque and evade public oversight, increasing the risk of distorted forms of development that give rise to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities.

As Juvenal said: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who controls those who control us? That half-dozen multinational corporations that accumulate so much power and usually evade the control of users and governments.

104-105. For this reason, ethical discernment cannot be limited to asking whether we are using a system for good or bad purposes; it must also examine how that system is designed and what vision of the human person and society is embedded in the data and models that guide it… responsibility must be clearly defined at every stage: from those who design and develop these systems to those who use them and rely on them for concrete decisions. In many cases, however, the internal processes leading to a result remain opaque, making it harder to assign responsibility and correct errors. This is where accountability becomes crucial: the possibility of identifying who must “account” for decisions, justify them, monitor them, and, when necessary, challenge them and remedy any harm caused.

This applies not just to what is commonly called AI, but also to automated driving, which is technologically feasible, but is hardly applied in practice, precisely because, in the event of an accident, it is not clear who is responsible. This idea is also applied in chapter 5, while discussing the use of AI in warfare.

110. Disarming AI means freeing it from the mentality of “armed” competition, which today is not limited simply to the military context, but is also an economic and cognitive phenomenon. This entails a race for ever more powerful algorithms and larger datasets, driven by the desire to secure geopolitical or commercial dominance. To disarm means discrediting the assumption that technical power automatically confers the right to govern. To disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity. It means freeing technology from monopolistic control and opening it to discussion and debate, therefore making it human-friendly and restoring it to the plurality of human cultures and ways of life… AI is already an environment in which we are immersed, as well as a force with which we must engage. For this reason, merely regulating it is insufficient; it must be disarmed, welcoming and accessible.

This means we must apply ethical and anthropological controls to scientific advances, especially those that could negatively affect the future of humanity.

In chapter 4, the Pope reviews in detail the main dangers that technology poses to society today, many of them predating the rise of AI, but sometimes exacerbated by it:

180. …the search for truth… education in the digital environment, the transformations of work, the fragility of families and new forms of slavery… they reflect a common underlying issue, namely that if technology becomes the ultimate criterion, the human person risks being reduced to data, a cog in a machine or a commodity. If, however, technology is integrated with a wise perspective, it can become an instrument of growth, justice and fraternity.

Those who accuse the Pope of Luddism because he calls for ethical and anthropological controls on the uses of AI should reflect, because applying that yardstick would force them to consider the following as Luddism:

1.      The prohibition of the use of chemical and biological weapons.

2.      The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

3.      The Asilomar Conference agreements on recombinant DNA, which established limits on such research, indefinitely prohibiting the performance of certain experiments.

Those who accuse the Pope of Luddism are usually staunch supporters of the imminence and desirability of transhumanism and posthumanism, theories that I dare to call wishful thinking, which are just as absurd as the theory that we live in a simulation. It's curious that both were promoted by the same philosopher: Nick Bostrom. It's no surprise, then, that transhumanism proponents are attacking this encyclical, since Leo XIV refers unfavorably to their favorite theory in paragraphs 115 and following. I agree with the Pope.

The encyclical doesn't call for violence against technological advances, or pretends to stop them. It proposes to subject them to ethical and anthropological controls. That's not Luddism, but common sense.

The same post in Spanish

Thematic Thread about Natural and Artificial Intelligence: Previous Next

Manuel Alfonseca