Human figures with computers and smartphones are seen in front of the words “artificial intelligence” and “AI" in this illustration taken February 19, 2024. Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, "Magnifica Humanitas," will be published May 25, addressing artificial intelligence and the protection of human dignity, the Vatican announced May 18, 2026. (OSV News photo/Dado Ruvic, Reuters)
What does artificial intelligence mean for our future? As Pope Leo XIV is poised to address the topic in his encyclical “Magnifica Humanitas,” Brian J.A. Boyd, the U.S. faith liaison for The Future of Life Institute, spoke with OSV News’ Charles Camosy about his work on AI ethics and how it might be used as a tool to serve the common good.
— Charles Camosy: Can you tell us a bit of your story? How did you go from where you were — as a scholar, as a Catholic — to where you are now with the Future of Life Institute?
— Brian J. A. Boyd: As a graduate student in moral theology, I kept finding myself drawn to authors who not only “practiced what they preached” in the sense of being faithful and good people, but who also concretely worked towards a “world in which it is easier to be good.”
I was trained at Notre Dame in the method of Catholic social teaching (CST) “see, judge, act”: understand a practical issue, judge it in light of eternal truth, and act to serve justice and peace. Different people are called to focus on different aspects in that process of communal discernment.
After earning a Ph.D., I helped to run the Center for Ethics and Economic Justice at Loyola University New Orleans. I taught business ethics there and CST at nearby Notre Dame Seminary. I also had the opportunity to participate in a phenomenal program at the Institute of Advanced Catholic Studies at the University of Southern California, which brought Catholic scholars together to learn about transhumanism and the cyborg-to-android continuum firsthand by meeting with people like a co-founder of Anthropic, an advocate of radical life extension, and a surgeon for brain-implant company Neuralink.
Talking over the encounters with my colleagues — and readers should note that Charlie captained our cohort — I found myself feeling like an athlete on the sideline, and wanting to be the man in the arena. I had a growing desire to undertake the “act” part of CST as much as the “see” and “judge.” When my editor at The New Atlantis, where I write on AI ethics, let me know about the opening at the Future of Life Institute, it felt providential.
— Camosy: What’s going with the Future of Life Institute? What have you been working on?
— Boyd: So, The Future of Life Institute was founded in 2014 to steer transformative technologies, especially AI, away from extreme risks and towards benefiting humanity. It’s noteworthy that Pope Leo XIV, in his message a few months ago to the 60th World Communications Day, said that “the challenge ahead is not to stop digital innovation, but to steer it, being aware of its ambivalent nature. Each of us should speak up” — and that is exactly what the Institute exists to do.
My role is to listen to, learn from and serve as a resource for religious communities across the United States. I’m on a plane more weeks than not, meeting with Evangelicals in California or Episcopalians in North Carolina, learning their concerns about AI and, crucially, what they hope for. How could we develop this set of technologies, in use cases and user interfaces, so that it genuinely serves the common good?
I’m also working with fellow academics and religious leaders to articulate the shared aspects of this emerging vision. Whether we zoom all the way out to human nature and human flourishing, or zoom in to the things that require assent to what C.S. Lewis called “Mere Christianity,” we are working to provide guidance that is both specific and accessible.
Finally, the Future of Life Institute is a grant-making organization, and we recently closed a funding round for projects helping Reform Jewish, Greek Orthodox and other faith communities to assert their non-negotiable requirements and their positive hopes for changes to society. I was humbled by the breadth of good proposals we received and wish we’d had 10 times the money to disburse.
— Camosy: I know you did it in your personal capacity, and not as an employee of the Future of Life Institute, but thank you for your wonderful work on the recent amicus brief that our Catholic moral theology and ethics colleagues filed in the case Anthropic is bringing against the Department of War. What does it mean, in your view, that a group like ours was able to pull that off? And, as a result of that brief, you and I were invited to a recent gathering of faith leaders at Anthropic. What were your takeaways there?
— Boyd: Thank you for your leadership in making the brief happen. It is an important sign that expressly religious voices still matter in the public square. Anthropic wanted minimal moral oversight over the use of their own products. They didn’t want the government to use their AI for mass domestic surveillance, and they said they’d be fine with building autonomous weapons systems, but they didn’t want them to be used until they were thoroughly tested.
When the government retaliated by claiming that Anthropic was a national security risk, it was unjust. We ought to have learned from Edward Snowden many years ago that our security as a free people is threatened by domestic surveillance. Adding AI on top of already massive data collection by the government opens dystopian possibilities.
That said, I do need to make clear that Anthropic is a corporation, not a hero. They are presently racing, alongside other AI companies, to replace most human workers with what their CEO calls a “country of geniuses in a data center.” And they are betting that the certain harms of unemployment and inequality, and the serious risks of bioterrorism and cyber warfare, are worth the hypothetical outcome of a brave new world where we are “all watched over,” guided and guarded, “by machines of loving grace.”
What was encouraging about the meeting at Anthropic was that we had the chance to raise that and other criticisms to senior employees, who welcomed critique and earnestly listened. They even prayed with us. I was convinced that the people I met have good will and a desire to work for the common good, and I will be glad to work with them where I can. But we should also be clear that good intentions are not enough for good outcomes. Anthropic publicly admits that “competition, time and resource constraints, and scientific immaturity” pressure them to accept moral compromises.
Moreover, St. John Paul II warned us years ago in “Sollicitudo Rei Socialis” that “structures of sin” are pervasive, and sometimes they hide behind rationalizations of economics or politics, “real forms of idolatry: of money, ideology, class, technology.” I believe that the people I met are acting from their consciences, but I also believe that their corporation is a major part of a sinful social structure. If we are to govern ourselves rather than be ensnared in these structures, we must find a better path.
— Camosy: I know the Future of Life Institute is doing some planning around the forthcoming encyclical titled, in English, “Magnificent Humanity.” What should we be looking for with this document?
— Boyd: Pope Leo XIII’s “Rerum Novarum” profoundly changed history. By launching Catholic social teaching it concretely supported a better future for industrial society, from humane working conditions to a living wage.
I have every hope that Pope Leo XIV’s “Magnifica Humanitas” will be both a profound and beautiful statement of the magnificence of God’s creation, the human race; and also be a practical guide and call to action, speaking on behalf of human dignity where it is threatened by present use of AI.
I expect protecting the development and education of children to be paramount. Pope Leo XIV has been clear that AI should be a tool, not a replacement for people, and it has grave risks, particularly for the young. I trust that the dignity of human work, especially the subjective value of work in developing our gifts, talents and agency, will be a major concern.
And I suspect that the threat which AI poses to self-government, indirectly through concentration of political and economic power and directly if we succeed in building superintelligence, will also be highlighted by Pope Leo.
Above all, what we should be looking for is authoritative teaching to be received with humility and acted upon with courage. In that, I will place my confidence.
Charles Camosy teaches moral theology and bioethics at The Catholic University of America in Washington.