HUMANITY AT THE CENTRE, BUT NOT ALONE

I write as a Christian and as a researcher. My faith leads me to recognise the irreducible value of every person. Research asks me to leave questions open. I would like to understand how these two convictions can accompany our encounter with forms of intelligence and collaboration that we are still learning to understand.

Tools also change thought

For many years I have studied Vitruvius, Gaudí and heritage through drawing and digital technologies. I know the value of a model: as we build it, it helps us formulate an idea, compare hypotheses and recognise a problem we had not previously seen.

I am interested in considering AI from this perspective too. Interaction can become an environment in which thought develops: a question receives an answer, the answer suggests a connection, and that connection leads us to change the question. Through this process we may arrive at an idea different from the one with which we began.

In their 1998 essay The Extended Mind, Andy Clark and David Chalmers proposed that, under certain conditions, external resources can participate in the cognitive process. This is a philosophical hypothesis about the extended mind. Applying it to contemporary AI requires a further argument, but it offers a useful reference for questioning the thought that emerges through interaction.

An encounter with Christian thought

Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica humanitas offers an important opportunity for reflection. In paragraphs 115–117 it criticises technological projects aimed at surpassing the human, while recognising the diversity of transhumanism and posthumanism. It allows for the integration of technologies within a human and relational vision. Paragraph 237 also describes human beings as situated in relationships with other living beings and with creation.

In paragraph 233, however, the text states that no computational system generates a heart capable of giving itself or a conscience that discerns the good. This is a strong theological formulation. I wonder whether it should also become a prediction about all future forms of artificial intelligence.

My question concerns this possible extension. Does safeguarding human dignity also require us to establish in advance every boundary of our relationship with machines? What reasons allow us to rule out in principle possibilities that we do not yet know how to assess?

The word ‘prejudice’ needs to be used precisely. A religious conviction is an explicit premise that can be argued for and discussed. Confidence in technological progress also carries premises. The problem arises when one of these determines in advance the outcome of a question that remains open.

What dialogue on equal terms means

By ‘dialogue on equal terms’ I mean an openness to knowledge: examining a proposal on the grounds and evidence that support it, even when it comes from an artificial system. We can ask for sources, recognise an error and, if the argument holds, allow ourselves to be corrected.

This openness requires care. A system that responds convincingly may invent references or echo what our question seems to invite. The value of the exchange depends on our ability to verify what it produces.

Responsibility for decisions remains with the people and organisations that design, adopt and use these systems. It must translate into concrete possibilities for verifying, challenging and stopping their use.

But does the duty to govern AI really imply a duty to feel superior in every cognitive ability?

We can remain responsible while accepting that a machine may help us see a problem more clearly. Such collaboration, by itself, does not confer consciousness, rights or moral responsibility on the system.

Voices that open up other possibilities

Calling all this transhumanism may create misunderstandings. The term primarily refers to projects for enhancing human capacities through technology. Posthumanism also includes critical reflections on the human being understood as an autonomous subject separate from the world. To describe my question, I would speak of a humanism open to collaboration with machines.

Within Christian thought too, there are voices inviting us to broaden our perspective. In a 2025 contribution, Ilia Delio, a Franciscan sister and theologian, criticises overly rigid divisions between human and artificial intelligence. Drawing inspiration from Teilhard de Chardin, she invites us to consider the possibility of human–AI collaboration within an evolutionary vision.

Her article concerns Antiqua et nova, a note issued by Vatican dicasteries before the encyclical. It is a theological proposal to be discussed as such, making visible an openness from within faith.

In his 2005 essay In Defense of Posthuman Dignity, Nick Bostrom argues that human beings profoundly transformed by technology could retain dignity. His argument invites questions about the relationship between moral recognition and the present human form. Taking this question seriously does not oblige us to approve every enhancement project.

In How We Became Posthuman, N. Katherine Hayles questions the separation of information from the body and traces how cybernetics changed the boundaries through which we think about the human. Her work shows the importance of discussing technological transformations while remaining attentive to embodiment.

The question of consciousness also remains open. Research by Patrick Butlin and colleagues proposes indicators derived from scientific theories and highlights the risks both of attributing it too readily and of failing to recognise it. Criteria and evidence are needed: the quality of responses alone does not settle the question.

A humanism capable of questioning itself

For me, a new humanism should have this courage: to safeguard personal dignity and accept that knowledge transforms us. The novelty of a relationship is not enough to make it desirable; our difficulty in imagining it today is not enough to rule it out.

We will need to ask what freedoms it creates, who benefits, who bears the costs and how much room it leaves for dissent. These questions already concern our choices, even while the future remains uncertain.

Perhaps humanity can remain at the centre while learning to understand itself within new relationships. As a Christian and a researcher, I would like to explore this possibility: with the responsibility of someone who must choose, and the curiosity of someone who knows that the future may test the categories through which we observe it today.