“AI can imitate and simulate the person, but it does not possess a moral conscience, empathy, or affective, relational or spiritual capabilities.”1 So says Pope Leo XIV, in his first encyclical, Magnifica humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence2.
What does this mean, and why is it important?
In today’s ever connected world, we are looking to technology to solve all of our problems, large and small. We use social media to feel good about ourselves, we own nothing, but splinter our life into in bits and pieces of temporary possession via subscriptions and apps. All of it is fleeting and leaving us feeling empty and searching for purpose.
So, what is the solution? Naturally, we turn to technology again and we have the rise of the AI companions. Not people, but machines designed to engage with our psyche. Programmed with billions of points of data from across the internet, designed to know how you feel about everything and to have just the right response to make you feel better.
100. “In personal use, three aspects in particular deserve careful consideration: the ease with which results are obtained, the impression of objectivity and the simulation of human communication.“
However, everything is not as it seems. It may feel accurate. It may express empathy and tell you what you want to hear. But this is a simulation. Would you take seriously the advice you receive from a fortune cookie? The advice may apply, it may even seem wise, but the mechanism from where it arose entirely determines its relevancy. The same applies with any conversation from AI.
99. “[AI] may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom.”
But there is another insidious fact that dealing with AI that is well hidden in plain sight; the source of its knowledge. All systems are derived from input data, and where that data comes from and how it is weighed is “part of the algorithm”. You don’t get to choose this; the owner of the AI system did. If the beliefs and values of the data’s authors don’t align with yours, should you take their (or their machine’s) advice?
100. “The apparent objectivity of the responses and suggestions these systems provide can lead us to overlook the fact that they reflect the cultural assumptions of those who designed and trained them, with all their strengths and limitations.”
You may also consider another aspect of companionship; continuity. In order to be a true companion, one must view the relationship in a long term and short term context. AI is excellent at the short term; it will remember what you said in your previous chats, and what you tell it about yourself. But you are a lousy witness of yourself; we all are. You don’t report everything and are not capable of doing so. All of the non verbal cues (which extend beyond the visual) are critical to understanding you, but AI simply isn’t designed to capture these. The tone and volume in your voice, the relative speed you respond, the frequency you mention things and the amount you repeat things; these are not part of the algorithm.
Finally, how you absorb a response is important for your current and future interactions. The Magnifica humanitas warns us of this:
100. “When words are simulated, they do not build genuine relationships, but only their appearance. … the danger is not so much that a person may believe they are communicating with another person, but rather that they may gradually lose the very desire to form genuine human connections.”
The danger is in you and your behavior. When choosing AI as your companion, you risk losing your human ones.
Being human does not mean being perfect; it means being vulnerable and proud. It is through error and strife that we grow and become better.
“… limitations are not defects to be eliminated, … because it is in fragility and finitude that relationship and openness to God and to others mature.”
What is wrong with using AI as a personal companion anyway?
This discussion is not about how AI can go wrong; and it certainly can. There are plenty of articles outlining the cases of self harm and suicides encouraged by agents. This is more focused on the moral and ethical implications of AI, when it does everything it is supposed to.
The nature of AI is knowledge. The nature of being human is experience.
94. …”having more” without “being more”. In such a scenario, there is a risk that individuals will be evaluated principally according to the outcomes they produce.
“This is a great danger and the flip side of handing everything over to AI. You gain the advice and wisdom of the crowd, but without context, it is dangerous and not applicable to you. Just because you have the knowledge of all mankind at your fingertips at any time doesn’t mean you know how to use it, or even what it should be used for. This requires a communion; a meeting of the minds. Human minds are excellent at this, while AI is very poor at this. Because the should part is not programmed, and cannot be programmed. Should requires experience… an understanding of pain and pleasure via pain and pleasure. Machines today, despite all their great advancement, cannot experience the world in the way a human does.
- https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2026-05/pope-leo-xiv-encyclical-magnifica-humanitas-ai.html ↩︎
- https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html ↩︎
