It's past nine in the evening. It's raining heavily on Madrid's Gran Vía. Friar Paolo Benanti, 52, doesn't cover his head with the hood of his habit. He walks as if nothing weighs on him, even though his day has been very demanding. In the morning, a meeting at the Vatican chaired by Pope Leo XIV; at noon, a flight to hurry to a conference held at seven in the evening at the headquarters of the Telefonica Foundation.
Passersby give him curious looks due to his attire, unaware that the man wearing a nearly brownish gray tunic with a white cincture belt - with three knots representing the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience - is one of the most renowned technology experts in the world. Benanti advises the Holy See, the Italian state, and the UN on ethics of artificial intelligence (AI).
Despite the late hour, he kindly agrees to an interview after exchanging emails a few weeks ago. The conversation with this Doctor of Moral Theology and until a few months ago a professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome takes place during dinner, at one of the few restaurants in this central area of Madrid that has free tables on a Friday night. Benanti orders beef with potatoes and a sugar-free Pepsi.
-Out of curiosity, what phone do you have?
-My monastery has a joint contract with a certain Italian company, so we only pay for the SIM card and were given the option to choose from different internet plans. I admit I chose the most expensive one they offered.
This Franciscan of the Third Regular Order who converses with heads of state like the Pope, prime ministers like Georgia Meloni, and technological gurus like Bill Gates was the one who introduced the internet to his monastery over 20 years ago, when to the amazement of his companions, he designed a website for the monastic residence. Benanti is both spiritual and very worldly, describing himself as "a geek" full of curiosity. And very passionate. "I have adoration for three Franciscos: St. Francis of Assisi, Pope Francis, and Francesco Totti!," he says during dinner. [It is worth clarifying for non-football fans: Totti, the great idol of Roma, is a former player adored by his fans for his talent and because during his prime, he even rejected an offer to join Florentino Pérez's Real Madrid galacticos to continue playing for his hometown team, earning much less, something many Roman fans like Benanti do not forget].
Throughout these years, this religious intellectual's work has focused on reflecting on the role of technology in our lives and how to build a richer and more humane future with it. He is aware of its power, both luminous and dark. "Technology is never neutral," he says repeatedly.
He is by no means a fatalist or a neo-Luddite; on the contrary, although he distrusts the omnipotent power of big companies in the sector. An unease he addresses in his latest book, recently published in Spain under the title The Collapse of Babel (Encounter Editions), whose message could be summarized by a phrase the friar utters: "I am ready to lose my keys, even my credit card, but not to lose the democracy that has been so hard to build with so much blood and effort."
The conversation with him is disrupted by the waiter. The restaurant's background music is Caribbean. Although topics related to his work and current affairs are discussed, the main goal of the meeting is to somehow find out the Church's position on the technological revolution that looms. Who better to do this than Father Benanti.
Several theologians and Vatican experts - journalists who cover information from the Holy See - speculate about the possibility that Leo XIV aims to do something similar during his papacy to what Leo XIII did in 1891 with his encyclical Rerum novarum (On the Condition of Labor) in response to the Industrial Revolution. A very bold text for its time dedicated to the situation of the working class that would lead to the so-called Social Doctrine of the Church. The truth is that Prevost has shown in several public interventions a great interest in the artificial intelligence revolution. He does so with anticipation, but alarmed by the challenges this technology presents regarding human dignity, employment, and social justice, recommending an ethical approach to address them.
The impact of what the Pope says on this matter deserves much attention. Just look at the numbers. Worldwide, TikTok surpasses one billion users, ChatGPT has 800 million, and Elon Musk's X has around 650. Despite the magnitude of these figures, none of these platforms can compete with the Pope, the spiritual leader of 1.4 billion Catholics.
Do you think we will see an encyclical from Leo XIV on this topic?
-Answering this is the exclusive competence of the Pope, but the truth is that there are glimpses here and there that can be interpreted as a sign of his deep interest in the topic. Although we do not know if artificial intelligence would be something he would specifically address or if it would be part of a set of novelties that pose a challenge to society...
As he answers, Benanti squints his eyes and gives a friendly, Roman smile, very much like the actor Alberto Sordi. He recommends looking at the Pontiff's words in his speeches in May about Popular Movements where he addressed various topics, including AI and other global forces shaping society.
Although no one can predict it, there are various clues that the Pope will at some point provide a thorough ecclesiastical response to this issue. On one hand, Prevost is a man of science who studied mathematics, and on the other, the name he chose, as he has acknowledged, has some evocation of Leo XIII and the aforementioned first social encyclical in history.
The latest public indication of sensitivity to the issue was demonstrated on November 7 in a papal tweet on his official account @Pontifex in X:
"Technological innovation can be a way to participate in the divine action of creation. As such, it carries an ethical and spiritual weight, as each design choice expresses a vision of humanity. Therefore, the Church urges all creators of #AI to cultivate moral discernment as an essential part of their work, so that they develop systems that reflect justice, solidarity, and a genuine respect for life."
Faced with these "glimmers," as Benanti would say, when pressed for more specifics, the friar asks for patience. The rhythms in the Vatican are not those of human politics. A pope is elected in a conclave and from one day to the next leads a gigantic institution: he is not an elected president who has been preparing a team and an agenda and is granted 100 days of grace at the beginning of his term after an election. After this very Vatican diplomacy-like explanation, Benanti simply says to turn the page: "We will see when and how, no one knows."
We have gone from the promise of global connectivity and progress to a reality full of uncertainty. You define this process as the "collapse of the digital utopia."
Looking at the first decades of the century, we have a first phase that can be well represented by the Arab Spring, where we were convinced that digital media would allow the population to achieve freedom and justice. Ten years later, in 2021, the Capitol riots in Washington occur, where that same platform [Benanti refers to Twitter] inundates us with fake news, polarization, post-truth... That, for me, was a sign of collapse. What is failing? That dream of a digital Tower of Babel in the origins of the internet that aimed to unite the world under a digital language has proven to be more suitable for a language of control than for communion and sharing. From the dream, we have moved to the nightmare.
How did that happen?
I date it back to 2012. It is the moment when the capital and investors of these platforms begin to transform their companies into entities solely focused on maximizing profits through the extraction of user data. What was initially a driver of transformation becomes a way to manipulate public opinion. All through polarizing algorithms that consume the social contract to generate value for the company by flooding society with a discharge of digital toxicity.
Does this technology question free will?
It is impossible to nullify free will, but in some way, they steal it. Let me explain. If you and I go up to the fifth floor of this building and I tell you that we have to go down, two things can happen: the first is that we go down the stairs, and the second is that we jump off the balcony. You are free to jump or not, but if you do, you will lose control in a way because as a consequence, you could break your hip, your head, or end up paralyzed in a wheelchair. That is, your freedom will not be the same as it was at the beginning. That's why it is important to talk about technology and debate how to face it. Deciding whether we want to allow a machine to limit our freedom or if, to preserve it, we must limit the machine.
You compare the dangers of the digital world in youth to the heroin epidemic of the 70s and 80s. Has it taken too long to realize the danger?
There are increasingly more studies on the harm caused to the most vulnerable by how we interact with screens and social media. It is necessary to consider if this is a problem of vulnerability itself or a problem of technology. In my opinion, we are facing a new version of the classic question: is it a rotten apple or is it the barrel? We have begun to realize that there is something fishy in the barrel because these platforms have been designed to hunt us, to isolate us from the environment, which in the medium and long term has a significant impact on the brain. The issue is that this is not done for the good of people but to maximize the profits of companies. When that happens, as we have seen before, the consequences for society are very harmful, as it happened with the excess of added sugars in certain foods, with the tobacco industry, etc.
Your friend Richard Stallman, leader of the free software movement, says that the most serious problem with these companies lies in the concept of ownership. When we buy a device, we are given hardware, but we never become owners of the software that makes it work; we are only granted the right to a small operating license.
Think that when you go to a store and pay for a smartphone, let's say a thousand euros, what you receive is not fully yours, as with other items. Roman Law established three rights regarding the ownership of a thing: usus, abusus, and fructus. You can take the phone and smash it against the wall if you feel like it, buy another one, or call whoever you want. But the fruits of its use are never yours; they are uploaded to the cloud or another format: that is, someone else keeps them. Do you know what the ancient Romans called those who were deprived of the fruit?
No.
Slaves.
Technological slavery is a recurring theme in Benanti's work, and he defines it in different ways. Perhaps the most interesting is when he describes it as a "digital tattoo," referring to the impossibility of erasing our past, something he considers a terrible sentence for new generations. He, maybe all of us, escaped that slavery due to age; others are not so lucky. The Franciscan recalls a story from his childhood when he played soccer during recess at the Salesian school where he studied. More than scoring a goal, the teams' objective was for the ball to hit the raised hand of a statue of Juan Bosco, the founder of the school's order, in the middle of the courtyard.
One day, young Benanti showed a firepower worthy of Mbappé because one of his shots broke the saint's hand. As a lesson and penance, the school's priests taught him to repair the damage he had done with cement.
"Can you imagine if someone searched for me on Google and the first thing that came up about me was a news article defining me as 'the child terrorist who broke Don Bosco's statue'?" he says. "We are condemning our children to a digital prison that will keep them trapped for acts that will always follow them. I fear that technology will make kids feel increasingly lonely and in need of therapy." This religious figure believes that the most pressing current problem is that adults do not have the energy or the means to offer alternatives to those children who become trapped in the addictive fascination of technological devices. "Silicon Valley spends millions and millions hiring brilliant engineers to make their products cool." How can a parent compete with that arsenal?
Furthermore, what is happening is that technology is becoming increasingly difficult to digest. In just three years of ChatGPT, there are already many users who use it as a love consultant, as a therapist, and even to solve existential questions. From a religious point of view, is this unbridled worship of AI a form of idolatry?
All we know is that we are facing a change in knowledge. Before, you would go to a library and there was the structure of information. You would find books on biology, mathematics, poetry... Everything was together. And if someone said that Covid was cured with sugar, you could attribute that knowledge not to medicine, but to fantasy. Now, when you interact with a machine, it offers you a solution like an oracle. You have to believe it. It's not a problem against faith, but the machine asks you to trust it without giving you any reason to do so. In theology, one of the most important topics is dedicated to what is allowed when we say 'I have faith' using reason, and that is credibility. But now the machine is unable to offer credibility.
He argues that the end of the digital utopia was not just a matter of investments and capital, but behind it were the worldviews of the magnates. Those who became rich by disrupting the industry created by the 'baby boomers', revolutionizing finance, media, or transportation, and suddenly want to go further: to change democracy.
We have known two types of power in international relations. There was hard power, based on force, and soft power, based on attraction and cultural and ideological influence. Now there is a third called coercive power. This allows you to use the power of social networks to influence people and harm the democratic functioning of a society. We are talking about an influence that manages to contaminate public debate. Just look at what is happening in France with populism, in Germany... That is why we need regulation. You are a journalist, you know that if you provide false information and are reported, a judge can condemn you and your media outlet. However, on social networks, gigantic lies are told without anyone being held accountable for them. The lack of rights has led to a new problem for democracy: handing over public debate to technological companies that are only seeking profit.
You mentioned regulation, is it the only path left for a Europe that is very behind in the technological race compared to the US and China?
This is often said, but let's not forget that the United States is also trying to regulate Silicon Valley in some way. The visa restrictions imposed by Trump are a kind of regulation to limit its power. So, this is a global problem. Let's not forget that besides having technological control, these companies have a lot of money. They can invest $30 billion to build a data center, which is much more than what countries like Italy and Spain invest. That is, they are more powerful than a powerful country. And the money they spend is not borrowed, but comes from their cash flow. For a while, Europeans believed that regulating the market, putting a quality control stamp, was enough. The thing is, we have realized that this is not sufficient, as these companies have political tools capable of shaping public opinion.
That is the real danger, seeing ourselves as consumers and not as citizens.
That is why we need a European law to regulate AI, as a first step, as well as to reduce the power over data from tech companies. With this, these companies know that more than money, what they lose is power. Look at Apple, which in Europe is going to eliminate the automatic synchronization of Wi-Fi networks between the iPhone and the Apple Watch. They do this because this sector resists being regulated. In my opinion, no one should be above the law.
With such reprehensible behavior, it is curious to see how several tech magnates announce their reconnection with religion. People like Peter Thiel or Trae Stephens, co-founder of Anduril Industries, claim that the world must regain faith in God.
Look, if I respond as a man of faith, I would tell you what great theologians of the 20th century have argued: you can deny God, but God cannot deny you. Sooner or later, He will come looking for you. But there is another aspect: we know that in history there are many cases of people who have used God and religion to impose their will by force. We have seen it in wars and dictatorships. Both things are interconnected. There are people in the technological field in Silicon Valley who need spirituality, and it is evident that there are those who use that religious discourse to control others or to instill fear in the world.
Just over 100 years ago, Marx wanted to kill God, and now we have people in Silicon Valley who want to kill the human being. What has changed?
We are living in an era of change. It is no longer about questioning the existence of God as in modernity. Now we are beginning to ask ourselves if the human being exists. What does it mean to be human? That is the problem, it is not an answer, but a question. If we do not figure it out, we will not be able to define human rights associated with technology.
Are cognitive rights the next challenge?
I have no doubt. The next thing will not be losing an arm or a leg, a problem that can be solved with a prosthesis, but protecting our brain. Think about it, we control our phone with our body. A finger moves the screen, while a notification can change our mood and behavior, causing us joy or sadness. This means it exerts power over us. Should my phone know when I go to the hospital or when I need to take a pill? This information affects our productivity, our mood, and our well-being. The dramatic part is that while we pay with our health, they inflate their earnings.