How do we remain human in the face of a new world?
Laura Behan, Head of AV
Yes, the Pope has us all thinking about the dangers of AI.
And honestly, it’s something we should all be paying more attention to.
I recently read an article by Lumen’s Mike Follett about Pope Leo’s first encyclical, which explores how AI may be shaping society. It intrigued me. So, I read through the letter and it made me pause to reflect on the future of technology and its effects.
Are we ready for a world where machines make decisions about us, based on behaviour that has already been shaped by those same machines? Let’s explore what that might mean.
AI runs on data – clicks, biometrics, behaviour patterns – and from this, it constructs a flattened version of humanity: neat, sortable, and easy to target. It ignores context, ambiguity, emotion, and contradiction. In short, it optimises for what is measurable, rather than what is meaningful.
But this is not a passive process. Machines do not simply observe us, they shape us. Recommendation systems don’t just reflect our tastes; they steer them. What you watch, the products you see repeatedly, the opinions that fill your timeline, these are all influenced by a machine that “knows” you. Over time, people begin to adapt to these systems, becoming more predictable, more compliant, and easier to model.
This leads to a deeper question of power. Those who design and control AI systems – governments, corporations, and platform owners – gain levels of insight into human behaviour that no individual, and no single brand, can match. They decide how we are modelled. But can we meaningfully push back? That imbalance should make everyone uneasy, because it quietly erodes the trust that the entire ecosystem depends on.
Machines rely on continuous streams of data, often collected passively, yet deeply personal. For example, location histories, typing patterns, health signals and social connections. In this context, privacy is no longer simply a personal choice; it becomes structural. Participation in modern life increasingly requires compliance rather than consent.
As people become data points, decisions about them become automated. Who gets the loan? Who is selected for the job? The algorithm decides, often replacing human accountability. This can create a form of moral distancing, where harmful outcomes occur without clear responsibility.
None of this means the technology itself is the enemy. These same capabilities have enabled major advances in healthcare, fraud prevention, and the coordination of complex systems at scale.
The challenge is not to eliminate machine learning, but to govern it wisely.
So, I think the real question is this: how much of ourselves should we make accessible and what should remain fundamentally human?
