The New, New Thing (May 28, 2026)

Welcome to Home & Away. I am going to write mostly about artificial intelligence this week, in large part because of Pope Leo XIV’s new encyclical, but also in part because AI is fast emerging as a major political issue here at home.

Magnifica Humanitas is an impressive document. To paraphrase the old advertising slogan about Levy’s rye bread, you don’t have to be Catholic to get a lot out of it.

The document was intentionally released on the 135th anniversary of Rerum Novarum (“Of New Things”), Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on the implications of the Industrial Revolution. The point is obvious, namely, that AI is the new “new thing” that has the potential to upend our lives.

The document is noteworthy both for its analysis and its prescription. The text is often quite nuanced: Technology has the power to heal, connect, educate and protect our common home; but it can also divide, exclude and generate new forms of injustice. In the abstract, technology in and of itself is not a solution to humanity’s problems, just as it is not inherently evil. In practice, however, technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate and use it.

The subtitle of the new encyclical – “On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence” – underscores one of its principal concerns:

We must avoid the misconception of equating this type of “intelligence” with that of human beings. These systems merely imitate certain functions of human intelligence. In doing so, they often surpass human intelligence in speed and computational capacity, offering tangible benefits across many fields. Yet this power remains entirely tied to data processing. So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences.

They 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. Even when these tools are described as capable of “learning,” their way of doing so is different from that of a human person. It is not the experience of those who allow themselves to be shaped by life and grow over time through choices, mistakes, forgiveness and fidelity. Rather, it is a form of statistical adaptation based on data and feedback, which can be very effective, but does not imply inner growth.

My sense is that the above may well underestimate the potential of AI to be truly creative and not just capable of discerning patterns hidden within enormous loads of data. You would do well to listen to the conversation between John Ellis and Sebastian Mallaby on this and much else relating to AI.

The bottom line of the encyclical is a call for “adequate regulatory tools capable of upholding justice and curbing the distorting effects of technological power.” This does not surprise. Where the document gets most interesting is in what follows: “The issue is not limited to regulation…we must realistically ask ourselves who holds this power today and how they use it.” In other words, what this comes down to is governance and accountability.

What comes through loud and clear from the encyclical is a deep concern that the development of what will most likely prove to be a truly revolutionary technology is being dominated by a handful of individuals and corporations who ought not be allowed to wield such influence:

AI tends to amplify the power of those who already possess economic resources, expertise and access to data. In light of the common good and the universal destination of goods, this raises serious concerns, since small but highly influential groups can shape information and consumption patterns, influence democratic processes and steer economic dynamics to their own advantage, undermining social justice and solidarity among peoples. For this reason, it is essential that the use of AI, especially when it touches on public goods and fundamental rights, be guided by clear criteria and effective oversight.

The Pope builds on this last sentence, noting the inadequacy of existing regulatory approaches, which are state-centered:

In many cases within the digital context, control over platforms, infrastructure, data and computing power does not rest with States, but with major economic and technological actors. These entities effectively set the conditions for access, determine the rules of visibility and shape the very possibilities for participation. When such power is concentrated in the hands of a few, it tends to become opaque and evade public oversight, increasing the risk of distorted forms of development that give rise to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities.

The document expresses worry over the potential impact of AI on just about everyone and everything, including education, the environment, families, relationships, jobs, and public discourse. High on the worry list are the implications for inequality:

Today, among the goods that are universally intended for everyone, we must also include new forms of property, such as patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructure and data. In a context where the wealth of nations depends increasingly on knowledge and technology, when these goods remain concentrated in the hands of a few, without adequate forms of sharing and access, a new imbalance is created that contradicts the universal destination of goods. In turn, it widens the gap between the included and the excluded, between those who can participate in the digital revolution and those who remain on the margins.

Not surprisingly, Magnifica Humanitas also has a good deal to say about AI and war:

The digital revolution is changing the nature of conflict. Alongside conventional warfare, there are hybrid forms such as cyberattacks, information manipulation, campaigns of influence and the automation of strategic decisions. AI acts as an accelerating factor in these processes, particularly within a context where many technologies are intrinsically ambivalent. Consequently, what is created for defense can be rapidly repurposed for offense, and the fine line between protection and aggression becomes blurred. While AI can enhance the defense and protection of civilians, it can also lower the threshold for the use of force, shield people from responsibility and foster a culture in which the enemy is reduced to a statistic and the victim to “collateral damage.”

Clear opposition is expressed to autonomous AI in this realm:

It is not permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems. No algorithm can make war morally acceptable. First, all systems used in a war setting must guarantee the possibility of retracing and reconstructing decision-making processes, so that accountability and blame are not collapsed into “the machine.” Second, the decision to use lethal force cannot be delegated to opaque or automated processes, but must remain under effective, self-aware and responsible human control. Finally, it is imperative to establish a shared framework — also at the international level — in order to curb the technological arms race and ensure robust protection for civilians and the infrastructures necessary for their survival.

There are quite a few mentions of “disarming AI” that I find hard to decipher. There is also an emphasis on multilateral diplomacy. Here I don’t share the Pope’s belief that the UN has a constructive role to play. I am also skeptical that the United States and China, the two emerging AI superpowers, will reach a meeting of the minds to constrain their competition much as the United States and the Soviet Union did on nuclear weapons during the Cold War. The document is more likely to find support in Europe and the Global South.

Here at home, I expect the encyclical will have little impact on the Ayn Rand devotees who seem to inhabit much of Silicon Valley. But it will accelerate and shape the already fast-growing debate in this country over AI. The Pope wants the conversation to be broad and inclusive, bringing in scientists and researchers, entrepreneurs and workers, educators and legislators, civil society, popular movements and faith communities—and not dominated by those who invent and develop the technology. He may get his wish.

The document’s bottom line – “What is needed is a more active political involvement that is capable of slowing things down when everything is accelerating, and of protecting the opportunities for communities still to be able to participate and ask questions” – is likely to be well-received by those who fear the impact of AI on jobs and the effects of data centers on their neighborhoods and electricity bills. Opposition will not be limited to one party. And it will make its way to some in Congress and potentially this or a future president. At the same time, unilateral “‘slowing,” much less disarmament, in the development of AI will likely prove no more desirable or effective than unilateral slowing or disarmament tends to be in traditional arms races. All of which is to say, let the debate begin.

Today’s Wars

I don’t have a lot to add about Iran considering all I have said and written over the past three months. The situation continues to hover somewhere between a limited war and a messy ceasefire of uncertain scope and duration. President Trump appears unable to choose between two bad options: signing on to a deal that would be to Iran’s advantage and garner criticism from across the political spectrum, and renewed hostilities at a significant scale that would risk leading to the destruction of much of Iran’s, along with the region’s, energy infrastructure, a development that would trigger a global depression.

Trump’s indecision, along with the view of some in Iran that time is on their side, increases the odds that matters will continue to drift for a time. But at some point (my bet is in June) one or both sides will conclude that the pain is too great. At that point we will get a ceasefire deal that would open the Strait of Hormuz for a time and place some to-be-defined ceiling on (but not eliminate) Iran’s nuclear program. In return, Iran can expect economic rewards. It doesn’t seem that Israel’s chief concerns – Iran’s conventional forces and its support for regional proxies – will be meaningfully addressed. The only thing that seems certain is that the United States and Israel will be worse off for a war they initiated and that a more radical Iran will have a bigger say over a Strait critical to the world.

Two final points. First, those who continue to call for “finishing the job” are in nothing so much as denial. Slogans are not a substitute for serious thinking and strategy. Second, the President’s insistence that regional states sign on to the Abraham Accords – something that seems to be a Hail Mary to change the conversation and justify a war that should never have been initiated – will go nowhere. The idea that he would refuse to reach a deal with Iran if Saudi Arabia refuses to establish diplomatic ties with Israel is nonsense. And Saudi Arabia will not be establishing diplomatic ties with Israel any time soon given what it is doing to kill off what little chance remains to create a Palestinian state.

As for the other war, the tide is beginning to turn in Ukraine’s favor, something that might explain increased Russian attacks against civilian targets in Kyiv. There is a possibility, too, that Vladimir Putin may also choose to widen the war against Europe, thinking he can safely alter the narrative away from his lack of success in Ukraine given his friend in the White House. A cornered Putin is a dangerous Putin.

The Sporting Life

There are two New York stories, one good, one not so good. The good one is the Knicks. They are back in the NBA Finals after more than a quarter century and after winning a remarkable eleven playoff games in a row, including sweeps of both the 76ers and the Cavaliers. The home team is playing great defense and converting stops into fast breaks. They will take on the San Antonio Spurs or, more likely, the Oklahoma City Thunder starting on June 3. It’s all exciting and welcome. Some might add overdue.

The other story is the Giants, who we think of as a New York team even though they play at a stadium in New Jersey. Their promising young quarterback, Jaxson Dart, runs with abandon and often pays the price. It now appears that he conducts himself with equal abandon off the field, the most recent example being his introduction of President Trump at a political event here in New York. This didn’t go down well with at least one of his teammates, Abdul Carter, who voiced his criticism on X. A subsequent post by Carter suggested they had worked it out. We’ll see.

Don’t get me wrong. Jaxson Dart has First Amendment rights just like the rest of us. But he also has an obligation to think about the effects of what he says and does on his team. And in case you haven’t noticed, his team won only four games last year. All of which is to say, young Mr. Dart might want to focus his considerable talents on football and hold off on living his celebrity life until he’s won a Super Bowl or two. Just sayin’.

As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.

---

Richard Haass in the news

Friday, May 22: Morning Joe on Sing Democracy 250.

Friday, May 22: Alternate Shots Episode 28.

Sunday, May 24: Fareed Zakaria GPS on China-Russia Axis.

Wednesday, May 27: MS NOW on U.S.-Iran Peace Negotiations.