\n
![](\"https:\/\/images.squarespace-cdn.com\/content\/v1\/5bb7cb2193a632487214565f\/1781716720570-E276EO6L5B70NS3NAHEP\/Screenshot+2026-06-17+at+1.18.25%E2%80%AFPM.png?format=1500w\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
Well, folks, it\u2019s been enough time since the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas<\/em><\/a> dropped. I can no longer justify my silence; no longer blame my wife and children for their demands on my attention; no longer point to the encyclical itself, which ended with the papal instruction to \u201ccherish places and times where physical presence remains crucial\u201d\u2014which I interpreted by weeding the yard instead of writing my \u201ctake.\u201d <\/p>\n The good people from Truthly, Longbeard, Hallow, Doggymatic et al. have drawn my attention (repeatedly) to the following paragraph, MH<\/em> 100:<\/p>\n The artificial imitation of positive human communication \u2014 words of advice, empathy, friendship and even love \u2014 can be engaging and at times genuinely helpful.<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n This has been taken as a real dunk on my position, that AI chatbots are evil<\/a> insofar as they tempt us to take a thing as a person, falsifying the world through an abuse of our faculty of conversation, which is for the sake of communion. That this sentence is not<\/em> such a dunk, I will gladly show. But MH<\/em> 100 really has authoritatively and magisterially revealed a foolish part of my argument\u2014which I will un-gladly show. Here goes!\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Taken as it is in English translation\u2014and with some regret for being lawyerly\u2014this sentence cannot<\/em> be read as an endorsement of the artificial imitation of human communication (which chatbots like Truthly and MagisteriumAI rely on in order to give their spiritual advice). It\u2019s not that kind of sentence. The Pope is not giving an instruction. He\u2019s observing a fact: \u201cThe artificial imitation of positive human communication\u2026can be engaging and at times genuinely helpful.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Yes, obviously<\/em>. You\u2019ll hear me spout all sorts of calumny against chatbots\u2014calling them automated liars and Big Bad Bots, etc.\u2014but I hope I\u2019ll never be so prejudiced as to deny that they are \u201cengaging\u201d and \u201cat times genuinely helpful.\u201d An AI fiancee? Engaging! The probabilistic generation of the words \u201cYour life is of infinite value?\u201d Genuinely helpful!<\/p>\n For MH <\/em>100 to annihilate my position, it would have to be impossible for a technology to be \u201cengaging\u201d and \u201cgenuinely helpful\u201d and<\/em> bad. <\/em>But that\u2019s obviously not the case: a superhighway can be both engaging and helpful and yet bad<\/em> because it cuts cities from their riverfronts and neighborhoods from each other. Literature abounds with visits with prostitutes that are \u201cgenuinely helpful\u201d (and certainly \u201cengaging\u201d)\u2014John Steinbeck\u2019s Cannery Row,<\/em> Cormac McCarthy\u2019s Cities of the Plain<\/em>, and J.D. Salinger\u2019s The Catcher in the Rye<\/em> come to mind\u2014and yet we\u2019d hardly call these endorsements of the brothel.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n The Pope\u2019s sentence is an observation of what we would all admit: simulated speech can be engaging and helpful. It sets up his warning of the dangers such simulations nevertheless contain:\u00a0 \u201cHowever, for less discerning users, it can also be misleading, creating the illusion of a relationship with a real personal subject. When words are simulated, they do not build genuine relationships, but only their appearance.\u201c (MH 100) <\/p>\n All that said, the English translation does make it easier for a guy to leap beyond the actual scope of the Pope\u2019s words: perhaps this is the reason why Zac, the good egg from Truthly, takes<\/a> the encyclical as Truthly\u2019s \u201cmarching orders\u201d while I take it as a rather good reason to delete Catholic chatbots<\/a>.<\/p>\n First, the English breaks into two, discrete sentences what the Romance languages keep as one: \u201c…can be engaging and at times genuinely helpful. However, for less discerning users\u2026<\/strong>\u201d The French has it as a singular sentence: \u201cL\u2019imitation artificielle d\u2019une communication humaine positive \u2013 paroles de conseil, d\u2019empathie, d\u2019amiti\u00e9, d\u2019amour \u2013 peut s\u2019av\u00e9rer gratifiante et m\u00eame utile, mais chez des utilisateurs peu avertis,<\/strong> elle peut induire en erreur et donner l\u2019illusion d\u2019\u00eatre en relation avec un sujet personnel authentique.\u201d So it is in Italian (the usual drafting language of papal encyclicals), Spanish, Portuguese and German (and perhaps some kind polyglot could inform me concerning Russian, Polish, and Arabic).\u00a0<\/p>\n Now, \u201csplitting\u201d is a perfectly acceptable way to deal with a long sentence made up of two independent clauses. But this two-sentence construction increases the temptation (for those invested in chatbots) to take the first of those clauses as a complete and independent thought, capable of being separated out and considered as a statement on its own. The one-sentence translations of all the other languages would force an honest man to quote that so-called \u201cendorsement\u201d with an ellipsis trailing off at the end. Were we to write it all out in English as our international hombres<\/em> did, we\u2019d write:<\/p>\n The artificial imitation of positive human communication \u2014 words of advice, empathy, friendship and even love \u2014 can be engaging and at times genuinely helpful, but for less discerning users, it can also be misleading, creating the illusion of a relationship with a real personal subject.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Here the ambiguity <\/em>of chatbots is what\u2019s being spoken of. There<\/em>, in the English, it seems like the Pope is making a point of highlighting the good<\/em> that the artificial imitation of speech contains, and then, in a separate thought, speaking of a danger.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n The encyclical was drafted in many languages, so it is unclear which one to lean on. I suspect we\u2019ll fight about the eventual Latin version, unless Leo tells us to do otherwise.\u00a0 But the phrase \u201cgenuinely helpful,\u201d in English, is equivocal: \u201cGenuinely\u201d could mean something like \u201cactually\u201d as in, \u201cdespite what you may think, chatbots can be genuinely<\/em> helpful.\u201d But it could also be taken as a word carrying a lot more weight, as in \u201cthe help that the artificial imitation of positive communication can provide is genuine <\/em>help,\u201d a kind of help which is holistic, integrated, authentic\u2014unambiguously good.\u00a0<\/p>\n Again, all the other languages\u2014the ones I understand\u2014indicate the first meaning and not the second. Italian: \u201ce persino<\/strong> utile\u2026\u201d Portuguese: \u201ce at\u00e9<\/strong> \u00fatil\u2026\u201d\u00a0 Spanish: \u201ce incluso<\/strong> \u00fatil\u2026\u201d French \u201cet m\u00eame<\/strong> utile\u2026\u201d All of these would be better translated into English as describing the artificial imitation of speech as rewarding \u201cand even<\/strong> useful,\u201d or \u201cand also<\/strong> useful\u201d\u2014a far cry from \u201cgenuinely helpful.\u201d Likewise, none but the English translation adds a temporal caveat: \u201cand at times<\/strong> genuinely helpful.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n None of these are egregious errors, but taken together, I can see why a reader of the English might look at a single, papal sentence declaring the artificial imitation of human communication to be \u201cat times genuinely helpful\u201d and be tempted to conclude that his Catholic chatbot might just be one of those \u201ctimes\u201d simulated speech gets a papal a-okay. But were we to put it as the Italian puts it, we\u2019d get something like:\u00a0<\/p>\n The artificial imitation of positive human communication \u2014 words of advice, empathy, friendship and even love \u2014 can prove rewarding and even helpful, but for less discerning users, it can also be misleading, creating the illusion of a relationship with a real personal subject.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Hardly something to hang a Catholic chatbot\u2019s hat on.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n I was clear, in my \u201cfirst punch\u201d and subsequently, that chatbots tempt us to relate to a thing as if to a person. I was not clear whether one can overcome<\/em> this temptation. Re-reading my own argument in the light of MH <\/em>100, I can see why this omission scandalized. People compared their own experiences of screwing around with Grok and ChatGPT to my dire warnings against \u201cthe simulation of the human person\u201d and simply did not see themselves in my description: \u201cI<\/em> certainly never take this machine to be a person. What\u2019s wrong with you<\/em>?\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n I think it is apparent that the temptation of the chatbot can<\/em> be overcome: one can<\/em> see, know, and even feel <\/em>the probabilistic generations of a chatbot for what they are\u2014impersonal, probabilistic rearrangements of the patterns of human speech. This state of taking the thing as it is<\/em> is both possible (despite the temptation to do otherwise), desirable, and actual in the lives of good people who now, like or not, live in and among a whole lot of chatbots.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Because I didn\u2019t say this explicitly, I think I came across as legalistic, puritanical: as if merely reading <\/em>a probabilistic generation damned a man to untruth and non-correspondence with reality; as if a query to an LLM was necessarily and always an act by which one enters into the mode of conversation, that openness to the other<\/em> who speaks. Experience shows that this is not necessarily so: one really can see the thing as so many moving parts and relate to it as such.\u00a0<\/p>\n More coming, of course, but for now: it\u2019s good to have a Pope.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Well, folks, it\u2019s been enough time since the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas dropped. I can no longer justify my silence; no longer blame my wife and children for their demands on my attention; no longer point to the encyclical itself, which ended with the papal instruction to \u201ccherish places and times where physical presence remains crucial\u201d\u2014which […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":355244,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[28419,13537,113180,33038],"dealstore":[],"offerexpiration":[],"class_list":["post-355243","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-chatbots","tag-endorsement","tag-newpolity","tag-papal"],"yoast_head":"\nGetting dunked on by the Pope<\/strong><\/h3>\n
That sentence<\/strong><\/h3>\n
That sentence, en fran\u00e7ais<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n
Genuinely helpful?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
What I really ought to have said<\/strong><\/h3>\n