One hundred and thirty-five years ago, today, Pope Leo XIII gave us Rerum Novarum. The basic point of this encyclical was that we must be cautious when it comes to "new things" (in Latin: rerum novarum); specifically the new things that impact work and society. So much has been written about AI and how it is creeping into our world, that I hesitate even to mention it in a post. Yet, "to say nothing is to say the wrong thing".
I also will not attempt to give a full explanation of Rerum Novarum; far more brilliant men than I have already done so. I only want to take the simple principle of the encyclical and apply it to us. Caution. How cautious are we really? Maybe it is because I have a read a ton of dystopian novels about machines and computers taking over the world, but I am not comfortable with AI. I have never, intentionally, used it for anything, and I am not certain I will ever choose to do so.
Now, I do not want to sound like the Catholic clergymen years ago who said that the invention of locomotives was going to end the world (yes, there were a few who said that), so I will be cautious in how I am cautious. That said, the simple question of Rerum Novarum was "does the 'new thing' help humans, or does it subtly hurt them?" (that is not a quote, but my summary). "Help" is the real issue, and anything that makes it easier for us not to do things that are good for us (things like, thinking) are clearly suspect.
This is similar to why I like a manual transmission, an analog watch (wind up), and an actual paper schedule book. If it makes me work a bit harder, then I am getting "exercise". Yes, there are things that might make me work harder that are a hindrance to my other duties (I would rather use a chainsaw than an axe to cut up a downed tree). And it is true that not everyone is going to have the same perspective on what counts as "a hindrance", but if we do not ask the question at all, we are allowing ourselves to be led by someone whose motives we do not know.
To take the axe/chainsaw analogy: I once cut up a tree with a chainsaw and it took about an hour; an axe would have taken me (I'm a skinny guy) days. If we compare it with the question of AI's usefulness, we ask ourselves whether AI really makes life better, or just easier (it is not the same thing). Sometimes "easier" is a bad thing (I hope that does not shock you); and not everyone has the right understanding of what is actually better.
So at a bare minimum, let us acknowledge that "easier" might be better, and it might not. Easier might actually be worse. Thus, we cannot say something is good because it is easier. The real question about AI is whether it actually makes our lives (or anything, for that matter) better. We should not jump to conclusions and say "yes" or "no" too quickly. None of these questions can be answered quickly, and we have to be patient and cautious.