Thought for the week: How Pope Leo's encyclical letter could influence emerging global AI regulation

With the Labor Day weekend just behind us, there's a timely opportunity to revisit a portion of Pope Leo XIV's Encyclical Letter "Magnificent Humanity: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence." 

In particular, Chapter 4, "Safeguarding Humanity at a Time of Transformation. Truth, Work, Freedom," contains some of the most concrete references in the letter to commercial and employment considerations. In keeping with a good Socratic method, we'll frame this as a few key questions and answers.

How could this letter influence global regulation of AI? 

Two key reasons: audience and content. 

First, Pope Leo XIV addresses the encyclical to the Catholic Church as well as all people of goodwill worldwide. Even if it is only read by Catholics, that would still include about 1.4 billion people, or about one of every six people on the planet. 

Many of these readers are legislators, judges, politicians, business leaders, educators, professionals and others that will consider these thoughts and evaluate whether or how to incorporate them within their spheres of influence. 

To underscore this point, Pope Leo XIV recently addressed the International Catholic Legislators Network, and specifically focused on his main themes from this letter, including the need for "robust legal frameworks."   

So, regardless of your stance in relation to the Catholic Church, it is helpful to understand the key points. 

Second, Pope Leo XIV is speaking from the context of Catholic Social Teaching, which is well known and has a long arc going back centuries. From a historical perspective, this Letter was published on the 135th anniversary of another encyclical, 1891's Rerum Novarum, where Pope Leo XIII wrote about the disruptive forces of industrialization and concentrated economic power, and provided a philosophical foundation for increased participation in development of labor unions, trade associations and other protections.

What are key commercial and employment themes in Chapter 4 of the Letter?

Data privacy, credit reporting and ADMT. The letter frequently touches on the importance of data privacy, credit reporting and automated decision-making technology protections, including paragraph 171, which cites the risks of: "social control made possible by the massive collection of data and use of algorithmic systems. When every action — movements, purchases, relationships and preferences — leaves a trace, a new form of power emerges, namely the power to profile, predict and influence behavior, often without individuals being fully aware of it. If such kinds of data are used to make decisions affecting concrete opportunities — such as access to credit, employment or essential services — there is a risk of undermining freedom and discriminating against the most vulnerable… (This) calls for clear rules, transparency, the possibility of recourse and proportionate limits on the use of intrusive technologies." 

These passages will implicitly reinforce the centrality of data privacy laws, corresponding credit reporting and emerging ADMT rules, such as those in California, Colorado, the EU and other jurisdictions worldwide.

Labor and employment/corporate social responsibility. The letter often highlights concerns about displacement of labor and employment, such as in paragraph 156, which specifies: "(a)t this time of transition, it is not enough to react only when jobs disappear; we must oversee the transformation in advance. One viable path is, first of all, to establish social criteria for innovation. Here, every introduction of automation and AI should be accompanied by verifiable measures to protect the employment, retraining and participation of workers … Second, we need proactive policies that make continuous training and professional transitions accessible to all, ensuring that the cost of adaptation does not fall solely on individuals. Finally, there needs to be a corporate commitment to include quality and dignity of work among its indicators of success." 

Lots of takeaways here. One thread relates to government allocation of resources for training for those displaced by innovations. This is similar to the "trade adjustment assistance" that was contemplated, albeit with only limited success, following the waves of trade agreements culminating in the World Trade Organization in 1994. Another thread is whether concepts such as "quality and dignity of work" in the context of AI could make its way into corporate social responsibility and other soft law areas.

AI regulation. The letter articulates a series of principles, reminiscent in some respects of the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology's AI Risk Management Framework and other standards, for AI-specific requirements, such as paragraph 164, which provides: "In practical terms, in the age of AI and robotics, ensuring that the economy favors human dignity means adopting certain criteria for firm action. First, transparency and accountability: when data and algorithms influence credit distribution, personnel selection or access to services and opportunities, it is necessary that decisions be understandable, contestable and subject to oversight, so that individuals are not reduced to mere profiles. Second, inclusion and access: the benefits of innovation must be paired with investments in skills, infrastructure and essential services to ensure that technology does not widen the gap between those who have and those who have not."  

Although not perfectly aligned, the letter appears to endorse adoption of this type of emerging AI-specific legislation and regulation.

Anti-trust and consumer protection. The letter makes frequent references to topics that touch on concentration of power and the need for antitrust and consumer protection requirements, such as the references in paragraph 163, which specify that: "(m)ore than ever, in the age of AI and robotics, it is no longer possible to rely solely on the 'invisible hand' of the market. Politics has the task of orientating economies and technologies to the common good, promoting dignified work, social inclusion and an equitable distribution of the benefits of innovation." 

These and other similar passages are a call to refresh how anti-trust and consumer protection legislation are developed and applied to address the common good in the context of AI.

Equity and taxation. The letter identifies concerns related to growing inequality and equity, including a passage in paragraph 164, which identifies: "measures to ensure equity: taxation, social protection and industrial policies must correct the imbalances created by the concentration of wealth and power."

Public policy tools regarding taxation can have some direct impact on potentially growing inequality due to the development and implementation of AI, and we may begin to see more of that in the coming years.

Cybersecurity. The letter references cybersecurity concerns in the context of warfare, such as in paragraph 183, which provides that: "(a)longside conventional warfare, there are hybrid forms such as cyberattacks, information manipulation, campaigns of influence and the automation of strategic decisions." 

Although a portion of this relates to baseline cybersecurity regulations for companies — such as the California Consumer Privacy Act Cyber Audit Regulations and the EU NIS2 Directive — a broader component of this relates to government policy in the area of offensive and defensive cyber capabilities.

Human rights and children's issues. The letter cites a broad range of human rights and children's issues, including a wide ranging series of references in paragraph 173, which identify: "the silent work of millions of people engaged in essential yet largely unseen activities, such as data labeling, model training and content moderation, often involving disturbing material. … Added to this invisible labor is the even harsher work of extracting the resources required for the production of the devices and microprocessors on which AI depends. … Furthermore, criminal networks use online platforms, messaging systems, anonymous payment methods and profiling techniques in order to recruit, control and transport victims of trafficking — very often minors — reducing men and women to 'data' to be tracked and 'packages' to be moved around within the same digital circuits that support much of the global economy."

Each of the points in this passage raise significant concerns that require thoughtful attention and effort to address.   

International cooperation. The letter highlights the importance of international cooperation on these topics, including in paragraph 163, which specifies that: "(s)ince many economic decisions transcend national borders, there is also a need for international cooperation capable of defining common strategies, especially in favor of the most vulnerable countries and people, in order to promote development and overcome welfare dependency. … for prosperity contributes to building and reinforcing peace only if it is widespread, inclusive and sustainable." 

On this point, although the macro trend in recent years has arguably been a retrenchment from global treaties and alliances, we are seeing a proliferation of robust regional, cross-regional and bilateral arrangements on commercial topics, and global organizations, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Organization for Standardization, the International Electrotechnical Commission, and the U.N.'s Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, are offering frameworks, standards and common rules. 

In fact, the letter itself could be viewed as contributing to efforts to establish global protections in the age of AI.

Why does it matter to consider the key themes of this letter from the standpoint of global regulation of AI?

My sense is that we are all on a journey right now in one of the most transformative periods of recent history. AI is a big part of that. 

Connecting what we are doing on AI from a commercial and regulatory standpoint with other areas and disciplines, such as Catholic Social Teaching, can help us evaluate whether we are thinking of everything or if there are other issues or concepts we should bring into our spheres of influence. 

As for me, I think the above helps identify some key points, but I am not yet satisfied. I don't think we've truly figured it out yet. I think there is still a lot more that needs to be done, and it's going to take us all working together to figure it out.