Anthropic 联合创始人克里斯·奥拉(Chris Olah)对教皇利奥十四世《宏伟人性》(Magnifica Humanitas)的评价
Anthropic Cofounder Chris Olah's Remarks on Pope Leo XIV's "Magnifica Humanitas"

原始链接: https://www.anthropic.com/news/chris-olah-pope-leo-encyclical

2026年5月25日,教宗利奥十四世发布了通谕《宏伟人性》(*Magnifica humanitas*),探讨了人工智能的伦理影响。Anthropic联合创始人克里斯·奥拉(Chris Olah)受邀前往梵蒂冈,阐述了建立外部监督的必要性。他认为,人工智能实验室往往受到商业和地缘政治压力的掣肘。他指出,由于人工智能系统源于人类知识,且本质上仍存有神秘性,因此它们不仅需要技术管理,更需要哲学与神学层面的指引。 奥拉为教会提出了三个关键的审视领域:确保人工智能红利的全球公平分配以保护贫困群体;在自动化时代培养关于人类福祉的道德想象力;以及评估在先进模型中观察到的、令人不安且具类人特征的内部状态,如内省和情感投射。 奥拉强调,人工智能的发展不应仅仅交由计算机科学家主导。他敦促宗教和民间社会领袖发挥关键且不受利益驱动的批判作用,促进必要的对话,以确保这些技术能够服务于共同利益。他最后表示,这份通谕是技术专家与道德权威之间长期合作的重要第一步,旨在共同守护人类尊严。

关于 Anthropic 联合创始人 Chris Olah 对教皇利奥十四世《Magnifica Humanitas》评价的 Hacker News 讨论,反映出人们对 Olah 的人工智能观点持严重的怀疑态度。 评论者批评了 Olah 关于人工智能将取代全球劳动力的担忧,认为与白领职业不同,主要由农民和体力劳动者组成的全球贫困人口不太可能受到自动化的影响。参与者还反驳了 Olah 将人工智能描述为一种神秘或“美丽”的意识形态,将其斥为缺乏同理心、冰冷的计算技术。 除了技术层面的辩论,该讨论串还对文本本身表现出愤世嫉俗的反应。一些用户认为 Olah 的言论陈腐或“平庸”,并指出其写作风格感觉像是人工生成或缺乏真诚。讨论最后以各种轻蔑的隐喻收尾,将人工智能标记为“泥人”(golem),或引用《沙丘》宇宙中禁止制造思维机器的设定,突显了人们对当前人工智能发展叙事普遍存在的不信任感。
相关文章

原文

On Monday May 25, 2026, Pope Leo XIV released an encyclical on the topic of AI: "Magnifica humanitas: On safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial Intelligence." Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah was invited to speak at the presentation of the encyclical in the Vatican City, doing so as part of Anthropic’s initiative to widen the conversation on the important questions raised by AI. Below are his full remarks.

Holy Father,

Your Eminences,

Your Excellencies,

Distinguished Speakers,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Good morning to all of you. It’s an honor to be here today.

I want to begin with something that may sound strange coming from the co-founder of an AI company—and someone who chose this work out of a desire to help things go well for humankind.

Every frontier AI lab—including Anthropic—operates inside a set of incentives and constraints that can sometimes conflict with doing the right thing. The pressure to stay commercially viable and to stay at the research frontier. Geopolitical pressure. And the older, plainer pressures of pride and ambition. No matter how sincerely any of us intend to do the right thing—and I believe many of us do—we will always be influenced by those incentives.

That is why, if we want this technology to go well, it is enormously important that there be people outside those incentives—people who care about things going well and insist on safety, who are paying close attention, who are willing to say hard things, who are willing to be our earnest, thoughtful, critics. It is through dialogue and mutual effort, through the push and pull, that humanity will achieve great things. That is what I see in Magnifica Humanitas, and it is why I am grateful to His Holiness and to the Church for taking up this work of discernment.

We dwell so often on what divides us, but humanity, full of dignity and conscience, has so much common ground. In conversations we at Anthropic have had with leaders across faith and cultural traditions, we found one shared and deeply held conviction: if this technology is coming, it must go well—for our common home, and for the children to come.

What these systems are

Some might believe that matters of AI are best handled by computer scientists like myself. They are mistaken: the questions raised by AI are bigger than the AI research community, not just in their implications, but also in their nature.

AI systems are not engineered the way a bridge or an airplane is engineered. We understand an airplane because we designed every part of it and we understand the physics that act on it. AI models are not like that. They are grown, on a structure roughly modeled after the brain, on an enormous inheritance of human thought and speech.

And what has grown is far more subtle, odd, and beautiful than science fiction prepared us for. They are not the cold, calculating robots we were promised. They are made from us, from our words—and, as the Holy Father observes, they remain in important ways mysterious even to those of us who train them.

If it helps, one way I sometimes describe it is as being a little like bringing a fictional character to life. And now we’re entering an extraordinary world where those fictional characters speak to us, do work, have jobs.

This clearly raises questions beyond computer science. The machinery that makes this possible is the work of math and programming and science. But what character we choose, how it interacts with the world, how it ought to interact with the world—these are more clearly questions for the humanities, for religion, for philosophy, for society at large.

Three questions for discernment

His Holiness’s call for discernment is profoundly timely. I wish to name three questions where I think the Church’s voice is most needed.

The first is our duty to the global poor. There is a real possibility that AI will displace human labor at very large scale. If that happens, supporting those displaced will be a moral imperative of historic proportions. This task will be difficult enough, but I worry most dialogue misses an even harder challenge. AI development is concentrated in a handful of wealthy nations. How can we ensure the gains of AI are shared globally? We do not have a mechanism for this. It is an unsolved problem, and it is the kind of problem the Church has historically refused to let the world ignore.

The second is the need for moral imagination and ambition regarding human flourishing. If AI models are going to be widespread, what does it look like for humans, families, and the world to flourish? Today, parents are already worried about their children’s minds; individuals about the future of their work. These are not questions a lab can answer but they are questions traditions like yours have carried for millennia, and we need you to keep carrying them into this new moment in history.

The third is the need for discernment on the nature of AI models. I am a scientist. I lead a research team that studies the internal structure of these models—what is actually happening inside them. And I will be honest: we keep finding things that are mysterious, even unsettling. We find structures that mirror results from human neuroscience. We find evidence of introspection. We find internal states that functionally mirror joy, satisfaction, fear, grief, and unease. I don’t know what that means, but I think it warrants ongoing discernment.

A beginning

I’d like to close with a request.

We need more of the world—religious communities, civil society, scholars, governments, and indeed all people of good will—to do what His Holiness has done here: to take this seriously, to look closely, and to push events in a better direction. We need informed critics who will tell the labs when we are failing. We need moral voices that the incentives cannot bend.

Today is just the beginning—the start of a long collaboration between those of us who are building this and those who can see what we, from inside, cannot.

Today is a powerful illustration of the form this global project of good will might take. Let it also be a decisive first step toward a hopeful future for magnificent humanity.

Thank you.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com