Let’s return to our coverage of Pope Leo

I’m joking – no disrespect, but the Holy Father and his predecessors haven’t typically been within this blog’s zone of interest. But the recent encyclical letter on safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence touches on a few areas we’ve covered in the past. For example, the following passage resonates neatly against current concerns on AI in accounting:

• Today, the convergence of automation, robotics and AI is rapidly transforming the very structure of work. It is said that this will bring great improvements for everyone. In reality, however, the “new ways” of working are not necessarily better, for “while AI promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines, rather than machines being designed to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the advertised benefits of AI, current approaches to technology can paradoxically de-skill workers, subject them to automated surveillance and relegate them to rigid and repetitive tasks. The need to keep up with the pace of technology can erode workers’ sense of agency and stifle the innovative abilities they are expected to bring to their work. Precisely in order to avoid this drift, it is necessary to design systems that are centered on the human person and not solely on performance.

It’s unlikely that accounting and auditing looms heavily in the kind of work the Pope is thinking about. Still, his articulation of the issue largely corresponds to the way it’s been articulated by KPMG for one. As we cited here, the firm notes that its new audit platform will “help standardize workflows, accelerate decision making and harmonize processes to produce more consistent outcomes, which in turn, improves audit quality and enhances public trust.” However, it also emphasizes: “the need to train and develop humans that are curious is a critical skill set for the profession. Curiosity drives the level of professional skepticism that is foundational in the audit profession.” The professional skepticism referred to is surely deeply intertwined with the sense of agency noted by Pope Leo, as are the broader questions, referenced here in the past, about the consequences if AI does gradually swamp the human ability to develop, maintain and exercise the desired qualities.

The letter looks skeptically at other aspects of our recent evolution:

• In recent years, finance has increased in importance and has undergone significant innovation, driven partly by the introduction of cryptocurrencies. The reflections and observations contained in the teaching of my predecessors, particularly in their Encyclicals, have highlighted how the financial intermediation sector, “when operating without the necessary anthropological and moral foundations, has not only produced manifest abuses and injustice, but also demonstrated a capacity to create systemic and worldwide economic crisis.” It is likewise the case that income from capital risks replacing income from labor, which is often confined to the margins of the economic system’s primary interests.  Yet savings transformed into credit for the real economy, thereby creating both jobs and self-employed work, remain central for development and the investments that must accompany ongoing transitions. The social function of credit remains irreplaceable. Finance for its own sake is fundamentally different from finance aimed at the development, creation and evolution of work.

Presumably Pope Leo would not much mourn the end of the accounting “gravy train” predicted here. Of course, the letter falls short of a comprehensive vision: many of its assertions are at least debatable, and the focus on “work” can seem somewhat regressive and limiting. One notes, even in the first extract above, the copious use of such terms as “can” or “frequently” or “not necessarily,” hedging the diagnosis and hinting at undeveloped alternatives. The document can be critiqued from just about every possible perspective: in the New York Times alone, it was criticized for underestimating “A.I.’s ability to exacerbate existing crises and to accelerate processes of cheapening and redefinition,” and alternatively for not doing enough “to speak to the sheer weirdness of the technological moment it describes.” Still, it’s rather inspiring by its very existence, even if one may be unsure about what is actually being inspired. One more extract:

• Let us remain faithful to the truth! Living amid incessant flows of information, opinions and images, we know how easy it can be to influence decisions and preferences through increasingly sophisticated algorithms. In this context, it is imperative to cultivate hearts that love the truth, prefer what is right despite the most appealing content and pursue wisdom rather than immediate results. We must always keep before us the truth about God and humanity, just as Christ has revealed them to us. We must lay aside an individualistic and technical view of humanity, as if reality were mere matter to be shaped according to selfish interests, whether individual or collective.  Instead, let us cultivate what Pope Francis called a “situated anthropocentrism,”  which recognizes the human being as a creature embedded in a network of relationships with other living beings and with all of creation. Fidelity to the truth requires integrating the possibilities offered by technology within a framework marked by wisdom, which is capable of safeguarding both the dignity of each person and the future of our common home.

How’s that for an articulation of the challenge of maintaining professional skepticism!

The opinions expressed are solely those of the author, when not those of the Holy Father.