Pope Leo’s manifesto on artificial intelligence (AI) ignited varied reactions across the spectrum. Some liberal humanists appreciated his insights, while critics favoring digital consciousness found fault. However, AI skeptics expressed noteworthy disappointment, believing the pope’s approach was insufficient.

Princeton’s Greg Conti, writing in Compact magazine, challenged the pope’s acceptance of AI’s inevitability. He asked whether a pope could call for “an age of resistance to A.I.” Anton Barba-Kay, a cultural critic in The Hedgehog Review, critiqued Leo’s view of AI as merely a valuable tool, likening it to using cocaine with caution.

My perspective aligns somewhat with these critics. I felt Pope Leo missed exploring AI’s profound oddity and its challenge to human uniqueness. He didn’t delve into why it invokes messianic hopes and apocalyptic fears.

A papal call for significant resistance to AI would not suit the realities of 2026. Such a message feels both premature and belated. Delayed, as AI already permeates society, creating wealth and infrastructure, offering immediate benefits, involving numerous institutions. Early, because humanity typically acknowledges a technology’s harms only when they become starkly evident. History shows that we refine regulations in response to present abuses. Nuclear restraint movements gained strength after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Resistance to children’s smartphone use couldn’t have arisen in 2010.

Ideally, action would precede disasters, but practically, both humanist skeptics of AI and those fearing AI catastrophes might need to witness undeniable adverse events before mobilizing for change.