--- title: "What are we building?" url: https://sam-page.com/thinking/what-are-we-building date: 2026-06-03 author: Sam Page type: Post or article categories: [Emerging tech and AI] reading_time: 7 min summary: "Four words from Pope Leo XIV's first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, have stayed with me since I read it." first_published: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-we-building-sam-page-ssyee --- # What are we building? Four words from Pope Leo XIV's first encyclical, [Magnifica Humanitas](https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html#The_res_novae_of_our_time), have stayed with me since I read it. > "What are we building?" Religious or not, there is a lot of very sound thinking in this document, and much of it resonated with me. I have always believed deeply in the capability of technology to offer good to people. And at times I feel concerned we are straying from that path. Social media is one example. AI risks becoming another. A few elements stood out for me, and I think they are worth reflecting on. ### Logic alone should not shape our decisions (92) The document warns against letting logic alone shape personal, social and economic decisions. We are as much heart (if not more) as we are logic, and there needs to be a balance. Tech should not dictate what we do or how we live. It should enable us to live in a better, more natural way. We must apply this to AI as well. ### Who controls the systems matters (95) The document also warns against too much control of these systems sitting with a small number of economic or technical actors. For me, this is critical. A handful of companies should not own all our data, nor the economic output the technology creates. Businesses make decisions to drive shareholder value. Unless those companies are owned by everyone, that means benefiting a subsection of people. Public oversight and direction are key. Competition is key. Independent actors that provide data sovereignty are key. Distributed economic gain is key. Check out [Pippa Labs](https://www.linkedin.com/company/pippa-labs/) to see how I'm trying to be a part of the solution. ### AI is not intelligence (99) Something I talk about a lot. We don't even have a good definition of human intelligence. So to imply that technology, and in particular Gen AI built on patterns, is intelligent in the way humans are is misleading. These systems imitate human intelligence. And used well, they are tools that save time and carry out tasks on our behalf. The term 'artificial intelligence' was first used for the Dartmouth Conference in 1956, partly because the more accurate term, 'complex information processing', wasn't catchy enough. It set us on a dangerous expectation path that we are still living with. This passage is spot on in my view: > "So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences." ### A valuable tool, and a need for vigilance (100) AI is an incredibly powerful tool, and it will only grow in capability. But this line deserves careful attention: > "three aspects in particular deserve careful consideration: the ease with which results are obtained, the impression of objectivity and the simulation of human communication." We need to ensure humans flourish, using the tool to support that rather than replace it. That includes broadening its use to solve problems that create a better future for all of us and our planet. ### Governance needs the human in the loop (102 to 105) We must approach AI in a way that looks beyond the technical and considers the human. For me, that means keeping a human in the loop more often than not. The human alone won't always be right. But they act as a check and balance, able to escalate something outside an automated system. Governance also needs to ensure AI does not simply amplify the economic status of those who already have it, and instead helps create a fairer and more sustainable future for us all. ### The direction matters more than the speed (106) I do not believe technology can be slowed down. The document suggests politics should be capable of 'slowing things down when everything is accelerating' (107), but this is where I disagree. In my experience, deceleration isn't a real option. The technology will keep moving whether we approve or not. The work is making sure the direction it takes is the right one. And on that, the Pope and I agree: > "it is an exercise of responsible care for the human family." ### Where I push back The document treats the ease of getting answers as a risk in itself. It warns that 'the speed and ease with which answers or summaries can be obtained risk extinguishing the desire to ask questions' (140). I understand the concern. And I do agree that too much ease, too little friction can be a bad thing. But as a dyslexic, I also have a different perspective. For me, ease isn't a temptation. It's access. AI tools that summarise, structure and check my writing are what level the field. They don't extinguish my desire to ask questions. They are what make the questions possible. In 245 paragraphs, there is no mention of disability, accessibility or assistive technology. That feels like a real gap. The encyclical asks us to see our limits as 'a reality through which our humanity matures' rather than 'a defect to be corrected' (118). I'd offer a third way. I have matured through my dyslexia, and I correct for it every day. Both are part of being human. Technology that helps a person participate fully isn't dominating their humanity. **It's restoring it.** ### Disarm The use of the word 'disarm' is clever. Partly because it grabs headlines. Mostly because the principle behind it is right: "To disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity." I can't imagine anyone reading that sentence and disagreeing with it. ### What this means for business For business leaders, I don't read any of this as a call to slow down. Quite the opposite. It means leaning into the technology, being brave and moving fast. And it means caring about your workforce at the same time. Helping people adjust. Ensuring they have the right tools so they don't fall behind. Creating the space for their humanity to flourish alongside the technology. The businesses that get this right will move faster, because their people will move with them. ### What this means for people For each of us individually, I think the message is to engage. Learn the tools. Let them take on the tasks that drain you. And protect the things they can never do for you: your relationships, your judgement, your care for others. The heart side of the balance. The technology will shape the next decade either way. Far better that we shape it back. ### What this means for the planet For all the talk of intelligence in the cloud, AI is a very physical technology. Data centres, energy, water, and the minerals that go into every chip. All of it draws on the finite resources we share. So the benefits this technology brings cannot come at the expense of our planet. If AI helps us move faster whilst quietly running down our common home, we haven't made progress at all. And it cuts the other way too. Some of the most valuable uses of AI are the ones pointed at the planet's biggest problems: energy efficiency, climate modelling, materials science. We should be directing far more of it there. ### What are we building? And whether you are religious or not, the Pope has found a beautiful way to express what we need to focus on as humanity to secure a better future for all of us and the planet. If you work with AI, build with it, or buy it, the encyclical is worth a read. Would love to hear your thoughts.