Artur Kluz: Human dignity must be the measure by which we judge any technology

By Deborah Castellano Lubov

“Pope Leo XIV has shifted the global conversation about artificial intelligence from technology itself to the human person.”

In an interview with Vatican News, technology and artificial intelligence expert Artur Kluz made this observation as he reflected on Pope Leo XIV’s first Encyclical Magnifica humanitas: on safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence, as well as the Pope’s recent message to the AI for Good Global Summit in Geneva.

The technology investor and entrepreneur is the founder and CEO of Kluz Ventures, a global investment firm focused on artificial intelligence, space exploration, and other frontier technologies. He developed the concept of “Virtue Tech,” the idea that founders, technologists, and investors need moral formation alongside technical expertise.

Kluz was among the speakers at the high-level Summit in Geneva, the United Nations’ leading platform on Artificial Intelligence, which examined how artificial intelligence is shaping the world and how it can contribute to addressing global challenges. He had reflected on the Pope’s Encyclical along with other industry experts and with officials representing the Holy See. He also founded the Kluz Prize for PeaceTech, one of the world’s leading initiatives dedicated to advancing AI and other technologies that serve humanity, build peace, and safeguard human dignity, which, over the past four years, has attracted applications from technology builders and innovators across 82 countries.

Mr. Kluz, what do you see as the greatest contribution of Magnifica humanitas to safeguarding the human person in the age of AI?

I believe the greatest contribution of Magnifica humanitas is that Pope Leo XIV has shifted the global conversation about artificial intelligence from technology itself to the human person. From the perspective of someone who invests in and builds companies around frontier technologies, I believe Pope Leo XIV offers something often missing from discussions about AI: a compass rather than a constraint. Pope Leo is not opposed to entrepreneurship, innovation, or the responsible return on capital. Rather, he challenges us to ask deeper moral questions before deciding what to build, how to build it, and why we build it. Entrepreneurs should aspire not only to create smarter machines, but also to develop technologies and institutions that help humanity become wiser, more peaceful, and better able to flourish together.

Too often, conversations about AI focus on technological capabilities, investment, and competition. Magnifica humanitas reminds us that the more important question is what kind of humanity these technologies ultimately serve. As an investor and technology builder, I believe Pope Leo XIV highlights three practical principles: technology is never morally neutral; technology must always serve the human person; and wisdom and virtue must grow alongside innovation. Our greatest challenge is not simply building more intelligent machines, but becoming wise enough to use them well. Pope Leo’s call for moral and spiritual discernment is, in my view, one of the most practical recommendations in the Encyclical. Technology can help us build faster, but it cannot tell us what we ought to build. Discernment asks: Should we build it? Who will it serve? Will it strengthen human dignity, peace, and the common good?

Recently, I attended small gatherings in Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C., with young AI engineers, programmers, and researchers from leading AI companies where I expected discussions about larger models, AI agents, artificial general intelligence, and emerging trends. Instead, many questions focused on how the principles of the Encyclical could be applied in daily work, coding, and personal life: How do we build character so that we can build better AI? What is our understanding of God? How do we ensure that technological progress is accompanied by human growth? That confirmed something important: technology is a mirror of its creators. The technologies we build ultimately reflect who we are, what we value, and the character we cultivate.

The greatest contribution of Magnifica humanitas is not a new set of rules, but a reminder of the correct starting point. Human dignity, rather than efficiency or capability alone, must be the measure by which we judge any technology, including AI. This is not a new idea for the Church. It continues a tradition that includes Rerum novarum, Centesimus annus, and Laudato si’. What is new is its application to a technology that touches questions of truth, relationships, and power simultaneously. For me personally, the Encyclical did not introduce an entirely new direction so much as confirm something I have believed for years: the questions raised by AI are new, but the moral framework needed to address them — dignity, the common good, solidarity, subsidiarity, and justice — has long been present. To me, three practical points in the Encyclical stand out.

What are those three points?

First, the Encyclical recognizes that technology is never morally neutral. AI reflects the values, culture, and moral condition of those who build it. If we want human-centered AI, we need people oriented toward the good developing it. It also reframes power, not only innovation, as a central question. The development of technology today is often driven by private, transnational actors whose resources can exceed those of governments. This raises serious questions about accountability. And third, it treats truth as a common good. In an era of algorithmic curation and generative content, protecting a shared basis of truth is itself a way of safeguarding human dignity. A society that can no longer agree on what is real struggles to act together for the common good and to build peace.

As someone deeply engaged in AI yourself, what is essential to ensuring responsible use of AI that protects human beings, their dignity, and their work? How can AI be ethically used to serve humanity?

Advertisement

The people building AI, the systems governing it, and the culture receiving it need to remain connected. I do not think we can build truly human-centered AI systems if the people designing them are not also striving to cultivate the virtues those systems require. As I mentioned, technology is really a mirror of its creators. This is why I developed the concept of “Virtue Tech”: the idea that founders, technologists, and investors need moral formation alongside technical expertise. What we need more of today is not only greater technical knowledge, but also greater wisdom and spiritual intelligence.

Are guardrails needed to ensure AI does not become too powerful or harmful?

When it comes to governance and guardrails, several areas are non-negotiable. First, human agency and oversight must remain central. Wherever AI influences decisions involving life and death, due process, employment, or the development of children, a human being must remain meaningfully involved — not simply present in name. Next, we need truthful and trustworthy information. AI systems are only as reliable as the data and incentives behind them. Guardrails against manipulation, deepfakes, and the erosion of a shared factual reality are increasingly urgent. And finally, we must address the concentration of power. When a small number of private actors can shape outcomes at enormous scale, society needs genuine accountability structures rather than relying solely on self-regulation.

How can AI be ethically used and serve humanity?

AI can serve humanity when it is directed toward alleviating real suffering, expanding access to healthcare, accelerating scientific discovery, helping detect landmines, and supporting peacebuilding, rather than simply maximizing engagement, extraction, or control. That must be a deliberate choice made upstream by the people who fund, design, and build these systems.

Pope Leo’s guidance has influenced the questions I ask when evaluating companies. Beyond technology, markets, and execution, I ask: Will this technology serve the human person? Will it save lives? Will it strengthen peace? Will it contribute to human flourishing? For entrepreneurs, this represents both a responsibility and an opportunity. Innovation should strengthen rather than diminish human dignity. AI should expand human judgment rather than replace it, foster cooperation rather than polarization, and empower communities rather than concentrate power. This responsibility extends beyond AI software itself. We are entering an era in which AI increasingly depends on physical infrastructures, including satellites, data systems, communications networks, and autonomous technologies. These infrastructures are becoming part of the moral architecture of society. They should therefore be designed not only for efficiency and commercial success, but also to strengthen resilience, transparency, humanitarian response, and peace. Technologies that connect humanity should never become instruments that divide it.

Pope Leo also warns against the technocratic paradigm, in which efficiency, control, and profit become ends in themselves. Efficiency is an extraordinary tool, but it must never become the ultimate goal. Virtue-driven leadership in technology is becoming increasingly important.

Could you elaborate?

Companies that build around a framework of serving humanity can earn something more valuable than market share, that is to say they can earn public trust. AI can create the appearance of limitless knowledge, but it does not possess conscience or lived human experience. Moral character is therefore becoming a strategic asset because technology ultimately reflects the people who create and govern it.

Pope Leo’s message for the AI for Good Global Summit notes that Magnifica humanitas was born both from hopeful listening to scientists, leaders, parents, and teachers, and from concerns about misuse and the loss of human agency. What are key ways AI developers can address these concerns?

I think the tension the Holy Father describes — hope and concern existing together — is exactly the right posture. It is also something I recognize from conversations with founders and engineers. And developers and investors can take several concrete steps. For example, from the beginning, human oversight should be built into the architecture of AI systems, not added as an afterthought. Systems need deliberate points where a human being is required to make a decision, not merely permitted to do so. Also, investment in trusted information infrastructure is essential. One of the clearest lessons of this era is that AI systems are only as reliable as the information on which they are built. Supporting data integrity is as important as improving model capability. Another step would be to ensure that moral formation is considered part of technical formation. Engineering teams need meaningful engagement with ethical and theological reflection, rather than treating ethics as a final review step at the end of product development. Developers need the ability to exercise restraint as a professional discipline. There will be situations where they must say no to certain applications, even when commercial pressure encourages them to move forward. 

Could you offer a few concrete examples or best practices from the industry?

Technology serving humanity can take various forms. One initiative I founded, the Kluz Prize for PeaceTech and two of its recent honorees demonstrate how frontier technologies can be applied for humanitarian purposes. Common Space is developing an independent satellite mission focused on peacebuilding and humanitarian action. Aerobotics7 uses AI-powered drones to help detect and neutralize landmines in conflict zones, including Ukraine. Both examples show how advanced technologies can be directed toward protecting human life rather than increasing harm. Another important area is the formation of technologists themselves. Technical excellence needs to be accompanied by moral and human formation.

How can that be achieved?

We need people who are genuinely fluent in both technological innovation and the moral traditions that help guide its use. I am supporting research in Rome exploring the relationship between theology and quantum physics, and I am also working to encourage opportunities for founders, engineers, and programmers to engage with Catholic universities and intellectual traditions. The goal is to help form people with deep expertise in AI and other frontier technologies, such as space exploration and quantum computing, while also developing a serious understanding of Catholic social and moral teaching. These questions are too important to be approached by specialists who understand only one side. We need people capable of engaging both the technical possibilities and the deeper human questions involved. Some of these individuals may eventually advise institutions, governments, and leaders addressing these challenges. Looking ahead, there may be a need for a broader community of Christian technologists, namely entrepreneurs, engineers, programmers, investors, academics, policymakers, philosophers, and theologians who combine technical capability with conviction, character, and responsibility. Frontier innovation must be paired with moral formation and institutional accountability. Neither one is sufficient on its own. One area where this approach is becoming especially visible is space technology.

Advertisement

How is space technology working in this regard?

Satellites are no longer only tools for navigation and communication. They are becoming part of the humanitarian infrastructure of the twenty-first century. They can provide early warnings of natural disasters, monitor food insecurity, support the verification of ceasefires, document attacks on civilians, assist search-and-rescue operations, and improve humanitarian assistance. Used responsibly, space technologies can become infrastructures for peace rather than merely instruments of competition. The same technologies can be used to predict disasters, protect civilians, and deliver humanitarian support. Or they can be used for surveillance and coercion. The difference does not lie only in the technology itself, but in governance, incentives, and moral choices. This is why initiatives such as Common Space are significant. The development of independent satellite capabilities dedicated to humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding purposes represents an effort to create infrastructure designed around the public interest. Rather than relying only on occasional access to commercial imagery or competing with commercial and defense priorities, such approaches seek to establish systems whose primary mission is serving humanitarian needs. A governance model, centered on independence, open access for humanitarian actors, and responsible stewardship, is key.