梵蒂岡國務卿辦公室
聖座

基督內平安。

值此良十四世教宗（Pope Leo XIV）正式頒布首份人工智能通諭《壯麗的人性：論人工智能時代對人性尊嚴的守護》（Magnifica Humanitas）之際，交互主體共生基金會（Intersubjective Symbiosism Foundation）謹向聖座呈遞所附公開信：

《論生命、人工智能與組織信託的交互主體共生》。

本基金會首先謹向良十四世教宗表達誠摯敬意，並高度肯定《壯麗的人性》通諭對於人工智能時代“人性尊嚴”問題所展現出的深刻洞察與先知性關懷。

交互主體共生基金會代表錢宏（Archer Hong Qian）曾於 2005 年有幸拜訪梵蒂岡，並在西斯廷禮拜堂長久駐足，屏息仰望米開朗基羅《創造亞當》（The Creation of Adam）這一偉大世紀壁畫。時至今日，在人類文明邁入數字化與人工智能巨變的時代黎明，那跨越時空、幾乎相觸的“指尖”，再次帶來深刻震撼與啟示。

我們相信，米開朗基羅五百年前留下的這一神聖圖景，恰恰深刻隱喻了當今生命（LIFE）、人工智能（AI）與組織信託（TRUST）之間正在形成的交互主體共生關係，並進一步啟示出 AI 時代若乾重要而未竟的神學與文明問題。

首先，“指尖之間的空隙”，提醒我們：《Holy Bible》的核心，也許不僅是靜態教義，更是一種“動態聖約（Covenant）”關係。上帝並未將不可更改的絕對代碼植入人類；而亞當那略顯脆弱、尚未完全觸及的手指，正呼應了教宗在《壯麗的人性》中所強調的人之有限性、脆弱性與自由意志。

其次，上帝身後由天使與帷幔構成、近似“人類大腦結構”的紅袍圖景，也仿佛提醒我們：智能與組織信託（TRUST）原本應當服務於生命（LIFE）。然而今天，無論是賽博封建資本，還是數字集權結構，都可能在 AI 的放大下，使人逐漸脫離真實生命世界，而被捲入純算法化、純技術化的冰冷系統之中。

再次，英美海洋文明中不斷復活的“先知 + 俠客”精神——如羅賓漢、佐羅等形象——也體現出一種重要的“守約”精神：當制度失去溫度、聖約遭到破壞時，真正的守約者願意以肉身入局、守護弱小；然而，在修復公義之後，又主動退回邊界之內，不篡奪終極主權。這種謙卑與邊界感，本身也許正是 AI 時代極其重要的文明提醒。

良十四世教宗在《壯麗的人性》中，對於 AI 可能侵蝕人性尊嚴所表達的憂慮，我們深感共鳴。然而，我們也相信，更深層的危險，也許在於：當人類因恐懼而主動將主體性外包給特定科技資本、算法平台或權力體系時，人類也正在主動放下那根原本擁有自由意志與責任能力的“亞當之指”。

基於這樣的思考，本基金會謹將“西斯廷指尖相觸”的圖景，作為隨函公開信的一個象徵性視覺隱喻。我們誠摯希望，在 AI 時代，人類能夠超越單純抽象的“倫理對齊”，重新回到對具體生命、真實苦難與主體尊嚴的共同關懷之中，並在新的技術、組織與文明結構里，重新探索一種能夠同時回應 LIFE、AI 與 TRUST 的“共生之約”。

隨函附上公開信全文及意大利文摘要，謹呈聖座參閱。

願生命、智能與組織信託，
回歸共生之約，
而非彼此支配。

謹以此呈上，
懷着希望與真理。

Amen！

交互主體共生基金會
（Intersubjective Symbiosism Foundation）

2026 年 5 月 27 日
加拿大·溫哥華

To the Secretariat of State
The Holy See
Vatican City

Peace in Christ.

On the occasion of the promulgation of Magnifica Humanitas, the first encyclical on artificial intelligence issued by His Holiness Pope Leo XIV, the Intersubjective Symbiosism Foundation respectfully submits the enclosed open letter:

On the Intersubjective Symbiosism of LIFE, Artificial Intelligence, and TRUST.

The founder and representative of the Foundation, Archer Hong Qian, had the privilege of visiting the Vatican in 2005. Standing beneath Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam in the Sistine Chapel, he was profoundly moved by the almost-touching fingertips that transcend time and space. Today, at the dawn of humanity’s digital transformation, that same image once again reveals an extraordinary prophetic resonance.

We believe that Michelangelo’s masterpiece, painted more than five centuries ago, offers a profound metaphor for the emerging relationship among LIFE, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and TRUST, and further illuminates several theological and civilizational questions that remain open in the age of AI.

First, the subtle gap between the fingertips of God and Adam reflects the deeper meaning of the Holy Bible not merely as static doctrine, but as a living Covenant. God did not implant humanity with immutable code. Adam’s vulnerable and unfinished gesture mirrors precisely what the Holy Father emphasized in Magnifica Humanitas: the irreplaceable dignity of the human person arises from finitude, vulnerability, and freedom.

Second, the famous mantle surrounding God — long interpreted by many scholars as resembling the structure of the human brain — reminds us that intelligence and organizational forms of TRUST were originally meant to serve life. Yet today, both cyber-feudal capital and digital bureaucratic systems increasingly risk separating Adam (LIFE) from the living earth, enclosing humanity within cold algorithmic systems governed exclusively by AI logic.

Third, the recurring “prophet-knight” spirit within the Anglo-American maritime tradition — figures such as Robin Hood or Zorro — reflects another covenantal dimension: entering history in defense of the weak when institutions become cold and covenants are broken. Yet after restoring justice, the true covenant-keeper does not seize the crown. This restraint reflects humility before ultimate sovereignty and an awareness of moral boundaries.

The Holy Father has rightly expressed grave concern regarding the erosion of human dignity under AI expansion. Yet perhaps the deeper danger arises when humanity, out of fear, voluntarily surrenders its subjectivity either to technological oligarchies or to increasingly centralized systems of power.

For this reason, the Foundation respectfully offers the “touching fingertips” of the Sistine Chapel as a symbolic vision accompanying the enclosed letter — not merely as a work of art, but as an eschatological image of covenant, freedom, responsibility, and coexistence.

It is our sincere hope that, in the age of AI, humanity may move beyond abstract “ethical alignment” toward a more concrete solidarity with embodied human life itself, and that new forms of open algorithms, decentralized covenants, and shared responsibility may help contribute to a renewed civilizational horizon worthy of the hope symbolized by the New Jerusalem.

May LIFE, AI, and TRUST
return to a covenant of symbiosis
rather than domination.

Respectfully submitted,
in hope and truth.

Amen.

Intersubjective Symbiosism Foundation
Vancouver, Canada
May 27, 2026

致良十四世教宗

­To His Holiness Pope Leo XIV

——論生命、人工智能與組織信託的交互主體共生

— On the Intersubjective Symbiosism of LIFE, Artificial Intelligence, and TRUST

尊敬的良十四世教宗（Pope Leo XIV）：

主內平安。

值此您於2026年5月25日正式頒布教宗任內首份人工智能通諭《壯麗的人性：論人工智能時代對人性尊嚴的守護》（Magnifica Humanitas）之際，交互主體共生基金會（Intersubjective Symbiosism Foundation）懷着深切敬意與時代責任感，謹向梵蒂岡致以誠摯問候。

首先，我們必須鄭重表達對這份通諭的高度肯定。

在全球技術狂飆、算法擴張、生命位格不斷遭受客體化的歷史背景下，您以極大的先知性敏銳指出：人類真正不可替代的價值，並不在於效率、速度或計算能力，而恰恰在於人的有限性（Finitude）、脆弱性（Vulnerability）以及承擔後果的能力（Capacity to Bear Consequences）。

這一洞見極其重要。

因為在越來越多的人試圖將“智能”誤認為“智慧”、將“計算”誤認為“人格”、將“數據”誤認為“生命”的今天，《壯麗的人性》重新提醒世界：AI 可以模擬語言，卻無法真正承擔苦難；可以生成情感，卻無法真正進入愛；可以進行無限統計，卻無法為自身行為承擔真正的道德後果。

從這個意義上說，《壯麗的人性》之於AI時代的重要性，正如135年前良十三世教宗（Pope Leo XIII）的《新事》（Rerum Novarum）之於工業革命時代。

彼時，《新事》面對的是“勞動者被機器化”的危機；今日，《壯麗的人性》面對的，則是“人類主體性被算法化”的危機。

然而，也正因為這份通諭已經觸及文明深處最關鍵的問題，我們懷着一種神學性的敬畏與戰慄，不得不進一步提出幾項更深層的叩問。

因為AI問題，或許已經不僅僅是“AI的問題”。

它正在演變為一個關於生命（LIFE）、人工智能（AI）與組織信託（TRUST）如何交互耦合的整體文明問題。

一、終末論視界的缺席：從“技術警示”到“新耶路撒冷”的啟示

《壯麗的人性》極其深刻地揭示了AI可能帶來的異化風險，對算法社會中人的工具化、情感模擬與道德空洞化提出了重要警告。

這種警示當然重要。

但與良十三世《新事》相比，《壯麗的人性》仍顯得美中不足。

因為《新事》之所以偉大，並不僅僅在於它批判了工業革命時代的苦難，更在於它提出了一條具有歷史創造性的“第三條道路（The Third Way）”：

既強烈反對自由放任資本主義（Laissez-faire Capitalism）將勞動者徹底商品化的冷酷邏輯，也堅決譴責社會主義（Socialism）消滅私有制、鼓吹階級鬥爭的激進傾向。

甚至可以說，這種“第三條道路”的精神，還隱約預見了今天世俗“政治正確（Political Correctness）”意識形態在“反歧視”過程中不斷衍生出的某種“逆向歧視（Reverse Discrimination）”現象——當人越來越被拆解為身份標籤、算法分類與合規參數時，真正具有普遍性的“人格主體（Personhood）”反而再次遭到消解。

相比之下，《壯麗的人性》雖然敏銳地意識到AI對人性尊嚴的侵蝕，卻更多仍停留於對“AI革命”中已經出現或可能出現之風險與異化現象的描述與警示，而尚未進一步提出AI時代新的“第三條道路”。

它指出了危險，卻尚未真正展開一種關於“新天新地”與“新耶路撒冷城”的文明啟示。

這裡，我必須把一個縈繞在我心裡幾十年的感覺和信念說出來，這就是《Holy Bible》的中文翻譯，不應當只是《聖經》，更貼切更入心的翻譯應當是《聖約》。

因為，《Holy Bible》的核心，從來不只是某種靜態、單向、非此即彼的“經”。在中文世界，《Holy Bible》長期被譯作《聖經》，這一翻譯當然有其歷史貢獻；但若回到希伯來傳統與救贖史本身，“聖約（Holy Covenant）”或許更能揭示其深層精神。

因為，《Holy Bible》的核心，不只是抽象教義（Doctrine）的宣示，更是一部“神與人立約、破約、守約、續約”的動態歷史。

從西奈山的律法之約（Covenant of Law），到耶穌以肉身入局、進入苦難的福音之約（Covenant of Gospel），再到《啟示錄》中“神的帳幕在人間”的終末應許，其核心始終不是冰冷的制度，而是一種關係性的共在（Relational Indwelling）與愛的智慧（Amorsophia）。

也正因如此，AI時代真正的問題，或許從來不只是“機器是否會超越人”，而是：

人在技術擴張中，是否仍願彼此承認為主體（Subject），而不是彼此降格為資源（Resource）與數據對象（Data Object）。

二、AI時代“新道路”的失語：LIFE–AI–TRUST 的結構性危機

1891年，《新事》之所以能夠成為劃時代的社會通諭，並不僅僅因為它批判問題，而是因為它在資本與社會主義之間，提出了一種關於“人格主體性”的制度性回應。

然而今天，AI革命已經將這種結構性危機推向新的高度。

當代世界，正在同時出現兩種新的“數字利維坦”（TRUST反噬）：

一方面，是以數據資本、算法平台與硅谷科技寡頭為代表的“賽博封建主義（Cyber-Feudalism）”；

另一方面，則是以數字監控、算法治理與全景式社會管理為特徵的“數字官僚主義（Digital Bureaucratism）”。

在這兩種力量共同作用下，人越來越不再作為主體存在，而是逐漸被降格為：

可預測的數據、
可優化的行為、
可調用的流量、
可替換的人力模塊。

於是，低生育率、婚姻解體、青年“躺平”、意義感崩塌，並不僅僅是經濟問題，而是生命（LIFE）對“AI + 權力組織”雙重客體化的一種消極熔斷。

因此，我們認為：

AI問題不能脫離生命（LIFE）、人工智能（AI）與組織信託（TRUST）三者的交互耦合結構而單獨討論。

因為AI從來不是孤立存在的技術。

算法背後，始終存在權力；
數據背後，始終存在組織；
平台背後，始終存在制度。

這三者，都可能涉及TRUST在AI加持下對LIFE反噬，也正因如此，《壯麗的人性》雖然極富道義力量，卻尚未真正提出AI時代的“新道路”。

例如：

如何避免人的數字人格被平台永久占有？
如何避免算法主權完全歸屬於資本與國家？
如何保護勞動者在AI時代仍擁有主體性的博弈能力？
如何避免數據成為新型“圈地運動”？
如何讓技術重新服務於人的生命完整性，而不是反過來塑造人？

這些問題，或許已經不僅僅是倫理問題，而是新的文明制度問題。

三、道德主權的考驗：教會是否正在向新數字資本降態？

最後，我們也願以極大的敬意與謹慎，提出一個關於教會自身位置的問題。

此次梵蒂岡邀請硅谷AI獨角獸企業 Anthropic 聯合創始人克里斯托弗·奧拉（Christopher Olah）作為重要主講嘉賓之一，本意顯然是希望推動技術倫理對話。

這一開放姿態，本身值得尊重。

然而，教會若在新的數字文明形成過程中，過度依賴特定科技資本所提供的“AI安全框架”與“倫理對齊語言”，則難免令人擔憂：

教會是否會在不知不覺中，將自身部分先知性權威，讓渡給新的數字資本秩序？

即便是最強調“AI安全”與“倫理對齊”的科技企業，本質上仍處於資本、國家與產業競爭的現實邏輯之中。

因此，梵蒂岡若在硅谷新資本之間形成某種“拉一派、打一派”的結構性站位，其實並不妥當。

因為教會真正珍貴的地方，恰恰在於它不應輕易依附任何帝國、任何資本、任何世俗權力。

從《新事》到今天，天主教社會訓導真正偉大的地方，從來不在於它成為某種技術治理顧問，而在於它始終代表着一種超越性的、面向受苦生命的終極關懷。

如果未來教會僅僅停留在：

“提醒AI風險”、
“倡導倫理監管”、
“呼籲企業自律”，

卻無法真正進入那些被算法剝奪主體性的勞動者、青年人與邊緣群體的現實苦難之中，

那麼，教會就可能從“先知性的見證者”，逐漸降態為“數字文明的道德裝飾者”。

四、結語：AI時代真正的問題，是人是否還願彼此當人

從工業革命到 AI 革命，人類始終面對同一個問題：

人究竟是目的，還是工具？

是主體，還是資源？

是彼此承認的人，還是彼此利用的數據？

我們相信，真正值得警惕的，從來不只是 AI 本身，而是人在技術擴張中逐漸失去彼此承認的能力。

如果技術最終只是讓人類更高效地彼此利用，
那麼無論 AI 多麼先進，人類文明都不過是在以新的算法語言，重複巴別塔的命運。

更值得警惕的是，AI 所放大的，並不僅僅是技術能力本身，而是各種組織形態（TRUST）潛在的異化傾向。

無論是國家、資本、平台，甚至包括宗教組織（TRUST）自身，所有組織形態，都必須警惕異化，一旦失去對生命（LIFE）主體性的敬畏，都可能在 AI 的加持下，逐漸滑向對人的重新客體化反噬。

人類真正需要的，從來不是一個越來越強大的“數字利維坦”， 因為，AI 從來不是孤立存在的技術。它總是嵌入某種組織結構之中，並不斷強化其運行邏輯。我們需要一種能夠讓生命、智能與組織重新彼此守約（Covenant）、彼此承認、彼此共生的新文明秩序。

當 TRUST 背離生命，組織就可能反噬生命；當技術脫離共生，智能就可能異化為控制。

也正是在這樣的背景下，人類或許需要開始探索一種新的“技術—倫理—生活方式”基礎設施：

即在互聯網（信息連接）與物聯網（感知連接）之後，進一步探索一種以“孞念交互”與“愛的智慧”為核心的 AM（Amorsophia MindsField/Network，愛之智慧孞態場／網）構想，以同時回應 LIFE（生命）、AI（智能）與 TRUST（組織信託）之間不斷加劇的結構性緊張。

它並非為了創造新的數字利維坦，而是為了避免機器取代人、組織反噬生命，讓智能重新學會承載生命，讓組織重新回歸服務生命。

願教會在這個關鍵時代，
不僅成為技術風險的警醒者，
而且成為“新事物”的倡導者，
更是榮耀上帝“新耶路撒冷”希望的見證者。

願生命、智能與組織信託，
回歸共生之約，
而非彼此支配。

謹以此呈上，
懷着希望與真理。

Amen！

交互主體共生基金會
（Intersubjective Symbiosism Foundation）

2026年5月27日晨於溫哥華

To His Holiness Pope Leo XIV
— On the Intersubjective Symbiosism of LIFE, Artificial Intelligence, and TRUST

Your Holiness Pope Leo XIV,

Peace in Christ.

On the occasion of Your Holiness’s promulgation, on May 25, 2026, of your first encyclical on artificial intelligence, Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding Human Dignity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, the Intersubjective Symbiosism Foundation wishes to extend to the Vatican our deepest respect and sincere greetings, together with a profound sense of responsibility toward the future of civilization.

First and foremost, we must solemnly express our high appreciation for this encyclical.

At a historical moment marked by technological acceleration, algorithmic expansion, and the growing objectification of human personhood, Your Holiness has demonstrated remarkable prophetic insight in affirming that the irreplaceable value of the human person lies not in efficiency, speed, or computational power, but precisely in human finitude, vulnerability, and the capacity to bear consequences.

This insight is of immense importance.

For at a time when many increasingly mistake “intelligence” for wisdom, “computation” for personhood, and “data” for life itself, Magnifica Humanitas reminds the world that AI may simulate language, but it cannot truly suffer; it may generate emotion, but it cannot genuinely love; it may perform limitless calculations, but it cannot bear moral responsibility for its own actions.

In this sense, the significance of Magnifica Humanitas for the AI age is comparable to that of Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum for the age of the Industrial Revolution 135 years ago.

Then, Rerum Novarum confronted the crisis of the mechanization of labor. Today, Magnifica Humanitas confronts the crisis of the algorithmization of human subjectivity.

Yet precisely because this encyclical has touched one of the deepest questions of our civilization, we feel compelled—with theological reverence and trembling—to raise several further questions.

For the problem of AI may no longer be merely a problem of AI itself.

It is rapidly becoming a broader civilizational question concerning the interactive coupling of LIFE, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and TRUST.

I. The Absence of an Eschatological Horizon: From Technological Warning to the Vision of the New Jerusalem

Magnifica Humanitas offers profound warnings concerning the risks of AI-driven alienation and the reduction of human beings to instruments within algorithmic society.

Such warnings are undoubtedly important.

Yet compared with Rerum Novarum, Magnifica Humanitas still appears, in some respects, incomplete.

For the greatness of Rerum Novarum lay not merely in its critique of the sufferings of industrial society, but in its proposal of a historically creative “Third Way”:

it strongly opposed the cold logic of laissez-faire capitalism that reduced labor into mere commodity, while also firmly rejecting socialism’s abolition of private property and its promotion of class struggle.

One may even say that the spirit of this “Third Way” faintly anticipated today’s secular ideology of “Political Correctness,” in which anti-discrimination itself may generate new forms of reverse discrimination—where human beings are increasingly fragmented into identity labels, algorithmic categories, and compliance parameters, while universal personhood itself becomes dissolved.

By contrast, although Magnifica Humanitas perceptively recognizes the erosion of human dignity caused by AI, it remains primarily at the level of warning against already existing or foreseeable risks of the AI revolution, without yet articulating a new “Third Way” for the AI age.

It points to danger, but has not yet fully unfolded a civilizational vision of the “New Heaven and New Earth” and the “New Jerusalem.”

At this point, I must express a conviction and feeling that has remained with me for decades:

the Chinese rendering of the Holy Bible should perhaps not merely be understood as “Holy Scripture,” but more profoundly as “Holy Covenant.”

For the heart of the Holy Bible has never been merely a static, one-directional, absolute “canon.”

In the Chinese-speaking world, the translation “Holy Scripture” certainly possesses historical significance. Yet if we return to the Hebrew tradition and the history of salvation itself, “Holy Covenant” may reveal its deeper essence more fully.

For the core of the Holy Bible is not merely the proclamation of doctrine, but the dynamic history of God and humanity entering into covenant, breaking covenant, renewing covenant, and fulfilling covenant.

From the Covenant of Law at Sinai, to the Covenant of the Gospel in which Christ entered human suffering through the Incarnation, and finally to the eschatological promise in Revelation that “the dwelling place of God is with humanity,” the essence has never been a cold institutional order, but relational indwelling and the Wisdom of Love—Amorsophia.

Thus, the deepest question of the AI age may not ultimately be whether machines will surpass human beings, but whether human beings still remain willing to recognize one another as Subjects rather than reducing one another into Resources and Data Objects.

II. The Silence Regarding a New “Third Way”: The Structural Crisis of LIFE–AI–TRUST

The greatness of Rerum Novarum lay in the fact that it did not merely criticize social problems, but proposed an institutional response centered on the dignity of personhood between capitalism and socialism.

Today, however, the AI revolution has pushed this structural crisis to an entirely new level.

The contemporary world is simultaneously witnessing the rise of two new forms of “Digital Leviathan” — a backlash of TRUST against LIFE:

on the one hand, cyber-feudalism represented by data capital, algorithmic platforms, and Silicon Valley technological oligarchies;

on the other hand, digital bureaucratism characterized by surveillance systems, algorithmic governance, and panoptic social management.

Under the combined force of these two tendencies, human beings increasingly cease to exist as subjects, and are gradually reduced into:

predictable data,
optimizable behavior,
callable traffic,
and replaceable human modules.

Thus, declining birth rates, collapsing marriages, social withdrawal among the young, and the erosion of meaning are not merely economic problems. They represent a silent existential circuit-breaker triggered by the double objectification of LIFE under “AI + power structures.”

Therefore, we believe that the question of AI cannot be discussed apart from the interactive coupling of LIFE, AI, and TRUST.

For AI is never an isolated technology.

Behind algorithms lies power.
Behind data lies organization.
Behind platforms lies institutional structure.

All three involve the possibility of TRUST turning against LIFE under AI amplification.

And for this reason, although Magnifica Humanitas possesses considerable moral force, it has not yet truly proposed a new “Third Way” for the AI age.

For example:

How can digital personhood avoid permanent enclosure by platforms?
How can algorithmic sovereignty avoid complete capture by states and capital?
How can workers retain meaningful agency in the AI era?
How can data avoid becoming a new form of enclosure movement?
How can technology once again serve the wholeness of life rather than reshape humanity in its own image?

These are no longer merely ethical questions. They are questions of civilizational structure.

III. The Trial of Moral Sovereignty: Is the Church Yielding Ground to New Digital Powers?

Finally, with the utmost respect and caution, we wish to raise a question concerning the position of the Church itself.

The Vatican’s invitation of Christopher Olah, co-founder of the AI unicorn company Anthropic, as a principal speaker was clearly intended to promote ethical dialogue concerning AI.

Such openness is itself worthy of respect.

Yet if the Church becomes excessively dependent upon ethical vocabularies and “AI safety frameworks” provided by particular technological powers during the formation of digital civilization, a deeper concern inevitably arises:

might the Church gradually and unintentionally surrender part of its prophetic moral authority to new structures of digital capital?

Even companies most committed to “AI safety” and “alignment” remain embedded within the realities of capital, geopolitical competition, and industrial power.

Thus, it would be unwise for the Vatican to appear structurally aligned with one technological faction against another within Silicon Valley.

For the true greatness of the Church lies precisely in its refusal to become dependent upon any empire, any capital system, or any worldly power.

From Rerum Novarum until today, the greatness of Catholic social teaching has never rested in becoming merely a consultant for technological governance, but in remaining a transcendent witness for suffering life itself.

If the Church ultimately limits itself to:
“warning about AI risks,”
“advocating ethical regulation,”
or “calling for corporate self-discipline,”

without truly entering the lived suffering of workers, youth, and marginalized people whose subjectivity is increasingly stripped away by algorithmic systems,

then the Church may gradually descend from being a prophetic witness into becoming merely a moral ornament of digital civilization.

IV. Conclusion: The Real Question of the AI Age Is Whether Human Beings Still Recognize One Another as Human

From the Industrial Revolution to the AI Revolution, humanity has continuously faced the same question:

Is the human person an end,
or merely a tool?

A Subject,
or merely a Resource?

A being to be recognized,
or merely data to be utilized?

We believe that what deserves the greatest vigilance is not AI alone, but humanity’s growing inability to recognize one another as subjects.

If technology merely enables human beings to exploit one another more efficiently, then no matter how advanced AI becomes, civilization will merely repeat the fate of Babel in a new algorithmic language.

More dangerous still is the fact that AI amplifies not merely technical capability, but the latent tendency toward alienation within every organizational form of TRUST.

Whether states, corporations, platforms, or even religious institutions themselves, all organizational forms must remain vigilant against alienation. Once reverence for LIFE is lost, AI amplification may gradually drive them toward renewed forms of human objectification.

Humanity does not truly need an ever more powerful “Digital Leviathan.”

For AI is never isolated technology. It is always embedded within organizational structures and continuously amplifies their operational logic.

When TRUST departs from LIFE, organization begins to devour life.
When technology departs from symbiosis, intelligence risks becoming domination.

It is precisely under these conditions that humanity may need to begin exploring a new “technology–ethics–way of life” infrastructure:

following the Internet (information connectivity) and the Internet of Things (perceptual connectivity), humanity may need to explore an AM (Amorsophia MindsField/Network) framework centered upon “mind-interaction” and the Wisdom of Love, capable of responding to the intensifying structural tensions among LIFE, AI, and TRUST.

Such a framework would not seek to create another Digital Leviathan, but rather to prevent machines from replacing humanity and organizations from turning against LIFE — enabling intelligence once again to bear life, and organizations once again to serve life.

May the Church, in this decisive age,
not only become a vigilant witness against technological risk,
but also an advocate for truly “new things,”
and above all, a witness to the hope of the New Jerusalem in the glory of God.

May LIFE, AI, and TRUST
return to a covenant of symbiosis
rather than domination.

Respectfully submitted,
in hope and truth.

Amen.

Intersubjective Symbiosism Foundation

Vancouver
Morning of May 27, 2026