1. IA-LATRIA 

The new idolatry of technology and artificial intelligence

If we literally combine the concept of latria (supreme worship, reverence and honor due exclusively to God) with artificial intelligence, we enter into a very current philosophical, ethical and theological debate: the idolatry of technology.

Techno -idolatry is a contemporary phenomenon where human beings place blind trust, devotion, and hope for redemption in technical tools, treating them similarly to deities capable of solving all existential problems.

Human beings have a natural tendency to create idols that do not save. Since the most remote antiquity, humankind has invented gods in its own image and likeness, with its own flaws, passions, and supposed virtues. Imperfect gods, like humanity itself, but who were nevertheless worshipped and prayed to because they supposedly had power over living beings, over nature, or over life and death.

Today, it is hoped that science will be able to move us to near space when Earth becomes uninhabitable and can provide us with endless happiness and material abundance, merge humans with intelligent machines (cyborgs), and even eradicate death forever, achieving cybernetic immortality.

It is evident that technoscience has become, for some, an object of worship and adoration, as it provides numerous devices and technological advances that are venerated for many hours a day. However, neither science nor technology should be venerated, because, as we know, they can serve humanity for the good of humanity as well as for its utter ruin.

Currently, technological science has abandoned the idea of ​​a wise, provident, and merciful Creator, and as a result, science has become impersonal, inhumane, often unjust, and has itself become a veritable idol. Therefore, like all other idols, it has its dark side and its feet of clay.

The so-called “positivist movement” or “positivism,” which emerged in the 19th century, asserted that only one reality existed: that to which science had access. Belief in the existence of God was replaced by belief in the mysterious, impersonal power of nature. 

The concept of “creation” was abandoned, and the deification of “nature” began. The God of the Bible was presumed dead, and another pair of idols took his place: the goddess of nature and the god of technoscience. And, just as the ancient Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek, or Roman deities were once worshipped, so too today nature and technoscience are the idols upon which many base their faith and their only hope for “salvation.”

Faced with irresolvable questions about the origin of the cosmos, life, human beings, or personal consciousness, the answer is that somehow wise nature had to do it without anyone’s help.

The supposed “death of God” preached by Nietzsche at the end of the 19th century and the disenchantment of the world, motivated by the development of science, are responsible for the current crisis of meaning that grips a large part of the West and the world in general.

When people don’t believe in a transcendent Creator or eternal life after death, some choose to fabricate utopias and mythical illusions, such as the idea that technoscience will build a perfect world in our image and likeness where we will live forever. And if Earth becomes depleted, these narratives say, we will go and conquer near space.

The sad reality, repeatedly confirmed, is that unscrupulous technology can only “liberate” humankind at the cost of destroying the planet and humanity itself.

From a Christian worldview, we know that human salvation cannot be found in idols. Therefore, replacing God with idols is the greatest sin one can commit because it offends the very Spirit of God.

Revelation teaches us that people were created to be loved, and things to be used. But the disorder of our world lies in the fact that things are loved and people are used. This moral chaos has led us to the current ecological crisis, to the idolatry of the technocratic paradigm, and to human inequality that profoundly affects the dignity of the person, basic human rights, and the common good.

Our world urgently needs a change of mindset, and society must move toward a cultural, ethical, and spiritual transformation. This is what we have sometimes called the path of Integral Advanced Humanism , which urges us to love our neighbor and never again use them as a means, since every person is an end in themselves.

Technology and science can help solve many human problems, but they must be put at the service of everyone, especially the most vulnerable. The world needs to understand that science alone cannot change the human heart. Science and technology cannot save us, as many believe today.

Only a genuine change of heart will allow us to progress and leave a better world for future generations. Technological and economic development that does not create a better world and a higher quality of life cannot be considered progress. 

We must connect our minds with our hearts through the intelligence of love, or the wisdom of the heart. We need to deepen our spiritual intelligence to preserve human dignity, safeguard human nature, and protect the web of life in the face of a biotechnological and artificial intelligence revolution that is advancing exponentially, often without any sense or purpose other than to achieve immense biopower, which, if realized, would destroy all of humanity and likely the planet’s life-support systems.  

However, what can truly help us progress as individuals and as a society, even in this biotechnological age, is understanding happiness in terms of relationships with others, living simpler and more sober lives, existing with only what we truly need, and curbing that insatiable desire to possess more things, instead of idolizing technology and especially artificial intelligence. If we continue down this exponential path, it will soon become a Superintelligence , worshipped as if it were a new “omniscient god” created by humankind itself and possessed by the “dark entity” that has always been humanity’s enemy and that, since the beginning of time, has sought to destroy everything created by God. Yet we know that this preternatural being is merely a creature and that the ultimate victory has already been won by Jesus Christ, in whom all things will be recapitulated.

2. HUMAN DIGNITY IN THE FACE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE  

Ethical and moral judgment of the power of artificial intelligence and technology.

According to the worldview of Christian humanism, the person is valuable in and of themselves because they are made in the image of God. This truth forms the basis of human dignity and the recognition of the sacredness of human life.

The danger we face in the current biotechnological era begins when, from multiple quarters, it is declared that technology takes precedence over humanity. The excessive instrumentalization of knowledge and science leads to the belief that innovation is solely about technology. 

However, there are academic, research, and professional practices that help protect human dignity. These are practices that recognize each person as an end in themselves, not as a means to an end. In this regard, it is worth highlighting ethical research focused on respect for individuals, holistic education that promotes critical thinking and human development, interdisciplinary dialogue, active listening to communities, the protection of personal data, the inclusion of vulnerable populations in decision-making processes, the evaluation of the social impacts of science and technology, respect for every member of society, and the welcoming of all people without exclusion based on their political, social, or religious status, among others.

We must therefore begin with the premise that human dignity must be at the heart of all political, social, and professional action. It is essential to recognize the unique and irreplaceable value of each person. Before viewing them as a statistic, a diagnosis, an identification number, or a digital profile, we must understand that every human being possesses intrinsic dignity as a creature of God, regardless of their social, economic, cultural, racial, or other circumstances.

Technical and scientific knowledge is fundamental, but it must be oriented towards the common good and respect for life, justice, solidarity and the search for solutions that favor the integral development of people.

For this reason, it is necessary to educate citizens committed to building a more just, peaceful, and compassionate society, capable of making decisions that consider both the efficiency and the human consequences of their actions, and characterized by how they put their knowledge and skills at the service of human beings. In this way, data and the digital environment become tools for understanding and better serving people, but they never replace the recognition of their value as ends in themselves.

Following this same logic, current ethical dilemmas arise that show the need for an intelligence, whether natural or artificial, oriented towards the care of people and life.

The acceleration and promise of efficiency of artificial intelligence raises dilemmas about its ethical orientation regarding privacy, information manipulation, algorithmic discrimination, or the replacement of jobs by automation, among many other aspects of life.

South Korean philosopher Byung-Chu Han argues that neoliberalism and today’s performance-driven society impose an instrumental and calculating reason that measures everything in terms of productivity, efficiency, and personal optimization. In contrast to this “calculation,” the philosopher proposes that love is the only force capable of knowing and revealing true reality, accessing dimensions that instrumental reason completely ignores. While instrumental reason transforms the world and people into objects of consumption or tools for self-gratification, love allows us to discover the existence of the “Other” as other, breaking free from the narcissism and loneliness imposed by contemporary society.

The instrumental reason used by technoscience aims to make everything transparent so that it can be controlled; but relational or dialogical reason admits that not everything can be reduced conceptually, that in the personal sphere there is an area of ​​mystery, a reality that cannot be quantified, verified, used, or managed like an algorithm. 

A mystery that must be treated with decorum because it is sublime, and which can only be known through the “encounter” that gives rise to an “expanded reason” or “Wisdom,” which does not proceed in the same way as the instrumental reason typical of the technoscientific world and now of artificial intelligence systems, but through ethical attitudes such as openness, listening, welcoming and taking care of the other. 

The point is not to accumulate and process data, but to achieve mutual understanding. Instrumental reason and AI are limited to what can be manipulated, whereas the “Wisdom of the Heart,” which comes from love and is fully human, deals with the event and Being, with the purpose, the goal, the meaning, otherness, and the profound connection that breaks through loneliness, and ultimately, directs everything toward the transcendent, toward the Presence in which everything is fullness. 

Today we urgently need that spiritual intelligence within the framework of an integral Advanced Humanism.

The immense power that technoscience has currently attained, imposing upon us the so-called “technocratic paradigm” that fosters accelerationism, production pressure, and a culture of performance, must be countered with a more human rhythm centered on contemplation, introspection, generosity, and storytelling. Contemplation means withdrawing from immediacy to allow reality to gradually reveal its meaning; it is making the leap from a simple, anxious glance to a profound and serene vision. Introspection demands recovering silence, attention, and discernment in the face of information overload and digital distraction. Generosity reclaims experiences such as friendship, the ethics of care, conversation, hospitality, reading, and study, whose value lies not only in producing results but in making shared life possible within the framework of human community. Finally, storytelling restores continuity, memory, and identity to time, countering its atomization into successive moments.

Thus, the humanities of the 21st century, as advocated by Advanced Humanism, should not engage in blind competition with technological speed, but rather safeguard a different kind of temporality: pausing to understand, listening to connect, contemplating to discover, and narrating to create meaning. Therefore, the fundamental task of the humanities in this current historical moment is to preserve human time where the culture of performance and the technocratic paradigm seek to transform all experience into productivity, efficiency, augmented capabilities, and an expanded mind hybridized with artificial intelligence.

However, it is undeniable that AI is transforming the field of knowledge, shifting from a purely technical matter to a central object of critical, ethical, and anthropological reflection. Far from viewing AI as a productivity tool, from the perspective of Advanced Humanism we must see it as a challenge to the very concepts of cognition, creativity, and human intelligence. Indeed, the boundaries between natural and artificial intelligence are being questioned, and the risks of a diminished humanity in the face of hyper-technological narratives are being examined.

We must therefore continue reflecting on the protection of the human person, dignity, and values ​​in the face of the impact of artificial intelligence systems. We must continue the dialogue on responsibility in the design and use of exponential technologies, avoiding technophobic or uncritically technophilic or techno-enthusiastic stances, and advocating for technological development that genuinely serves human well-being, human dignity, social justice, and the common good.

The Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church describes a term that very well summarizes the challenge posed by artificial intelligence and algorithms: the Civilization of Love.

Pope Leo XIV, in his encyclical Magnifica Humanitas: Safeguarding the Human Person in the Age of Artificial Intelligence , published on May 15, 2016 ( https://exaudi.org/es/magnifica-humanitas-albert-cortina/ ), shows us how the Social Doctrine of the Church is an extraordinary path for developing an ethical and moral judgment on the power of artificial intelligence and technology, as well as for embarking on the path of building a civilization of love even in the age of AI.

“Today, in the context of the digital revolution, this intuition is even more crucial. Digital networks, the globalized economy, and the development of AI create ever closer links, connecting in real time the decisions made in one place with the effects they produce in another. For this reason, the words of the Second Vatican Council on the growing interdependence among peoples remain relevant: the common good is increasingly acquiring a universal dimension, with rights and duties that concern the entire human family. The project of the civilization of love here assumes the decisive task of transforming this endured interdependence into a desired and chosen solidarity. This is the criterion for guiding technological processes: it is not enough for AI to make us more efficient or connected; it must serve to build this universal human family, with shared rights and duties, where digital proximity becomes a real opportunity for encounter and mutual care” (187 MH).

On the other hand, this encyclical of Pope Leo XIV is preceded by a series of documents of the Catholic Church whose reading is very interesting to complement the reflections we have made previously ( https://exaudi.org/es/quo-vadis-humanitas/ ).

3. FROM CONTROLLING THE WORLD TO REDESIGNING THE HUMAN BEING

Artificial intelligence, transhumanism, and unlimited biopower.

Once again, we find ourselves at the center of the contemporary anthropological, philosophical, sociological, and biopolitical debate: the transition from dominating the external environment (controlling the world) to intervening in and modifying the very biological and cognitive core of our species (redesigning the human being).

• From the point of view of artificial intelligence, the challenge we face is the externalization of human cognition. 
• From the bioideology of transhumanism, as we pointed out in the book “ Awakening! Transhumanism and the New World Order ”, we are proposed to “transcend” our human nature, offering us a promise of “salvation” through the “self-design” or “redesign” of the human being as a result of a supposed right to “morphological freedom” that advocates for the emancipation of our human biology, bringing us closer to the limits of the techno-libertarian frontier to conquer and surpass.
• From the perspective of unlimited biopower, there is an advocacy for total political control of life.

Indeed, AI aims to redefine the human condition and, in many cases, fuels transhumanist aspirations. As is well known, transhumanism is a bio-ideology that argues that technology should allow us to overcome the biological limitations of human beings. Its proponents propose using advances in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, genetic engineering, neurotechnology, and other exponential technologies to radically expand our physical and cognitive capabilities.

In the book “ Transhumanism ”, the ideology that challenges the Christian faith, we exposed the profound differences between both worldviews.

As we have noted previously, AI, while opening up possibilities to improve the quality of life, also generates tensions about the control of these technologies and their impact on human rights and social justice.

One of the biggest challenges AI poses to fundamental rights, privacy, surveillance, bias, accountability, and democracy is the “transnational privatization of political power.” In this way, AI is creating a kind of “algorithmic despotism,” since these AI systems or models know us better than our own family and friends, and even better than we know ourselves.

As we indicated in the previous section, AI raises questions about its ethical development and its capacity to shape the future equitably. One of the most significant elements is the concentration of power in large technology corporations whose focus is on maximizing profits, operational efficiency, and optimizing organizational processes. This dominance poses risks related to transparency and accountability, especially when AI systems are integrated into critical decision-making processes. In this sense, the lack of adequate regulation and the absence of a global consensus on ethical standards exacerbate the dilemmas inherent in these exponential technologies and the unchecked biopower that could be unleashed in the coming decades if we fail to develop the necessary democratic governance.

The geopolitical competition between the United States and China exemplifies how global powers seek to dominate AI development as a tool for strategic influence. While the United States is betting on an innovative but decentralized ecosystem, China is applying an authoritarian model that prioritizes mass implementation in areas such as surveillance and social control.

The complexity of the global AI context is not limited to ethical and governance dilemmas; we also recognize that it includes sustainability issues. While AI has the potential to optimize resources and reduce environmental impacts, its energy-intensive development and reliance on technological infrastructure generate a significant environmental cost. Within this framework, AI is simultaneously positioned as both a solution and a problem in the fight for global sustainability.

To mitigate these harmful effects, at least these three strategic axes should be developed:

• Ethical development and governance: ensuring transparency, fairness and accountability in the adoption of AI in organizations and governments.
• Sustainability and innovation: promoting the use of AI to optimize resources and minimize the environmental impact of organizational processes.
• Transformation and social equity: promoting equal access to technology and its application for the benefit of the most vulnerable communities.

That is why AI ethics must focus on mitigating risks associated with lack of transparency, algorithmic biases, and data exploitation. 

The current “surveillance capitalism” resulting from the massive use of data undoubtedly poses serious risks to individual privacy and autonomy. Ethical principles in the design and development of AI must therefore include mechanisms for transparency and accountability to prevent algorithms from reproducing discriminatory patterns.

The lack of a comprehensive ethical approach can lead to AI systems reinforcing structural inequalities. To counter these risks, it is essential that governments and organizations adopt ethical frameworks that balance technological efficiency with respect for human rights.

It is clear that advances in AI have accelerated the gap between those who have access to these technologies and those who do not, which demands a global approach to prevent AI from exacerbating existing social and economic inequalities.

In terms of governance, the creation of international standards for AI regulation is an essential step to prevent abuses and ensure that its development is aligned with human values. The progressive implementation of AI across all sectors must include ethical oversight involving both governments and private corporations to achieve a balance between innovation and social responsibility.

Therefore, ethical development and AI governance must be fundamental pillars for us to adopt this technology responsibly, respecting the rights of individuals and mitigating negative impacts on society as a whole.

However, AI not only transforms operational and decision-making processes in private corporations and governments, but also redefines the boundaries between the human and the technological, raising profound ethical and existential challenges related to the preservation of human nature. We are at a highly significant turning point, where humanity faces an “evolution of the human condition” marked by the interplay between egocentrism, singularity, and technology.

Thus, we could define “technological egocentrism” as a contemporary trend that seeks to transcend human limitations through AI and exponential biotechnologies. This dynamic reflects an exaltation of technological supremacy over human, ethical, and social values.

Private corporations and organizations adopt AI tools to maximize productivity and control, often at the expense of human priority and individual rights.

On the other hand, the possibility of the “Technological Singularity,” understood as the moment when machines and artificial intelligence surpass human intelligence, represents one of the deepest dilemmas in the study of AI. Although speculative, this statement, to which the prophets of transhumanism constantly allude, already influences directly or indirectly how private corporations and organizations design their long-term strategies, considering scenarios in which automation and machine autonomy radically reconfigure labor and social structures in a future marked by the convergence between advanced AI and transhumanism.

In this sense, spaces are being created where power is not simply exercised visibly and oppressively, but rather becomes part of individuals’ everyday behavior. According to the philosopher Foucault, this type of power implies a form of “biopower,” which not only regulates conduct but also controls individuals’ lives, managing their time, their bodies, and their productivity. In business organizations, this translates into practices of constant evaluation, such as performance monitoring, which affects not only work but also the identity and well-being of employees. In cities and countries, this biopower extends to citizens as a whole. 

As we have been arguing, artificial intelligence faces the promise of surpassing human limitations with the risk of concentrating global decision-making power in the hands of a few private corporations. Given this reality, we must ask ourselves some questions: Who controls this transformation? Who decides the future of humanity? What risks are they willing to take?

And that is where we can critically analyze the philosophical current called “effective altruism” which proposes using evidence, reasoning and cost-benefit analysis to determine which actions can generate greater value. 

One of the derivations of this current is “long-termism”, which takes the perspective of effective altruism far beyond the present and gives extraordinary importance to the well-being of future posthuman generations – both biological and digital – and the amount of “value” that these could contribute in the distant future.

Taken to extremes, this way of weighing things up can lead to accepting significant costs and risks in the present, if it is believed that these significantly increase the value of what is to come. And here a fundamental question arises: to what extent is it legitimate to accept real losses today in the name of a hypothetical future to which incalculable value is attributed?

From this perspective, avoiding any impediment to potential posthuman beings developing their full potential can become one of the highest moral priorities.

“Humanity must be preserved,” argue the long-termists. But the question that is rarely posed clearly enough is: what exactly do you mean by this?

For the vast majority of us, preserving humanity means preventing Homo sapiens from disappearing as a species. It means remaining human.

However, when certain techno-authoritarian leaders such as Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, Nick Bostrom, Ben Goertzel, Ray Kurzweil, Elon Musk, Larry Page, Peter Thiel or Eliezer Yudkowsky, linked to transhumanism and long-termism, talk about preserving humanity, they are not necessarily talking about preserving the human species.

As AI expert Ramón López de Mántaras points out, in certain debates about existential risk, a distinction has in fact been established between two forms of disappearance of the human species: “terminal extinction” and “final extinction”.

According to philosopher P. Torres, “terminal extinction” is the definitive disappearance of Homo sapiens and any possibility that our species will be replaced by a posthuman form of existence.

The “final extinction”, on the other hand, would occur when human beings are replaced by some form of posthuman existence considered valuable enough to represent a certain continuity of humanity.

The distinction is not a mere play on words: it has enormous anthropological, philosophical, and political consequences. Because it implies that, for certain transhumanist perspectives and for some sectors of effective altruism, the disappearance of the human species as we know it would not necessarily be the worst possible future.

For these schools of thought, the worst-case scenario would be the disappearance of our species without leaving any posthuman successor capable of developing that future. Thus, the gradual replacement of human beings by a new form of existence considered superior could be interpreted as a continuation—and even a culmination—of humanity.

To achieve this transhumanist future, many of its proponents, especially in Silicon Valley, believe that the gradual replacement of human beings necessarily involves the development of artificial superintelligence. And here a particularly disturbing consequence emerges.

If this artificial Superintelligence is conceived as a necessary instrument to achieve a future that is, in theory, immensely more valuable, the risks associated with its development, however great they may be, can be considered an acceptable price to pay.

From this perspective, regulating, slowing down, or halting the development of a hypothetical artificial superintelligence could be interpreted not as a prudent measure, but as a renunciation of the future. The possibility of a present catastrophe is thus subordinated to the promise of a hypothetical future.

In this context, the question is no longer simply how we can avoid the risks of AI, but rather what future we consider desirable and what risks we are willing to take to achieve it. And that decision cannot be left in the hands of a small group of oligarchs, businesspeople, investors, and technologists convinced that their particular vision of the future should become the destiny of all humanity.

The problem becomes even more serious when the same private corporations that develop these technologies present themselves as the only ones capable of managing their risks.

If they manage to convince society—and, above all, political leaders—that only they possess the knowledge necessary to prevent a catastrophe, they grant themselves a supposed ability to determine which risks we must accept, which developments are legitimate, and what future we should pursue.

It is, therefore, a concentration of power incompatible with a democratic society. Those who have billions of dollars invested in the development of AI cannot simultaneously be the arbiters of the risks generated by that technology. And even less can they decide for society as a whole what “progress” means or what future is worth building. The same applies to other exponential biotechnologies that aim to “redesign human beings.”

It is extremely worrying that, from the highest levels of power in the US, there is talk of Superintelligence as the goal we must achieve in the West, and that its risks should be managed through self-regulation by the very companies that compete to develop it. On the other hand, we know very little about how the strategy for artificial Superintelligence is actually being developed by political leaders in China and throughout the Asian bloc. 

The contradiction is clear: self-regulation cannot become a way to privatize a decision that affects all of society. As artificial intelligence expert Ramón López de Mántaras points out, “we cannot tolerate that the companies competing to be the first to achieve a hypothetical artificial superintelligence are also the ones who determine when risks are acceptable, what safeguards are sufficient, and how far the race should go.”

According to the aforementioned expert, “we need public institutions capable of exercising democratic and effective control over these technologies, establishing what development requires limits and what technological objectives we want to promote. And we need to do this before fundamental decisions have become irreversibly conditioned by those who control the technology, capital, and infrastructure.”

We are facing a crucial epochal shift for the survival of humanity. If we, individually and collectively, do not make the decision to remain human and safeguard the dignity of the person as an end and not as a means—as proposed in Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas— the powers of this technocratic New World Order will design a new “Tower of Babel” and attempt to manage a future they intend and desire to be posthuman.

However, through integral Advanced Humanism (which connects the mind with the heart through the intelligence of love or wisdom of the heart); spiritual intelligence (foundation of the dignity and protection of the human person created in the image and likeness of God, as well as the care of all creation) and ethical humanist leadership (which favors freedom, social justice, democratic governance and the common good), we will be able to build the “Civilization of Love” as a path towards a more humane future, as proposed by the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas of Pope Leo XIV.

4. STAYING HUMAN IN THE AGE OF EXPONENTIAL TECHNOLOGY

Amorhythms and the intelligence of love (AI+) in the face of algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI).

Given all of the above, it is pertinent to ask the following question: How can we remain human in the age of exponential biotechnology and artificial intelligence?

At the same time, we must also ask ourselves: What kind of intelligence should guide artificial intelligence in this technological age? 

To this last question, Father Diego Marulanda, Rector General of the Pontifical Bolivarian University (UPB), responded at the Saberes Summer School held in Medellin (Colombia) last September 2026 – an event in which I had the honor of participating – by stating that this intelligence is none other than the “intelligence of love”.

Indeed, as Father Marulanda pointed out at that meeting, “we need a humanist, Christian, academic and contemporary reflection on love as a form of knowledge, a principle of dignity, a social bond, ethical intelligence, a vital rhythm and an educational horizon in the age of artificial intelligence.” 

“Artificial intelligence expands capabilities, the intelligence of love introduces purpose, limits, responsibility and meaning,” said the Rector of UPB.

What can love know that a calculating intellect leaves out? The answer to this question shifts our focus to the face, presence, self-giving, interiority, gratuitousness, attentiveness, narrative, and mystery. In this perspective, human intelligence attains depth when it discerns ends: truth, freedom, goodness, beauty, and hope.

In this way we can understand love as a logic of relationship, communion and care that precedes the technological situation.

Developing the concept of “intelligence of love” – in the interdisciplinary dialogue carried out between the different Schools of the UPB – two terms are defined that are integrated into said intelligence of love that should guide artificial intelligence:

• The “algorithm” that calculates what is possible.

“An algorithm is an ordered and finite set of instructions, rules, or procedures that transforms input data into a result. In the context of artificial intelligence, an algorithm allows for processing information, identifying patterns, automating decisions, optimizing processes, and producing responses according to a predefined logic. Every algorithm incorporates decisions about what data matters, what result it seeks, what criteria it optimizes, and what aspects of reality are left out of its calculation.”

• The “amorythm” that protects humanity.

“Amorithm is a neologism formed from the words love and rhythm . It designates a human guiding principle that introduces criteria of dignity, care, responsibility, listening, and the common good into the logic of algorithms. Amorithm allows us to discern the meaning of decisions, recognize the uniqueness of individuals, and assume the human, ethical, and social consequences of every action. It is expressed in decisions, practices, rituals, protocols, and forms of relationship that preserve the human element within a community or institution.”

In that sense, the intelligence of love is a mode of knowledge that integrates reason, affection, and will to understand the human being without fragmenting him.

Therefore, in this era of technological exponentiality, we need approaches that measure love as relational capital that sustains communities, not just as an individual feeling (economy of care, ethics of vulnerability, sociology of reconciliation, etc.) and expand affective competencies alongside the cognitive capacities extended by AI.

Real social innovation must propose a relational anthropology that challenges both modern individualism, provided by digital platforms and social networks, and depersonalized collectivism, restoring the person as the center.

In any situation that affects a person, we must ask ourselves the following question: Does this decision make the human being more human? Because care, trust, and empathy are essential for transforming reality based on human dignity.

In the proposal we are presenting based on the interdisciplinary studies of UPB, love is conceived not as a passive affection, but as a bond that structures psychic and social life, and that guides knowledge and technology towards the care of life and the dignity of the human person.

AI+ places the individual, families, and communities at the center of decisions.

In this biotechnological age, as we have already pointed out, digitization and AI are emerging as means that can reconfigure human bonds towards an instrumentalization of the other, losing sight of human characteristics such as emotions and feelings.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves about the real harms of technologies, the repercussions on mental health, families, and the algorithmic manipulation of will.

Often, we must resist allowing AI and algorithmic systems to replace sound judgment regarding specific individuals, however much institutional efficiency may increasingly demand it. From the perspective of AI+, we propose viewing the other as an end in themselves, never as a means, even if the entire system pushes in the opposite direction.

The intelligence of love is oriented towards the care of life. For the intelligence of care and love is not sentimentality but practical reason illuminated by the truth about the person, capable of saying “no” to scientific and technological power when it advances against vulnerable life, recovering the prophetic courage we have lost and standing up to the technocratic paradigm.

Another question we can ask ourselves is this: What dimensions of reality can love know that technical reason usually leaves aside? Can love be a form of knowledge?

Love prioritizes and recognizes the other person’s face, emotions, feelings, and life stories, while algorithms simply recognize cold, insensitive data. Thus, love proves to be the authentic human, social, ethical, and spiritual force of the individual. 

Love listens attentively; technology only processes data.

Caring for others or the environment means accompanying without instrumentalizing, transcending indicators and statistics. 

This is why, according to the proposal of the intelligence of love, we must reconcile algorithms with amorhythms (the rhythm of love). These human rhythms are what society needs to recover in the face of technological acceleration, production pressures, and a culture of performance, efficiency, and optimization.

On the other hand, the fragility of the bonds is currently manifested in the weakening of meeting spaces, solidarity, mutual support, the lack of continuity of relationships over time and the shallowness on many occasions in the face of the suffering of the other.

Today’s technological society creates human beings captivated by productivity who often do not have time for the care of life and others, as they are busy meeting targets and tasks.

Thus we have families strained by standards – educational, organizational, political – that try to alleviate the breakdown of relationships without a clear direction. 

However, “social rhythms” become visible in practices that prioritize caring for people and building relationships based on respect and shared responsibility. These rhythms are expressed in processes of dialogue, conflict mediation, collective memory, community participation, and recognition of diversity. These experiences strengthen the social fabric and create conditions for healthy coexistence.

Peaceful encounter, solidarity, the ethics of compassion, the practice of care, the contemplation of beauty, the aroma of time, free choice, and encounter. All of these are factors of that “rhythm of love” (amorythm) that makes us more human (H+).

In this way, “social love rhythms” are expressed in the experience of human relationships from social sensitivity, the defense of human rights, assuming values ​​from coherence, connecting reason with love in an objective way, giving precedence to the common good, contributing to social well-being, giving accurate answers to the needs and problems of individuals, families, groups, and communities, from ethical, objective, and achievable acts.

At this point in the narrative, let’s ask another question: what risks does AI pose to bonds, emotions, and subjectivity in areas such as manipulation, disinformation, loneliness, and artificially mediated relationships?

Failing to recognize boundaries and understand that AI is a tool, not an end in itself, can lead to misuse and alter social structures in ways that endanger humanity. AI can be an ally, but it can also distance us from human connection if it replaces conversation, critical thinking, or the ability to understand others. The challenge lies in training professionals who use these tools ethically, without losing their sensitivity or responsibility towards people.

Thus, AI also poses risks related to disinformation, content manipulation, algorithmic bias, and the replacement of some spaces for human interaction. It can also deepen isolation and emotionally disconnected interactions. Therefore, it is essential to promote the ethical and critical use of these tools and the AI ​​environment, guided by respect for human dignity, care, and the strengthening of social bonds.

Ultimately, one of the greatest risks posed by AI is its attempt to replace the human element. However, this issue must be non-negotiable. In a world where algorithms are beginning to influence political, social, educational, and labor decisions, the presence of professionals with ethical sensitivity, critical thinking skills, and social commitment is more necessary than ever. AI requires human mediation to guarantee inclusion, justice, and dignity, as its impact permeates economic, educational, cultural, political, and social dynamics, shaping new forms of human interaction, knowledge production, and decision-making.

In this 21st century, the intelligence of love, so necessary for building a civilization of love, cannot be reduced to the counterpart of the artificial intelligence of technological mediation. One intelligence has always contained the other. The intelligence of love has been declared not only in the Christian construction of the community that journeys toward salvation, but also in the construction of Greek wisdom, where sensitivity (beauty), knowledge (truth), and action (goodness) cannot be separated.

The intelligence of love is revealed in the need to understand life itself through interdependence, relationship, and care. Therefore, it is important to revisit what the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas proposes to establish a starting point for a holistic, complementary, and sensitive understanding of humanity in this era of exponential biotechnology, promoting the ongoing affirmation and construction of what it means to be human in light of the meaning of life given by the Gospel message: love, justice, solidarity, respect, fraternity, responsibility toward oneself and others, care for creation, and the encounter with God who is Love. 

Madrid, October 17, 2026

(*) Article that summarizes the main ideas of the two presentations given by Albert Cortina at the training meeting organized by the Christian Cultural Movement, Malagón-Rovirola Classroom held in Madrid on October 17 and 18 under the title: “The new idol. Artificial intelligence, new power of the empire to redesign the human.”