I noticed this passage:<p>> To speak in the plural of “forms of intelligence” can help to emphasize above all the unbridgeable gap between such systems, however amazing and powerful, and the human person: in the end, they are merely “fragmentary”, in the sense that they can only imitate or reproduce certain functions of human intelligence. The use of the plural likewise brings out the fact that these devices greatly differ among themselves and that they should always be regarded as “socio-technical systems”.<p>That's true now and will probably be true for a few years -- but it seems we could soon have systems that are fully general agents, not just narrow tools. Those would raise some thorny theological questions. For example, will the following be still true?<p>> The unique human capacity for moral judgment and ethical decision-making is more than a complex collection of algorithms, and that capacity cannot be reduced too programming a machine, which as “intelligent” as it may be, remains a machine.<p>And what about even more advanced AGI, systems that are more intelligent than any human?<p>> Human intelligence is an expression of the dignity with which we have been endowed by the Creator, who made us in his own image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26)<p>... says Francis and cites Genesis, but that leaves open the status of superhuman machine intelligence. If intelligence makes us similar to the Creator, doesn't this mean that superintelligence is even more similar to Him than us? In a word, will it be a sort of angel? (Or, if it doesn't behave ethically, a devil?)<p>Probably that is too far away and to speculative for him to comment about. But I would like to know what his advisors have to say on these questions, if anything.