Technology
July 01, 2026
From Papa Pop to Papa Tec
Technology, human dignity, and the unlikely consensus on artificial intelligence
When Humberto Gessinger composed O Papa é Pop in 1990, he observed a curious phenomenon of modernity: even one of the world’s most traditional figures had been absorbed by media logic. The Pope no longer inhabited only temples. He was on magazine covers, in television news, in everyday conversations and, as the song suggested, had become part of mass culture. Thirty-five years later, it might be necessary to update the metaphor. The Pope continues to be pop. But he has also become tech.
Not because he has become a digital influencer of faith, but because he decided to cross a border that many imagined was reserved for engineers, scientists, and technology executives. What caught the attention of the international community was his decision to enter one of the most complex debates of our time: the role of artificial intelligence in human life.
The publication of the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas by Pope Leo XIV, in May of this year, surprised many observers. After all, it is not common for a pontifical document to directly address topics such as algorithms, machine learning, generative systems, and the production of scientific knowledge. The surprise, however, diminishes when we realize that the concern expressed by the Vatican is not isolated.
Over the past few years, very different institutions have reached remarkably similar conclusions. In 2019, the European Union’s High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence published the documents “A Definition of AI: Main Capabilities and Scientific Disciplines” and “Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI”. Since then, the European “AI Act”, the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission’s report “The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Research”, the “Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Basic Education” from the Brazilian Ministry of Education, Resolution nº 13/2025 from São Paulo State University (Unesp), the “Guide for Researchers: Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence”, and CNPq Ordinance nº 2.664/2026, among other documents that seek to guide governments, institutions, and citizens in the face of transformations caused by AI.
The most interesting thing is that these documents do not belong to the same field. They were produced by universities, funding agencies, public policy makers, scientists, educators, and international organizations. Nevertheless, they all seem to revolve around the same concern. How to preserve human autonomy in an era of artificial intelligence?
At first glance, we might imagine that the central issue would be technological. It is not. None of the documents dedicate their main efforts to discussing only processing speed, computational power, or algorithmic sophistication. Instead, they all repeatedly return to older and deeper questions.
- Who is the human being?
- What is knowledge?
- Who should make decisions?
- Who is responsible for the results?
- Who remains in command?
Perhaps the most interesting discovery from this joint reading is realizing that the contemporary debate on artificial intelligence is not organized around the technology, but around humanity.
European documents use the expression Human-Centric AI, artificial intelligence centered on humans. The principle is simple: technology should amplify human capabilities, never replace them entirely. The human being remains the moral, political, and legal subject of the process.
The encyclical reaches a similar conclusion by another path. Instead of speaking of fundamental rights, it speaks of human dignity. Instead of speaking of individual autonomy, it speaks of person. Instead of resorting to the language of governance, it uses the language of moral responsibility. The words change. The concern remains.
Epistemic drift
The Joint Research Centre’s report adds a particularly interesting dimension to this discussion. Unlike the other documents, it does not focus its attention on ethics or regulation. Its focus is on the production of scientific knowledge itself. A concept little known outside academic circles appears there: epistemic drift, or epistemic drift.
The expression describes the risk that artificial intelligence systems will influence not only the answers we find, but also the questions we ask. In other words, the problem would not just be an AI producing wrong conclusions. The problem would be science itself starting to think within the limits suggested by the systems it uses.
The concern is sophisticated. If a tool starts to organize research, select sources, suggest hypotheses, and structure investigative paths, to what extent are we still conducting the process? At what point do we begin to be led by it?
Interestingly, this question echoes the critique of technocracy present in the encyclical. Although they use distinct languages, both documents seem uneasy with the same possibility: the gradual transfer of human leadership to increasingly complex and opaque systems.
At this point, a false dichotomy emerges that frequently dominates public debates. On one hand, the enthusiasts who believe that artificial intelligence will solve practically all human problems. On the other, the alarmists who see machines about to replace humanity. Both positions simplify the issue.
The alternative may lie in a simpler formula: AI+AI. Artificial Intelligence plus Authentic Intelligence. It is not about replacing one with the other, but about recognizing complementary capabilities. Artificial intelligence expands access to information, identifies patterns, and accelerates processes. Authentic intelligence offers context, experience, imagination, responsibility, and discernment.
The first processes, the second understands. The first calculates, the second interprets. The Joint Research Centre’s own report reaches a similar conclusion: “Addressing these challenges requires policies that promote AI literacy, critical thinking, and multidisciplinary collaboration, so as to ensure that human expertise remains central to the process” (JRC, 2025, p. 5-6). The passage confirms the point: it is not about moving away from artificial intelligence, but about strengthening human intelligence capable of using it.
Without authentic intelligence, AI can produce correct answers, but devoid of meaning. Without contemporary tools, human intelligence risks not keeping pace with the growing complexity of the world.
The challenge is not to choose between one and the other, but to build a balanced relationship between them. Perhaps this is precisely what explains the improbable consensus found between such different documents. Universities, scientists, educators, European regulators, and even the Vatican seem to agree on one essential point: the decisive question of the 21st century is not what machines will be capable of doing. The decisive question is what humans will decide to do with them.
Returning to Gessinger, it is worth remembering that the chorus stated that “pop spares no one”. Three decades later, the observation remains current. Technology also spares no one. Neither governments, nor schools, nor universities, nor companies, nor churches. Not even artificial intelligence, which has ceased to be just a theme of science fiction to become a subject of schools, universities, governments, companies, and even the Vatican.
What to do now?
If there is an emerging consensus among the Vatican, the European Union, universities, and research agencies, it is not limited to the need to discuss artificial intelligence. There is also a growing concern in offering concrete guidelines for its use.
In Brazil, one of the most relevant documents in this regard is the “Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Basic Education,” published by the Ministry of Education. The document does not treat AI as a threat or a magic solution. Its proposal is to train students capable of critically understanding these technologies, using them responsibly, and recognizing their limits. Among its recommendations are the promotion of digital education, the strengthening of critical thinking, transparency in the use of tools, and the preservation of human mediation in educational processes.
For professors, a practical hint can be applied immediately: use AI systems not to replace reading, interpretation, and text production activities, but to expand them. A student can ask an AI for a summary of a certain topic; learning happens when they compare this summary with other sources, identify gaps, question answers, and produce their own synthesis. The tool generates information; training remains human.
In the university context, Resolution nº 13/2025 of Unesp deserves special mention, as it establishes principles for the responsible use of artificial intelligence in the institution. The document emphasizes human supervision, transparency, accountability, data protection, academic integrity, and critical evaluation of the results produced by AI systems.
More than a definitive set of rules, the resolution can be understood as an initial governance model. We are only in the first steps of a transformation that will likely accompany the next decades. Unesp’s guidelines deserve to be studied, compared with experiences from other universities, and continuously revised as new technologies emerge and new challenges appear.
Perhaps this is the main lesson learned from the set of documents analyzed: we are not facing a fleeting debate. We are learning to live with a technology that will continue to evolve. The path is still being built, but one direction seems clear. Artificial intelligence should grow alongside human intelligence, never in its place.
Let’s keep an eye on the headlines and news. Especially those published in the Official Gazettes of the Union, of Brazilian states, and of educational and research institutions. If major debates usually reach the public through speeches, interviews, and reports, it is in the normative documents, resolutions, ordinances, guidelines, and regulations that transformations effectively begin to take shape.
The next chapters of the AI+AI saga are being written at this very moment. And they will be as decisive as the first ones.
Who wrote this column
Roberto Munhoz
