AI should serve us, not decide for us

When technology stops being merely technical

Artificial intelligence no longer lives locked away in labs, startups or development teams. Today it shows up at school, at work, on your phone, in medicine, in banks and even in decisions that can affect the daily lives of millions of people.

That is why it drew so much attention when Pope Leo XIV published Magnifica Humanitas, an encyclical devoted to artificial intelligence and human dignity. Not because the Vatican is going to explain how to train models or how an algorithm works, but because the subject has become too important to leave solely in the hands of engineers, companies or governments.

The underlying conversation is simple: a tool can be brilliant, fast and useful, but that doesn't mean it should decide for us.

AI as a tool, not as a boss

A good way to see it is as a co-pilot on the road.

It can help you choose a route, warn you about traffic and suggest faster roads. But if the road becomes dangerous, if there's fog or something doesn't look right, the driver is still responsible.

Something similar happens with AI.

It can write, summarize, analyze data, suggest code, detect patterns and speed up processes. But when we're talking about hiring people, denying a loan, diagnosing a problem, surveilling citizens or influencing public opinion, we're no longer talking only about productivity.

We're talking about power.

The risk isn't AI, it's using it without judgment

The problem isn't that artificial intelligence exists.

The problem is treating it as if it were neutral, perfect or inevitable.

A system can make mistakes. It can learn from incomplete data. It can repeat biases. It can make a decision that is efficient but unfair. And if nobody understands how it got there, the harm can hide behind a convenient phrase: “the system decided.”

That is dangerous.

Because when nobody takes responsibility, technology stops being a tool and becomes an excuse.

Human in the loop: don't let the human hand switch off

One of the key concepts in this debate is human in the loop. It sounds technical, but the idea is simple: there must be a person inside the decision process.

Not as decoration.

Not just to click “accept.”

But as someone who reviews, questions and can stop a decision when something doesn't add up.

It's like having an emergency brake. Maybe you don't use it every day, but when you need it, it can prevent a disaster.

The essentials

AI can be one of the most powerful tools of our time.

But the more power it has, the more important it becomes to ask ourselves:

Innovation shouldn't be measured by speed alone.

It should also be measured by the harm it prevents, the clarity it offers and the dignity it respects.

Conclusion: more AI, but with more responsibility

We don't need to turn our backs on artificial intelligence.

That would be absurd.

AI is already helping doctors, students, developers, companies and people who previously had no access to certain tools. Used well, it can open enormous doors.

But we also can't buy the idea that everything that automates is progress.

Real progress is using technology without switching off human judgment.

The question isn't whether AI will be part of the future.

The question is what kind of future we are going to let it build.

And there, the responsibility doesn't belong to the machine.

It's ours.