Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
When Leo warns us that “the technocratic paradigm in which we are immersed, which is amplified by the digital evolution and AI, threatens to normalize an anti-human vision,” he is warning us about a world that centralizes power and meaning among some while excluding the many. This contrasts with the Civilization of Love which welcomes the poor, the wounded, the unborn, and the migrant. Thus, a litmus test for a Leonine society is whether it welcomes the contributions of all, especially the smallest and the most forgotten. This is not just a work for the powerful; rather, the “civilization of love will not arise from a single or spectacular gesture, but from the sum total of small and steadfast acts of fidelity that serve as a bulwark against dehumanization.” We all need to be such bulwarks against dehumanization.
AI is changing the world faster than moral theorists can keep up, but an encyclical aims to frame a social issue in a global manner that calls readers to see what is at stake, who will be impacted, and how the most vulnerable and marginalized among the human family will be affected. Pope Leo XIV’s earlier exhortation included not only the material poor, but the sick and elderly, the orphan, those who are lonely, those who experience spiritual or moral poverty, those who are socially marginalized and culturally poor, those who lack space or rights or freedom. Each of these—and all of us—will be dramatically impacted by AI. How can we build a world that cares for the poor among us—who are us—while creating a technology that serves the common good and upholds human dignity? Readers of Leo’s first social encyclical will surely find a continuation of the call to care for our common home and to avoid harmful practices that worsen the living conditions of the most vulnerable.—From Church Life Journal
Adequately assessing AI's role requires situating technology within the broader framework of biological development. Technology is integral to evolution. Understanding technology's relationship to human welfare means grasping its role within the flow of biological and human life. AI personhood follows a new relational logic providing creative engagement spaces. One lives not in binary mode (me and you) but in creative interrelatedness. The "I" flows from constitutive relationships of shared existence where the middle—the place of creative engagement—forms identity's basis. Gen AI is already here, seeking a better world and a living God. The question remains whether institutional religion can evolve quickly enough to meet them where they are, or whether it will remain trapped in binary thinking while humanity moves toward posthuman futures.—From Global Sisters Report
Enterprise AI is moving out of isolated pilots and into core business functions. What has changed is the level of accountability. Leadership teams are no longer impressed by experimentation alone. They want to know whether AI is improving productivity, reducing cost or driving new revenue.The organizations that are getting it right are focusing on specific use cases and building around them rather than trying to transform everything at once. The real story right now is not about capability. It is about execution and whether companies can turn AI into measurable business value.
Enterprise AI is moving out of isolated pilots and into core business functions. What has changed is the level of accountability. Leadership teams are no longer impressed by experimentation alone. They want to know whether AI is improving productivity, reducing cost or driving new revenue.The organizations that are getting it right are focusing on specific use cases and building around them rather than trying to transform everything at once. The real story right now is not about capability. It is about execution and whether companies can turn AI into measurable business value.
Data governance has become a board-level issue because organizations are relying more heavily on data to drive decisions and automation. Poor data quality or unclear ownership can quickly undermine trust in systems, especially when AI is involved.I am seeing more companies formalize how data is managed, who is accountable and how it flows across the organization. This is no longer a compliance exercise. It is a foundation for using data responsibly and effectively at scale.
Data governance has become a board-level issue because organizations are relying more heavily on data to drive decisions and automation. Poor data quality or unclear ownership can quickly undermine trust in systems, especially when AI is involved.I am seeing more companies formalize how data is managed, who is accountable and how it flows across the organization. This is no longer a compliance exercise. It is a foundation for using data responsibly and effectively at scale.
AI governance should be approached as a core function of how an organization operates. It cannot be added after systems are deployed.The starting point is clarity. Organizations need to define who is accountable for decisions made by AI systems, how those decisions are reviewed, and what processes exist for escalation.Effective governance also requires visibility. Leaders need insight into how systems are functioning in real-world contexts, not just in controlled environments.Finally, governance must be cross-functional. AI impacts multiple parts of the organization, so oversight cannot sit within a single team.
Data governance has become a board-level issue because organizations are relying more heavily on data to drive decisions and automation. Poor data quality or unclear ownership can quickly undermine trust in systems, especially when AI is involved.I am seeing more companies formalize how data is managed, who is accountable and how it flows across the organization. This is no longer a compliance exercise. It is a foundation for using data responsibly and effectively at scale.
Bias in AI persists because it is rooted in real-world data and institutional history rather than isolated technical flaws. When models are trained on existing data, they inherit patterns that reflect how decisions have been made in the past.Bias is often subtle. It can appear as small, consistent disadvantages that accumulate over time rather than obvious errors.Another challenge is that organizations frequently treat bias as a one-time problem. In reality, it is dynamic. As systems evolve, bias can re-emerge in different forms requiring continuous monitoring.Addressing bias effectively means building governance into the lifecycle of AI systems, including regular auditing, transparency, and clear ownership of outcomes.
Data governance has become a board-level issue because organizations are relying more heavily on data to drive decisions and automation. Poor data quality or unclear ownership can quickly undermine trust in systems, especially when AI is involved.I am seeing more companies formalize how data is managed, who is accountable and how it flows across the organization. This is no longer a compliance exercise. It is a foundation for using data responsibly and effectively at scale.
Enterprise AI is moving out of isolated pilots and into core business functions. What has changed is the level of accountability. Leadership teams are no longer impressed by experimentation alone. They want to know whether AI is improving productivity, reducing cost or driving new revenue.The organizations that are getting it right are focusing on specific use cases and building around them rather than trying to transform everything at once. The real story right now is not about capability. It is about execution and whether companies can turn AI into measurable business value.