Concerns are growing about the intersection of technological advancement and ethical considerations, with experts warning that economic rationality and moral implications must not become separated in a rapidly changing world.
A Warning Echoed for Over a Century
Marcell Biró drew parallels to the first Industrial Revolution, noting that Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum, emerged during a period when technological progress was already outpacing societal responses. He suggests a similar situation exists today.
Recent statements from the Church – including those from Pope Leo XIV – similarly emphasize that artificial intelligence is a creation of humanity, not a substitute for it. This distinction, experts say, means responsibility for its use cannot be transferred to the technology itself.
Three Principles to Guide the Future
A key advisor highlighted three core concepts. The first is human dignity. The greatest risk, he argued, isn’t economic, but a distortion of how we perceive humanity.
“The human person is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be respected,” he stated.
The second principle is subsidiarity – the idea that decisions should be made at the most local level possible, rather than by distant systems. This represents particularly important as data and technological capabilities become increasingly concentrated.
The third is solidarity.
The AI race could create new winners and losers – the question is whether it will exacerbate existing inequalities.
Biró also discussed Hungary’s AI strategy, which treats technological development as a strategic issue, emphasizing conscious use and acknowledging potential dangers. He pointed to the Levente supercomputer and programs aimed at expanding AI knowledge as examples of this progress.
László Palkovics, the government commissioner responsible for artificial intelligence, provided detailed insights in a recent interview.
Focus on AI’s Societal Impact
The presentation concluded with a simple proposition: the question isn’t what AI *can* do, but what it *does* to us.
By their fruits you will know them
– quoting the Gospel of Matthew, he added that technology should be judged not by its performance, but by its societal impact. The real question, he said, is whether AI brings people closer together or further divides them.
Even as decisions are increasingly supported by automated systems, ultimate responsibility remains with humans.
Key Questions for the Present
“The debate about artificial intelligence is not a nostalgic look back, but a forward-looking acceptance of responsibility,” said Orsolya Pacsay-Tomassich, founder of the Jáki Szaniszló Society.
She believes competitiveness and technological development alone are insufficient guides. The real questions are what image of humanity informs our decisions, what constitutes the common good, and what shared identity holds society together. Without answers to these questions, she warned, technological progress could become self-serving, and we could lose sight of what gives life meaning.
The workshop included contributions from experts from various countries, including the United States, Nigeria, and the Czech Republic, all of whom highlighted the dangers of AI and offered ideas for preventing and managing them.
The Allure of a False Paradise
László György, government commissioner for economic strategies, presented his study, Beyond the False Eden, co-authored with Santo Martin, professional director of the Makronóm Institute.
He argues that technology presents both immense opportunities and serious risks. While it increases efficiency, it could also jeopardize what he calls our “common civilizational code” – the principle that the meaning of human life lies in contribution and belonging.
He illustrated this with a biblical analogy, referencing the Book of Genesis. God not only placed humans in the Garden of Eden but also gave them a task – to cultivate and care for it. Existence, he explained, is not a passive state but active participation.
He suggests that if technology removes people’s ability to contribute, it could cause not only economic but also profound social problems.
He cited specific company estimates suggesting that AI could replace more than 30 percent of workers in some companies in the coming years.
Universal Basic Income Isn’t the Answer
György believes that a common response is universal basic income (UBI), but he considers it a dead end. He used historical examples – including Hungary’s post-communist transition and the case of Nauru in the Pacific – to illustrate that “unearned income” can lead to social decay in the long run.
Instead, he proposes a contribution-based income (COBI), which is linked to some socially useful activity, rather than being unconditional.
In the future economy, he argues, we shouldn’t simply tax the wealthy, but those who disproportionately benefit from technological transformation – such as through automation or market disruption.
The resulting funds should be reinvested in areas that strengthen social contribution: perform, education, raising children, or contributing to a sustainable life.
The commissioner’s strongest assertion was that the spread of artificial intelligence and robotics could have an impact similar to colonization if societies are unable to control the processes.
He believes a key question remains: who defines what counts as valuable activity, and how do we measure individual contribution? The answer, he concluded, can only be sustainable if decisions are made with the involvement of society, not separate from it.
(Cover image: Marcell Biró at the event hosted by the Makronóm Institute and the Jáki Szaniszló Society. Photo: Dániel Reichert)
What if the future didn’t just happen to you, but you shaped it? This book helps you prepare in an unprecedented way. Take the first step now.
Follow Index on Facebook too!
