Why Artificial Intelligence Needs Human Dignity, Not Just Better Software

Based on ‘Beyond Babel | Human Dignity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence’, published by Cristián Saracco, Nicholas Ind and Giuseppe Cavallo, members of the Medinge Group

Artificial intelligence -AI- is usually discussed as a matter of technology, productivity, efficiency or competitive advantage. It is all of those things, of course. But Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas reminds us that AI is also something deeper: a question of human dignity, moral responsibility and the kind of civilisation we are choosing to build.

The title itself, Magnificent Humanity, is a quiet but firm push-back against the techno-evangelism that often treats human beings as inefficient biological obstacles to progress. Yet the encyclical is not anti-technology. It does not indulge in nostalgic suspicion, nor does it condemn innovation with theatrical alarm. Its point is subtler and more demanding: technology is never merely technical. It carries the intentions, incentives and assumptions of those who design, finance, regulate and use it.

That matters profoundly for brands and businesses.

AI is no longer simply a tool that sits politely in the background. It shapes decisions, experiences, relationships, communications and expectations. It can help brands listen better, serve faster, imagine more boldly and operate more intelligently. But it can also flatten human judgement, automate mediocrity, manipulate attention, weaken trust and reduce people to behavioural patterns in systems optimised for extraction.

The question, then, is not whether brands should use AI. They already do, and they will do so more. The real question is what kind of organisations they become by using it.

Babel or Jerusalem?

One of the most powerful images in Magnifica Humanitas is the contrast between Babel and Jerusalem.

Babel represents the temptation to build a future based on control, uniformity and self-sufficiency. It is the city of technical brilliance and spiritual poverty: impressive, efficient, scalable  -and dangerously empty-. In the context of AI, Babel is what happens when progress is measured only by speed, power, automation and predictive capacity, while the human being underneath becomes smaller, more measurable and eventually more disposable.

Jerusalem, by contrast, is not nostalgia. It is not a pious retreat into safer times. It is the shared work of rebuilding a common life. It is plural, practical, wounded and hopeful. It asks each person, institution, company and community to take responsibility for its own stretch of wall.

For business, this distinction is crucial. Brands are not neutral spectators in the age of AI. They help shape the language, expectations and behaviours through which people experience technology. They influence whether AI is adopted as a tool for human flourishing or as another layer of invisible domination.

A brand that treats AI merely as a cheaper way to produce more content is building Babel with better software. A brand that uses AI to deepen relevance, dignity, trust and meaningful human experience is doing something more interesting -and more necessary-.

Technology Is Not Neutral

The encyclical’s central insight is that technology is not neutral once it enters society. AI comes designed, funded, owned, trained, governed, narrated and deployed. It embodies choices about what matters, what counts, what is rewarded and what is ignored.

This is why ethics cannot be a polite appendix added after implementation. The usual corporate choreography -innovate first, issue principles later, apologise if needed- is no longer good enough. AI needs discernment before deployment, governance before dependence and responsibility before scale.

A warning from within the technology industry itself reinforces this point. At the presentation of Magnifica Humanitas, Christopher Olah, co-founder of Anthropic, reportedly told Pope Leo XIV that the organisations building advanced AI cannot fully govern themselves because their incentives -commercial, geopolitical and personal- are not necessarily aligned with the protection of humanity. He also suggested that the technology has moved beyond full comprehension even by those creating it.

Taken together, the implications are sobering: those building AI cannot be left entirely to regulate themselves, and they cannot fully account for what they are building. That does not make them villains. But it does mean that external moral voices are essential -voices whose priority is not profit, market dominance or power, but the human person as an end in itself-.

This is where the encyclical becomes more than a religious document. It becomes a public act of moral authority.

Truth, Work and Freedom

Magnifica Humanitas becomes especially concrete when it turns to truth, work and freedom.

Truth is treated as a common good. That is highly relevant in an age of synthetic content, algorithmic distribution, deepfakes and emotional manipulation. Brands have always shaped perception, but AI expands their capacity to simulate, personalise and persuade. The danger is not only falsehood. It is the gradual erosion of shared reality.

Work is treated not as a cost to be optimised away, but as an expression of human dignity. AI can augment people, reduce repetitive tasks and unlock new forms of creativity. Yet it can also displace, deskill, monitor and fragment work. The moral question is not whether AI makes organisations more efficient, but whether it makes economic life more human.

Freedom is perhaps the most fragile of the three. Digital systems do not only offer choice; they can predict, frame and monetise desire. They can create dependency while calling it engagement. They can turn attention into inventory. For brands, this creates a serious responsibility: influence should not become manipulation simply because the dashboard says it works.

The Real Issue Is Power

Beneath all these themes lies the question of power.

AI is developing in a world where some of the most decisive technological infrastructures are controlled by private actors whose scale and influence exceed the capacity of many public institutions. The issue is not whether these organisations are good or bad. The issue is whether power without sufficient accountability can be trusted to define the future of human experience.

Here, it is useful to distinguish power from authority. Power is the capacity to make others act; authority is the legitimacy that makes others willing to follow. Power can impose obedience; authority earns recognition.

Brands increasingly operate in this tension. They have power through data, platforms, media, experience design and behavioural influence. But they only gain authority when that power is exercised with legitimacy, transparency and responsibility.

AI and Ambidexterity

The encyclical can also be read through the lens of ambidexterity: the discipline of protecting what must remain while transforming what must change.

For businesses, this means exploring the possibilities of AI without losing the human foundations on which lasting value depends:

• Confianza
• Judgement
• Creativity
• Responsabilidad
• Meaning

AI can improve decisions, accelerate learning, remove friction and open new forms of service. But used poorly, it can also automate weak assumptions, deepen short-termism and distance leaders from the human consequences of their choices.

The ambidextrous question is:

How can AI help us become more valuable without becoming less human?

For brands, the challenge is just as clear. AI will make it easier to generate content, personalise messages and optimise experiences. It will also make it easier for brands to become hollow: more active, fluent and responsive, yet less truthful, less distinctive and less worthy of trust. This is why brand must act as a system of meaning, connecting purpose, promise, behaviour, culture and experience.

For leaders, AI will test judgement more than technical knowledge. The temptation will be to let dashboards replace conversations, predictions replace wisdom and automated systems replace responsibility. But the algorithm may recommend, rank or generate; it does not carry moral accountability. People do.

Ambidexterity in the age of AI means innovating without losing conscience, scaling without losing responsibility, automating without abandoning judgement, and transforming without forgetting what makes business, brands and leadership truly human.

Conscience in Business and Brands

The deeper connection between Magnifica Humanitas and branding lies in the idea of conscience.

Conciencia in business is not an ornamental virtue. It is not a soft paragraph in a sustainability report, nor the moral fragrance sprayed over quarterly targets. Conscience is the place from which an organisation decides. It shapes what a company sees, what it ignores, what it considers acceptable and what it refuses to become.

This matters enormously in the age of AI. Artificial intelligence will make it easier for brands to speak, publish, simulate and personalise. It will also make it easier for them to become hollow. The great paradox is that machines may help brands sound more human while organisations behave less humanely.

A brand with conscience asks different questions:

• Does AI strengthen or weaken our purpose?
• Does automation protect or erode trust?
• Are we using efficiency to liberate human potential or simply to extract more from fewer people?
• Are we making people’s lives better, or merely making them more predictable?

These are not sentimental questions. They are strategic ones. Companies that lose trust, coherence and legitimacy eventually pay for it. Sometimes financially. Sometimes culturally. Often both.

From Better Software to Better Judgement

Will Pope Leo’s encyclical have an impact? There will always be those who reject the idea that moral judgement has any meaningful role in business. For them, efficiency trumps whatever concerns may arise about its impact on humanity.

Yet it would be a hollowed-out world if efficiency always prevailed over creativity, care and the nurturing of human intelligence.

The Pope’s essential argument is that we must not lose what makes us magnificent humans. Leaders must be wise if we are to reap the virtues of AI while sustaining human dignity. Businesses can play a decisive part in this, but only if they recognise the opportunity to act as moral influencers alongside their commercial imperatives.

The future will not be shaped by technology alone. It will be shaped by the quality of judgement with which we use it.

The task ahead is clear: stop building Babel with better software. Start rebuilding Jerusalem with better judgement.

About the Medinge Group

El Medinge Group is an international think tank of brand, business and communication professionals committed to advancing brands with conscience. Its members explore how organisations can create economic, social and human value through more responsible, meaningful and sustainable approaches to business and branding.

About the Authors

Cristián Saracco, PhD is a business and brand strategist, founding partner of Allegro 234 and a member of the Medinge Group. He has worked internationally with companies across sectors including finance, consumer goods, technology, energy, services and institutions. His work focuses on business strategy, brand strategy, conscious brands and the role of brands as platforms for transformation, growth and positive impact.

Nicholas Ind, PhD is a writer, academic and brand thinker, and one of the leading voices in the field of brands with conscience. A member of the Medinge Group, he has written extensively on branding, co-creation, participation, purpose and responsible business. His work explores how brands can become more human, more collaborative and more meaningful in the lives of people and society.

Giuseppe Cavallo is a strategist, entrepreneur, writer and member of the Medinge Group. He works at the intersection of brand, sustainability, innovation and business transformation, helping organisations connect strategic clarity with meaningful action. His work focuses on the role of brands in shaping culture, responsibility and long-term value.