Hoy, kumusta? Welcome back to Kaisipan!

Pope Leo XIV published a major document on AI — it's not a ban. It's a warning about who controls the technology and who pays for it.

When the Vatican releases a major document, a lot of people assume the worst: another lecture, more moralizing, a kneejerk reaction to technology. So when Pope Leo XIV published Magnifica Humanitas on May 15 — a sweeping encyclical, a formal teaching letter that carries serious weight in Catholic doctrine — the hot take machine immediately fired up. "The Pope is anti-AI."

Hindi ganoon.

Magnifica Humanitas (roughly: "the grandeur of humanity") is the most detailed moral framework for AI to come out of any global religious institution. It's 245 paragraphs long. It traces the Church's social doctrine from 1891 to the present. And yes, it's written in the context of Catholicism but the questions it raises are secular as much as they are theological. For a country like the Philippines, where AI is arriving fast and the rules are still being written, this document is worth reading.

Let's clear up what it doesn't say.

The encyclical is not anti-AI. Leo XIV says explicitly that technology is a valuable tool — one that can "heal, connect, educate and protect." The document doesn't call for banning AI systems, doesn't condemn tools like ChatGPT or Claude, and doesn't portray technology as inherently evil. That framing is wrong. The concern is subtler: AI is only as good as the values of the people who build, fund, and govern it.

The actual argument is that the biggest risk isn't that AI is powerful. It's that its power is concentrated in a small number of hands — corporations, labs, governments — who operate without enough oversight, transparency, or accountability. When a handful of private actors control the data, the infrastructure, the rules of visibility, and the training sets, they effectively control what gets surfaced as true, what gets amplified, who gets credit, and who gets displaced.

This matters for Filipinos in a specific way.

Roughly 1.7 million Filipino gig workers are engaged through online platforms, according to pre-2026 labor data. Writing, content creation, and knowledge work — the exact jobs Filipino freelancers have built international careers on — are among the first categories seeing AI displacement. Upwork alone saw a 32 percent drop in writing projects year-over-year in 2025, the steepest of any category. The encyclical doesn't use Filipino examples, but the pattern it describes matches: workers at the bottom of the global supply chain absorb the cost of technological transition while those at the top capture the gains.

The document is also sharp about what it calls the "silent labor" of the AI economy: the data annotators, content moderators, and workers who train large language models under difficult conditions, often in the Global South, often women, often paid very little. It calls this a moral issue, and by that standard, it's also a Filipino issue.

There are also three concepts the encyclical pushes hard that Filipino readers can work with directly.

First: transparency and accountability. When AI systems influence decisions — who gets a loan, who ranks in search, who gets shortlisted for a job — those systems must be understandable, contestable, and subject to review. Not just technically, but by institutions and communities.

Second: subsidiarity. A principle from Catholic social teaching, meaning decisions should be made at the level closest to the people affected. Not handed down opaquely by platforms headquartered in San Francisco. For the Philippines, this argues for local AI governance, for community-level oversight, for educational institutions having a voice in what gets trained and deployed in their contexts.

Third: the encyclical distinguishes sharply between human intelligence and AI. AI, it says, processes data. It does not experience life, hold conscience, feel love, or bear responsibility. Calling it "intelligent" misleads people into trusting it as if it were a person. When you treat a model as a neutral oracle, you miss the human choices embedded in how it was built.

Hindi ito anti-technology. It's a reminder that powerful tools still require watchful people.

BOTTOM LINE: AI is an environment as much as a tool, and the values of whoever controls that environment become the invisible infrastructure for everyone else. For the Philippines where the AI conversation is mostly happening at the policy level without much public participation, where millions of knowledge workers are already feeling the pressure, and where disinformation networks are already using AI to shape political reality, this is the right diagnosis.

Hindi lang batas ang kailangan. Kailangan din ng desisyon ng bawat Pilipino kung paano gagamitin ang AI nang may responsibilidad.

Senator and now fugitive Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa slipped into the Philippine Senate pursued by government agents, cast a deciding vote in a chamber leadership coup, and then simply stayed put. Within hours, AI-generated memes and cinematic content about the incident were flooding social media. Some of it was satire. A lot of it was not.

"Slopaganda" is what analysts are now calling the flood of mass-produced AI political content. It is already reshaping how Filipinos see political events in real time. Dominic Ligot of Data and AI Ethics PH describes it as an "ever-rising arms race" of AI-generated content designed to overwhelm and confuse the public.

The Philippines has been here before. Duterte's political machine pioneered industrialized social media disinformation through paid amplifiers, manufactured trending topics, coordinated memes. What's changed is the barrier to entry. A prompt and a smartphone now produce what once required a production team.

Researchers like Rossine Fallorina and groups like Sigla Research Centre are tracking how AI-generated content is seeding false narratives around the ICC proceedings and Senate maneuvering — blending real footage with fabricated visuals, real statements with hallucinated quotes. The visual tells are disappearing. What remains is the harder work of checking the source.

Thank you for reading today’s newsletter!

Do you have suggestions? I’d love to hear your thoughts.