Tony Blair has met several popes but has yet to have the pleasure of meeting Pope Leo XIV. However, the two men have much in common. Both are Catholic children. Both were in their late 30s when the World Wide Web opened to the public in 1991 (Blair, perhaps surprisingly, is two years older). Both experienced the subsequent turmoil. And this week, both published essays outlining how to answer it.
In his first encyclical, the Pope said people are “called to reflect on the great ‘construction sites’ of our age and ask: What are we building?” and recommended protecting people caught in technology-induced disruption.
Blair, although he talked about the leadership of the Labor Party, international relations and energy, among other things, linked them all to his idea of a philosophy of leadership. “The Radical Center starts from the proposition that governance in the age of AI will be the main challenge. And opportunity. The path to economic prosperity and social justice.”
Why are these public figures interfering now? It has been clear for several years that the implications of AI could be staggering. What has made the conditions suitable for them to bring out their visions? Examining the timing, it becomes clear that both are concerned that many of us will be losers and that there is limited time to help avoid that fate.
The most obvious explanation for the epochal language used in these two documents is the power of technology itself. While it’s been hailed as revolutionary since it became mainstream, it’s the rapid pace of progress in border designs that makes this moment feel urgent.
It would be tempting, for those in the know, to pin the exact time on a specific development. Perhaps in the creation of the Mythos, the model of Anthropic, which is said to be so powerful that it is not fit for public consumption. But this may be premature. Previous threats and advances have spread before being forgotten – remember DeepSeek? Or the week everyone thought the agents would go launched a coup by Moltbook?
More likely, the reshaping of the economy that is beginning to happen around AI serves as the impetus here. Trillions of dollars are pouring into businesses and building the infrastructure that supports them. This year, SpaceX (which owns xAI), OpenAI and Anthropic are expected to list their shares on the stock exchange, a move that is likely to solidify their role as the “superstar firms” of this economy. These IPOs will also create tens of thousands of millionaires, drawn mainly from the investors and staff of these firms.
This contributes to another reason why we are getting these messages from above about AI. It is a vague reason, a public mood, best expressed by a Silicon Valley meme about the “perpetual underclass”. Half-joking, half-serious, this term describes the idea that AI is ending social mobility by replacing all human labor, and that there are only a few years left to accumulate wealth before that happens. Those AI shareholders will be fine. For the rest of us, it’s anyone’s guess.
This is an extreme scenario, but it taps into a sense that we may be left behind. More than generalized anxiety about inequality, this is a fear that the new wave of wealth and superintelligence will end everything about life as we know it. It’s a feeling mixed with frustration about stagnant wages, the cost of living, the state of politics, the environmental crisis, the slow loss of newspapers/Saturday jobs/bank branches/whatever made life feel real to you. Bo Burnham can call it that “That funny feeling”.
All this was happening before and without AI. But now there is an increased fear that the upper echelons of society will further isolate themselves from the problems facing the rest of us and will not leave us a way out.
The Pope warns that “(a) too often, we place our hope in unlimited ‘improvements’, in forms of progress that exacerbate inequalities”. Like everyone else, he’s worried about how AI can bridge the gaps between people.
Even more worryingly, the drivers of this change are “private parties, often transnational, that are endowed with resources and capacity to intervene that exceed those of many governments”. This largely private aspect of technological power will make it even more difficult to direct it toward the “common good,” he says.
The relative impotence of governments opens up a power vacuum in which someone like the Pontifex can offer non-state guidance, some moral gravitas with which to at least try to hold private multinationals accountable. But it also calls on states and transnational institutions to establish fair rules.
Bleri comes to a similar conclusion, but with a different focus. He also thinks states should step up and embrace AI, rather than just regulate it. That way they will be better able to deal with issues that are quickly outpacing his abilities. According to Blair, it is not just a sphere of individuals who end up in the permanent underclass, but entire countries. “All governments for the foreseeable future will govern in the age of AI. Those who understand it will see their countries prosper; those who don’t, won’t.”
We should be skeptical of interventions like these – yes, even when they come directly from the Vatican. AI is becoming an effective rhetorical tool that leaders can use to justify something they wanted to say anyway, whether it’s reiterating the importance of “loving your neighbour” or interfering with the leadership of the Labor Party. But cynicism should not make us unable to consider the possibility that they are sincere.
There is a persistent misreading in the many reactions to Blair’s writing. Critics say that the former prime minister is advertising AI as “the answer”as a solution to all of Britain and the world’s challenges. Not enough. He is looking at AI itself as the biggest challenge, one that cannot be avoided. “There’s no point debating whether this technological revolution is a good thing or a bad thing. Just know that it is a ‘thing’. In fact, it is ‘the thing.’
Blair has extensive ties to the AI ecosystem, from his son Euan’s company, Multiverse, to his daughter-in-law’s recent appointment as managing partner of the UK AI Sovereign Fund. The trading strategy of his consultancy is wrapped in technology and shaped by money from tech billionaire Larry Ellison.
It is fair to question his motives. But the very actions of Blair’s ecosystem suggest a conviction behind what he says. He and his circle have already started building their coffers. So how do we avoid a financial equivalent of the Great Flood? According to the Pope, we must think deliberately and long-term and avoid reaction. “If we focus only on contingencies, we risk allowing the continuum of emergencies to dictate the direction of our path.”
However, the weighting of these global figures is itself a way of generating an emergency; to produce that great food phrase of the title, “stern warning issue.” To declare an emergency is to open a space for quick and unwavering decisions. They may not always be the right ones, but, as the pandemic showed, action can be taken quickly when the conditions are right.
So far, efforts to make AI and its effects feel urgent have been more reminiscent of climate predictions. In both cases, certain groups are convinced of an imminent danger and driven to immediate action, but many others – even if they believe the warnings – are passive. As Pope writes in AI, “while some are competing for the future of new technologies and others are devoting themselves to reflecting on the matter – most people are watching and waiting, observing from afar and simply hoping for the best.”
However, this year feels different. Even if the impact of AI on the job market is overstated, the technology often gets the blame for youth unemployment and mass layoffs. Those still at work may have targets to use it. Relatives, friends and managers are getting used to giving every decision to chatbots. Results from AI tools can now be found in published books, at the Cannes Film Festival and all over the internet. For most of us, it now feels much more tangible. This may be the moment to intervene if one truly believes that the course of history must be shaped.
What Blair and Papa Leo have in common is that they are trying to mediate while there is still time to do something about what is coming.
(Further reading: It is much worse than Tony Blair thinks)
