Frankenstein, AI and the Duty to Answer for What We Create

From Mary Shelley to artificial intelligence, a warning about technical ambition when it becomes detached from moral responsibility.

In April 1815, the eruption of a volcano in what is now Indonesia spread a cloud of ash that covered the sun and particularly damaged Europe and North America, although the entire planet was affected.
1816 became known as “the year without a summer,” but tourism was not the only thing harmed.
Crop failures were followed by famine, disorder, looting…
It was in that freezing summer that Frankenstein was born.
In a villa near Geneva, trapped by the weather, were Lord Byron, Percy Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft and Dr. Polidori, Byron’s physician.
They challenged one another to write the best horror story.
From that challenge came Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, by Mary Wollstonecraft, and the vampire character created by Polidori.
These works have given rise, with greater or lesser fortune, to numerous descendants in literature and cinema.
The story is well known: Dr. Frankenstein builds an artificial being out of human remains.
Because it turned out rather ugly, he rejects it.
The being feels wounded in its sensitivity and responds with violence.
That is the consequence of failing to assume responsibility for what one creates.
Scientific triumph, in this case, was followed by moral failure.
The famous tension between freedom and responsibility.
Who is truly the monster?
That unfortunate being who did not even have another name besides “the creature” or “the demon”?
Or the irresponsible creator who failed to take charge of his creature?
It is easy to understand how this reasoning can apply to different situations.
After all, the spirit of this drama is not far from the attitude of rejection shown by the poet Neruda toward his hydrocephalic daughter.
It is possible to draw a parallel with other human inventions, such as Artificial Intelligence.
For Dr. Frankenstein is more than a literary invention; he is a warning.
The author alerts us to the consequences of unrestrained ambition.
The scientist’s goal should be the advancement of science.
Is that Frankenstein’s motive?
It is his ego.
He wants to be like a god.
He thinks only of success.
But man is not God, and it is not good to play at being one.
AI is a great invention, without a doubt.
But what is it for?
For example, it could revolutionize, and surely is already on the path toward revolutionizing, military technology.
This means significantly improving weapons of mass destruction.
Voices have been raised calling for regulation of AI.
The Holy See is one of them.
Thus, in many circles there was great interest in the presentation of the new papal encyclical.
On May 26, 2026, Leo XIV did not disappoint that expectation and released Magnifica Humanitas.
It was not usual for the event to be led by the pope himself.
He began his brief address by thanking all those who had collaborated on the initiative, and “in particular, I wish to thank Mr. Olah for accepting our invitation,” said the Pontiff.
Who is this Mr. Olah, worthy of such a special distinction?
Why did the Holy See have such an interest in having him present?
Christopher Olah is a young Canadian researcher and co-founder of an artificial intelligence company called Anthropic BPC, a Public Benefit Corporation.
And why was he invited?
Olah himself would give the reason when, after the reading of the document and several interventions, he said:
“I want to begin with something that may sound somewhat strange coming from the co-founder of an AI company, someone who chose this work out of a desire to contribute to the wellbeing of humanity.”
But is that not what everyone says?
It is common in business discourse to claim the role of benefactor.
But immediately after that phrase, Olah added:
“We need moral voices that incentives cannot bend.”
And by “incentives” he was referring to that mighty gentleman known as Money.
A declaration of principles, no doubt.
Olah’s story includes having worked at AI companies from which he resigned precisely over ethical issues.
That is why Olah said that “if we want this technology to go in the right direction, it is enormously important that there be people outside those incentives… It is through dialogue and mutual effort […] that humanity will achieve great things.”
And after thanking the pope and the Church “for undertaking this work of discernment,” he added: “We often dwell on what divides us, but humanity, full of dignity and conscience, has a great deal of common ground.”
And the most serious point is this: “we are building systems that imitate the human intellect, but whose internal processes are completely opaque to us.”
Now we know the reason for the invitation.
In the next article we will examine the different business philosophies surrounding this highly significant issue.

Frankenstein as moral warning.
AI, opacity and human responsibility.
The need for voices beyond money.

Continue reading in Global Order and Geopolitics