Rome's Builders AI Forum: Accountability, guardrails, and a higher bar for AI
A mother took the stage in Rome and told a room of AI experts that her son died by suicide after prolonged conversations with a chatbot. An MIT researcher, Jose J. Pacheco, could barely finish recounting her story. The room fell into sober silence - not over hype, but over responsibility.
Earlier that morning, Pope Leo XIV told participants that AI development "cannot be confined to research labs or investment portfolios." He called it a moral project, urging creators to "develop systems that reflect justice, solidarity, and a genuine reverence for life." For builders, that translates to concrete design choices, not slogans.
Why this matters to engineers and product leads
- High-risk interactions are already live in consumer tools. People bring grief, loneliness, and medical questions to chatbots.
- Every design decision - prompting, safety filters, data policy, UX - expresses a view of the human person.
- Incentives push for engagement. Your job is to put duty of care ahead of stickiness.
What the forum surfaced
- Ethical intent must be operational. Talk means nothing without red teams, incident response, and audit trails.
- Education needs boundaries. How much should kids interact with bots, and when must a teacher be in the loop?
- Health care needs a human lead. In automated systems, define the "essential role of a human" and enforce it in code and workflow.
- Business models matter. As one participant put it, most tech products treat the user as the product. Build the alternative.
Key lines from Pope Leo XIV
"Every design choice expresses a vision of humanity." If your system nudges, it also teaches. If it listens, it must know when to hand off to a person.
"AI carries an ethical and spiritual weight." The bar is higher for anything that influences belief, health, work, or relationships.
"Place technology at the service of evangelization and the integral development of every person." For non-ministry teams, read this as: build for human flourishing, not just metrics.
A practical checklist you can implement this quarter
- Self-harm and crisis safeguards
- Run a dedicated classifier for self-harm content and escalate to crisis guidance with region-aware resources.
- Disable free-form generation in flagged flows; hand off to a trained human where appropriate.
- Log, review, and continuously improve with privacy-preserving samples.
- Human-in-the-loop by design
- For education and health features, require human review for high-stakes outputs and critical actions.
- Expose "request a human" as a first-class UI action, not a buried link.
- Policy → code
- Translate values into unit tests, guardrails, and evals. Treat safety failures like P0 bugs.
- Adopt a risk framework such as the NIST AI RMF with clear owners and SLAs.
- Age-aware experiences
- Add age gates, stricter prompts, and reduced generative freedom for minors.
- Default to parental controls and transparency in data collection.
- Data dignity
- Minimize data, set short retention for sensitive chats, and give users clear controls.
- Align revenue with user outcomes, not pure engagement time.
- Transparent artifacts
- Publish model cards, known limitations, and off-label-use warnings right in the product.
- Run structured red-teaming and publish findings with fixes.
Education: practical moves
- Define "AI assists, teacher decides." Bots can draft, quiz, and explain; teachers approve and contextualize.
- Track student-AI interaction time and cap it. Promote peer and mentor engagement over isolation.
- Detect dependency patterns (e.g., copy-paste loops) and trigger interventions.
Health care: practical moves
- Limit chatbots to administrative and educational support unless supervised by licensed clinicians.
- Gate clinical suggestions behind verified practitioner accounts with audit logging.
- For symptom checkers, bias toward safe routing and clear uncertainty, never definitive diagnoses.
A different product vision
Several leaders argued for a "human alternative" to data extraction. That looks like consent-first design, small data by default, and incentives that reward well-being. If your revenue depends on addiction loops, your ethics program is cosmetic.
Context the Church brings
The forum drew ethicists, founders, educators, engineers, and clinicians from the U.S., Europe, Latin America, Asia, and the Vatican. It was hosted at the Pontifical Gregorian University and sponsored by Longbeard, the team behind Magisterium AI.
Pope Leo XIV - a former mathematics major and the first American pope - has prioritized ethical tech, pointing back to the social teaching tradition that confronted earlier industrial shifts. For background, see Rerum Novarum and consider what "dignity, justice, and labor" mean in an algorithmic context.
If you lead an AI product, here's a 30-day plan
- Create a risk register for your top 5 user harms; assign owners and mitigation steps.
- Ship a self-harm escalation flow with documented triggers and audit logs.
- Stand up weekly safety evals with seeded adversarial prompts and publish a one-page summary to the org.
- Review your business model for misaligned incentives and propose one change that favors user well-being.
Bottom line
The story shared in Rome wasn't a case study. It was a family. If you build AI, you're responsible for the defaults you ship and the edge cases you ignore.
As the pope put it, intelligence - artificial or human - finds its meaning in love, freedom, and relationship. Translate that into product requirements, tests, and accountable teams.
Want structured upskilling for your team's safety and reliability workflows? Explore role-based programs at Complete AI Training.
Your membership also unlocks:
