Pope and late radio host urge community action against AI dehumanisation

Peter Lewis, writing in The Guardian Opinion, has drawn parallels between the late Australian radio presenter James Valentine and Pope Leo XIV, arguing that both figures offer a unified challenge to humanity regarding the future of artificial intelligence. Lewis suggests that the late presenter’s approach to audience engagement mirrors the Pope’s recent call for active community participation to resist the dehumanising effects of corporate power and automated systems.

Valentine, who passed away in April 2026 with a funeral tribute held at the Sydney Town Hall, is remembered for creating a "living organism" of community interaction through his "people’s poll." Lewis, who previously ran these polls, noted that the initiative explored listener habits with specific statistics, such as 58 per cent of listeners showering in the morning and 42 per cent in the evening. He described this work not as frivolous, but as an intentional effort to sustain those who joined in, a spirit Lewis argues aligns with the moral clarity found in the Pope’s recent writings.

Pope Leo XIV, the first US-born pontiff, released the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas a few weeks prior to the article’s publication in June 2026. The document audits the risks of artificial intelligence, citing concerns over wealth concentration, automated state-sponsored killing, the erasure of cultural diversity, and the exploitation of workers in the global south. Lewis notes that the Pope, who has opposed Trump administration ICE raids and "reckless warmongering," frames these challenges through biblical metaphors, contrasting the brittle uniformity of the Tower of Babel with the shared enterprise of Nehemiah rebuilding Jerusalem.

The encyclical advocates for the principle of "subsidiarity," which Dr Michael Walker explains is central to Catholic social teaching. This concept vests authority in community participants serving the common good, rather than in centralised governments or corporations. Lewis argues that without this conscious rebalancing of power, technology risks dehumanising society by prioritising the pursuit of the material over human dignity, a sentiment echoed by Valentine’s son Roy, who noted his father asked "How do you want to live?" rather than "What do you want to be?"

Lewis concludes that resisting the "digital Babel" of AI requires more than government regulation or consumer boycotts; it demands collective action to preserve human connection. He cites the Pope’s assertion that true progress stems from an intelligence willing to listen and a will that seeks unity, urging readers to join the "ensemble" of active makers rather than becoming passive consumers of automated services.