LessWrong user debunks AI-writing claims about Pope's encyclical Magnifica Humanitas

In a recent LessWrong post, user bhauth pushes back against two front-page claims that Pope Francis' encyclical 'Magnifica Humanitas' was largely AI-written. The author argues that the Vatican has no need or desire to use AI—Catholic priests are trained to produce formal liturgical writing, and the encyclical was likely crafted by multiple collaborators. The U.S. government's use of AI for sensitive documents (e.g., tariffs, health policy) is a different case driven by political distrust, not comparable to the Vatican's traditional process.

Bhauth criticizes over-reliance on tools like Pangram, noting that previous encyclicals score 0% AI because they're in the training set. Em-dashes and 'not X but Y' constructions are common in centuries-old Christian writing, not evidence of AI. The post cites r/ChatGPT's skepticism and urges better human judgment over automated detectors. Suggesting a more useful application, bhauth proposes a site that rates AI-ness of Hacker News front-page posts, where detection would be more accurate.