By JoAnne Wadsworth, Communications Consultant, G20 Interfaith Forum
———
This is the third post in a series covering IF20’s four draft discussion papers, with three developed in response to one of the priorities of the 2026 U.S. G20 presidency. This post gives an overview of “AI Innovation and Human Dignity,” written by Dr. Marianna Richardson, IF20 Director of Communications, together with John C. Havens of the IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems and William Jones of the Future of Life Institute, with contributions from religious representatives across a wide range of traditions. It is IF20’s first formal AI policy document, and the full paper is available for those who want the detail behind this summary.
The United States has made pioneering innovation in AI and emerging technologies the third of its priorities for the 2026 G20 presidency, with the stated aims of accelerating development and adoption, deploying emerging technologies to drive economic growth and human flourishing, and strengthening manufacturing, supply chains, and technology talent.
The IF20 paper takes the language of human flourishing seriously (Executive Order 14179 directs AI development toward exactly that) and makes a straightforward observation about scope. That focus aligns closely with what religious leaders have been arguing for. But it should encompass the world, not only the United States.
IF20 has convened interfaith conversation on AI since the 2023 G20 in India. This is the first time it has put concrete recommendations on paper.
What the Paper Covers
It opens with what governments and international bodies have already done, and where the gaps remain. The G7’s Hiroshima Process produced eleven guiding principles for organizations developing advanced AI, though no institution was created to produce or enforce standards. The UN has issued recommendations, established the Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies, and in August 2025 created both an Independent International Scientific Panel on AI and a Global Dialogue on AI Governance. International governance nonetheless remains fragmented, without binding authority or reliable mechanisms for equitable access—and the digital divide is widening rather than closing.
The heart of the paper is a survey of eleven faith perspectives, and what emerges is a set of concerns that recur across traditions that agree on little else. The Vatican has been the most sustained voice, from the Rome Call for AI Ethics through Antiqua et Nova to Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, which argues that the use of AI cannot be morally neutral and that human responsibility must be defined at every stage. Eastern Orthodox thought warns against attributing quasi-spiritual authority to machines, describing it as a modern form of idolatry. Muslim scholars have argued for preserving the right to refuse AI integration, and caution against relying on AI for religious rulings, which demand lived context and deep scholarship. Jewish thinkers suggest the most distinctive contributions will come from communal practice rather than abstract theology—Sabbath moderation strategies being one model for adapting to new technology while preserving core values. Buddhist voices press for frameworks that protect human attention and intention. Sikh perspectives ask that AI promote seva, selfless service, and prioritize benefits for the vulnerable. Shinto thought offers a kami model emphasizing symbiosis, locality, and accountability over a centralized intelligence. India’s 2026 AI Impact Summit concluded with declarations grounded in Hindu principles of welfare and universal happiness.
The paper distills three concerns that run through nearly all of them:
- what AI will mean for warfare, for the environment, and for the gap between countries with access and countries without;
- what it is already doing to young people’s relationships, communication, and learning;
- and what it will do to personal privacy and religious belief.
It also records where faith communities see genuine promise when governance keeps pace: education, healthcare access, livelihoods, and humanitarian response.
A section on current best practices follows. Religious groups are developing benchmarks that would have AI models answer questions about a tradition from within that tradition’s own sources, paired with an invitation to explore other perspectives. Legislation is advancing at the state level, with Utah’s Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy and its suite of 2024 and 2025 laws offered as a working model. AI curricula are emerging for faith leaders and congregations alongside national programs. A policy brief on children argues that current safety frameworks focus too narrowly on technical risk and overlook children’s developmental need for real human relationships. Courts are becoming a venue for redress, from a record copyright settlement over training data to litigation following a teenager’s death after an unhealthy dependence on a chatbot. And standards bodies including IEEE and BSI are building measures of AI’s impact on human wellbeing.
What the Paper Recommends
For religious and interfaith communities, two recommendations:
- Develop AI curricula for adults, parents, children, and faith leaders. Teach AI literacy and responsible use, with attention to the distinct concerns of different traditions.
- Establish benchmarks specific to religious traditions. Require that models answer questions about a tradition from the consensus of its adherents, alongside an invitation to further dialogue — honoring each tradition, serving the user, and reducing bias.
For G20 governments, four:
- Protect freedom of religion or belief in AI policy. Ensure that AI’s impact on FoRB, and its intersection with other rights, is explicitly recognized in global frameworks.
- Keep personhood human. AI systems should not be granted legal personhood or designed to mimic it in ways that shield companies from accountability. Legal responsibility must rest with the providers who build and deploy them.
- Create a global task force on AI and child well-being. Lead the development of standards for AI chatbots, and require companies to verify benefit and safety for young people before wide deployment.
- Establish international standards and regulatory oversight. Covering human flourishing as a design priority, inclusion of marginalized voices in design, reduced environmental harm, protection of dignified human work, cooperation with religious and community leaders, a ban on autonomous weapons, and access to AI technologies for the Global South at free or reduced cost.
Read together, the first three papers make a single argument: that the priorities of the 2026 G20 presidency (economic growth, energy security, and AI innovation) will be judged by whether the poorest and most vulnerable share in what they produce, and that faith communities have both the standing and the reach to hold that question open. All three remain discussion drafts. Those working at any of these intersections are encouraged to read the full papers and weigh in ahead of the Salt Lake City gathering in October.
———
JoAnne Wadsworth is a Communications Consultant for the G20 Interfaith Forum Association and Editor of the Viewpoints blog, IF20’s platform for commentary at the intersection of faith and global policy. She has covered the work of the Forum across multiple G20 cycles, producing summaries, articles, and editorial content that bring the voices of interfaith leaders and scholars to a broader audience. Her writing engages with topics spanning environmental governance, religious freedom, anti-racism, poverty and inequality, and the role of faith in multilateral policy processes.