The Naysayer Hall of Fame is filled with brilliant minds who only saw smoke where others saw sparks.

A century ago, Lee De Forest, a pioneer in radio technology, argued, “While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, yet commercially and financially, I consider it an impossibility; a development of which we need not waste little time in dreaming.”

Lord Kelvin, a British mathematician and physicist, refused to join the Aeronautical Society in 1896, writing in his RSVP that “I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning.”

To be fair, there’s no complete record of technologies that went boom and bust; none of us would have the time to read such a lengthy log, on account of all of the Netflix binging we do these days — now even in airplanes, and I suppose hot air balloons, too. Skepticism can be healthy, even if your forecast falls short.

Today, you’ll find plenty of exceedingly bright and respected thinkers who are outspoken about how artificial intelligence threatens to destroy our way of life. The arguments are many: it will make people generally less intelligent, more lazily reliant on technology, willing to dry the seas to cool our microchips, and disengaged from the fires of curious thought and inquisitiveness needed to advance our civilization. The technology might even turn on us one day.

Let me take this opportunity to say that I, too, agree that those are bad things. We don’t want those results. Side effects include death, destruction, and the crumbling of society, you say? No thanks!

But I think this may be a dramatic false dilemma; the “AI good!” vs “AI bad!” debate is reductive and tiresome. Outcomes depend on a host of factors, not the least of which is the way in which it is used (shocking, I know). And I think we’re not talking nearly enough about the potential for AI to do some good in this world when it’s applied to very ordinary human problems.

AI is advancing at a tremendous pace, and it’s becoming more personified with each new update and iteration. The standard interface of AI involves humanlike language, voices, and surely soon, visual avatars that look and move like human faces. We’re hearing more and more about “AI agents,” which are AIs that can do more than just chat; they can be assigned quasi-complex tasks, with control over tools, applications, and systems that — up until now — have required humans. The field of robotics has come roaring back to the forefront of technology, giving AI not just agency but actual bodies. Real people are using AI for “real life” purposes, well beyond work. They’re having conversations, giving them names, faces and personalities, and turning to them for advice, well-being, and even friendship.

If you scoff at that, my goal here is to help you expand your vision.

Recently, I used the voice mode of ChatGPT at dinner to ask about the vegetable edamame, which I didn’t know how to pronounce. I made a low-effort dad joke to make my family laugh (I got grinning eye rolls instead), and shockingly, even the AI gave a sarcastic chuckle. It then threw a much better zinger right back at me, unprompted. It was an incredible Star Wars droid-level exchange.

AI is becoming more humanlike in its look, sound, productivity, and even its role in society; that is just a fact in 2026. The economy and capitalist forces ensure that’s going to continue. But along the way, who’s making sure AI is going to be more humanlike in the ways that really matter for a better world?

That brings up a foundational question: What are the best parts of humanity we want to pass on? If emulating humanity is an inherent goal of AI (and it is), what’s on our checklist? Do we even have a checklist? (And did anybody bring a pen??!)

In the development of AI, what if we find a mechanism by which we can proliferate the best virtues and values of humanity in ways we’ve never before been able to accomplish?

Consider Bellarmine’s own: intrinsic dignity, social responsibility, integrity, and hospitality. As a man of faith, I’ll add peacemaking, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

What might this look like in real life, when AI is able to support these values?

Imagine care facilities — hospitals and nursing homes, for example — where loneliness begins to lose ground, thanks to personified AIs that can engage with people and patients in person-centered ways, telling and listening to stories, filling empty hours with meaningful dialogue, and perhaps most importantly, helping to ensure people receive the excellent care they need and deserve, in a human-centered way.

Imagine the poorest in the world, who lack the means of a quality education and certainly have little hope of finding a knowledgeable, patient, and accessible tutor. Personified AI gives these children (and adults!) an on-demand teacher with the boundless scientific intelligence of Albert Einstein and the gentle emotional intelligence of Fred Rogers. 

Imagine AI supporting the public good by making nonprofit work more sustainable; supporting objectivity and moderation in civic and political processes; helping people fight addiction or shuffle through loss; just reminding the anxious to breathe, or offering the good conversation of a faithful companion when there’s no one else.

Yes, there are plenty of dangers, too. How do we ensure AI avoids distinctly human traits like selfishness, bias, and our hefty toolbelt of destructive tendencies? What should be avoided? Where are the lines between safety and censorship and terribly dangerous ideas? How do we even agree? This, I think, is one of the most compelling tasks of our time — and it’s a dialogue reliant upon everyone: engineers, nurses, graphic designers, truck drivers, office workers, woodworkers, young kids, retirees, and college professors.

Even assuming that a truly humanistic AI can and would be developed, there awaits a far more practical argument made against our friendly AI bots deployed to empty chairs, whiteboards, and bedsides: “Isn’t it better if real-life people did these things instead of AI?”

Yes, a thousand times yes! But what about all the times — every day — when these roles go unfilled, either from scarcity of warm bodies or willingness? If humans can be mobilized to exercise shared values and eliminate loneliness, scale up educational opportunity globally, and ensure widespread accessibility of care, so be it — and may that day come quickly and may we never slow our pursuit of it.

But until that day comes, I believe we can also strive for a day much sooner when personified AI can reflect the best side of humanity in its shiny metal face. The means may be artificial, but the good can be profoundly real.

Adam Elias is the assistant provost for online and innovative learning. 

*Image created by AI directed by Adam Elias