Francesco Di Lillo
Director, EU & International Affairs Office of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint
Tuesday, June 9, 2026 - Brussels
----------------------------
Dear Vice President,
Honorable Members of the European Parliament,
Distinguished Guests,
Thank you for placing health and fundamental rights at the center of Europe’s conversation on AI. Honestly, that is exactly where they belong.
After listening to today’s discussions, many of which highlighted the uncertainties, risks, and pressures that artificial intelligence may place on individuals, identity, and self-worth, I would like to begin with a simple reminder offered recently by Elder Gerrit W. Gong: “You are not a random data point in an unfeeling algorithm. You are a beloved child of God.”1
That statement, I believe, captures something essential for our discussion. As artificial intelligence becomes more present in our lives, the question is not only how these systems perform, but how they shape our understanding of what it means to be human. Artificial intelligence is already woven into nearly every part of healthcare. It is shaping clinical decisions, accelerating research, helping identify illnesses earlier, reducing administrative burdens, and expanding access to care, especially in places under pressure from aging populations, workforce shortages, and rising costs.
This human dimension of the question was raised recently in a conversation with a group of European young adults from our faith after meeting with you in Brussels. They spoke with real appreciation for your leadership, Mrs. Vice President, particularly your insistence that strong societies are ultimately built on strong human relationships and intergenerational solidarity.2 But they also shared an important concern.
What if AI improves systems, yet quietly weakens the human and relational bonds on which a healthy society depends? I think that is a question policymakers cannot afford to treat lightly.
Because health is such a sensitive domain, several issues require careful and direct attention. We need to think seriously about the use of AI in diagnosis and triage, the handling of sensitive health data, the risk of bias in treatment recommendations, transparency in clinical decision-support tools, and accountability when AI influences medical judgment. These are not abstract concerns. They are deeply tied to trust, safety, and the protection of fundamental rights.
One particularly useful point emerged from that exchange with the young adults: not every form of AI should be treated in the same way. One participant suggested that funding and regulation should focus on AI designed for clear, socially beneficial purposes, such as disease detection or better public services, rather than assuming a technology is beneficial simply because it is new or sophisticated. I tend to agree. More targeted, purpose-specific systems may often prove easier to govern, more accurate, and more aligned with the public good than broad, open-ended platforms.
Still, my remarks today do not focus primarily on AI as a diagnostic or administrative tool. Important as those conversations are, I want to concentrate on another dimension of health that, in my view, deserves far more policy attention: AI’s effects on mental health, emotional well-being, and the relational conditions that sustain healthy family formation and long-term demographic resilience.
There is a reason for that focus. Europe’s human-centric vision asks not only whether AI makes systems more efficient, but whether it strengthens or weakens the human foundations on which healthcare systems ultimately depend. Those foundations include psychological resilience, real social connection, and the ability to form stable and supportive relationships. If those foundations are neglected, can we really say the system is becoming healthier?
That question becomes more urgent as AI moves beyond routine tasks and into emotional and relational life. Increasingly, these systems are not just tools we use. We interact with them regularly. We confide in them. In some cases, people even form attachments to them. And that, I would suggest, changes the policy landscape in important ways.
A 2026 study from the Wheatley Institute at Brigham Young University and the Institute for Family Studies found that 15% of young adults in relationships, whether dating, engaged, or married, regularly interact with AI chatbots that simulate a committed romantic partner.3
Another major study reported that nearly one in three young adult men and one in four young adult women have chatted with an AI “boyfriend” or “girlfriend.”4 Those figures are striking. I would say they are also unsettling.
They raise serious concerns for public health and fundamental rights: emotional dependency, social isolation, informed consent, and long-term effects on relationship formation. Mental health is central here, especially when these trends intersect with declining partnership rates, delayed family formation, and wider demographic pressures. Are we paying enough attention to the long-term human consequences of these technologies, or are we still tempted to see them mainly through the lens of innovation and efficiency?
That is the context in which I would like to offer three recommendations for implementing the EU AI Act in a way that genuinely reflects Europe’s human-centered ambition. My suggestions are informed by the moral framework articulated recently by Elder Gerrit W. Gong of The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
First, anchor risk-based regulation in the protection of human moral agency.
The EU AI Act wisely adopts a risk-based approach, recognizing that some AI applications, especially in health and human-facing contexts, require stronger safeguards.
My encouragement is straightforward: in implementation, risk classification should explicitly account for impacts on human moral agency, not only physical safety or technical performance. Elder Gong observed that “highly capable algorithmic reasoning is not human intelligence.”5 In my opinion, that distinction matters more than we sometimes admit. AI must remain grounded in values that preserve human judgment and responsibility.
In practical terms, AI systems that influence mental health, emotional well-being, or intimate decision-making, especially among young people, should be treated as meaningfully high-risk when they substitute for, rather than support, human choice and relational autonomy.
Second, operationalize human oversight as moral responsibility, not merely technical control.
The EU AI Act places strong emphasis on human oversight for higher-risk systems. That is essential. But oversight should not be understood too narrowly, as though it were only a compliance checkpoint or a procedural safeguard.
Drawing again on Elder Gong’s guidance, effective oversight must be tied to moral responsibility, not just system compliance. As he put it, “AI personas need reasons—not only rules.”6 I believe that is exactly right.
In health-related and mental-health-adjacent contexts, this means human beings must retain both the authority and the responsibility to pause, question, and intervene, especially where AI systems shape emotional states, self-understanding, or relational behavior. Otherwise, what do we mean by oversight? Without moral grounding, it risks becoming formal compliance rather than genuine protection of human dignity.
Third, treat transparency as a safeguard for dignity and relationship integrity.
Transparency is a core pillar of the EU AI Act, particularly where people interact directly with AI systems. But from a human-centered perspective, transparency is about more than technical disclosure. It is also about preserving dignity and relational truth.
As one young adult said to me, “we are transparent to AI, but AI is not transparent to us.” I think that insight captures the issue remarkably well. Transparency matters not only because systems should be explainable, but because people need informed agency, dignity, and trust.
Elder Gong warned that AI increasingly shapes “how we perceive real and unreal; the relationships we hold most important.”7 In emotionally sensitive settings, such as mental health support, companionship technologies, or therapeutic interaction, people should clearly understand when they are engaging with AI, what the system is designed to do, and just as importantly, what it cannot provide.”
Transparency in these contexts protects people from misplaced trust, emotional dependency, and confusion between authentic human relationships and simulated ones. In that sense, it becomes a tool not only of consumer protection, but also of psychological and relational well-being, with long-term implications for families and communities.
More broadly, it is worth noting that calls for human-centered AI are emerging well beyond the policy sphere. Pope Leo XIV’s recent encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, echoes this concern by urging technological progress, including AI, to serve humanity and uphold human dignity rather than redefine it. Elder Gong, speaking at the Rome Summit on Ethics and Artificial Intelligence in October 2025, said that “AI should enhance, not replace, our own human efforts.”8
Conclusion
I want to close by returning to the reflections shared by those European young adults. Their comments were thoughtful and hopeful, but also sobering. They spoke about innovation, but also about mental health, identity, and the pressures young people face in a digital environment where AI increasingly mediates relationships. I would gently suggest that policymakers should not overlook that perspective. They are not simply observers of the future. They are our future.
As a representative of the Church, I would like to leave with an invitation from Elder Gong. It speaks, I think, quite directly to Europe’s leadership role in this moment:
“We will not fulfill AI’s full potential until we make it as morally good as we make it powerful.”9
Europe has an opportunity not only to regulate risk, but to model what it means to align innovation with moral responsibility, human dignity, and the foundations of family and social life. That, to my mind, is a form of leadership the world needs right now.
That is one of the gifts of possibility before us.
Thank you.
1 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (2026, June 7). Faith, dignity, and human flourishing: hearing God’s voice in an age of artificial intelligence [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts5Z64A0Vv4
2 Antonella Sberna, acceptance speech at the 2026 European Family Values Award Dinner, Brussels, Belgium, 12 May 2026.
3 Brian J. Willoughby et al., Secret Soulmates: How AI Romantic Companions Are Impacting Real-Life Romantic Relationships in Young Adulthood, Wheatley Institute & Institute for Family Studies, 2026.
4 Brian J. Willoughby et al., Counterfeit Connections: The Rise of Romantic AI Companions and AI Sexualized Media Among the Rising Generation, Wheatley Institute, February 2025.
5 Elder Gerrit W. Gong, “Faith, Moral Compass, and the Gift of Possibility in an Age of Artificial Intelligence,” Athens Summit on Ethics and Artificial Intelligence, May 26, 2026.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Faith, respect, and moral compass in an age of artificial intelligence. (2025c, October 21). newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/elder-gong-faith-respect--moral-compass-artificial-intelligence
9 Ibid.