May is the month of playoffs—a time when fans ride the emotional waves of triumph and heartbreak, placing their faith in teams that might defy the odds. Sports narratives unfold with Shakespearean intensity. It is a season of unpredictability. But this May, beyond the arenas, millions waited with a different kind of anticipation—not for a buzzer-beater or a championship-clinching goal, but for the announcement of two ancient Latin words: Habemus Papam – We have a Pope!
This centuries-old Catholic tradition captured eyes far beyond the Vatican. It unfolded amidst a world filled with anxieties and uncertainties, geopolitical tensions, and rapidly evolving AI technology. This technology has generated an unprecedented surge in AI-driven betting, with reportedly over $40 million dollars wagered on the Papal prediction markets.1 The level of betting interest and monetary transactions for this deeply spiritual process rivaled or even surpassed those for many professional sports playoffs. What did the 2025 Papal Conclave symbolize in the era of AI?
The 2025 Papal Conclave took place on May 7-8, 2025, in the Sistine Chapel, following the death of Pope Francis on April 21.2 The election of Pope Leo XIV was a stunning outcome to the forecasts of bookmakers, media experts, and Vatican “insiders.” Being American was widely viewed as an underdog variable. Ranked 10th or lower by analysts and media outlets, his rise to the papacy was a reminder that human destiny—whether in faith or competition—cannot be reduced to mere probability. While AI systems quantify, predict, and optimize, the secret ballot protects the mystery of human choice. It preserves the radical possibility of Divine intervention, of collective wisdom rising above external pressure. Pope Leo XIV’s selection was an outcome no algorithm could have confidently predicted— proof that no matter how much data we feed into our models, the work of the Holy Spirit remains beyond computational reach.
The contrast between faith-driven discernment and AI-powered obsession with certainty is telling. The Conclave thrives on Divine mystery, isolating decision-makers from external data and influence, and ensuring each vote is cast in an environment of humility and human reflection where cardinals seclude themselves, pray, and engage in reflective silence. AI-driven betting, on the other hand, nudges toward statistically optimal wagers drawn on personalized behavioral and spending patterns.3 4 The endless odds adjustment, infinite engagement loops, and psychological triggers are a hook. The impact of alerts like “Gamble Wisely” or “Know Your Limits” may be limited.5 Do they mean “Lose Strategically” or “Take Calculated Risks with Informed Decisions”? But how can players truly exercise discernment and act with prudence when AI enabled in-game gambling surreptitiously conceals risks behind an enticing veneer of play, rendering informed, strategic decision-making nearly impossible?
This gambling creates a fertile ground for normalization of psychological arousal, reward anticipation, and high-risk impulsive decision making. Many players operate on autopilot, barely registering the effects of embedded subliminal messages meticulously engineered by behavioral psychology to bypass rational decision-making. Microtransactions and instant reward mechanisms foster the illusion of winning, tricking players into believing they are winning even when the rewards are superficial and insignificant. The clear beneficiaries are the gambling operations, which profit not only through the influx of money but also by harvesting personal data and behavioral patterns. More importantly, even if players are winning in a monetary sense, they are losing by dulling human instinct and ‘natural’ alarm bells.
In AI-powered in-game gambling, every click and every decision is closely monitored and learned, continuously affecting the odds of winning. AI models learn what triggers engagement and steer users toward more bets, refining itself endlessly. In-game gambling is marketed as a risk-mitigating or harm reduction approach to implicit minimum financial damage. In-game prompts and nudging thrive on fabricated certainty, inviting players to a deep rabbit hole where probabilities appear more like promises.
This juxtaposition – between our relentless quest for certainty and the diminishing role of innate human instinct – leads to a critical reflection: In an age where AI models are engineered to render the uncertain more predictable, should we allow its influence in domains where unpredictability is meant to thrive? The thrill of the unknown is not merely a component of sports; it is intrinsic to the human experience. Personal relationships and encounters with the Divine offer chance opportunities that shape our lives. Yet, AI-enabled in-game gambling platforms have attempted to rewrite that truth, fabricating a world where odds replace intuition, and the seductive promise of predictability conceals the inherent uncertainty of every outcome. The rise of AI-enabled in-game gambling reminds us that uncertainty is not something to be engineered away—it is a sacred constant that should be embraced.
The 2025 Papal Conclave, in contrast, stands as a testament that some decisions—whether spiritual, personal, or deeply human—must be shielded from external influences, whether they come from authoritative opinions or the relentless surge of digital narratives. It symbolized the deliberate elimination of ‘noise’—rumors, expert predictions, psychological manipulation, and the influence of real-time analytics. It was more than just a consensus-making process. In an era where AI-fueled betting, behavioral profiling, and targeted prompts attempt to map and predict every human move, the Conclave returned to its ancient form: handwritten ballots, sealed doors, and trust in the ineffable. It was also a lesson for the digital age’s obsession with foreknowledge. When the noise from worldly affairs and computational reach is removed, human existence can emerge as an enlightening and thriving experience.
May 2025 was nothing short of mystical – a month where divine mystery met the high-stakes drama of sports playoffs. As we watched white smoke billowing from the Sistine Chapel’s chimney, accompanied by the eruption of cheers from St. Peter’s Square and Game 7 buzzer-beaters lightening up our screens, we were reminded that the beauty of human experience lies in the unknown, unpredictable, and uncertain – and in our human capacity to embrace these mysteries rather than submit to engineered certainty.
References
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2025/05/08/at-least-two-pope-bettors-made-more-than-50000-on-robert-francis-prevosts-longshot-selection/
- https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-05/habemus-papam.html
- Melhart, David, Julian Togelius, Benedikte Mikkelsen, Christoffer Holmgård, and Georgios N. Yannakakis. “The ethics of AI in games.” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 15, no. 1 (2023): 79-92.
- Ghaharian, Kasra, Fatemeh Binesh, Marta Soligo, Lukasz Golab, and Brett Abarbanel. “AI ethics in a controversial industry: the case of gambling and its ethical paradox.” AI and Ethics (2024): 1-17.
- Newall, Philip WS, Leonardo Weiss-Cohen, Henrik Singmann, Lukasz Walasek, and Elliot A. Ludvig. “Impact of the “when the fun stops, stop” gambling message on online gambling behaviour: A randomised, online experimental study.” The lancet public health 7, no. 5 (2022): e437-e446.
Views and opinions expressed by authors and editors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the view of AI and Faith or any of its leadership.
