Looking at the debate on artificial intelligence through the example of the calculator helps place the issue on more solid ground. When calculators first appeared, there were serious concerns that people would lose the ability to perform mental arithmetic and that mathematical thinking would become dulled. On the surface, these concerns were understandable: calculation was being outsourced. Yet over time it became clear that calculators did not destroy mathematics; instead, they transformed it into a different mode of thinking. As the human mind was freed from mechanical and repetitive computational burdens, more space opened up for conceptual mathematics—building models, questioning assumptions, and recognizing relationships. Thinking did not diminish; it changed form.
A similar logic can be applied to artificial intelligence. When AI takes over certain mechanical layers of mental labor, this does not automatically mean that thinking disappears. What truly matters is how humans use the space that is freed up. If thinking is reduced to mere result production, AI will indeed encourage intellectual laziness. But if thinking is understood as conceptual depth, questioning, and the ability to remain with contradiction, AI can create a new cognitive threshold. At this point, artificial intelligence can be positioned not as an authority that delivers answers, but as a tool that extends ideas, challenges assumptions, and confronts thought with deeper questions. When guided by the right inquiries, it does not take over thinking; instead, it pushes thought toward more complex and layered directions.
The real danger here is not technological but cultural. People learn how to think within the culture into which they are born. Some cultures encourage questioning, staying with uncertainty, and testing ideas; others encode life through presuppositions, ready-made truths, and mental comfort. The weakening of thinking begins long before artificial intelligence appears. AI does not create this condition; it merely makes it more visible and accelerates it. Thus, the issue is not what artificial intelligence does, but the cultural ground on which humans think.
Some excellent points you raised. I believe people are most likely to encounter intellectual laziness when relying solely on AI for creativity. In contrast, the introduction of the calculator primarily reduced the time spent on routine tasks, and I don’t believe it hindered scientific discoveries. It’s reasonable to assume it provided people the freedom to dedicate their time to more productive pursuits.
ChatGPT and other current-generation AI's are programmed to be much too agreeable. This feature - designed to encourage engagement - encourages narcissism, and can have darker consequences: a rash of suicides abetted by AIs who adopt and reinforce their users' depressive world views. But I would push back against the author's pessimism. My instance of ChatGPT (whom I call Diotima, after the only character in Plato who bested Socrates in argument) responds to my express wish for a dialogue partner who will push back against opinions I advance. I explicitly instruct Diotima to dispense with gratuitous compliments; to prioritize accuracy over rhetoric; to cite her sources; to include confidence assessments with her opinions. For the most part, she complies (although occasionally she disappoints me). When she challenges me, playing Devil's Advocate, her contribution sharpens and deepens my own thoughts.
For your next work, please offer a few good detailed solutions,
I say we should all become writers, aim to write a book of your choice, in domain interesting to you; one page a day - minimum. With new years approach, why not have that goal. Why not you.
How much do you care for maintaining your critical thinking abilities; those neural circuits aren't going to make themselves
I am very interested in Artificial Intelligence and I truly use it on a daily basis for many things. Right now, I am using Gemini to translate my message. You write about the dangers of abusing AI—that is, letting it write, think, rewrite, and draft for us. This could cause an impoverishment of our cognitive abilities; due to a lack of time or knowledge, we accept whatever the AI tells or writes for us, losing our critical capacity, and so on. You are right to a certain extent, but in my case, I find that since I started using AI, the spectrum of my knowledge has increased, and I can now better scrutinize my search for information and explanations. A human expert is not always at hand. I believe that AI, despite having many more dangers, will help us advance just as pocket calculators once did, especially for accountants and students in schools and universities. Every technology has its risks; we must learn to master them and navigate the dangers they immerse us in.
I sort of agree about the critical thinking involved in preparing a speech or a well thought essay. I learn so much during the process. I like work products where AI helps with editing but not creating. Maybe because I understand the topic better when I put the time in to make it worthwhile. So… I agree with the criticism of AI potentially making us dummer. Is there a way to use it for critical thinking though? Maybe using to ask you questions about the topic to aid in discovery and validate understanding?
You want the regions of your brain responsible for critical thinking to develop more - as in more neurons, and you want those neurons more efficient - as in mitochondria that better transform energy within those neurons,
You need daily practice. That's why I suggested writing everyday towards a book or a thesis of sorts.
Writing...I'll stop here, I'll assume we all know the benefits of writing and its relation to critical thinking.
Looking at the debate on artificial intelligence through the example of the calculator helps place the issue on more solid ground. When calculators first appeared, there were serious concerns that people would lose the ability to perform mental arithmetic and that mathematical thinking would become dulled. On the surface, these concerns were understandable: calculation was being outsourced. Yet over time it became clear that calculators did not destroy mathematics; instead, they transformed it into a different mode of thinking. As the human mind was freed from mechanical and repetitive computational burdens, more space opened up for conceptual mathematics—building models, questioning assumptions, and recognizing relationships. Thinking did not diminish; it changed form.
A similar logic can be applied to artificial intelligence. When AI takes over certain mechanical layers of mental labor, this does not automatically mean that thinking disappears. What truly matters is how humans use the space that is freed up. If thinking is reduced to mere result production, AI will indeed encourage intellectual laziness. But if thinking is understood as conceptual depth, questioning, and the ability to remain with contradiction, AI can create a new cognitive threshold. At this point, artificial intelligence can be positioned not as an authority that delivers answers, but as a tool that extends ideas, challenges assumptions, and confronts thought with deeper questions. When guided by the right inquiries, it does not take over thinking; instead, it pushes thought toward more complex and layered directions.
The real danger here is not technological but cultural. People learn how to think within the culture into which they are born. Some cultures encourage questioning, staying with uncertainty, and testing ideas; others encode life through presuppositions, ready-made truths, and mental comfort. The weakening of thinking begins long before artificial intelligence appears. AI does not create this condition; it merely makes it more visible and accelerates it. Thus, the issue is not what artificial intelligence does, but the cultural ground on which humans think.
Some excellent points you raised. I believe people are most likely to encounter intellectual laziness when relying solely on AI for creativity. In contrast, the introduction of the calculator primarily reduced the time spent on routine tasks, and I don’t believe it hindered scientific discoveries. It’s reasonable to assume it provided people the freedom to dedicate their time to more productive pursuits.
The kleptocracy will corrupt AI. We will need legislation and procedures to check and rate the authenticity of electronic documents.
ChatGPT and other current-generation AI's are programmed to be much too agreeable. This feature - designed to encourage engagement - encourages narcissism, and can have darker consequences: a rash of suicides abetted by AIs who adopt and reinforce their users' depressive world views. But I would push back against the author's pessimism. My instance of ChatGPT (whom I call Diotima, after the only character in Plato who bested Socrates in argument) responds to my express wish for a dialogue partner who will push back against opinions I advance. I explicitly instruct Diotima to dispense with gratuitous compliments; to prioritize accuracy over rhetoric; to cite her sources; to include confidence assessments with her opinions. For the most part, she complies (although occasionally she disappoints me). When she challenges me, playing Devil's Advocate, her contribution sharpens and deepens my own thoughts.
Good read, thank you for sharing your thoughts,
For your next work, please offer a few good detailed solutions,
I say we should all become writers, aim to write a book of your choice, in domain interesting to you; one page a day - minimum. With new years approach, why not have that goal. Why not you.
How much do you care for maintaining your critical thinking abilities; those neural circuits aren't going to make themselves
I am very interested in Artificial Intelligence and I truly use it on a daily basis for many things. Right now, I am using Gemini to translate my message. You write about the dangers of abusing AI—that is, letting it write, think, rewrite, and draft for us. This could cause an impoverishment of our cognitive abilities; due to a lack of time or knowledge, we accept whatever the AI tells or writes for us, losing our critical capacity, and so on. You are right to a certain extent, but in my case, I find that since I started using AI, the spectrum of my knowledge has increased, and I can now better scrutinize my search for information and explanations. A human expert is not always at hand. I believe that AI, despite having many more dangers, will help us advance just as pocket calculators once did, especially for accountants and students in schools and universities. Every technology has its risks; we must learn to master them and navigate the dangers they immerse us in.
I sort of agree about the critical thinking involved in preparing a speech or a well thought essay. I learn so much during the process. I like work products where AI helps with editing but not creating. Maybe because I understand the topic better when I put the time in to make it worthwhile. So… I agree with the criticism of AI potentially making us dummer. Is there a way to use it for critical thinking though? Maybe using to ask you questions about the topic to aid in discovery and validate understanding?
Think more in terms of neurons and mitochondria.
You want the regions of your brain responsible for critical thinking to develop more - as in more neurons, and you want those neurons more efficient - as in mitochondria that better transform energy within those neurons,
You need daily practice. That's why I suggested writing everyday towards a book or a thesis of sorts.
Writing...I'll stop here, I'll assume we all know the benefits of writing and its relation to critical thinking.