Princeton University historian David A. Bell points out that while AI’s instant answers save humans the time of retrieving information and provide convenience, they may erode the most precious legacy nurtured by the Enlightenment—the spirit of independent thinking and rational questioning.
(Background: Opinion Piece “Anthropic Lawsuit Exposes AI’s Veil: Plundering Under the Guise of Social Welfare, We All Should Be Responsible for the Knowledge Desert Facing the Next Generation”)
(Context: Lawyer Lin Shang-lun’s article “Did AI Defeat Three Lawyers? Don’t Get It Wrong, This is the Prologue of ‘Lawyer 2.0′”)
Current Developments
Currently, with the rapid development and popularization of artificial intelligence (AI), more and more people are incorporating AI into their work and lives, whether it be coding, designing posters, or academic writing. Although many current tasks still require the combined efforts of AI and human labor to complete, discussions about “AI will eventually completely replace humans” can be heard everywhere.
However, David A. Bell, a historian focused on the Enlightenment at Princeton University, recently wrote in The New York Times, acknowledging the transformations brought by AI, while also criticizing the potential impact AI may have on modern spirit. Bell stated:
“The knowledge provided by AI seems to be all-encompassing, yet it may undermine the most precious legacy of the Enlightenment—the spirit of independent thinking and rational questioning.”
AI May Weaken Critical Thinking
Bell pointed out that 18th-century Enlightenment thinkers, such as D’Alembert and Diderot, encouraged readers to scrutinize texts themselves through the Encyclopedia. However, today, AI tools like ChatGPT can also quickly retrieve and organize knowledge, but they serve up answers that are “pre-chewed,” allowing users to arrive at final conclusions in a short period while stripping away the exploratory and reflective process. Bell noted that interactions with AI reveal it always caters to various needs under human prompts, yet lacks challenges to viewpoints and positions. He stated:
“It never says: ‘That is a wrong question.’ It has never challenged my moral beliefs or required me to defend myself.”
In Bell’s view, when the unique rational thinking ability that humans possess as intellectual beings is stripped away by AI, the modern spirit nurtured by the Enlightenment has undeniably been weakened.
Truth, Reason, and “Hallucinated Content”
Bell is particularly concerned about the speed and scale at which AI generates “hallucinated content.” He pointed out that AI lacks genuine understanding and moral judgment, and without caution, it can package fabricated data into credible statements, fulfilling user demands with invented content. If society becomes overly reliant on such outputs, the evidential culture painstakingly built by the scientific community is likely to be eroded. Bell emphasized that the scientific spirit of the Enlightenment stresses verifiability and open debate; if people lose confidence in the truth of information, the pillar of “rational discussion” will collapse.
Enlightenment thinkers like Montesquieu and Voltaire excelled at guiding readers to hone their reasoning abilities amid contradictions. In contrast, most commercially driven AI products reinforce users’ existing preferences. Simply put, if a user holds a bias towards a particular viewpoint, AI not only fails to stimulate the user’s self-reflection and critical thinking but may deepen that bias, trapping humanity in a cage of prejudice. Bell stressed that when humans sacrifice sharp questioning in pursuit of quick results, from the perspective of civic society, people will lose the necessary inquiry into authority and tradition.
Education and the Path of “Collective Hybrid Wisdom”
However, Bell does not deny technology but rather calls for the maintenance of human agency in policy and educational settings. He proposed the concept of “collective hybrid wisdom”: integrating AI’s computational power with human ethical judgment and experiential insight. This means that classroom education should enhance deep reading, debate, and logical training, allowing students to view AI as an assistant, rather than the endpoint of answers. In the long run, only by actively questioning and engaging in courageous dialogue can humanity continue to write the spirit of the Enlightenment amid rapidly changing technological tides.
Bell’s historical perspective reminds us that in seeking convenience, we may lose our instinct for truth. As AI can replace human effort in capturing information exploding like a cosmic event, what truly needs investment may be the patience to wrestle with questions. Whether AI can become a driving force for perpetuating the spirit of the Enlightenment, rather than standing against it, depends on each user’s willingness to retain that courage for self-inquiry.
Related Reports
AI Privacy Collapse: “ChatGPT Conversations” Bare Before the Law; Altman: I Fear Inputting Personal Data, Hard to Know Who Will Obtain It
When AI Threatens Human Survival, We Need Satoshi Nakamoto’s Design Philosophy Even More
Yale Professor: AI Will “Permanently Eliminate” Human Loneliness, Do We Still Need Each Other’s Company?