Subscribe
Faced with the risk of an atrophy of critical thinking mediated by algorithms from Silicon Valley or Beijing, Europe must rediscover its humanistic tradition. Regulating markets is not enough; it must also defend the freedom of the human mind.
For years, we imagined artificial intelligence as a tool designed solely to replace physical labor, optimize logistics, or automate repetitive and bureaucratic tasks. It was the reassuring narrative of technology as a mere extension of human hands. Today, however, the trajectory of this revolution has changed radically. AI is no longer simply transforming the way we produce or work—it is beginning to reshape, quietly yet pervasively, the way we think.
Bringing attention back to this anthropological question is an experimental study conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The findings open an unsettling window onto the future of knowledge: students who used ChatGPT to write an essay displayed lower engagement in several key neural networks during the task compared with their peers who worked without artificial assistance. Even more striking was what emerged over time: many of the “assisted” students remembered only a small portion—or none at all—of what they had formally written.
It is important to emphasize that these are preliminary findings requiring further confirmation and that they do not justify definitive conclusions. It would be an ideological mistake to turn a scientific study into a technophobic manifesto against innovation. Yet the research raises a question that Western civilization cannot afford to ignore: what happens when we delegate not merely the execution of a task to a machine, but the very process of reasoning itself?
This is, in all likelihood, the most crucial cultural and political question of our time.
Technology and the Faculty of Judgment
For centuries, technological progress in the West has expanded humanity’s physical and empirical capacities. The wheel extended our mobility through space; Galileo’s telescope broadened the limits of our vision; the computer multiplied our computational speed. Generative artificial intelligence, by contrast, intervenes in a faculty infinitely more intimate and delicate: the biological and logical construction of thought itself.
Writing has never been the mere transcription of pre-existing information. To write is to organize ideas, select arguments through the discipline of logic, establish new connections, and distinguish what is essential from what is superfluous. Fundamentally, it is an exercise in intellectual discipline that compels individuals to clarify, first and foremost for themselves, the meaning of words and things. When a substantial part of this effort is entrusted to a predictive algorithm, the risk is not simply that we obtain a text that is more or less elegant. The real danger lies in interrupting the inner discipline that makes independent judgment possible.
European conservative thought, from Edmund Burke to Roger Scruton, has always grounded the idea of freedom in individual responsibility and in the cultivation of virtue through habit and effort. Human institutions and cognitive abilities are not assets inherited once and for all; they are muscles of the spirit that atrophy if they are not constantly exercised. If technology eliminates the “effort of construction,” it simultaneously eliminates the process of learning. There is an ontological difference between using a tool to deepen an idea and using it to avoid the effort of conceiving it. In the first case, AI multiplies human ingenuity; in the second, it becomes a convenient shortcut that domesticates the mind, rendering it passive.
The Roots of Education and the Threat of Homogenization
This anthropological transformation affects schools and universities first and foremost, but its consequences extend far beyond the classroom. They concern the very essence of citizenship and the survival of free societies.
European philosophical tradition has always attributed an intrinsically formative and political value to the act of thinking. Socrates did not hand ready-made answers to his disciples; he demanded the effort of questioning. Plato described dialogue as the place where the soul painstakingly educates itself toward truth. Aristotle regarded constant practice as the royal road to the formation of moral and intellectual character. Centuries later, at the heart of the totalitarian twentieth century, Hannah Arendt reminded us that thinking is not a luxury reserved for academics but the primary condition of political freedom. Without critical thought, the individual becomes a manipulable atom, incapable of resisting either mass conformity or technocratic power.
From this perspective, artificial intelligence represents an unprecedented challenge not because it is superior to humanity, but because it risks making the daily exercise of human thought seem unnecessary. Every civilization has the duty to pass on to future generations not merely an inventory of knowledge but a method for interpreting reality. In Europe, this extraordinary inheritance rests upon clearly defined pillars: Greek philosophy, Roman law, the Christian tradition, Renaissance humanism, and the rational rigor of the Enlightenment. Together, they form a synthesis that has placed the absolute dignity of the person, the duty of responsibility, and the passionate pursuit of truth at its very center.
If our young people’s learning and writing become progressively—and exclusively—mediated by artificial intelligence systems, the issue will cease to be merely technological and will become profoundly one of identity.
Toward a European “Cognitive Sovereignty”
In recent years, the European political agenda has finally embraced the concepts of energy sovereignty, industrial sovereignty, and digital sovereignty. Europe has come to recognize—albeit belatedly—the grave danger of depending on external geopolitical actors in strategic sectors, whether Asian autocracies or private monopolies in Silicon Valley. The time has come to take one step further and introduce a new, even more decisive concept into the public debate: cognitive sovereignty.
Cognitive sovereignty should not be understood as a naïve form of technological isolationism, nor as the autarkic ambition to build a specifically “European” artificial intelligence in ideological opposition to American or Chinese models. That would be a bureaucratic and superficial response. True cognitive sovereignty lies instead in a civilization’s capacity to continue educating individuals who can understand, evaluate, criticize, and, when necessary, reject the technological tools they use every day. It means cultivating citizens capable of engaging with algorithms without surrendering their autonomy of judgment or their historical identity.
The structural mistake of today’s European institutions is the illusion that the technological revolution can be governed solely through market regulations or data protection frameworks such as the AI Act. Technical regulation is necessary, but it is an empty shell if it is not supported by a coherent vision of the human person. The true global competition is not merely a technological and economic race to build the most powerful large language model. It is an invisible competition for control over the minds of future generations.
Whoever controls the cognitive infrastructures through which millions of young Europeans study, search for information, synthesize history, and shape their language will inevitably wield biopolitical power over the way they perceive reality. If we fail to guide this process through culture, we will surrender our future to algorithmic filters calibrated according to commercial, utilitarian, or, worse still, ideological values detached from our own historical tradition.
The Timeless Relevance of Tradition
The deepest purpose of education has never been to maximize the production of correct or standardized answers—a task at which machines will always excel. The true purpose of education is to form individuals capable of asking the right questions.
It is precisely in this context that disciplines long regarded as “marginal” by the technocratic tendencies of our age—such as philosophy, literature, and the classical languages—recover an extraordinary and urgent strategic importance. In the age of large language models, the distinctive value of the human being will not lie in the capacity to store information. It will lie in the ability to distinguish truth from plausibility, the good from the merely useful, and profound truth from the algorithmic consensus of the internet. Ultimately, it will lie in the capacity to preserve our humanity and our inner freedom.
Europe possesses an immeasurable intangible heritage, built over more than two thousand years of reflection on freedom and the dignity of the human person. To abandon the transmission of this tradition, replacing it with the lazy delegation of thought to machines, would mean discarding our greatest competitive advantage—and our very soul.
Artificial intelligence represents an extraordinary opportunity for medicine, industry, and scientific research; rejecting it out of fear would be an act of intellectual cowardice. The real political and anthropological challenge is whether, as machines become ever more capable of simulating reasoning, we will still be able to preserve and strengthen our own faculty of thought. The true wealth of the West has never resided in the accumulation of knowledge, but in its method: that extraordinary tradition which has taught human beings to seek truth through the free, demanding, and sovereign exercise of reason. This is the sovereignty that today we are called upon to defend above all others.