AI Offers Information, But True Understanding Requires Time and Reflection

In an era dominated by rapid information access, particularly through artificial intelligence, a distinction must be made between understanding and true internalization, according to Dr. Eldad Shidlovsky, a lecturer at Ashkelon Academic College. Shidlovsky draws a parallel to Woody Allen's joke about reading "War and Peace" and summarizing it as "It's about Russia," suggesting that modern AI can provide quick summaries and analyses of complex works, a process that once took months of dedicated study. However, this speed, while efficient for grasping core ideas, cannot guarantee genuine assimilation.

Shidlovsky explains that while information can be processed and even explained, true understanding, or internalization, occurs when an idea begins to influence one's inner world and actions. He uses the example of Emmanuel Levinas's concept of "the face of the other," noting that one can intellectually grasp the idea but fail to be moved by another's suffering if the concept hasn't been internalized. This deeper level of understanding, he argues, requires personal experience and emotional engagement, something AI-generated summaries cannot provide.

The author cites his own experience with the works of Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Daniel Kahneman, which altered his perception of risk and randomness, and his extensive study of Levinas, which changed how he feels about the mystery and fragility of others. He contends that the struggle with difficult texts and the time spent with them are crucial for this transformative process, contrasting it with the current trend of seeking immediate explanations and summaries.

Drawing on Hannah Arendt's concept of a "throwaway economy" applied to ideas, Shidlovsky warns against a culture of intellectual waste where information is produced and consumed at an accelerating rate, leaving little room for contemplation. He emphasizes that the true scarcity in the age of AI is not information, but human time for reflection, for ideas to settle, and for personal change. The challenge, he concludes, is to cultivate the opposite capacity: to slow down, engage with material deeply, and ask not just if we understand, but if the ideas have truly touched us and altered our perspective.