How do we read AI answers without falling into the illusion of cognitive power?
Based on a critical dialogue with a linguistic model
—
Generative AI is neither “rational” nor “scientific,” but it is capable of producing coherent speech that is fast and reassuring. The danger is not in its intention – as it has no intention – but in the ideologies of its creators + the elevation of profit above any moral limits.
Also: The danger in the effect: high stylistic consistency + extreme speed + apparent confidence = an impression of strength that may exceed the evidential truth.
In this article, we present common patterns of artificial intelligence answers, their advantages and disadvantages, and then practical mechanisms that reduce distraction and misleading.
—
First: Common patterns in artificial intelligence answers
1) Structural Expansion
Description: Opening several analytical paths in one response (definitions, contexts, objections, solutions…).
Feature: Wide coverage and multiple angles.
Disadvantage: Distraction, increasing the possibility of a fallacy/fallacies occurring in at least one of the branches, and thus increasing the cost of refutation, if we assume for the sake of argument that the questioner has the ability to refute.
—
2) Possible False Balance
Description: Presentation of two positions/schools in balanced terms.
Advantage: Sometimes it prevents crude bias and exposes disagreements.
Disadvantage: It often gives the illusion of cognitive equivalence even if it is not equivalent.
—
3) High stylistic consistency (Illusion of Coherence)
Description: Clear language, neat logical structure, smooth transitions.
Advantage: Ease of understanding, if we assume for the sake of argument that what is written is correct
Disadvantage: Consistency does not equal health; The speculative may wear the garment of the definitive. Wrong dress is right.
—
4) Claims density (potential Gish-Gallop Effect)
Description: Breaking down the answer into many points, with the questioner often not needing to do so
Advantage: A comprehensive image, assuming it is an undistorted image.
Disadvantage: The cost of refuting fallacies, biases, and psychological manipulations is much higher than the cost of presenting; Because presenting the model is easy, fast, and complex, while the ability and time of the reviewer are limited. This is if we are optimistic about the existence of critical thinking and scrutiny among the reader.
—
5) Softening Bias
Description: Use phrases such as “may”, “maybe”, “some”.
Advantage: Avoid generalization.
Disadvantage: It is often diluted, especially in doctrine in particular and religion in general, which require decisiveness and real references that the careful questioner – how rare – can verify.
—
6) Public or unverifiable sources
Description: Mention of schools of thought or names without precise references. Advantage: No significant advantage
Disadvantage: difficult to verify; Possible hallucination reference.
—
Second: Why are the humanities – especially religion – more sensitive?
There are no repeatable experiments as in science.
Rhetorical consistency may influence the reader more than the strength of the evidence.
This does not necessarily mean prohibiting use, but rather writing a more precise and precise question, and taking great care, review, and systematic doubt when reading the answer.
—
Third: Practical mechanisms to reduce distraction and misinformation
1) Order “just one point”
Say: “Answer with one main argument, without elaboration.”
Reducing branches reduces the possibility of error.
2) Separate between presentation and judgment in religious matters
Require an explicit distinction between:
View the dispute
Weighting with a mention of likely, and the model not being the most likely
A final ruling, if there is a final ruling on the issue, and this is rare
3) Ask for assumptions to be revealed
Say: “State your basic assumptions before making inferences.”
4) Ask for specific, verifiable sources
Name of the book/research
Publication year
Link if possible
Then check for yourself.
5) Ask for a confidence rating
“Give a rough estimate of how confident you are with each piece of information in the answer (low/medium/high) and why.”
6) Use the “internal interception” pattern
“List the strongest objection to your answer, then evaluate it.”
“Extract logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and psychological manipulations from your answer.”
7) Close a track before opening another
“Do not branch out by introducing new points before resolving the previous ones.”
—
Fourth: Golden rules for the reader
Consistency is not evidence of validity.
Speed is not a scientific guide.
Abundance is not a sign of strength.
Ask for verifiable proof.
Don’t refute everything; Identify the weakest link and hit it.
Do not make the model a reliable reference on crucial issues, the most important of which are doctrinal and jurisprudential issues.
—
Prompt template to reduce risks
You can copy the following formula when asking a sensitive question:
Answer according to the following restrictions:
1) Only one main idea, no branches.
2) Do not exceed 6–8 in answering each point in the question.
3) State the assumptions you are basing on before starting the answer.
4) Rate your level of confidence (low/medium/high) when answering each point and why.
6) Cite specific and verifiable sources.
7) Do not balance multiple positions unless I explicitly ask to do so.
Do not expand the answer beyond the scope of the question
—
Conclusion
AI is dangerous not because it is powerful, but because it inspires power through consistency and speed.
The solution is not to avoid, but to control it by restricting the way the question is asked. He took the answer on the basis that it required human examination and revision.
Cognitive immunity does not mean rejecting technology, but rather using it with high awareness and systematic skepticism.