Algorithmic consultation:

As intelligence multiplies, is humanity diminishing?*

Human beings are perhaps the least aware of the limits of their own minds. Most people believe they evaluate matters objectively, yet without realizing it, they speak through the lens of their own temperament. They may mistake their personal experience for an objective standard, their fears for prudence, and their habits for truth. Human reason is powerful—but it is also inclined to withdraw into itself.

That is why we rarely wish to remain alone when making life's important decisions. We seek the opinion of a trusted friend, listen to the experience of an elder, or sometimes simply look for someone to whom we can open our hearts. For a person can often perceive, through another's perspective, what he cannot see on his own. This is the essence of mashwara (consultation): it is not merely the gathering of opinions, but the ability to step beyond the narrow window of one's own perspective and look toward a broader horizon.

Today, however, a new element has entered this picture. We no longer discuss our concerns only with other people. We ask artificial intelligence to review our texts, analyze the risks of our decisions, or identify what we have overlooked. Sometimes we even present issues to an algorithm before discussing them with another human being.

This opportunity should not be underestimated. Artificial intelligence can organize scattered possibilities, highlight overlooked details, and present diverse perspectives within seconds. Yet there is a boundary that deserves careful attention: Is artificial intelligence merely assisting consultation, or is it gradually replacing it?

Human beings naturally prefer what is easier. They may choose quick answers over lengthy conversations and clear conclusions over demanding deliberations. Relying on a response generated in a matter of seconds is undoubtedly more convenient than engaging in hours of discussion. Yet what is convenient does not always contribute to human growth.

When people gather around the same table, something greater than a decision often emerges. They learn to listen to one another, encounter different sensitivities, and realize that their own opinions are not absolute. Trust is renewed, responsibility is shared, and a common meaning begins to take shape.

Here, the concept of the *collective spiritual personality (*shakhs al-ma'nawi)* in the *Risale-i Nur offers an important perspective. The shakhs al-ma'nawi is not the expansion of a single brilliant mind. Rather, it is a spiritual strength that emerges when different individuals unite sincerely, faithfully, and around a common purpose. One person sees what another cannot; one moderates another's excesses; one completes what another leaves unfinished.

Artificial intelligence can become a valuable tool in the service of this collective spiritual personality. It can help participants come better prepared, remind them of forgotten questions, and make hidden risks more visible. Yet it can never become the shakhs al-ma'nawi itself. For the shakhs al-ma'nawi is born not merely from the exchange of information, but from sincerity (ikhlas), trust, brotherhood, and a shared sense of responsibility.

Perhaps the greatest danger of the future will not be that decisions are made incorrectly, but that people gradually withdraw from the very process of making them. In a world where everything is analyzed and every possibility is calculated, human beings may also wish to transfer their sense of responsibility to algorithms. Then the phrase, "We have reached this conclusion together," may be replaced by, "The system recommended it."

Yet the very spirit of consultation lies in carrying the burden of a decision together. Human beings are not only creatures who think—they are also creatures who bear responsibility.

As technology advances, the reach of our intellect continues to expand. Yet the essential question remains unchanged:

*As intelligence multiplies, are human beings growing as well? Or, as machines provide more and more answers, are we slowly losing our capacity to think together—and to bear responsibility together?*