{"id":289054,"date":"2025-11-17T14:47:13","date_gmt":"2025-11-17T14:47:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/289054\/"},"modified":"2025-11-17T14:47:13","modified_gmt":"2025-11-17T14:47:13","slug":"the-real-crisis-of-literacy-were-reading-too-much","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/289054\/","title":{"rendered":"The real crisis of literacy \u2013 we&#8217;re reading too much"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>        <img width=\"1038\" height=\"778\" src=\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/00024791-1038x778.jpg\" class=\"attachment-4x3-large-crop size-4x3-large-crop wp-post-image\" alt=\"\" decoding=\"async\" fetchpriority=\"high\"  \/><br \/>\n                Illustration by John Holcroft \/ Ikon Images<\/p>\n<p class=\"has-drop-cap\">Not long ago, in a bid to become even more insufferable, I finally got rid of my smartphone. I\u2019ve already proselytised enough to friends about the benefits \u2013 increased concentration span, better sleep, bizarrely thick hair growth \u2013 so I won\u2019t go into all of that here. Something less obvious I\u2019ve noticed, though, is just how much less dominated my life now is by\u00a0language.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>There\u2019s been a great amount of fuss made lately about modern technology\u2019s supposedly deleterious effects on literacy, from <a href=\"https:\/\/jmarriott.substack.com\/p\/the-dawn-of-the-post-literate-society-aa1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener nofollow\">this viral Substack<\/a> by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.newstatesman.com\/author\/james-marriott\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener nofollow\">James Marriott<\/a>, to <a href=\"https:\/\/thebaffler.com\/salvos\/we-used-to-read-things-in-this-country-mccormack\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener nofollow\">an essay in this month\u2019s Baffler<\/a>. But the last few weeks have made me wonder if, paradoxically, we should be more worried about the opposite: our smartphones bombarding us with\u00a0too many\u00a0words, and thus making us, in an admittedly limited sense,\u00a0hyper-literate, with no real sensitivity to the subtleties of human experience beyond that which can be cleanly expressed in code.<\/p>\n<p>Before ditching my iPhone, my days were a nonstop blizzard of words: news, podcasts, YouTube videos, Twitter, WhatsApp, email, Wikipedia, books, magazines. True, even without it, I still spend a decent chunk of my time reading, writing, listening, and thinking \u201clinguistically\u201d. But what made the smartphone particularly pernicious was that it plugged every last gap in the day where I might otherwise have had a brief moment of respite \u2013 from\u00a0words. Even walking between rooms in my flat, I\u2019d reflexively get out my phone and find some kind of text to scroll through. Some days, the longest I\u2019d go without engaging with language was a few seconds in the shower.<\/p>\n<p>Things are rather different now: I can happily take a long bus or train journey without having to find some text to hook my mind onto. This has taught me a couple of things. First, just how much language reshapes our sense of reality, by peeling us away from the here and now \u2013 very simply, we confuse the map for the landscape. Second, and by extension, that this confusion distorts our understanding of\u00a0intelligence\u00a0\u2013 and thus blinds us to how different\u00a0human\u00a0intelligence is from current approaches in AI.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.thenewatlantis.com\/publications\/reading-ourselves-to-death\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">It\u2019s no revelation<\/a> that language, and the written word in particular, abstracts us from the world around us. This, to bastardise the philosopher Gottlob Frege, is because the most fundamental aspect of language \u2013\u00a0what the words actually mean \u2013is not something actually situated in time or space. A \u201cmeaning\u201d has no physical shape or location. Nor is it restricted to any particular moment or event: if I write you a letter, the words don\u2019t stop meaning what they mean while it sits unread in the postal van between our houses. The meaning is something quite separate from the ink the words are written in, or the mind deciphering them.<\/p>\n<p>For philosophers, this has represented a longstanding puzzle. For everyone else, it has concrete psychological implications. The more time we spend with words, the less we\u2019re actually \u201cin\u201d the world around us: our minds are, as it were, operating on a different plane, navigating an invisible network \u2013 a bit like those diagrams that show satellite beams or internet data floating phantasmically over the Earth. We can think of language, in fact, as the very first social network \u2013 a parallel world we retreat to in our heads, ostensibly to connect with others, but one which makes us gradually lose contact with the world immediately in front of us.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>In the age of LLMs, this seems like a double problem. We have become deadened to the uniqueness of non-linguistic experience at the precise moment when machines are beginning convincingly to mimic our expertise with words. As AI gets better, something that still genuinely sets us humans apart is the way we\u00a0experience\u00a0the physicality of the world around us, and\u00a0feel the strange, continuous, seamless passing of time. There\u2019s good reason to suspect, indeed, that our intelligence\u00a0emerges\u00a0from these worldly facts. But we are increasingly blinded to this aspect of our existence by the unending assault of words, words, words.<\/p>\n<p>                            <a href=\"https:\/\/www.newstatesman.com\/ideas\/2025\/11\/javascript(void);\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/dl6pgk4f88hky.cloudfront.net\/2021\/09\/TNS_master_logo.svg\" class=\"img\"\/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Treat yourself or a friend this Christmas to a New Statesman subscription from \u00a31 per month<\/p>\n<p>And so we forget something that ought to be very obvious: that our capacity to\u00a0understand the sentences that AI produces is a\u00a0non-linguistic\u00a0capacity. That is, our\u00a0recognising something as true or interesting or relevant is not itself something we do by shuffling words into the right order, but by using some prior and broader faculty that \u201cobserves\u201d language, and makes judgements about it, from without. It seems highly likely that this capacity comes from, and depends on, our more expansive, pre-linguistic experience of the world.<\/p>\n<p>Of course, there are some AI theorists who think we can, and will, \u201cembody\u201d artificial minds in physical robots that can be taught to \u201cexperience\u201d the actual world as humans can. In one sense, they\u2019re right. Obviously you can hook up an LLM to a camera, say, get it to analyse the pixels it receives, link these to a set of instructions about when to move its wheels forward, and so on. But in no sense does it have any real\u00a0awareness\u00a0of the physical world \u2013 all it has is a bunch of digital data which it can interpret to behave in broadly human-like ways. Indeed, if LLMs really could think, it would be nigh on impossible to convince them of the reality of the material world \u2013 anything that falls in the gaps between words and numbers, as our sensed experience of physical objects does, would be quite literally unimaginable. And how would you get a robot to \u201cfeel\u201d time passing, rather than just logging a series of timestamps?\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>True, I suppose we can\u2019t categorically rule out that our own continuous sense of time will, one day, turn out to be nothing but the net result of binary data sparks in our brains creating the illusion of seamless forward-moving experience (though it strikes me as profoundly unlikely). But we can say with confidence that any AI which doesn\u2019t start with the\u00a0non-semantic aspects of intelligence, from which human linguistic reflection itself emerges, almost certainly won\u2019t be anything like us.<\/p>\n<p>Now, it\u2019s true that humanity\u2019s reification of language didn\u2019t exactly\u00a0start\u00a0with smartphones. Already in the 19th century, philosophers were warning us not to confuse word with world. Nietzsche, for instance, wrote: \u201cmankind set up in language a separate world beside the other, a place it took to be so firmly set that, standing upon it, it could lift the rest of the world off its hinges and make itself master of it\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>True, part of his concern stemmed from an anti-democratic distaste for mass literacy and the rise of print media: men, he wrote, \u201chave lost the last remnant not only of a philosophical but also of a religious mode of thinking, and in their place have acquired not even optimism but journalism, the spirit and spiritlessness of our day and our daily papers\u201d. But beneath Nietzsche\u2019s elitism was also a genuine concern that language rides roughshod over raw experience \u2013 that it makes philosophical problems seem too tangible and easily solvable. And so the story arguably goes right back to our species\u2019 very first words. Language, by dividing up experience into discrete\u00a0things, sets in motion our process of mechanising the world \u2013 and seems now to be leading to the final transformation of the mind into a computer.<\/p>\n<p>I suspect that the temptation of mistaking language for reality is perennial \u2013 and that modern technology simply makes that temptation harder to resist. But it also offers us a curious opportunity: abandoning your phone, you get something that would have been very difficult for previous generations to achieve: a sudden, dramatic, and therefore radically vivid return to the underlying substratum of human experience before we placed the grid of language on top of it. Want to know why AI isn\u2019t going to replace you? Turn off your phone and take a walk.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>[Further reading: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.newstatesman.com\/culture\/books\/book-of-the-day\/2025\/06\/stefan-collini-review-english-literatures-last-stand\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener nofollow\">English literature\u2019s last stand<\/a>] <\/p>\n<p>    Content from our partners<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Illustration by John Holcroft \/ Ikon Images Not long ago, in a bid to become even more insufferable,&hellip;\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":289055,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[62,276,277,49,48,61],"class_list":["post-289054","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-artificial-intelligence","tag-ai","tag-artificial-intelligence","tag-artificialintelligence","tag-ca","tag-canada","tag-technology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/289054","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=289054"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/289054\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/289055"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=289054"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=289054"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=289054"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}