The intersection of artificial intelligence and human thought continues to spark fierce debate, touching everything from technical engineering to abstract inquiry. A provocative new book titled Problem Solving in Philosophy: How to Do Philosophy in the Age of Ultra-Intelligent AI, authored by physicist and philosopher Louis Verva, argues that artificial intelligence will soon render much of traditional philosophy obsolete[cite: 10]. However, the claim has ignited pushback from both philosophers and scientific commentators alike[cite: 10].

The Push to “Sciencify” Philosophy

Verva’s argument rests on the premise that philosophy should no longer operate as an endless cycle of linguistic debate. Instead, he contends that it should adopt the rigorous methods of natural science, and theoretical physics in particular[cite: 10]. According to Verva, philosophy has matured enough to arrive at solid answers by identifying what he calls the “maximally coherent theory”[cite: 10].

Under this framework, the best philosophical theory is determined quantitatively: it is the one that successfully explains the highest number of cases, makes sense of the most counter-examples, and contradicts the fewest established facts[cite: 10]. To demonstrate this, Verva experimented with artificial intelligence, using an LLM to evaluate notions of causality and determine the most logically robust definition[cite: 10]. While Verva admits that big questions—such as the meaning of life or the existence of god—might remain out of reach for now, he believes core analytical philosophical problems are ripe for automated solutions[cite: 10].

The Philosophical Defense

The book’s assertions have naturally drawn responses from the philosophical community[cite: 10]. Critics argue that the debate boils down to how one defines philosophy[cite: 10]. If philosophy is viewed strictly as a mechanism for generating formal theories and arguing for or against them, an AI can certainly replicate that process in principle[cite: 10]. However, if philosophy is fundamentally about the internal, human struggle of thinking through complex problems oneself, an AI cannot substitute for the human mind[cite: 10].

Furthermore, critics point out glaring flaws in trying to completely “sciencify” philosophy[cite: 10]. Philosophy exists precisely to examine questions that science cannot currently answer—or perhaps never will[cite: 10]. For example, the “problem of induction”—why the laws of nature continue to hold true or why the sun rises every morning—is treated as an operational axiom in science[cite: 10]. Science requires induction to function, but it cannot scientifically prove why induction works without falling into a circular argument[cite: 10]. Exploring these foundational gaps is the exact domain where philosophy remains indispensable[cite: 10].

The Real Future of Philosophy in the Age of AI

Beyond the theoretical debates, practical realities are shifting[cite: 10]. Academic literature is already heavy with verbose papers that struggle for readership, and many writers and academics increasingly leverage AI tools to assist in drafting and organizing complex arguments[cite: 10].

While quantitative methods for evaluating theoretical explanations hold some intrinsic value, they are unlikely to make philosophy redundant[cite: 10]. Instead, as AI reshapes intellectual output, it may force a higher standard of discourse—though, as critics joke, if AI ever truly makes philosophy obsolete, philosophers will likely spend the next fifty years debating whether it actually happened[cite: 10].