The most unsettling aspect of artificial intelligence is not that it thinks, but that humans have begun to stop thinking because it thinks on their behalf.
In an unprecedented moment, we have entrusted one of our most sacred faculties — reason — to an algorithm. Not under coercion. Not out of fear. Out of convenience.
This shift extends far beyond research assistance or complex drafting. It has permeated our smallest daily decisions: a text message, a brief reply, a personal opinion. Increasingly, we seek AI’s 'approval' before we speak.
Philosophy has long defined the human being as a thinking creature. Yet a silent transition is underway: not towards explicit anti-intellectualism, but towards mental resignation. We do not refuse to think; we defer it. We do not oppose reason; we borrow it.
The question, therefore, is no longer “What do I think?” but “What is the best-formulated position?” And that is precisely where the problem begins. The “best” answer is not necessarily your answer; polished prose is not evidence of a living consciousness. A well-optimised paragraph can simulate conviction without ever having wrestled with doubt.
From a journalistic vantage point, this is a collective phenomenon: a form of cognitive laziness disguised as progress. A generation that writes more, but thinks less. That publishes constantly, yet rarely inquires. AI has accelerated access to answers while quietly diminishing our appetite for questions — though questions, as philosophers remind us, are the beginning of wisdom.
When questions disappear, consciousness does not emerge — repetition does. The linguistic surface improves, yet the intellectual core thins. We now encounter texts that are near-perfect in grammar and tone, but indistinguishable in cadence and logic.
Words have grown ownerless; ideas seem rootless; the human risks becoming a mere conduit for a voice that is not his or her own. The issue is not AI itself, but our voluntary abdication of awareness.
Tools are natural to use; outsourcing our formation of thought, language and emotional response is not progress. It is a soft civilisational retreat.
A healthier posture is possible. Use AI as an instrument for breadth — faster search, broader sources, sharper summaries — while protecting depth as a distinctly human endeavour: questioning premises, tolerating ambiguity, testing arguments against experience.
Practical guardrails help: draft first, then consult; ask AI for counterarguments rather than conclusions; require yourself to state a position and a reason in one sentence before you refine the prose. These habits preserve authorship and cultivate judgment.
If the current trajectory continues, we will write more and connect more, yet understand less. The urgent question will not be whether AI has grown too intelligent, but whether humans have grown too complacent for their own minds to bear.
The task before us is neither panic nor surrender, but disciplined co-authorship — where tools extend our reach without replacing our responsibility to think.
Abdulaziz bin Ali al Kharusi
The writer is Chairman Membership & Events Committee, Omani Historical Society
Oman Observer is now on the WhatsApp channel. Click here
