AI is just the latest technology in a sequence of inventions that have made humanity dumber.

GPS destroyed our spatial awareness, Uber Eats eroded our ability to cook, calculators ended mental arithmetic, and social media shattered our attention spans.

Each innovation made our lives easier but came at a cost.

I used to think that AI would only threaten the ‘boring jobs’, but that was naïve.

Already it has begun its Blitzkrieg through all manner of ‘white-collar’ jobs, script writers, graphic designers, stock analysts, musicians, actors, and almost every entry level graduate job.

AI is helping CEOs slim their workforces, boosting their corporate profits and stock prices, all while shedding those excess pounds, formerly workers.

It is unlikely our lumbering governments will be able to react in time to save these jobs, let alone slow this AI-driven devolution.

But while we’re focused on the economic disruption, we’re missing an even more insidious threat, AI’s effect on our minds.

Just like Ozempic, which has been touted as a silver bullet for weight loss, AI promises miraculous results while concealing serious side effects.

A recent MIT study found that people who used AI to write essays showed significantly lower cognitive engagement. When AI was removed, they performed much worse than control groups who never used it.

In other words, AI was causing a ‘cognitive deficit’. When given the opportunity to use their brains, AI users couldn’t replicate the engagement of those who had maintained their mental muscles.

Large language models like ChatGPT have been likened by some to intellectual Soylent Green, regurgitations of ideas from humans before them.

One study from the University of Toronto showed that usage of large language models and generative AI systems reduces the ability for humans to think creatively, resulting in more homogenous, ‘vanilla’ ideas and fewer truly innovative ones.

The researchers found that while these tools can enhance short-term performance, they may reduce humans’ ability to think independently and creatively over time.

This dependency mirrors Ozempic’s weight rebound effect. Many users gain weight back when they stop the medication, having never developed sustainable habits.

Similarly, as we hand off cognitive tasks at an exponential pace, abandoning that intellectual grunt work, we risk losing the ability to think critically when the technology fails us.

Robert Brooks, an evolutionary biologist at UNSW, warns that AI could usher in a new wave of natural selection.

‘Evolutionary changes over many generations could well change or even diminish some of the human traits we cherish most, including friendship, intimacy, communication, trust and intelligence,’ writes Brooks, in a recent quarterly essay.

In essence, we might evolve beyond the need for critical thinking, just as we evolved beyond needing an appendix. Perhaps AI will shrink our brains, as memories become an unnecessary energy expense.

Some are already foregoing human relationships entirely, thanks to AI companions that provide emotional connection without the messiness of actual humanity.

These AI companions are already the subject of litigation in Texas courts. We risk becoming more solitary creatures, outsourcing not just our thinking but our feeling too.

Human nature drives us toward the easy option. If we let it, AI will usher in the ‘great dumbing’.

But the Ozempic analogy goes even deeper, perhaps offering a glimmer of hope.

While studies show that people who take Ozempic without resistance training lose unhealthy amounts of muscle mass, becoming ‘skinny fat’, those who combine Ozempic with exercise can retain their metabolically valuable muscle.

AI presents the same choice. If used as a substitute for thinking, we will atrophy cognitively.

But when used as a complement to intellectual work, allowing us to reallocate mental bandwidth to higher-order tasks, we may be able to retain our cognitive strength while eliminating the mental flab.

We need to treat AI like resistance training treats Ozempic: as a tool that frees us to focus on what requires uniquely human capabilities.

The key is ensuring we don’t give up these skills without replacing them with higher-order tasks that make us more, not less, human.

The reality is there’s no silver bullet. Ozempic is no substitute for hard work at the gym, and AI is no substitute for critical thinking and creativity. Just like a muscle, you have to use it or lose it.

In a world increasingly dominated by AI-generated content, there will be a growing market for authentic artistry and genuine human creativity.

The question isn’t whether AI will change us. It already is. The question is whether we’ll consciously direct that change or passively submit to it.

Choose wisely, because unlike our appendix, we might actually need our humanity.

Will is a freelance journalist.