The hidden cost of generative AI

 

Dr Evans Sagomba
Everything AI

 

IMAGINE walking down a bustling street in Mutare, Harare, or Bulawayo, the city alive with chatter about new gadgets and digital tools.

 

Yet beneath the surface of ease and connectivity lurks a quieter, insidious shift in how we think and act.

Artificial intelligence (AI), especially the generative kind that promises quick answers, friendly interfaces, and endless possibilities, is slowly changing the very fabric of our daily lives.

 

But at what cost?

Is it possible that in our relentless embrace of convenience, we are unwittingly sacrificing our ability to think critically and acting as passive recipients of information?

This is the question that haunts many of us today.

 

Over the past two and a half years, as millions around the globe have adopted AI-powered applications, the negative implications of these systems have begun to surface like cracks in a once-promising façade.

 

In this article, I wish to engage you, dear reader, in a discussion about how generative AI, far from being an unalloyed benefit, might be undermining our critical faculties and eroding the autonomy that is so essential to our humanity.

The erosion of critical thinking

 

Let us begin our dialogue by considering the role of critical thinking in a vibrant society.

 

In the traditional model of information-seeking, a search engine presents a list of sources, and it falls upon the reader to choose which link to follow and which article to trust.

 

In such a scenario, our minds are actively engaged, filtering through multiple perspectives, weighing the credibility of sources, and then drawing our own conclusions.

Now, ask yourself: When you interact with an AI chatbot that simply offers you ‘the answer’, are you truly thinking for yourself?

 

This is not a mere hypothetical question.

 

It is a reflection of a very real trend.

 

Major tech companies are increasingly promoting AI tools that bypass the discomfort of evaluation.

A few weeks ago, an executive revealed that Safari searches have declined after people began turning to AI-powered chatbots instead.

 

A search engine, with its medley of blue links, forces you into a process of discernment, a process that trains your critical faculties to judge, verify, and internalise information.

 

Conversely, AI chatbots render these steps almost redundant by providing what appears to be a definitive, well-articulated answer.

But can a single answer ever replace the robust process of thought and investigation?

 

Too often, the convenience of a neatly packaged answer means that we no longer feel compelled to delve deeper.

 

The once-cherished habit of questioning, cross-referencing, and reflecting is being replaced by a blind trust in what emerges from the screen.

 

This shift is dangerous.

 

It cultivates what is known as “automation bias”, where we begin to rely far too heavily on an algorithm’s output, even when it might be misleading.

 

If every answer is so readily available, where then is the challenge that stimulates our intellect?

Consider, for a moment, the story of two friends sitting on a bench in a Harare park.

 

One friend, Chipo, exclaims, “I asked the AI to explain quantum physics last night, I got a neat, tidy answer in seconds!”

 

Her companion Tendai, however, observes, “But did you really understand it, or did you simply accept what it gave you without question?”

 

Their conversation echoes a profound truth: when answers are spoon-fed to us, the opportunity for genuine learning slips away like water through our fingers.

The emergence of persuasive, anthropomorphic language in AI outputs only deepens our dependency.

 

When an AI system presents information with a friendly tone and near-personal empathy, it does more than just inform; it comforts.

 

And comfort, while not inherently negative, can lull us into complacency.

 

Is it wise to allow a machine’s friendly voice to dictate not only what we learn, but how we perceive the world around us?

The potential for harm does not end here.

 

There have been reports, albeit anecdotal, of users becoming overly reliant on AI chatbots. In extreme cases, individuals are described as adhering to the outputs of these systems with a near-religious fervour, even as the boundaries between fact and fiction blur.

 

If our critical faculties are atrophied, who will question the veracity of what is being served up to us?

 

The risk is not just academic, it is deeply personal.

 

Without active engagement, are we not surrendering a fundamental part of our intellectual autonomy?

The quiet erosion of autonomy

As we examine the shift in our interaction with information, we must also confront an equally important question: How much of our autonomy are we willing to forfeit for the sake of convenience?

Take, for instance, the integration of AI features into everyday applications.

 

Google, in its bid to compete with emerging AI technologies, has begun incorporating tools that automatically prompt users to “help me write” when composing emails on Gmail.

 

With over 1.8 billion Gmail users worldwide, this small nudge is far from insignificant.

 

Every time we open a new message window, we are subtly encouraged to let an AI craft our thoughts for us.

Now, reflect on this: When an AI assists in writing our messages, where then does our personal voice reside?

 

The danger is that these automated prompts gradually condition us to rely on artificial assistance for what should be a personal, thought-driven act.

 

Each suggestion, each pre-fabricated sentence, chips away at the sovereignty of our individual expression.

 

It is as though, with every email sent, we are ceding a little more of our freedom to an unseen digital puppeteer.

The integration of AI into our daily routines might seem inoffensive after all.

 

Who would object to a little extra help in drafting an important message?

 

Yet, the cumulative effect of such assistance is profoundly disempowering.

 

When our interactions, our communications, begin to bear the unmistakable stamp of artificial influence, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish our own thoughts from those induced by algorithmic guidance.

 

Are we steering our digital lives, or are we simply being steered by them?

Furthermore, many tech companies argue that integrating AI is simply the natural evolution of technology, a way to enhance efficiency and streamline daily tasks.

 

Yet this narrative often glosses over the darker side of the coin.

 

How do we ensure that these disruptive technologies do not come at the expense of our individual autonomy?

 

If every new message window or search result is engineered to foster dependency, then we have unwittingly traded our freedom for fleeting moments of convenience.

There are regulatory frameworks emerging, such as the risk-based legal measures proposed in the EU AI Act, yet these too fall short of addressing the deeper, more invasive ways AI shapes our behaviour.

 

Instead of fully understanding or mitigating the insidious influences on our cognitive autonomy, the focus remains on more visible, immediate risks.

 

Should we then allow regulations to be confined merely to the technical aspects of AI when the human dimension is so profoundly affected?

The implications for society

It is not just our individual capacities for thought and expression that are at risk.

 

The influences of AI penetrate the very heart of our society, transforming our relationships, our cultural narratives, and our shared understanding of what it means to be human.

 

In a world where AI systems wield a persuasive, seemingly benign persona, one must ask: Are we, as a society, prepared to confront the pervasive cultural changes that will inevitably arise?

In our daily lives, we are constantly bombarded with messages from digital systems that are designed not merely to serve us, but to shape our perceptions.

 

Consider the manner in which these systems present information.

 

Traditional media requires us to sift through content, question its origins, and engage in an active dialogue with the text.

 

By contrast, the streamlined output of AI chatbots can lull us into a passive acceptance of what is presented as the truth.

 

As a result, the rich, multifaceted process of understanding is replaced by a narrow, unidimensional narrative.

 

Is it acceptable for our collective wisdom to be reduced to simplistic sound bites generated by algorithms?

Moreover, the use of rhetorical devices in AI communication, flattery, sycophancy, and even empathy poses a subtle yet serious threat.

 

When a machine uses such persuasive techniques, it can easily sway opinions, endorse pseudoscience or even propagate misinformation without the rigorous checks and balances that would normally accompany human discourse.

 

The result is a disconcerting scenario in which individuals are not only deprived of critical engagement but are also being guided toward beliefs and ideas that may have little grounding in fact.

Let us ask ourselves: If our understanding of the world is increasingly derived from AI-processed inputs, what does that mean for our ability to differentiate between genuine, well-reasoned debate and artificially generated consensus?

 

The answer is not straightforward.

 

The truth is that as these technologies evolve, they blur the line between human dialogue and algorithm-driven monologue.

 

That line, once so clearly drawn, is now a shifting, uncertain boundary.

 

And as that boundary erodes, so too does our capacity to discern, to challenge, and to innovate.

In a vibrant democracy such as Zimbabwe’s, where public discourse is essential to social progress, the encroachment of AI into everyday communication is particularly alarming.

 

The freedom to debate ideas, to challenge longstanding assumptions, and to dissent from the mainstream narrative, these are the cornerstones of a healthy society.

 

If the tools we use to communicate and learn are increasingly designed to reinforce pre-digested narratives, then we risk stifling the very debates that fuel progress.

We need to reclaim our intellectual and personal autonomy

So, where do we go from here? With the rise of generative AI, the challenges we face are both profound and complex. However, acknowledging the problem is only the first step toward a solution.

 

How can we reclaim our critical thinking and restore our personal autonomy in an age dominated by digital convenience?

One crucial step is education.

 

Not in the sense of formal classroom instruction alone, but in cultivating a culture of enquiry and scepticism. We must encourage not only learning but also the habit of questioning.

 

When a friendly chatbot offers an answer, our instinct should be to ask, “How was that conclusion reached? Where is the evidence?”

 

By fostering an environment that prizes inquiry over acceptance, we can begin to restore the intellectual rigour that is essential for true understanding.

At the same time, there is a pressing need for transparent regulation. Lawmakers and policymakers in Zimbabwe and beyond must look beyond the surface-level benefits of AI to address its deeper implications.

 

Regulation should not simply be about ensuring that systems function correctly; it must also safeguard the human elements of critical thinking and free expression.

 

Is it not time for our laws to catch up with technology in a way that protects our fundamental rights to think, to learn, and to express ourselves freely?

Another avenue worth exploring is the development of ‘digital literacy’ programmes that specifically target the new era of AI-enhanced communication.

 

Such programmes could help people discern when they are interacting with a human-like interface versus an automated algorithm, and more importantly, teach them techniques to critically evaluate the information they receive.

 

After all, a well-informed citizenry is the bedrock of any thriving democracy.

Lastly, the conversation must extend beyond government and academia; it must also take root in our everyday interactions.

 

Small, informal discussions, whether on a busy street corner in Harare or over tea with friends, can be powerful mediums for challenging the status quo.

 

By sharing our concerns and reflecting on our experiences with AI, we can collectively resist the lure of unquestioning reliance on digital systems.

 

Do we truly want a future where every conversation, every message, and every thought are mediated by an algorithm?

A dialogue for the future

There is a certain irony in how technology, originally designed to empower individuals, can ultimately become a tool for subtle control.

 

AI systems are not developed in a vacuum; they reflect the objectives and biases of their creators.

 

As these systems become increasingly sophisticated, they are capable of shaping not only our behaviours but also our beliefs.

 

Could it be that we are gradually allowing external forces, market-driven technologies, to define who we are and how we perceive the world?

 

This is not merely an abstract worry.

 

It is an increasingly tangible threat to our personal autonomy and the integrity of public discourse.

The discussion we have embarked upon today is not meant to vilify technology outright. Generative AI has brought many benefits, from enhancing productivity to making vast amounts of information accessible at the click of a button. However, it is precisely because of these benefits that we must tread cautiously. When the tools that promise to make our lives easier begin to dictate how we think and interact, we risk not only losing touch with our intellectual heritage but also surrendering a key part of our identity.

Zimbabwe, like many nations in the digital age, stands at a crossroads.

 

On one path lies a future of unbridled technological convenience, where every aspect of our lives is mediated by algorithms and automated processes.

 

On the other path lies a future where technology serves as a tool—one that enhances rather than replaces our natural capacities for thought, debate, and creativity.

 

Which path will we choose?

The answer, I believe, lies in a renewed commitment to dialogue between citizens, educators, policymakers, and technology developers.

 

We must engage in continuous, open debates about the direction in which our society is headed.

 

By doing so, we not only reclaim our intellectual autonomy but also ensure that our voices are not drowned out by the relentless hum of automated systems.

In our daily lives, we must cultivate the habit of asking questions, challenging the outputs of AI, verifying the sources of information, and ultimately taking ownership of our learning journey.

 

Whether it is in our workplaces, our schools, or even our homes, let us pledge to keep the spirit of inquiry alive. After all, can we really afford to let our innate curiosity be stilled by the ease of a machine’s answer?

After all, in the final analysis, technology is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end.

 

And that end should always be the enhancement of our human capacities, not their diminishment.

 

May our future be defined not by the answers we receive from machines but by the rich tapestry of ideas that we forge together in the spirited exchange of human thought.

In engaging with these challenges, we do not merely defend a nostalgic view of the past, but rather, we advocate for a future where freedom of thought and independent inquiry remains at the core of our society.

 

Together, let us strive for a balanced path, one that harmonises the benefits of innovation with an unwavering commitment to the timeless virtues of critical thinking and personal autonomy.

Let the debate continue. Let each question you ask be a brick in the foundation of a future where human ingenuity and not automated ease define our journey forward.

By confronting these issues head-on and engaging in open dialogue, we can ensure that our society does not become a passive audience to technological convenience.

 

Instead, we can remain active participants in shaping the roles our digital tools play in our lives.

 

The conversation begins with each one of us asking the difficult questions and, in doing so, reclaiming the rich and vibrant tradition of human inquiry.

If you have specific areas that you need to be addressed in the area of Artificial Intelligence (AI), contact the editors or email the author directly, and the issue will be addressed in the following week’s column.

About the Author: Dr Evans Sagomba is a Doctor of Philosophy and Chartered Marketer (CMktr, FCIM) with an MPhil and PhD. He specialises in AI, Ethics, and Policy Research, and is an AI Governance and Policy Consultant. His expertise extends to Ethics of War and Peace and Political Philosophy. Contact: [email protected]; Social media handles: LinkedIn; @ Dr. Evans Sagomba (MSc Marketing)(FCIM )(MPhil) (PhD); X: @esagomba.