At the heart of this inquiry lies a critical and deep-seated issue: the preservation of human intellect amidst an age where artificial intelligence (AI) has become increasingly prevalent and influential. The concept of “preservation” suggests a battle, a continuous fight for persistence and significance. In my view, conflict is central to preservation—it defines its core essence. Preservation can be seen as a result of strife, with these elements intricately linked through a dialectical relationship. They mutually inspire, highlight, and strengthen each other. This interplay mirrors what mathematicians would call a composite function—a process where the outcome of one operation serves as the starting point for another.
Addressing delays and pursuing efficiency has expanded our understanding of thought processes towards the challenge of lacking mental toughness (such as rigorous intellectual effort), rather than relying on quick fixes provided by AI.
Those who wish to understand the foundational idea supporting this discussion should consider this principle: The human intellect is progressively ceding ground to algorithmic alternatives. In times past, the mind served as the center of innovation and novel thinking; today, it is often sidelined, with numerous individuals entirely depending on artificial intelligence for generating material, building arguments, and processing concepts. Such increasing reliance fosters a fresh kind of challenge—a state of cognitive inertia or passive intellectualism, characterized by mental indolence and incompetence. Herein, the human mind struggles akin to an infant taking first steps after having been capable of confident strides, finding itself grappling to produce and express insights autonomously in a landscape geared towards technological support.
Amidst this epistemic upheaval lies another tangible yet equally important issue: the degradation of handwriting—a capability increasingly jeopardized by the pervasive influence of digital technologies. Research indicates that continuous reliance on typing, touchscreens, and speech recognition software contributes to a noticeable decrease in both dexterity and readable script. Writing can be considered an artistic endeavor, reflecting the richness of one’s thoughts. More than just an art form, it is also a cognitive activity demanding precise neuromuscular control. This action involves much more than physical movement; it engages the mental faculties deeply. When we write, our brains orchestrate the process via intricate interactions among various muscle groups guided by nerve signals. In essence, what appears on paper mirrors our neurophysiological condition. Consequently, graphologists regard handwriting as a window into thought processes and personality traits, serving as a personal signature.
To grasp the significance of “survival” in this scenario, we can turn to a historical-biological comparison. Basic biology informs us that organs or tissues which undergo regular usage tend to grow stronger and more refined, whereas those neglected often weaken and could potentially disappear across successive generations. This concept was notably expounded by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck through his theory of use and disuse. Although contemporary genetic studies have deepened our comprehension of inheritance, the core principle remains: neglect leads to deterioration. Such decline is an inevitable result of such lack of utilization.
The human appendix, referred to by biologists as a vestigial organ, exemplifies this concept. According to some scientists, the appendix was previously crucial for breaking down fibrous plant matter in our herbivore ancestors. However, over time, with changes in human dietary habits, the appendix has diminished in size and become non-functional.
The same biological principles apply to the human brain. Although it isn’t classified as a muscle from an anatomical perspective, it serves well for comparison since both the brain and muscles react dynamically to engagement or disregard. Just as physical activity strengthens the body, mental effort enhances cognitive abilities; it hones memory, improves analytical skills, and bolsters neuronal pathways.
On the contrary, cognitive inertia or passiveness leads to intellectual stagnation. In earlier times, composing even a simple essay required substantial cognitive effort and a complex interplay of thoughts—from integrating information and recollecting concepts to examining connections and formulating logical reasoning. Nowadays, artificial intelligence tools can undertake these activities with little input from humans. Consequently, what appears as increased productivity actually conceals a lack of engagement. Original human-generated material is diminishing, whereas AI-produced content is proliferating, causing the number of analytical citizens to dwindle significantly.
We currently face a conundrum: a technology meant to enhance human intellect now potentially jeopardizes its strength. The simplicity with which artificial intelligence provides “prepackaged” information turns knowledge creation into a mechanized task. Thinkers from the Gen Z era often become mere bystanders—they initiate prompts, obtain responses, replicate, and subsequently insert them. This approach diminishes the core nature of contemplation and reflection, which isn’t about immediate precision but rather grappling with uncertainty, navigating subtleties, and imprinting personal intellectual insight onto their work.
Thus, I frame the issue as follows: When logic and emotion—the rational and the affective—are generated through predictive algorithms rather than personal experiences and introspection, what is affected? What do we lose when the deeply reflective process of thought formation is handed over to algorithmic accuracy? At its finest, writing transcends mere conveyance; it embodies one’s essence. It is widely acknowledged that engaging in the craft of writing serves as a means of defining oneself. Eventually, readers ought to identify you solely based on your distinctive style, prior to seeing your name. Yielding control of our work to artificial intelligence can be seen as erasing ourselves from academic discourse altogether.
The challenge faced by the brain isn’t primarily with artificial intelligence itself, but rather with the allure of convenience. It battles against the gradual erosion of disciplined thought, writing, and imagination. Abandoning the stringent procedures essential for genuine scholarly work can lead to intellectual decline. Much like how the appendix has dwindled from lack of use, our ability for critical reasoning might also weaken due to disuse.
Within this struggle lies the future of education, creativity, and civic responsibility. It must therefore be asked – are we ready to produce citizens who are not mentally disciplined and resilient? Citizens who cannot engage in the rigor of intellectual analysis needed to construct well-articulated thought.
If we are to preserve the distinctive brilliance of the human mind, we must resist the impulse to allow AI to replace us. This is not a call for wholesale rejection of technology—far from it. Rather, this writer pleads for moderation, for constructive symbiosis. We ought to wield AI not as a crutch without which our intellectual stamina cannot be impressed, but as a sparring partner, a Socratic gadfly that provokes deeper inquiry.
Artificial Intelligence must remain an assistant, not a surrogate, for human intellect. Overreliance on AI may well produce a generation of citizens ill-equipped to generate original thought, to navigate social, economic and political complexity, or to contribute meaningfully to the marketplace of ideas. If we don’t address this challenge, a time may come, if we are not already in that time, when we long for the age when the mind labored over ideas, when meaning emerged through imaginative struggle, when writing bore the unmistakable imprint of a living, breathing thinker.
If we are to dignify the gift of thought, we must reclaim the practice of thinking itself.
*Antia writes from the Faculty of Law at Topfaith University in Mkpatak, Akwa Ibom State
Provided by Syndigate Media Inc. (
Syndigate.info
).
