A couple of Decembers ago, I introduced my grandpa to ChatGPT. At the time, I think I was mostly amused by the fact that he’d never heard of artificial intelligence – and even more so by his immediate reaction. At one point, he was speaking hysterically to the “Santa Claus” voice of AI. A moment later, his phone was circling the kitchen with poems teasing each family member, including our dog.
When I saw him again over the summer, I noticed the familiar OpenAI flower icon among his laptop tabs. Turns out, my introducing him to the goofy elements of ChatGPT sparked his now-regular dependence on its features. He shares medical information with it. He asks it for healthcare advice. For humorous limericks. For answers on any sudden itch of a question. For practically anything he needs.
And he’s not the only one. Recently, while eating lunch with my AirPods tuned to “The Daily” podcast by The New York Times, reporter Eli Tan opened up about his experience testing Muse by Meta. Muse, a personal AI agent, was released to the public on Sept. 8, 2026. The idea behind Muse is exactly what you might expect. Take daily tasks – sending emails, shopping, scheduling appointments – and complete them per the user’s command. Tan said the agent was helpful for completing certain responsibilities, but he criticized how it could be used in ways that remove human connection – such as taking over communication with a store employee on the other end of the phone.
A week later, another related episode was shared on “The Daily.” This one starred Cornell mathematics professor Steven Strogatz, reflecting on an AI system that allegedly solved a Millennium Prize Problem. Some mathematicians dedicate their lives to just one of these seven problems. It’s their life. Their purpose.
Strogatz started tearing up in this interview, and I don’t blame him.
Is it really worth it to let AI solve all our problems for us? In my opinion, no. Sure, when solving a math problem, you’re ultimately looking for an answer. And perhaps AI can give you that answer. But I think there’s something more meaningful about committing to the journey, rather than cutting corners just to see the finish line. Life would be boring if we had all the solutions on a silver platter.
I will concede that I think AI has a lot of value. Hopefully, it’ll end up doing things like crafting medications to cure illnesses. Or perhaps it’ll find a solution to effectively combat climate change. But when we’re allowing it to take control of the simple things that make us human – our autonomy over daily decisions or the euphoria we feel after time-consuming accomplishments – that’s where we need to draw the line.
So the next time you fire up your chatbot of choice, I ask that you think twice about what you’re giving up by hitting Enter. Is that request of justifiable importance? Or, like my grandpa, are you simply succumbing to the indolence AI models were designed to enable?
