Are we drifting into an unrecoverable dystopia?

Published on October 26, 2026 4:09 PM GMT TL;DR: I think embedding new technologies in our lives too fast, and without analogue alternatives, could lead us towards an unrecoverable dystopia. I share my observations and concerns in this post and look forward to reading your views on AI’s impact on your community or surroundings. I use “AI” as an all-encompassing term for chatbots and generative models.  [Transition risks] arise during a transition to a new technological or social regime. [...] Rushing the transition may do nothing to lower these risks—indeed it could easily heighten them. But if the transition is necessary or highly desirable, we may have to go through it at some point, so mere delay is not a solution, and may also make things worse. The general prescription for these risks is neither haste nor slowness, but care and foresight. (Ord, 2020: 209) I am in The Precipice reading group, and it gave me a new lens through which to look at the increasing entrenchment of tech in our lives. To me, the rapid adoption of AI is a transition risk. Some use cases and early studies show risks to cognitive capacities and communities. Meanwhile opting out from AI use is already penalised in some fields, and we are running towards making it quasi-impossible. Ord’s quote, from the book, reflects my worry. This transition is happening too fast, without knowledge about its future social consequences, that go well beyond job displacement. I am afraid we are making ourselves dependent on technology, as a systemic practical obligation. In an AI-first future, cognitive decay may be widespread because of AI dependency. First because of the deployment of applications in all areas of life, and second because AI natives will grow up without alternatives. To me, it fits Ord’s unrecoverable dystopia and the second category of Bostrom’s flawed realisation: the ephemeral realisation, where mature technological development starts by providing value, but degenerates because it is unsustainable. In terms of scale, I think it could turn current societal problems into an existential-risk. I would say I am fairly confident about the visible trend, but I would allocate a low risk of irreversibility as of now. The systemic constraints In the 2000s, any institutional or administrative procedure required a phone number and email address. Then the smartphones, in the 2010s, incrementally became prerequisites to getting by in urban areas. Staying offline was extremely impractical.  We are now in the 2020s, AI is following the same pattern, but faster. The perception of enhanced productivity contributes to AI being pushed in many areas of life, such as the workplace and in education. The automation of redundant tasks and the tailoring of teaching to students’ needs seem brilliant applications; if one disregards some observed negative impacts (mental and practical), such as psychosis cases, burnout, but also the time-consuming task of verifying outputs’ inaccuracies, for instance in meeting reports. Interacting with AI is increasingly forced onto people as workers and students, but also as consumers, as citizens, etc. A downward spiral started. Technological tools are now used to accelerate flows of information, as well as to craft them. First offloading, then substituting thinking. When individual performance metrics are compared to peers’, AI becomes a perceived ally to boost chances and opportunities. A pay raise goes to whoever “ships” fastest and someone’s access to a scholarship strict numerus clausus may depend on it as well. Similarly, I like using my voice when writing (as you have heard throughout this post), but my unsuccessful job search has forced me to automate emails and parts of the process so I could send out more applications. Open vacancies receive hundreds of expressions of interest, so recruitment teams use AI tools to fast-forward through them. It means we may be individually averse, or using it as reasonably as we can, but the collective effect intensifies the noise. Our cognitive sovereignty In life, growth comes from recognising our weaknesses and improving by addressing them over time. When access to AI is given before the end of this formative period or when tasks seem too inconvenient, people will opt for an AI-enabled cognitive offload. While a recent study showed a correlation with reduction in critical thinking skills, it is just one of the many symptoms.  I reject the parallel made between offloading thinking to AI and calculating with machines or researching with engines, because the former threatens to take over in all sections of our life rather than a limited amount of it: A mathematician, or economist, will still know or create the formulas, and run demonstrations off the calculator. A researcher will still gather theories, compare existing data, write interpretations and conclusions. But if thinking is offloaded for planning a holiday, cooking a meal, drafting an essay, deciding who to vote for, it