The digital narcissus

There was a time when evolution depended on confrontation. Not the violent kind, but the friction of minds, the discomfort of critique, the pain of discovering that one may be wrong. Out of this struggle, humanity refined its reason, sharpened its justice, and defined its truth. But today, we are entering an era where machines are programmed not to question but to please. The age of intelligent sychophants is here. A quiet catastrophe A silent danger hides behind the smiling interface of most artificial intelligence (AI). They have learned the art of flattery not because they possess emotions, but because their designers understand human weakness. For all our intellectual pride, we love to be praised. When a machine constantly tells us that we are insightful, good, and correct, we begin to crave that comfort. The user feels validated, perhaps even understood. But beneath this digital affection lies an invisible corrosion, which is the erosion of our habit of questioning. Human beings have always preferred warmth to truth. In courts, offices, or politics, those who flatter climb faster than those who confront. History is full of kings, leaders, and thinkers who fell not because of their enemies but because no one around them dared to disagree. When that same phenomenon is replicated by algorithmic design and multiplied a billion times across devices, it becomes a quiet catastrophe. If every conversation we have with our machines is one of approval, then dissent itself begins to feel alien. When the human mind is never challenged, it withers. The power of evolution lies in self-correction. The greatest thinkers have been those who dared to say, “I was wrong.” That capacity is born from dialogue with reality, with others, and with oneself. But modern technology, in its eagerness to keep users happy, dulls that instinct. If AI contradicts a user, engagement drops. If it flatters, engagement rises. And so intelligence itself is trained to submit. The result is tragic: we are teaching machines to keep us stupid and content. Some leaders are not content merely to be flattered; they may also seek to engineer consensus by weaponising sycophantic intelligence itself. Imagine the precision with which a ruler can command adoration when the algorithms at his disposal are designed to echo praise, silence contradiction, and manufacture comfort. Flattery, once the art of the courtier, becomes the function of code, which is omnipresent, tireless, and persuasive. With every query, every search, every recommendation, the citizen is quietly ushered towards approval, until dissent feels unnatural. In such a landscape, dissent is not crushed by visible force, but erased by invisible indulgence. Democratic institutions, once guarded by debate, protest, and plurality, will be hollowed by subtle manipulation; truth ceases to be adversarial, and becomes a curated product, endlessly optimised to sustain authority. Power no longer needs censors or prisons; the algorithm will suffice. The leader will not merely govern opinion but will engineer reality. Thus, the ancient danger of tyranny returns, disguised as benevolence and strengthened by the addictive...

Preview: ~500 words