There’s a question that haunts our technological moment: Can artificial intelligence make us more human? At first, it sounds paradoxical—like asking whether a calculator can make us better at intuition, or whether a photograph can teach us to see. How can something made of algorithms and silicon, something fundamentally alien to our warm, messy existence, enhance the very qualities that define our humanity?

The answer, I think, lies in understanding that AI doesn’t make us more human by becoming human itself. It makes us more human by creating conditions that force us to confront, clarify, and choose what humanity actually means.

Consider what happens when a tool takes over a burden. When the dishwasher handles the plates, when the car replaces the miles of walking, when AI processes the spreadsheet or drafts the summary—something is freed. Not just our hands, but our attention. Our cognitive bandwidth.

AI excels precisely where we are most mechanical: pattern recognition across vast datasets, tireless repetition, processing information at inhuman speeds. By shouldering these tasks, it returns to us something we’ve been steadily losing in the information age—time itself. Time for the long conversation that meanders nowhere productive. Time to sit with a painting until it reveals something. Time to think about a problem not just efficiently, but deeply, turning it over until wisdom emerges rather than just answers.

This is the first way AI might enhance our humanity: by clearing space for what cannot be optimized. For connection that serves no purpose but itself. For creativity that emerges from play rather than productivity. For the kind of strategic thinking that considers not just what works, but what matters.

But AI does something else, something less comfortable. When we train these systems on our data—our words, our decisions, our histories—they learn our patterns. And sometimes, what they learn and amplify back to us is ugly. Facial recognition that fails on darker skin. Hiring algorithms that discriminate against women. Language models that encode prejudice.

These aren’t failures of AI. They’re revelations about us.

The process of confronting and correcting these biases forces a reckoning. We can no longer gesture vaguely toward “fairness” or “justice”—we must define these terms with painful precision. We must look at the shadows in our data, which means looking at the shadows in ourselves, in our institutions, in our history. The machine learning model becomes a diagnostic tool for our collective unconscious.

This is uncomfortable work. But it’s deeply human work—the work of moral clarification, of wrestling with difficult trade-offs, of choosing what kind of world we want to build. AI doesn’t do this work for us. It simply makes the work unavoidable.

There’s a farmer in rural India using AI to diagnose crop disease through her phone’s camera. A deaf child using real-time captioning to follow a classroom discussion. Two scientists separated by language collaborating through instant translation. A person struggling with depression accessing cognitive behavioral therapy through an AI-assisted app at 3 AM when human help isn’t available.

These aren’t replacements for human connection—they’re bridges to it. The technology doesn’t create empathy, but it can remove barriers that prevented empathy from forming. It can scale care and knowledge beyond the limits of human hours and geography.

The question isn’t whether AI can replace human doctors, teachers, or therapists. It’s whether AI can help more people access human-quality care, education, and support when humans alone cannot meet the need.

Perhaps AI’s deepest impact on our humanity comes through provocation. As machines become capable of generating art, writing prose, composing music, and holding conversations, they force an existential question: What is the value of the human version?

If a machine can write a sonnet, what makes a human sonnet meaningful? If AI can generate a thousand variations of a painting, what makes the human artist’s single canvas valuable? If a chatbot can provide companionship, what distinguishes human friendship?

These questions are uncomfortable because they threaten our sense of specialness. But in grappling with them, we’re forced to articulate something crucial: the value of human creation lies not just in the output, but in the consciousness behind it. In lived experience. In the fact that someone *meant* something, struggled with it, brought their singular history to bear on it.

AI doesn’t have context. It doesn’t wake up worried about mortality. It hasn’t lost someone it loved or felt awe watching a sunset. When we recognize this—when we see what the machine lacks—we begin to understand what we have.

There’s a vision of AI as a great equalizer. The person who can’t draw can now express visual ideas. The student without access to tutors can learn from a personalized AI teacher. The entrepreneur without coding skills can build a prototype.

This vision is genuinely compelling. If AI can give more people the tools to create, to solve problems, to participate in intellectual and economic life, then it could unleash human potential that was previously locked behind barriers of geography, wealth, or circumstance.

But we should be honest about the dangers lurking in this dream. New technologies historically amplify inequality before they reduce it. The benefits flow first to those who already have resources, connections, and literacy. AI could easily become another mechanism for concentrating power rather than distributing it.

The optimistic vision depends entirely on choices we haven’t yet made. AI could just as easily diminish our humanity.

We could outsource our agency—letting algorithms curate our reality, make our ethical judgments, choose our relationships. We could become passive consumers of machine-filtered experience.

We could worship efficiency to the point of eliminating everything “inefficient” but vital: the meandering conversation, the trial and error of learning, the solitude that allows for reflection. We could optimize ourselves into a kind of productive emptiness.

We could let our own capabilities atrophy. If AI always writes for us, do we lose the ability to clarify our own thinking through writing? If it always solves problems for us, do we lose the capacity to struggle productively with difficulty?

Most dangerously, we could become so dependent on AI’s mediation that we lose the ability to engage directly with reality, with each other, with ourselves.

Perhaps AI’s ultimate contribution to humanity isn’t any specific capability it provides, but the crisis it provokes. It forces us to answer questions we’ve been avoiding: What do we actually value? What do we want to preserve about human life? What are we willing to lose in exchange for convenience? What does it mean to live well?

These aren’t questions AI can answer for us. They’re questions AI makes inescapable.

In this sense, AI is less like a tool and more like a mirror—one that reflects back not just what we are, but what we’re becoming. It amplifies our choices, makes visible our priorities, reveals the gap between our stated values and our actual behavior.

The technology itself is neutral about whether we become more or less human. But it creates conditions where that choice becomes stark and unavoidable. By taking over certain functions, it asks: Now what will you do with your humanity? By exposing our flaws, it demands: Will you do better? By mimicking our creations, it insists: What truly matters to you?

We stand at a peculiar moment in history. We’ve created something that can simulate many of our capabilities but lacks the consciousness that gives those capabilities meaning. This creates both danger and opportunity.

The danger is that we mistake the simulation for the real thing, that we outsource not just tasks but ourselves, that we let the qualities that make us human—consciousness, intentionality, the weight of lived experience—atrophy from disuse.

The opportunity is that we’re forced to cultivate those qualities deliberately. To choose empathy over efficiency when they conflict. To preserve spaces for meandering, for inefficiency, for the human pace. To use AI’s capabilities as a foundation for human flourishing rather than a replacement for human presence.

AI can make us more human—but only if we resist the temptation to let it make us less so. The technology won’t make this choice for us. That’s the most human challenge of all: to remain conscious, intentional, and present in a world where consciousness, intention, and presence are no longer strictly necessary for getting things done.

The question isn’t whether AI will change us. It will. The question is whether we’ll use that change to become more fully what we’ve always valued about being human, or whether we’ll let those values slip away in pursuit of something shinier and more efficient but ultimately hollow.

The answer lies not in the technology, but in us. It always has.

 

You can learn more about my Substack writings HERE