What if AI Isn’t Intelligence but Anti-Intelligence?

Written by John Nosta on July 30, 2025. Posted in Current News

Let’s take this discussion slowly, as even when I write this, I sense something strange taking shape

This may read like stream of consciousness, but it’s something technology itself has prompted me to explore.

There wasn’t a single moment when this feeling of disconnection became obvious. There was no dramatic revelation or sudden epiphany.

Just a gradually emerging tension in how people began to relate to, dare I say with, artificial intelligence (AI). The tools worked. Large language models produced fluent answers, summarized volumes of content, and offered surprisingly articulate responses that appealed to both my heart and head.

But beneath the surface, something subtle and difficult to name began to take hold, at least to me. It was a quiet shift in how thinking felt.

The issue wasn’t technical. The outputs were impressive—often conjuring a fleeting sense of accomplishment, even joy. Yet I began noticing a kind of cognitive displacement.

The friction that once accompanied ideation, like the false starts, the second-guessing, and the productive discomfort all began to fade, if not vanish altogether. What was once an intellectual itch begging to be scratched is now gone.

The Slow Dissolving of Cognitive Boundaries

In its place, AI offered answers that were too clean, too fast, and eerily fluent. Curious as it may be, it felt as if my own mind had been pre-empted. This wasn’t assistance; it was the slow dissolving of cognitive boundaries, and the results, while brilliant, were vapid in a way only perfection can be.

Now, this shift invites a deeper look into how these models function. Its power lies in predictive fluency and not understanding, but arranging ideas in some mysterious statistical construct. Its architecture—atemporal, and hyperdimensional—doesn’t reflect how human minds actually work.

“Anti-intelligence”

And this is where a new idea begins to take shape. I began to wonder if we’re not merely dealing with artificial intelligence, but with something structurally different that is not simply complementary with human cognition but antithetical.

Something we might call “anti-intelligence.”

It’s important to understand that this isn’t intended as some sort of rhetorical jab, but as a conceptual distinction. Anti-intelligence isn’t ignorance, and it isn’t malfunction. I’m beginning to think it’s the inversion of intelligence as we know it.

AI replicates the surface features such as language, fluency, and structure, but it bypasses the human substrate of thought. There’s no intention, doubt, contradiction, or even meaning. It’s not opposed to thinking; it makes thinking feel unnecessary.

This becomes a cultural and cognitive concern when anti-intelligence is deployed at scale. In education, students submit AI-generated essays that mimic competence but contain no trace of internal struggle.

In journalism, AI systems can assemble entire articles without ever asking why something matters. In research, the line between synthesis and simulation blurs. It’s not about replacing jobs—it’s about replacing the human “cognitive vibe” with mechanistic performance.

Semantic Annihilation

From this construct emerges a new kind of dystopian concern: semantic annihilation. This isn’t the old crisis of misinformation, it’s a paradox of over-information.

Coherence—once a signal of truth, insight, or understanding—becomes so abundant, so effortlessly generated, that it begins to lose its cognitive gravity. In this context, coherence is no longer a marker of meaning but a statistical artifact, language that merely sounds right.

When insight is produced instantly, without struggle, reflection, or constraint, it can become indistinguishable from imitation—or as Arthur C. Clarke warned, from magic. The terrain that once demanded exploration, uncertainty, and intellectual risk becomes a smooth, frictionless plain that, while expansive and polished, is cognitively hollow.

Epistemic Literacy

This moment doesn’t require rejection of AI; it requires recognition. We need a new kind of literacy—not just technical, but epistemic. A literacy that helps us see what’s being displaced when AI is involved in the thinking process.

A literacy that preserves the conditions in which real intelligence still takes shape.

Perhaps the goal now isn’t acceleration, but preservation. Not racing to keep up with machines, but slowing down to preserve the ecology of cognition. Friction, delay, and doubt aren’t inefficiencies; they’re signs of life.

The quiet rift that some feel today may be the signal that it’s time to take this seriously—not as threat, but as terrain. And if we’re careful and clear-headed, we might just find a way to cross it without losing ourselves on the other side.

The Cognitive Age is what’s possible. Anti-Intelligence might be undermining it. Recognizing that tension is key to preserving the deeper promise of AI, not as a replacement for thought, but as a catalyst for a richer future.

See more here psychologytoday.com

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.