Can the elite manipulate students to dumb down by using A.I. to do their cognitive thinking as to rely on the elite for leadership? The short answer is: yes, the potential exists. But the deeper truth lies in how that potential is propagated, reframed, or resisted.
When students outsource cognitive labour to AI; especially without reflection or engagement, they risk hollowing out the very skills that foster autonomy: critical thinking, synthesis and discernment. This erosion of deep learning creates a disconnect between the appearance of progress and the reality of understanding. If this pattern becomes widespread, it opens the door for elite systems. Those who control the algorithms, platforms and pedagogies; to shape not just what is learned, but how thinking itself is scaffolded.
This isn’t just manipulation; it’s epistemic capture. Students may begin to rely on AI not as a tool for inquiry, but as a surrogate for thought. And in doing so, they become more dependent on the elite who design, regulate and profit from these systems. Leadership, in this context, becomes less about vision and more about control.
The danger lies not in the tool, but in its uncritical use. The elite may set the stage, but students and educators still choose how to perform.
Is this why the elite are allowing A.I. to be accessed? The increasing accessibility of AI raises legitimate concerns about long-term dependency and cognitive erosion. When students rely on AI to complete assignments without engaging in the thinking process, they risk losing the ability to analyse, reflect, and
synthesise information independently. This isn’t just a shortcut, it’s a shift in how knowledge is formed and retained. If this pattern continues, it could create a generation of learners who appear competent but lack depth, originality and resilience.
In this context, the elite, those who design, regulate and profit from AI systems, they may benefit from a population that is increasingly dependent on their tools. By shaping the platforms, controlling the data and setting the standards, they influence not just what is learned, but how thinking itself is structured. The danger is not that AI is used, but that it becomes the default mode of cognition, outsourcing thought, creativity and judgment to systems that reflect elite priorities.
This is not a conspiracy, but a systemic drift. The appearance of empowerment masks a deeper loss of agency. If students and educators do not critically engage with these tools, they risk becoming passive consumers of algorithmic output rather than active participants in learning and leadership.
