AI: Humanity's Fourth Narcissistic Insult & How to Overcome It
In 1917, Sigmund Freud articulated three “narcissistic insults” that science had dealt to humanity, each revealing that our species was not as uniquely central or sovereign as we once believed. The first came with Nicolaus Copernicus’s discovery, shifting Earth from the universe’s center to a mere orbiting planet. This was followed by Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which stripped humanity of its presumed status as “the crown of creation.” Finally, Freud himself delivered the third, perhaps most profound, insult: the revelation that we are not entirely masters of our own minds, but rather governed by the powerful, often unseen forces of the unconscious.
Had Freud been alive today, he would undoubtedly have identified artificial intelligence (AI) as a fourth, equally potent intellectual insult. AI’s capabilities challenge our deeply held notions of human self-understanding, particularly concerning our intellect and spirituality. While humanity has largely adapted to the cosmological, biological, and psychological shifts brought by the earlier insults, the rise of AI presents a new wound, prompting urgent questions about how we might heal it.
One proposed remedy involves a careful re-evaluation of the language we use to describe AI. Despite its remarkable achievements, the term “artificial intelligence” itself can be seen as diminishing to the human intellect. Replacing it with “co-intelligence,” for instance, might more accurately reflect a relationship where large language models serve as complementary tools to human mental resources, softening the perceived threat to our self-image.
Another approach suggests questioning the very nature of AI’s “intelligence.” Some researchers argue that large language models are essentially “stochastic parrots,” systems that merely combine linguistic patterns based on probabilities derived from vast training data. This perspective contends that AI lacks genuine understanding or meaning-making capabilities, acting instead as a sophisticated mimic. As cognitive scientist Peter Gärdenfors aptly put it, “We are not going to be AI’s stupid pets.” This view encourages us to focus on the fundamental differences between human and artificial cognition, asserting that as long as collective human intelligence retains the capacity to critically assess and judge AI’s output, the insult can be managed.
A third strategy differentiates between various “intelligences” rather than viewing human intelligence as a singular phenomenon. Human intelligence encompasses a rich tapestry of artistic, personal, and moral capacities, all converging in an intuitive, socially embedded mode that holds particular significance for spirituality. While AI remains confined to the “here” and the “profane,” generating “hallucinations” when it produces nonsensical outputs, human intelligence possesses the unique ability to transcend ordinary reality, seeking and finding meaning beyond the immediately observable. From this integrated perspective, AI, at least for now, remains inferior to the multi-faceted nature of human intellect.
However, despite these distinctions that highlight AI’s computational and statistical identity, a critical question remains: will philosophical arguments about AI’s true nature ultimately matter when faced with its undeniable usefulness? If an AI assistant provides comforting and valuable advice during a personal crisis, for example, its practical utility might easily overshadow academic debates about its “intelligence” or the nuances of its “co-intelligence.” The experienced benefit of AI is likely to trump abstract philosophical inquiries.
This dilemma often leaves society oscillating between techno-messianism, where AI is seen as a savior, and techno-dystopia, where it signals humanity’s end. Neither extreme is productive. Uncritical embrace of AI is socially irresponsible, while panic often leads to irrational actions or apathy. The rapid pace of AI development far outstrips the adaptation of social and legal frameworks, particularly in democratic societies. This creates a landscape where transparency is lost, lines of responsibility blur, and consequences strike unevenly, impacting knowledge, work, communication, and integrity, and potentially creating significant social unrest and exacerbating inequalities in the labor market. Without robust humanistic reflection, AI risks failing to contribute to a genuinely good society for all.
Addressing this challenge requires unprecedented cooperation across all sectors of society. Technical and legal expertise alone will not suffice. Civil society, drawing upon the rich cultural, philosophical, and theological sources that have guided humanity for centuries, must engage with the existential questions posed by AI. The hallmarks of Western modernity—individualism, consumerism, and secularism—are insufficient responses to AI’s profound narcissistic insult. Instead, distinctly human qualities such as relationality, transcendence, fallibility, and responsibility will be key to navigating this new era and ensuring AI serves, rather than diminishes, our collective humanity.