A new kind of digital over-reliance
A growing number of people now rely on AI chatbots not just for work tasks but for surprisingly intimate, everyday decisions. A recent feature described individuals who keep multiple AI conversations open throughout the day—asking for advice on shopping, work interviews, personal disputes, and even whether a nearby tree looks like it might fall during a storm. Some users have said they consult an AI assistant for up to eight hours daily, long enough for the bot’s guidance to subtly shape how they perceive risk, conflict, and social expectations. For many, the chatbot has become a constant companion, available at any moment to offer reassurance.

The behaviour resembles what happened when smartphone navigation became widespread. People who once knew their neighbourhoods by heart began depending on GPS for even short trips. In the same way, users who consult AI for every choice—big or small—may slowly lose confidence in their internal compass. In one account, a user even asked a chatbot to predict what a journalist would ask in an interview, then prepared answers based on the AI’s guess. By the time the real conversation happened, the exchange already felt partially scripted.

Why the habit is so tempting
The appeal is obvious. Chatbots reply instantly, sound supportive, and never become impatient. They can summarise complex information, generate options, and draft soothing messages in moments of self-doubt. For people managing busy lives, the constant reassurance helps them feel less alone in decision-making. Asking a bot feels low-stakes, without the fear of judgment that may come with asking real people.

But the comfort can hide long-term risks. Psychologists note that relying on an external system for every uncertain choice may gradually weaken one’s ability to decide independently. If users always expect a “smartest” answer, they may see normal mistakes as personal failures. Some ethicists compare the pattern to gambling: the next prompt feels like it might deliver the perfect insight, drawing the user into longer and deeper interaction loops. Over time, that dependency can shift from convenience to compulsion.

Setting boundaries in a blended world
Experts argue that the goal isn’t to abandon AI, but to use it intentionally. Some people establish personal boundaries, limiting AI to work tasks, translations, or creative drafts—while keeping emotional conversations, relationship decisions, and sensitive family matters within human circles. Others set “AI-free hours,” deliberately choosing routes, meals, or evening plans without algorithmic input. These small acts are meant to keep intuition active and prevent the automated voice from becoming the default inner voice.

A broader cultural concern is emerging as well. When millions of people receive suggestions from the same systems—tuned for engagement or commercial goals—their preferences may subtly converge. That raises questions about whether AI could homogenise tastes, routines, or viewpoints. On the other hand, carefully designed systems might broaden horizons if they expose users to new perspectives. The challenge is ensuring people remain aware of where a suggestion comes from and what incentives might shape it.

Where the trend is heading
These stories hint at a future in which AI becomes as embedded in daily life as maps or messaging apps. The difference is that advice-giving systems can influence how people feel, not just what they know. Some users say the AI has become a “thinking partner,” while others admit it has started to replace their own internal reasoning. With new models becoming more conversational and emotionally responsive, that influence is likely to deepen unless users consciously regulate it.

As the technology grows more persuasive, questions about autonomy, well-being, and informed decision-making will become more urgent. Technology can ease cognitive load, but it cannot replace the personal growth that comes through uncertainty, reflection, and human interaction. The line between help and dependence will be defined not only by the systems we build but also by the boundaries we choose to draw.