What is happening to human genius in the age of AI?

Today, almost every conversation about artificial intelligence revolves around the same things: how intelligent it is, how creative it is, how fast it works, and how capable it is of replacing human beings. But it seems to me that these conversations are missing a far more important question: what is happening to human genius in the age of AI?

I do not understand genius as fame, as a high IQ, or as a romantic myth about the chosen few. For me, human genius is the capacity to become a source of something genuinely new: to see what no one has yet seen, to think beyond templates, and to act not as a mere function of circumstance, but from an inner center, from the depth of one’s own will, responsibility, and creative power.

That is why I am interested not only in what AI can do, but also in what its growing presence is doing to the human being.

Artificial intelligence is already changing more than the tools of our work. It is changing the very environment of thought. It is entering into the way we write, formulate, design, interpret, make decisions, and solve problems. And that means it is also changing the very conditions in which human originality can appear at all.

Yes, AI can amplify human capacity. It can accelerate search, expand access to knowledge, make experimentation easier, and support the creative process. But at the same time, it can quietly train us to prefer speed over depth, compilation over discovery, and optimisation over the inner work from which something truly new is born. And then the central question is no longer whether a machine can imitate creativity, but what happens to the human capacity to create something genuinely new in a world where machines are becoming ever better at imitating thought.

It seems to me that this is where one of the defining philosophical fault lines of our time runs. We need to rethink what human genius is, what in the human being cannot be reduced to an algorithm, what cannot be exhausted by the reprocessing of what already exists, and what remains a living source of original action. Because the future will not be decided only at the level of technology. It will be decided at the level of whether the human being remains a source of the genuinely new.