Until recently, artificial intelligence in the phone was something like a "smarter search engine" – it helped us find a route, translate text, or organize our calendar. Now, however, AI is quickly turning into a "second brain": an assistant who reads our emails, suggests what to reply, reminds us of important deadlines, monitors our health, and even suggests what decision is "more reasonable" at the moment. The logical question arises – since the machine thinks with us, how is personal responsibility changing?
In theory, AI promises to make us more careful and more informed. A phone that warns us that we are taking a financial risk, that our message sounds aggressive, or that we are overdoing night driving, should lead to fewer mistakes. In reality, however, a new temptation appears: "not me, but the assistant suggested it to me". When we have a second brain in our pocket, the line between our choice and its advice becomes blurred.
Lawyers are already talking about "shared responsibility" – the person makes the decision, but AI has actively participated in the process, arranging the facts, filtering the information, and emphasizing some risks at the expense of others. If an accountant, doctor or driver relies on the advice of an assistant and this leads to a problem, society will ask: "Who is to blame – the professional or the algorithm?" A model is emerging in which the person formally remains responsible, but the moral debate is layered.
The psychological effect is also not to be underestimated. When the phone constantly suggests the next step, there is a risk of "delegating" to it not only routine, but also value decisions – from "who to write to" to "who to vote for" and "who to work with". A person may begin to accept AI's suggestions as more competent than their own feeling. And that means that a part of personal responsibility is quietly moving towards a system that bears no guilt and does not take responsibility.
In everyday life, this conflict manifests itself in small but indicative situations. The phone reminds us to rest, but we continue to work – the guilt for our burnout remains ours. AI suggests we check the information, but we press "send" without reading – the responsibility for the fake news is with us. In other words, the more reason there is in the devices, the clearer it will be when we consciously ignore the better choice.
On the other hand, AI can also become a "mirror" for our responsibility. When the assistant in the phone starts showing us statistics about our behavior – how many times we have rejected a health advice, how often we neglect budget constraints or drive tired – the excuse "I didn't know" will sound increasingly empty. "Second brain" also means a second witness to our decisions.
Ethical debates are increasingly talking about the need for "responsible use of AI", and not just "responsible AI". This means getting used to asking questions to our own assistant: "where does this information come from?", "what assumptions are you making?", "what are you not showing me?". At a time when algorithms are becoming an invisible background of everyday life, personal responsibility also includes this – not to accept them as an infallible authority, but as a tool with which we consciously work.
In the end, the "second brain" in the phone will not replace the first – ours. On the contrary, the bad news is that with smarter assistants it will be increasingly difficult for us to excuse ourselves with ignorance and lack of information. The good news is that if we accept AI not as an excuse but as a partner, we can make more informed decisions and take more mature responsibility for them. And this is perhaps the most human part in a world in which technologies increasingly think with us.