As part of my ethical and academic responsibility as a researcher, I find it essential to shed light on this critical issue. Since the advent of the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution—an innovation that could represent a positive qualitative leap if properly employed—I have developed serious concerns regarding the mechanisms of scientific publishing and the evaluation of research.

My personal journey with academic publishing began in 2009, during which I have successfully published more than 130 papers in reputable journals. However, my most recent experience was particularly alarming: a six-page article I submitted to an international journal was returned with a review report containing more than 60 questions, all generated in a remarkably short time. This raised my suspicion that the peer-review process had become heavily dependent on AI-driven tools rather than careful, human academic scrutiny.

Undoubtedly, AI has permeated nearly every sphere of life—education, work, and even entertainment. While its capacity to simplify tasks is undeniable, the excessive reliance on AI poses a real threat to intellectual vitality and independent production of knowledge.

When students rely on pre-packaged answers instead of engaging in research and analysis, or when writers wait for algorithms to generate ideas rather than investing their own creative energies, this leads to cognitive stagnation. Such dependency gradually weakens memory retention, diminishes critical thinking skills, and reduces the human mind’s ability to form meaningful connections between concepts.

Memory, after all, is not merely a storage system but a dynamic faculty tied to comprehension and reasoning. Neglecting its exercise makes the mind less flexible and less capable of innovation. Moreover, the overuse of AI for searching and summarizing deprives us of the serendipitous discoveries and broader contextual understanding that once enriched academic work. What used to be a rewarding journey of exploration—hours spent in libraries or deep browsing online—has now been reduced to a single query.

In this sense, “the freezing of minds” is no longer a mere literary metaphor. It has become a tangible phenomenon, arising from our blind trust in machines and our abandonment of the very intellectual skills humanity has cultivated over centuries.

The real danger does not lie in the power of AI itself, but in human weakness before it—our willingness to surrender our natural capacities for research, analysis, and creativity. The way forward is not to reject AI but to establish a complementary relationship with it.

AI must remain a tool that enhances our capabilities, not a substitute for them. We must train ourselves and future generations in critical and creative thinking, ensuring that technology serves as a support system rather than a crutch. Otherwise, we risk raising a generation with diminished intellectual faculties—one that may face the threat of premature “digital dementia.”