Dropping Anchor in Rough Seas: Co-Reasoning with Personalized AI Advisors and the Liberalism of Fear

Abstract In response to Benjamin Lang’s defence of “co-reasoning” with personalized AI advisors, this article formulates a political critique of the co-reasoning model through the lens of the liberalism of fear. This reframes the ethical aspiration to self-realization with the assistance of AI by embedding it within a realistic political setting. It suggests that before we seek to maximize the odds of self-realization, we should strive to minimize the odds of domination by others. After highlighting three power asymmetries involved in the co-reasoning model, the article argues that personalization risks stabilizing domination by translating structural injustices into individualized aspirational challenges. Three political constraints on personalized AI are then proposed: the priority of non-domination, the public contestability of operative norms, and the recognition of non-personalizable civic burdens.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Philosophy & Technology
Published
2025-11-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-025-01006-z
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.37
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Dropping Anchor in Rough Seas: Co-Reasoning with Personalized AI Advisors and the Liberalism of Fear

Matthieu Queloz
1 citations
Philosophy & Technology
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
2.37
article

Dropping Anchor in Rough Seas: Co-Reasoning with Personalized AI Advisors and the Liberalism of Fear

Matthieu Queloz
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract In response to Benjamin Lang’s defence of “co-reasoning” with personalized AI advisors, this article formulates a political critique of the co-reasoning model through the lens of the liberalism of fear. This reframes the ethical aspiration to self-realization with the assistance of AI by embedding it within a realistic political setting. It suggests that before we seek to maximize the odds of self-realization, we should strive to minimize the odds of domination by others. After highlighting three power asymmetries involved in the co-reasoning model, the article argues that personalization risks stabilizing domination by translating structural injustices into individualized aspirational challenges. Three political constraints on personalized AI are then proposed: the priority of non-domination, the public contestability of operative norms, and the recognition of non-personalizable civic burdens.

Philosophy & TechnologyVol. 38(4)
University of Bern (CH), Bern University of Applied Sciences (CH)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
2.37
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.