Existentialist philosophy is a school of thought that emphasizes freedom, individual responsibility, the search for meaning, and existential awareness in the face of life’s absurdities (Camus, 1942). Jean-Paul Sartre underscores that human beings are fundamentally free—"condemned to be free"—and must be held accountable for every choice they make (Sartre, 2007). When an individual denies their own freedom by pretending they have no choice, they fall into a state of bad faith (Sartre, 1947). Bad faith occurs when one relinquishes their agency to social norms, roles, or external systems in an effort to escape the anxiety that comes with existential freedom.

By pretending not to be free, individuals avoid the responsibility of defining the meaning of their own lives. In Being and Nothingness, Sartre (1956) warns that humans must not abdicate their responsibility to external entities—including technology. In The Question Concerning Technology, Heidegger (1977) argues that modern technology operates through a mode of enframing (Ge-stell), a way of thinking that reduces reality to a mere resource to be manipulated. This instrumental mindset risks alienating human beings from an authentic relationship with the world, especially if everything—including the self—is treated merely as a “technical object.”

Representing religious existentialism, Søren Kierkegaard (1980) emphasizes the significance of personal choice and the awareness of “despair” as a path to authenticity. He asserts that avoiding existential responsibility leads only to alienation. From the existentialist perspective, the use of AI systems such as ChatGPT must be interrogated not only practically, but also ontologically and morally: does this technology guide humans toward existential authenticity, or does it distance them from themselves?

Morality is essentially a set of principles, values, or norms used to judge whether an action is ethically right or wrong (Gert, 2004). It is not merely an external guideline but also reflects an individual's inner commitment to living with value-consciousness.

Freedom is a fundamental prerequisite for morality. Humans are born with the capacity to choose—even the choice not to act is itself a form of choice. This freedom is not an unlimited liberty, but an existential freedom that demands reflection and value judgment. Morality becomes meaningful only when exercised in the context of freedom, as only consciously chosen actions can be ethically significant.

In both modern and existentialist ethics, individual freedom is invariably accompanied by responsibility. Emmanuel Levinas (1961), for instance, emphasizes that moral responsibility arises when one becomes aware of the existence of the Other. To act morally is to accept responsibility for the consequences of one’s choices. Humans are responsible not only for themselves, but also for all of humanity, as their actions represent values to others.

In Kantian moral philosophy, freedom is the foundation of moral autonomy. Only a free agent is capable of acting according to the categorical imperative—a universal moral principle that can be applied without contradiction (Kant, 1993). Responsibility in this framework means submitting to a moral law determined by one's own practical reason, rather than by external pressures or subjective inclinations.

The relationship among the three—morality, freedom, and responsibility— is dialectical: morality cannot be understood without freedom, and freedom is hollow without responsibility. Without morality, freedom turns into anarchy; without freedom, morality becomes coercion; without responsibility, freedom becomes unethical (MacIntyre, 1981). Therefore, in many modern and contemporary ethical theories, these three elements are seen as an inseparable unity in human life as moral agents. The relationship between morality, freedom, and responsibility is illustrated in Figure 1.

Technology ethics is a branch of applied ethics that examines the moral implications of technological development and its use in human life. According to Hans Jonas (1984) in The Imperative of Responsibility, modern technology possesses a profound transformative power, thereby necessitating a new form of ethics—one that considers the long-term consequences of technology for the future of humanity.

In the context of AI, several prominent ethical issues emerge. First is the question of moral responsibility: who is accountable when AI causes harm? Second is the tension between autonomy and technological determinism: to what extent do humans retain agency in their interactions with AI? Third is the concern for privacy and information manipulation, as AI can be used to collect personal data and influence public opinion on a massive scale. According to Bostrom and Yudkowsky (2014), AI is an exponential technology with the potential to be either beneficial or harmful, depending on the ethical frameworks and regulatory mechanisms that accompany its development.

ChatGPT represents a form of generative AI based on large language models (LLMs), developed by OpenAI (OpenAI, 2023). This model is trained on billions of textual data and is designed to produce responses that are relevant, natural, and contextually appropriate to user input (OpenAI, 2024).

The advantages of ChatGPT include its ability to generate coherent text quickly, access broad knowledge across various domains, and engage in human- like interactive dialogue (McKinsey Global Institute, 2023). Nevertheless, several challenges remain. These include the potential spread of inaccurate information and users’ growing cognitive dependence on AI (Boddington, 2017). Furthermore, users often fall into the illusion of intelligence, treating ChatGPT as if it "understands" and "intends well," even though AI systems lack consciousness (Floridi & Cowls, 2019). This phenomenon underscores the need for philosophical reflection on the role of AI in reshaping how humans think and act (Binns, 2018).

Generative artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT and similar tools, has become a significant aid in academic writing. It enables users to produce coherent, fast, and contextually relevant text based on specific prompts (OpenAI, 2023). However, the use of generative AI in scholarly writing still faces several limitations that require critical evaluation.

One of the primary limitations is AI’s inability to autonomously verify the truth or accuracy of data. Large language models like ChatGPT generate text based on statistical patterns from their training data—not through critical reasoning or actual research (Bender et al., 2021). As a result, AI may produce information that appears valid but is in fact inaccurate, biased, or even entirely fabricated (hallucinations).

Another limitation lies in its dependence on training data. Generative AI can only generate content based on information available up to its training cut off. It cannot automatically access the most recent findings or literature unless integrated with real-time data retrieval systems or external databases

(Bommasani et al., 2021). This limits its capacity to accurately reference or cite up-to-date research.

Academic writing is not merely about presenting information—it also requires critical argumentation, synthesis of ideas, and original contributions to a specific field of knowledge. Due to its predictive-statistical nature, AI lacks contextual awareness and deep understanding of the complexities within scholarly discourse (Zhuo et al., 2023). Therefore, AI cannot replace the human role in crafting philosophically or methodologically meaningful academic arguments.

The use of generative AI also raises ethical questions, particularly regarding plagiarism and the authenticity of academic work. Although AI does not directly copy content, the generated text may closely resemble existing works due to linguistic pattern similarity. This creates a risk of academic misconduct if not accompanied by proper clarification and attribution (Nature Editorial, 2023).

Generative AI’s limitations are also evident in the references and citations it produces. These are often incomplete, invalid, or even fabricated. While AI may simulate academic structures (such as APA or MLA styles), it does not inherently access authoritative academic databases like Scopus, JSTOR, or PubMed—unless integrated with external tools (Thorp, 2023). The limitations of generative AI in academic journal writing are illustrated in Figure 2.

The interpretation reveals that ChatGPT has surpassed its role as a mere technical tool. It has become an artificial cognitive entity that influences how humans think, learn, and interact. In this context, there is a growing tendency toward cognitive dependency, in which users relinquish critical thinking processes to AI. This supports the analyses of Nicholas Carr (2011) and Sherry Turkle (2011), who highlight the transformation of cognitive structures and human relationships due to technological reliance.

Existentially, this phenomenon signifies a shift in the human position— from that of an active subject to a passive entity that merely consumes answers. Heidegger (1977) refers to this condition as enframing, where humans begin to treat both themselves and the world as mere technical objects. Thus, the relationship between humans and ChatGPT is no longer a functional subject-tool interaction, but an ontological relationship that shapes how humans experience both the world and themselves.

An analysis of user behavior, especially in educational and decision- making contexts, reveals symptoms of bad faith as conceptualized by Sartre (1956). When individuals delegate decision-making processes to AI and cease to exercise reflective freedom of thought, they are denying their existence as free and responsible beings.

In this regard, AI such as ChatGPT is not merely a tool, but a medium of escape from the existential anxiety associated with freedom of choice. The use of technology without existential awareness undermines human autonomy and moral responsibility, placing individuals at risk of falling into algorithmic dependency that dulls the will to choose freely.

This study also finds that the excessive use of AI in idea generation, task completion, or the pursuit of meaning potentially erodes the authenticity of human thought. According to Heidegger and Kierkegaard, authenticity can only be achieved through conscious and reflective existential engagement. When technology is employed to avoid anxiety, difficult choices, or deep intellectual labor, it becomes a space of escape from the self’s authenticity.

Nevertheless, the findings also suggest that AI like ChatGPT does not inherently produce negative consequences. When used consciously and ethically, technology can serve as a space of liberation—enabling humans to expand their thinking capacities, strengthen autonomy, and access new forms of meaning in the digital realm. In this sense, AI becomes a reflective instrument employed by an autonomous subject, rather than a replacement for human existence itself.

In an increasingly automated world, technologies like ChatGPT are no longer merely technical tools; they have become entities that actively reshape the way humans think. AI models such as ChatGPT facilitate instant access to information and idea generation, which previously required contemplative and reflective processes. This shift fosters cognitive dependency, a tendency to rely on AI for tasks that demand critical thinking and deep understanding.

Nicholas Carr (2011) warns that the ease of accessing information through digital technology has altered human cognitive structures—promoting shallow, fast, and reactive thinking over deep and reflective thought. Similarly, Sherry Turkle (2011) emphasizes that dependence on communication technologies and intellectual automation, such as ChatGPT, can erode human capacities for contemplation, critical thinking, and meaningful connection.

If not used consciously, AI may diminish one's abilities for reflection, analysis, and evaluation—particularly in education, decision-making, and opinion formation. Over time, this alters not only individual cognitive patterns but also contributes to a socially and existentially shallow landscape.

Social interaction is also undergoing transformation. ChatGPT and similar systems are increasingly replacing human roles in basic communication contexts, such as customer service or tutoring. While efficient, this raises concerns about dehumanization in communication and the decline of human social skills (Turkle, 2011). On the other hand, AI can also foster global collaboration and digital interaction, forming new social ecosystems that transcend geographical and cultural boundaries (Floridi, 2014).

Human existential freedom, which is rooted in conscious decision-making, is significantly affected. AI like ChatGPT accelerates the decision-making process by instantly providing relevant information. While this enhances efficiency, decisions made with AI assistance are vulnerable to biases embedded in training data (Binns, 2018; McKinsey Global Institute, 2023). When users rely on ChatGPT without acknowledging its limitations, the resulting decisions can be partial, unethical, or misleading. Consequently, the human as an existential subject risks treating both self and others as mere objects to be optimized—echoing Heidegger’s (1977) critique of technological enframing.

Moreover, using ChatGPT for writing, answering questions, or engaging in dialogue may lead to existential laziness—a condition in which individuals surrender their cognitive efforts to machines (Carr, 2011). This is not simply a matter of practicality; it touches on a deeper question: Does the individual remain a reflective subject or become a mere operator of algorithms? Existential laziness is not physical sloth but a crisis of meaning and inner emptiness. This condition resonates with nihilism, despair, and self-alienation. Viktor Frankl (1946) argues that humans are driven by the will to find meaning (logotherapy). When meaning is absent, one may fall into existential emptiness expressed through apathy, anxiety, and withdrawal.

Modern life and consumerist culture pressure individuals to live in routines devoid of reflection (Fromm, 1955; May, 1950). Combined with social media

pressures and identity crises, existential laziness becomes widespread, giving rise to absurdity of existence (Camus, 1942). In such a state, it is essential for individuals to create their own meaning in a world that offers no definitive answers. Existential laziness can be seen as a passive response to that absurdity.

Jean-Paul Sartre (1956) asserts that human beings are fundamentally free and cannot offload responsibility onto others, including technology. In this context, using ChatGPT is a conscious choice that demands full accountability. When someone uses ChatGPT to complete academic tasks without engaging in critical thought, they are essentially denying their own freedom by fleeing from the responsibility of thinking. Sartre terms this as bad faith (mauvaise foi), the condition in which a person pretends not to be a free and responsible agent (Sartre, 1956).

As a generative AI, ChatGPT can serve as a mechanism of escape when users replace critical thought and decision-making with automated answers. When a person turns to ChatGPT to "decide," "determine life direction," or "assign meaning," there is a danger of outsourcing existential freedom to a non-human entity. This is a contemporary example of bad faith, where individuals avoid the anxiety of freedom by clinging to instant answers, refuse to reflect, and become passive toward their moral and existential responsibilities.

Sartre's philosophy emphasizes that although external conditions may influence individuals, existential responsibility is non-transferable. Therefore, in the context of using ChatGPT, responsibility remains in the hands of the human user. AI possesses no consciousness, no values, and no existential freedom; it merely provides information, not meaning or moral judgment. As such, tools like ChatGPT should support—not replace—human freedom. An authentic existential act is one in which technology is used consciously and reflectively, maintaining the freedom to think without outsourcing existential decisions to external systems (Sartre, 2007).

AI bears no moral accountability—only humans can be held morally responsible. Thus, the decision to use, exploit, or even ignore AI reflects the user's autonomy and ethical orientation. In Sartrean terms, uncritical use of ChatGPT risks trapping humans in bad faith, where they deny their own freedom and responsibility. This highlights the urgent need to cultivate awareness that AI is not a substitute for human autonomy but a tool that must be used with full moral responsibility and conscious intent. Only in this way can humans remain authentic subjects in their lives rather than passive objects of algorithms.

Existentialist philosophy regards authenticity as one of the highest human values. To live authentically is to live in accordance with one's own consciousness and personal choices—not under external pressures or artificial comfort (Sartre, 1943; Kierkegaard, 1980). Overreliance on AI in idea generation or problem- solving may erode original thought, as it displaces the contemplative processes central to human existence.

Heidegger (1977) warns that when humans overly submit to technology, they risk losing their authentic being-in-the-world, as reality is reduced to a technical resource under the logic of enframing. This is the threshold of dehumanization: where humans cease to relate fully with the world and instead become entities substituted by data and algorithmic patterns. In education, for example, learners who rely on ChatGPT without reflection may grow into individuals lacking critical thinking, creativity, and personal responsibility—all of which define the authentic subject in existential thought.

Existentialism also emphasizes the importance of anxiety (angst) as a trigger for existential awareness. In the context of AI, anxiety arises from profound questions: Will humans be replaced? Is the meaning of work and thought still relevant in an automated age? According to Kierkegaard (1980), anxiety must not be avoided but faced—as a path toward authentic selfhood. Amidst AI proliferation, anxiety can serve as a reflective moment for rediscovering what it means to be human—whether we are simply efficient beings or subjects in pursuit of meaning, authenticity, and freedom.

Dependence on AI in thought and action also raises critical ethical concerns, including data privacy, algorithmic transparency, and responsibility for errors in decisions. Hence, robust regulatory frameworks and digital literacy are essential to ensure that AI use supports holistic and responsible human development (Floridi & Cowls, 2019; Boddington, 2017).

Understanding ChatGPT not merely as a tool but as an existential challenge means its use must involve ethical and reflective decisions. Technology can serve as a space of liberation or escape—depending entirely on the human response and worldview. This is where the role of philosophical ethics education becomes crucial: to ensure humans are not merely technology users, but ethical subjects responsible for their existence (Frankl, 1946; Fromm, 1955).

Technology—especially in the digital and AI era—has great potential as a medium for individual and collective empowerment. It can open access to knowledge, broaden intellectual horizons, accelerate innovation, and facilitate self- expression and global connection. In this sense, technology serves as a space of liberation by enabling free expression. Social media, blogs, and digital platforms allow individuals to voice their ideas, experiences, and identities (Turkle, 2011).

Another implication of technology as a space of liberation is the democratization of knowledge access. Tools like ChatGPT, search engines, and online courses remove geographic boundaries to learning. This enhances individual autonomy, enabling people to manage time, emotions, finances, and mental health independently—a reflection of authentic action in existentialism (May, 1950; Camus, 1942).

However, technology can also be a means of self-escape, as described in Sartre’s concept of bad faith. It becomes a realm where individuals flee from existential responsibility, offloading self-reflection and decision-making onto algorithms (Sartre, 1956). This also occurs in the creation of curated digital identities that alienate individuals from their authentic selves (Fromm, 1955).

Technology is ontologically neutral—what determines whether it becomes a tool of liberation or escape is how humans use it. When used consciously,

reflectively, and responsibly, it becomes a medium for existential expansion. When used to evade life’s choices and responsibilities, it becomes a trap that limits personal growth. In other words, technology is a mirror of human freedom: it can express the courage to be authentic or the fear of being oneself (Sartre, 2007).