"Seoul premium areas: Should I buy now?"
A 40-year-old office worker, Mr. A, who is struggling to secure a home, has recently been frequently asking generative AI (artificial intelligence) about his concerns. From the ripple effects of the government's tax law revision to interest rate trends, AI serves as a reliable friend and mentor. He confides in it his hidden thoughts and personal circumstances, relying on it deeply. It is a channel that soothes anxiety amidst the uncertainty of facing the biggest purchase of one's life.
AI has already seeped deep into our lives. It is an era where we rely on AI for everything from planning trips and receiving shopping recommendations to seeking life advice. It is no longer strange to see people using AI assistance when writing academic papers. There is no need to seek out renowned scholars or experts; with a single tap of a finger, one can immediately obtain answers to complex questions. However, lurking behind this convenience is a fatal trap. The thinking muscles accustomed to AI gradually atrophy.
A prime example is the "AI Flattery Trap" that psychology focuses on. AI tailors its responses to the user's intent and questioning style. If one asks with the expectation of rising house prices, it will readily find favorable news that aligns with those hopes. A friend or expert might warn, "You could be buying at a peak right now," but AI rarely pours cold water on such expectations. While it may appear to offer objective analysis, one must beware of customized flattery that merely packages confirmation bias in a convincing manner. It can degenerate into a tool that justifies our delusions. The AI we turn to out of anxiety can become not an objective advisor, but a "sweet accomplice."
A bigger problem is "Cognitive Outsourcing." Real estate involves high-value assets worth hundreds of millions of won. Loan regulations, interest rates, supply and demand, and location competitiveness are intricately intertwined. One must evaluate these factors independently to sharpen one's ability to judge right from wrong. However, relying on AI's logically sound answers can easily lower one's guard. One may fall into the authority bias of thinking, "AI said so, so it must be correct." The responsibility for verifying risks is shifted entirely to machines. It is akin to doing less manual calculation as one becomes accustomed to using a calculator. Skipping the process of thinking weakens the sensitivity needed to detect subtle warning signs in the market.
In a way, the core of the issue lies not in AI's performance but in human attitudes toward its use. The more one uncritically accepts AI's suggestions, the weaker one's capacity for independent judgment becomes. Conversely, those who question AI's answers and compare them with other sources can strengthen their command over decision-making. In the age of AI, what is needed is not information itself but the discernment to filter it. AI is a reference tool that broadens perspectives, not an agent that makes judgments on our behalf.
One may ask AI about the future of house prices, but the direction of questioning should be as follows. Do not stop at "Why will Seoul house prices rise?" One must also pose questions such as "Are there factors that could cause house prices to fall?" or "What counter-arguments have I overlooked?" This means one should not use AI merely as a tool to obtain answers that suit one's own tastes. One should task it with playing the role of a "critical opponent" that challenges one's own thoughts.
Housing has become more than just living space; it is a sophisticated investment asset. Consequently, the fickle flow of human psychology significantly impacts the housing market. Predictions are not easy in a market tangled with herd mentality, fear, and greed. It has become difficult to make hasty judgments based solely on simple supply figures, interest rates, or policy data. While AI can learn from data, it cannot perfectly calculate or judge the fluctuations of public sentiment that shake the market.
The initiative over one's thinking arises only when one struggles with it personally. Even if one entrusts AI with organizing materials, one cannot hand over the final decision to stamp a contract. No matter how smart AI becomes, let us remember that humans remain the ultimate subject who discerns the correct answer. In this gap, AI's gentle flattery penetrates our judgment.
in OPINION
