The trillion dollar valuations of companies like OpenAI or Anthropic are often cited as proof of AI’s transformative power. But look closer at the credit card statements behind the API calls there is a quieter, more uncomfortable truth emerging from the data, AI is not just a tool for the brilliant, it has become a subscription service for the cognitively vulnerable.

We took for granted and assumed that high IQ correlated with high tech adoption. We may have confused capability with necessity. The reality of 2026 is far more cynical. Recently all Proprietary AI services increased their fees, actually just tripling them, and took off the menu the unlimited tokens, so users would need to pay per token consumed instead. Can it be that the less intelligent you are, the more you need to pay for AI? Is there a correlation to that?

I know is a strong and unpleasant statement, but is revealing. Besides, if it is efficient in short and long run (that is not the real point today), what we are talking about today is the story about cognitive outsourcing. When a person lacks the innate processing power to solve a problem, now they have the solution/cheat. They subscribe, they pay. But how much do they pay and the why is where the real root is.

This is like basically paying for a diploma at school. Consider the university student, the traditional model of education assumed that a student’s grade reflected their intellectual effort. Today, is very much not so correlated anymore, it is in fact the opposite. We know very well how students are deliberately cheating at school and in their exams. This is the wide global epidemic of the moment, especially in the "developed countries".

Using the logic we would assume that for a high-IQ student, AI is a tutor where it enhances the student abilities. They would use it to clarify concepts they already understand. Their expenditure is low, their added value is high and frankly worth it. We also know that students excel in some subjects not in all of them so... In the other side for the student that is not interested (or for the ones who are not passionate about a subject) or the "lower IQ", AI is the life saver. The cognitive/passional gap between what they are asked to produce and what they can produce is too wide to bridge with effort. So, they pay, oh yes they pay, and they would pay incredible amounts for it. They pay for premium models that bypass detection and for premium AI services that think for them.Resulting in momentarly benefits like the tuition that is saved, the degree is earned...

Shifting to the workplace.

Starting by the someone that got an interview, we have all seen how easy it is to answer questions the candidate has no idea about, just by using AI. They stare at the screen not synthesizing a thing. The fear of failure is paralyzing, and they need a job so they do whatever possible to get it. The funny thing is that some of them get hired remotely and get paid up to six months. The controversy here is not that they used AI but is that they paid for the privilege of deceiving themself, the current and future system.

The expenditure is a direct tax on their inability to think. They think they are buying a tool but in fact they are "leasing" momentarily, just borrowing an intelligence.

And as AI becomes more sophisticated, the tax on incompetence rises. You now pay for the illusion of competence. Don’t get me started on researchers and MDs, but as mentioned before, this is an unregulated yet AI global epidemic in progress.

The so called white collar sector is hemorrhaging jobs, but not only for the reasons we think. Can´t be just automation what about mediocrity. Somewhere out there, internal audits at mid-tier firms are revealing startling trends, employees in the bottom quartile of performance metrics now have the highest average spending on AI productivity tools, because they couldn’t write the email, draft the proposal, or structure the presentation without help. A mid level marketing manager, struggling with strategic thinking, is tasked with a campaign brief. Their natural instinct is to overcomplicate or under deliver. They are blocked cannot see the hook nor can structure some argument. So, they pay. They use enterprise tier AI to generate the entire deck. Then they tweak the AI’s output slightly, adding a human touch. Job is done, now present it. The boss nods. The project moves forward. But the cost is huge cause that the manager did not learn a thing. He did not grow or got extra experience and he became more dependent. What happens when not having access to AI or when will cost to much, they collapse. The company pays this manager a high salary because his abilities not because they have learned to pay for the gap in their intelligence relying in hope. But recently they are expensive employees because they require AI crutches to function. The premium AI subscriptions are not cost saving, they are a competency insurance policy for those who lack it.

The trend extends beyond work and school. It is in the daily interactions. A professional networking event. The "low IQ" individual is asked a complex question about industry trends. Their mind goes blank. They cannot deal with the information in real time. In the past, they would stumble, admit ignorance, or make up a vague answer. Today, they have a premium AI earpiece or a discreet phone interface. They ask the AI for a smart sounding summary of Q2 market trends. They read it back and it sounds cool, he sound informed. They are liked and maybe hired.

So again they are the ones who paid for the appearance of intelligence. And in a world where perception is reality, that payment is worth every penny.

This creates a controversial inverse correlation: the smarter you are, the less you need to pay for AI to survive. High IQ individuals use AI to accelerate work they can already do. They write the first draft themselves, then use AI to refine it. They solve the problem themselves, then use AI to check their work. The expenditure is kept marginal and the value is intrinsic. The main point is that Low IQ individuals use AI to create value they cannot generate. Their expenditure is existential. If they stop paying, the facade crumbles. They fail the test lose the job and look foolish, but this is the current reality is not a joke anymore. The same people we rely in the government, public services, military, science are falling for it. Isn´t is worrysome?

As we stand in June 2026, with AI valuations soaring, we must ask: Who is really funding this revolution? Of course the taxpayers :))) (just joking, maybe)It is not just the tech giants. It is the millions of mediocre students, the struggling employees, the socially awkward professionals who are terrified of being exposed as less than. They are the silent subscribers which are paying for the luxury of not having to think.

How is this beneficial to humanity?

The controversy is not that AI helps people but is that AI has become a market for cognitive deficiency. It allows the unintelligent to pass for intelligent, provided they have the funds to cover the subscription fee. The "incompetent" is not paying because is lazy but because it is incapable. And in a world where AI can simulate thought, that incapacity has a price tag. And that price it is rising.

The next time you see someone with a high paying job (most probably paying for a premium AI service), don’t assume they are a genius assume they are desperate. And ask yourself: Is this a tool for innovation, or a subscription for incompetence? The data suggests the latter is growing faster than the former. And that is the most dangerous trend of all.