Swedish PM Faces Backlash for Admitting Use of ChatGPT in Decision-Making

Sweden’s Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson has drawn sharp criticism after admitting he occasionally uses ChatGPT to help inform his decision-making. During an interview with a Nordic news outlet, Kristersson said he turns to the AI tool “quite often” for a “second opinion,” asking questions like, “What have others done?” or “Should we think the complete opposite?” His comments sparked widespread concern among experts and the public alike. Virginia Dignum, a professor of responsible artificial intelligence at Umeå University, warned that reliance on AI for governance poses serious risks. “The more he relies on AI for simple things, the bigger the risk of overconfidence in the system,” she said. “It is a slippery slope. We must demand that reliability can be guaranteed. We didn’t vote for ChatGPT.” Critics argue that AI systems like ChatGPT are not equipped to handle the ethical, strategic, and complex demands of political leadership. Aftonbladet columnist Signe Krantz captured the sentiment when she wrote, “Too bad for Sweden that AI mostly guesses.” She added that chatbots tend to generate responses based on what users want to hear rather than what they truly need, often reinforcing existing biases or pushing ideas further into uncharted or dangerous territory. The concern isn’t just about misinformation or flawed logic—it’s about the erosion of human judgment. When leaders outsource critical thinking to algorithms, they risk creating feedback loops that amplify confirmation bias and diminish accountability. As AI becomes more embedded in everyday life, the danger grows that decision-making authority will shift from elected officials to opaque, corporate-controlled systems. While it remains unclear how deeply Kristersson actually depends on ChatGPT in his daily duties—some speculate he may have made the comment to appear technologically savvy—his admission underscores a broader trend. Across industries, people are increasingly turning to AI to handle tasks once considered the exclusive domain of human intellect. From writing emails to drafting policy briefs, AI is being used to offload cognitive labor. But this shift comes with a cost. For years, technology has been quietly eroding our ability to think critically, remember facts, and solve problems independently. Now, with AI stepping into the role of advisor and confidant, the stakes are higher than ever. The question is no longer just about whether AI is accurate or useful—it’s about whether humanity is willing to surrender its intellectual and ethical autonomy to machines that don’t understand context, consequence, or moral responsibility. As the world races toward an AI-integrated future, Kristersson’s comments serve as a cautionary tale: the line between helpful tool and dangerous crutch is thinner than we think.