What is the ethical impact of artificial intelligence (AI) assistants on human lives, and specifically how much do they threaten our individual autonomy? Recently, as part of forming an ethical framework for thinking about the impact of AI assistants on our lives, John Danaher claims that if the external automaticity generated by the use of AI assistants threatens our autonomy and is therefore ethically problematic, then the internal automaticity we already live with should be viewed in the same way. He takes advantage of this paradox of internal automaticity to downplay the threats of external automaticity to our autonomy. We respond in this paper by challenging the legitimacy of the paradox. While Danaher assumes that internal and external automaticity are roughly equivalent, we argue that there are reasons why we should accept a large degree of internal automaticity, that it is actually essential to our sense of autonomy, and as such it is ethically good; however, the same does not go for external automaticity. Therefore, the similarity between the two is not as powerful as the paradox presumes. In conclusion, we make practical recommendations for how to better manage the integration of AI assistants into society.

人工智能（AI）助手对人类生活产生何种伦理影响，特别是它们在多大程度上威胁着我们的个人自主权？最近，作为形成思考人工智能助手对我们生活影响的道德框架的一部分，约翰·丹纳赫（John Danaher）声称，如果使用人工智能助手产生的外部自动化会威胁到我们的自主权，因此在道德上存在问题，那么我们的内部自动化已经同住的应该以相同的方式查看。他利用这种内部自动化的悖论来淡化外部自动化对我们自治的威胁。在本文中，我们通过挑战悖论的合法性来做出回应。丹纳赫（Danaher）假设内部和外部的自动化程度大致相同，我们认为，出于某些原因，我们应该接受高度的内部自动化，这实际上对我们的自治感至关重要，因此在道德上是好的；但是，外部自动化并没有同样的效果。因此，两者之间的相似性并不像悖论所假定的那样强大。总之，我们为如何更好地管理AI助手融入社会提供了实用的建议。