Generative AI is predominantly analyzed through the lenses of automation, efficiency, and ethical risk. This paper shifts the analytical focus toward a more subtle transformation: the capacity of AI to reshape how individual judgment is exercised, experienced, and ultimately relinquished. Rather than replacing human decision-making outright, generative AI operates through recommendation, optimization, and "rational persuasion." These mechanisms do not coerce; instead, they quietly restructure the choice architecture in which decisions appear reasonable. Consequently, individuals may retain the subjective experience of autonomy while gradually delegating the epistemic boundaries of thought itself. Building on the critique of hierarchy as a visible structure of authority, this paper argues that contemporary decision environments increasingly rely on the internalization of hierarchy. Standards—such as efficiency, best practice, and optimization—migrate inward, becoming criteria that individuals adopt as their own. Generative AI accelerates this process by presenting outputs that appear neutral, comprehensive, and difficult to contest. The paper contends that the central challenge is not the presence of AI in decision-making, but the erosion of the conditions under which judgment remains necessary. Judgment is distinguished from mere choice; it is framed as a capacity that requires friction, uncertainty, and responsibility to persist. By reframing judgment as a practice shaped by design, this paper offers a new criterion for evaluating AI systems: whether they invite judgment or render it redundant. The future of human agency depends less on technological capability than on the design choices that determine how the act of deciding is made to "feel.