Using generative AI to produce work bypasses the reflection and effort required to build strong knowledge networks. This outsourcing of thinking leads to poor retention and a diminished ability to evaluate the quality of AI-generated output, mirroring historical data on how calculators impacted math skills.

There's a significant gap between AI performance on structured benchmarks and its real-world utility. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) found that open-source software developers were actually slowed down by 20% when using AI assistants, despite being miscalibrated to believe the tools were helping. This highlights the limitations of current evaluation methods.

With a significant error rate of 20-30%, AI tools cannot be trusted to replace junior employees. This strategy is misguided because it removes the human learning process and introduces unreliable outputs, undermining a company's talent pipeline and quality of work.

The process of struggling with and solving hard problems is what builds engineering skill. Constantly available AI assistants act like a "slot machine for answers," removing this productive struggle. This encourages "vibe coding" and may prevent engineers from developing deep problem-solving expertise.

While AI can augment experienced workers, relying on it to replace newcomers is a mistake. Its significant error rate (20-30%) requires human oversight and judgment that junior employees haven't yet developed, making it an unreliable substitute for on-the-job learning.

While AI can accelerate tasks like writing, the real learning happens during the creative process itself. By outsourcing the 'doing' to AI, we risk losing the ability to think critically and synthesize information. Research shows our brains are physically remapping, reducing our ability to think on our feet.

AI coding assistants won't make fundamental skills obsolete. Instead, they act as a force multiplier that separates engineers. Great engineers use AI to become exceptional by augmenting their deep understanding, while mediocre engineers who rely on it blindly will fall further behind.

While cheating is a concern, a more insidious danger is students using AI to bypass deep cognitive engagement. They can produce correct answers without retaining knowledge, creating a cumulative learning deficit that is difficult to detect and remedy.

A recent study found that AI assistants actually slowed down programmers working on complex codebases. More importantly, the programmers mistakenly believed the AI was speeding them up. This suggests a general human bias towards overestimating AI's current effectiveness, which could lead to flawed projections about future progress.