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.
Related Insights
While AI tools once gave creators an edge, they now risk producing democratized, undifferentiated output. IBM's AI VP, who grew to 200k followers, now uses AI less. The new edge is spending more time on unique human thinking and using AI only for initial ideation, not final writing.
Using AI to generate content without adding human context simply transfers the intellectual effort to the recipient. This creates rework, confusion, and can damage professional relationships, explaining the low ROI seen in many AI initiatives.
Users who treat AI as a collaborator—debating with it, challenging its outputs, and engaging in back-and-forth dialogue—see superior outcomes. This mindset shift produces not just efficiency gains, but also higher quality, more innovative results compared to simply delegating discrete tasks to the AI.
True creative mastery emerges from an unpredictable human process. AI can generate options quickly but bypasses this journey, losing the potential for inexplicable, last-minute genius that defines truly great work. It optimizes for speed at the cost of brilliance.
The true danger of LLMs in the workplace isn't just sloppy output, but the erosion of deep thinking. The arduous process of writing forces structured, first-principles reasoning. By making it easy to generate plausible text from bullet points, LLMs allow users to bypass this critical thinking process, leading to shallower insights.
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.
Advanced AI tools like "deep research" models can produce vast amounts of information, like 30-page reports, in minutes. This creates a new productivity paradox: the AI's output capacity far exceeds a human's finite ability to verify sources, apply critical thought, and transform the raw output into authentic, usable insights.
Don't use AI to generate generic thought leadership, which often just regurgitates existing content. The real power is using AI as a 'steroid' for your own ideas. Architect the core content yourself, then use AI to turbocharge research and data integration to make it 10x better.
Instead of allowing AI to atrophy critical thinking by providing instant answers, leverage its "guided learning" capabilities. These features teach the process of solving a problem rather than just giving the solution, turning AI into a Socratic mentor that can accelerate learning and problem-solving abilities.
Writing is not just the documentation of pre-formed thoughts; it is the process of forming them. By wrestling with arguments on the page, you clarify your own thinking. Outsourcing this "hard part" to AI means you skip the essential step of developing a unique, well-reasoned perspective.
