Oct. 9, 2026

A common perception these days seems to be that new AI technologies allow us to know and understand less.

This comes from the general idea that newer technologies always relieve us of some burden. Consider this progression…

• Machines can lift heavy objects for us, meaning that we no longer need to be able to lift heavy objects.
• The Internet and Google can recall facts for us, meaning that we no longer need to be able to memorize facts.
• AI can think and make decisions for us, meaning that we no longer need to be able to think critically or understand how things work.

There’s a problem with this list in general and a serious problem with the last item in particular…

First, the fact that a technology can replace some human function does not mean that it always ought to.

• If I never lift heavy things (or engage in any form of physical exertion), I become weak and unhealthy.
• If I never bother to memorize any facts about the world, I become dull and helpless.
• If I never engage in critical thinking or seek to genuinely understand, I become irrational and foolish.

For example, consider how some students have offloaded educational tasks to LLMs. By having the AI write the essay for them, they bypass the process of actually struggling with the concepts, and they effectively avoid learning.

The summary of the thing is NOT the thing.

Removing all active ingredients from the learning process transforms formal education into a shockingly expensive waste of time. In what other context do we pay exorbitant rates (not to mention dedicate years of our lives) for something…only to dump it into the garbage?

Second, I would argue that the last item’s claim, “AI can think and make decisions for us,” is not actually true in the first place.

Previously, I’ve argued against AI anthropomorphism. LLMs only appear sentient to people who don’t understand the basics of how they work.

There’s no thinking involved in an algorithm, at least not the kinds of algorithms we currently have. (Not everyone agrees, and that’s fine.)

Does my calculator understand math? I would say No.

I know that’s not a fair comparison, but consider this: If you dial down your LLM’s temperature setting to 0, then it will give identical (or virtually identical) responses to the same prompt every time.

This kind of direct input–output process, which underlies every LLM’s programming, does not fit with what I mean by terms like thinking or sentience.

LLMs boil down to shockingly persuasive imitation of human speech. Incredible and useful in many ways, but not sentient.

(Of course, this isn’t to say that AI could never become sentient. I’m just arguing that people seem to be falling into the common trap of likening our brains to computers, which is a poor comparison in so many ways.)

More on the implications of this next time…