AI is not telling me what to think about.

Mostly, it's telling me what I don't need to think about.

Cognitive surrender is an uncritical abdication of reasoning itself.

It reflects not merely the strategic delegation of deliberation,

but a relinquishing of cognitive control.

There is something about AI, about its allure, about its potency that could make

cognitive surrender more and more widespread. The way in which I think has changed much more

than I expect it. And I'm still figuring out what it means. The argument engine is built from

about 100,000 words of my writing. House views runs an argument against our established positions,

stylometer, and of course,

we still have the golden thread check. Great thinking traditionally happens with care and self-reflection,

and in a world where there are all these tools around me. Am I still doing that quality of thinking? Am I doing the quality of thinking that I could do with 10 uninterrupted days?

What I want to do today is talk about something that I've been circling around for a few weeks,

perhaps even months, which is about the way in which our thinking processes

change during this period where we're using AI. Is our thinking getting better? Is it getting

worse? This matters more than it ever does before. I mean, AI is inside all of the processes

that I use. It's not a tool that I pick up and down. It's a tool that's there the

whole time. It's become completely ambient. You've seen us and heard us talk about this. We've

struggled with this issue. We've tried to expose it to our readers and our listeners. What is AI

doing to that process of thinking? How can you use it well? Where does it harm rather than help?

Just a couple of weeks ago, we had the first of our AI Vistas conversations where we sat down

and discussed this question, do we use our tools or do they use us? And I think that really gets

...