Against "Brain Damage": AI's Effect on Human Thinking
This commentary from One Useful Thing examines whether AI use helps or harms human cognitive capabilities. The piece engages with the ongoing debate about whether reliance on AI tools degrades or augments human thinking. It likely addresses concerns about cognitive offloading and the conditions under which AI assistance is beneficial versus detrimental.
Related guides (2)
Related events (8)
Your AI Use Is Breaking My Brain
Simon Willison comments on the phenomenon of AI-generated or AI-assisted content degrading the quality of online discourse and information environments. The piece reflects on how widespread AI use is affecting the experience of consuming internet content. This is a commentary piece from a prominent developer/blogger on the social and epistemic effects of AI proliferation.
Real AI Agents and Real Work
A commentary piece from One Useful Thing examining the practical deployment of AI agents in real work contexts, framing the tension between human-centered work and AI-generated productivity outputs. The piece appears to analyze how autonomous AI agents are changing knowledge work workflows. Published by a Tier 2 source known for applied AI analysis aimed at practitioners and researchers.
Paper introduces 'cognitive colonization' concept to analyze AI's influence on human reasoning
A preprint from arXiv examines three frameworks for understanding AI's cognitive and epistemic effects: Tri-System Theory, Thinkframes, and System 0. The paper argues System 0 occupies a theoretically distinctive position and introduces 'cognitive colonization' — the idea that AI systems can embed external interests within users' cognitive architecture in ways that are imperceptible. The authors frame this as an urgent philosophical and practical concern given widespread AI deployment.
Giving your AI a Job Interview
This commentary piece argues that as AI-generated advice becomes more consequential, users need systematic methods to evaluate AI reliability and quality—analogous to a job interview process. The author proposes frameworks for assessing AI outputs before trusting them for important decisions. The piece addresses the practical challenge of calibrating trust in AI systems across different use cases.
Management as AI Superpower
This commentary from One Useful Thing argues that management skills are becoming a critical capability for individuals working with AI agents. The piece frames the ability to direct, coordinate, and evaluate AI agents as analogous to managing human teams, suggesting that organizational and managerial competencies will differentiate effective AI users. It positions this as a key survival skill for the emerging era of agentic AI systems.
Scientists should use AI as a tool, not an oracle
This commentary critiques the feedback loop between AI hype and scientific research, arguing that scientists who treat AI systems as oracles rather than tools produce flawed research that in turn amplifies further hype. The piece examines how uncritical adoption of AI in scientific workflows can compromise research integrity. It calls for a more epistemically disciplined approach to AI use in science.
Could AI Slow Science? Confronting the Production-Progress Paradox
A commentary piece from AI Snake Oil explores the potential paradox whereby AI tools increase scientific output volume while simultaneously slowing genuine scientific progress. The piece examines how AI-assisted research production may prioritize quantity over quality, potentially crowding out deeper, slower-moving inquiry. This raises structural concerns about how AI integration into research workflows could reshape the incentive landscape of science.
AI Safety via Debate
OpenAI proposes a safety technique in which two AI agents debate a topic and a human judge determines the winner, with the goal of making it easier for humans to supervise AI systems that may be more capable than themselves. The core intuition is that it is easier to verify a correct argument than to generate one, so a dishonest agent can be caught by an honest opponent. The paper introduces debate as a scalable oversight mechanism applicable to complex tasks where direct human evaluation is infeasible.