Published on September 24, 2025 10:24 PM GMT
Background
The core idea behind this blog post is to explore a profound and often overlooked risk of our increasing reliance on AI: cognitive outsourcing and the subsequent atrophy of human skill.
My aim is to go beyond the usual discussions of job displacement and ethical alignment to focus on a more subtle and arguably a more dangerous long-term consequence. As AI agents become our default assistants for thinking, reasoning, and recommending, our own cognitive abilities might begin to wane. This isn’t a fear of robots taking over, but a concern that we might voluntarily give away the very skills that allow us to innovate, solve complex problems, and ultimately, maintain meaningful control over our own future. In this blog, I will try exploring a few key questions:
- Which specific cognitive skills are most vulnerable to this erosion?How does the loss of these skills impact our societal resilience during times of AI failure?When does the convenience of AI cross a critical threshold, moving from a progressive tool to a source of strategic fragility?And finally, how might our own degraded expertise shape the development of future agents, potentially creating a dangerous feedback loop?
I invite you to think about these questions with me. This is not a post about Luddite fears, but a candid look at the long-term, second-order effects of a technology that is reshaping our minds as much as it is our world.
Vulnerable Cognitive Skills
The skills most at risk are not our rote memory or our ability to follow a formula; although these are the tasks AI excels at. The most vulnerable are the meta-skills that constitute true mastery and innovation.
- Problem Formulation and Abductive Reasoning: AI is adept at answering a well-posed question. But the difficult, often unacknowledged, work of a true expert is in defining the right question to ask in the first place. This requires a form of abductive reasoning - the ability to infer the most likely explanation from a set of incomplete observations. For instance, a software architect doesn’t ask, “How do I make this function faster?”, they ask, “Why is this system’s latency increasing, and could it be a symptom of a deeper design flaw or an unexpected interaction between microservices?” Relying on AI to suggest the problem can lead to a kind of solutioning bias, where we only address challenges the AI can easily frame.Systemic Synthesis and Pattern Recognition: Expertise involves the ability to connect disparate, seemingly unrelated pieces of information into a coherent, causal model. It's the doctor who connects a patient's diet and stress levels to a seemingly random symptom or the engineer who sees a bug in the front-end as a symptom of a deeper database problem. AI can perform powerful associative linking, but its “reasoning” is often an emergent property of statistical correlation, not true causal understanding. As we outsource this synthesis, our own ability to see the “big picture” and spot a looming systemic crisis might atrophy.Critical Skepticism and Intuitive Failure Spotting: An expert doesn't just verify an answer; they instinctively look for the edge cases and logical inconsistencies that would break it. They have a “failure library” built from years of experience. When an AI provides a seemingly perfect answer that works well for the visible test set, the human's role can devolve into passive verification. This erodes the cognitive muscle for spotting subtle yet critical errors, creating a collective blindness to what a trained eye would instantly recognize as “wrong.”
Impact of loss of our cognitive skills on societal resilience during times of AI failure
Skill erosion will fundamentally change a society's resilience from robustness to brittleness in my opinion.
- Loss of Redundancy: Human expertise serves as a critical redundancy layer in complex systems. If the primary system (the AI) fails due to a bug, a malicious attack, or a new, unforeseen problem—the human experts can step in and take over. As human skills atrophy, this redundancy is lost. A society that relies on AI to manage its power grids, financial markets, or supply chains is inherently fragile if the human operators lack the embodied skills to manage a crisis without the AI’s assistance.Systemic Failure: When multiple interconnected systems fail simultaneously, a brittle system collapses completely. Our reliance on AI could create a situation where a single AI failure triggers a domino effect of cascading failures across interdependent sectors, and with no human experts capable of intervention, the system becomes non-recoverable.
Convenience as a Catalyst for Strategic Fragility
The transition from progress to strategic fragility occurs when a tool shifts from being augmentative to substitutive. There are readings out there that predict when certain tasks will be solved end to end by agentic AI.
- Stage 1: Augmentation: AI is a fantastic tool that offloads tedious tasks, making us faster and more efficient while we retain the core cognitive load. This is a clear gain.Stage 2: Substitution: The AI becomes so good that we no longer feel the need to learn or practice the underlying skills at all. We become “query-monkeys” or “provers” who simply check the AI's work without understanding how it arrived at the answer. This is the point where convenience has transitioned into strategic fragility. We will eventually lose the ability to perform such tasks independently.
A Feedback Loop of Degraded Expertise
This is perhaps the most insidious risk: the degradation of human expertise could create a negative feedback loop that shapes the development of future AI in harmful ways.
- Lack of Oversight and Control: As human expertise wanes, so does our ability to set meaningful constraints, define appropriate safety protocols, and audit an AI’s behavior. We risk creating agents that we cannot meaningfully supervise or contest, leading to a loss of oversight by design and potentially resulting in “runaway systems” that operate on principles we no longer fully understand.The Problem of "Dumb Feedback": AI models are improved through human feedback. If the humans providing that feedback have atrophied skills, they may not be able to provide the nuanced, expert corrections needed to improve the AI. They may only be able to correct simple, surface-level mistakes, leading to the creation of agents that are superficially correct but fundamentally flawed in their underlying logic.
- The core problem I envision here is that instead of using humans to judge/rate the capabilities of a model, we would be using intelligent models to judge/rate the capabilities of a human. This would involve having two people (say A and B) having to label some model responses, train two models separately on their rated responses and then see which human is more capable.This leads to tertiary risks of AI models subverting RL and making the less capable human victorious and hence the one overseeing and auditing its behavior. This makes it easier for the model to then scheme against the less capable human and gain control.This would also lead us to believe the smartest humans on the planet were unable to develop measure for AI Control and hence make deals earlier than we would want to with the agents.
I value and warmly welcome any feedback regarding the blog or my writing style. I also welcome any opinionated questions about my thoughts, it would be great to hear from you!
Discuss
