"AI free zones" is a great idea. Somewhat like the idea of modern gyms - we need to set aside time and consciously exercise our bodies, so that they grow and that so we can enjoy them. The same would be true for the mind.
This is a sharp articulation of the optimization trap in action. When efficiency becomes the default lens, deeper forms of engagement erode. The Reality Drift framework explores this same tension: how optimization loops hollow out meaning as they reshape culture and cognition.
This isn't really a counterpoint, but certainly interesting and related: https://tomstafford.substack.com/p/superhuman-intelligence-already-exists "Two things are clear: standards in chess have been steadily increasing, and they start to accelerate for players born after ~1980. This is the age when these players were young enough to still be learning when chess superintelligence was available to every home." So, even though (because=) superhuman AI was available to everyone while they learned to play chess, they managed to become chess players, compared to prior generations. That dataset/conclusion obviously has some selection bias issues, but it does instill some optimism. Learning in a world of superhuman AI is possible. But an educational challenge that we are not adequately engaged with, yet.
Great reference. Chess players didn’t stop learning once AI went superhuman - but their training and perspective changed. That’s the educational challenge we haven’t fully faced yet: how to structure learning so generative AI becomes a meaningful addition rather than a shortcut.
Thank you for sharing! I love this concept...it makes me think about how, as we move toward a more frictionless society (Uber, Hinge, Instagram, etc), effort is no longer the barrier to accessing what we want. But when instant gratification becomes routine, it seeps into deeper parts of our lives, (temporarily) dulling our innate desire for purpose. Learning, by contrast, provides purpose precisely because it requires effort, or at least traditionally has. The classic example - as the pearl that forms through friction in an oyster, purpose often emerges from struggle... if we strip all the friction from our lives and academic experiences, what kind of people are we evolving into?
I like your framing of friction as something that generates purpose. In education, the “struggle” is not a flaw in the process but part of what shapes resilience and meaning. If we train ourselves (and students) to expect every obstacle to dissolve with instant feedback, we risk dulling that deeper drive for purpose. The challenge for us in higher education is actually to protect certain kinds of friction, so students experience the value of working through uncertainty rather than optimizing it away.
"AI free zones" is a great idea. Somewhat like the idea of modern gyms - we need to set aside time and consciously exercise our bodies, so that they grow and that so we can enjoy them. The same would be true for the mind.
This is a sharp articulation of the optimization trap in action. When efficiency becomes the default lens, deeper forms of engagement erode. The Reality Drift framework explores this same tension: how optimization loops hollow out meaning as they reshape culture and cognition.
This isn't really a counterpoint, but certainly interesting and related: https://tomstafford.substack.com/p/superhuman-intelligence-already-exists "Two things are clear: standards in chess have been steadily increasing, and they start to accelerate for players born after ~1980. This is the age when these players were young enough to still be learning when chess superintelligence was available to every home." So, even though (because=) superhuman AI was available to everyone while they learned to play chess, they managed to become chess players, compared to prior generations. That dataset/conclusion obviously has some selection bias issues, but it does instill some optimism. Learning in a world of superhuman AI is possible. But an educational challenge that we are not adequately engaged with, yet.
Great reference. Chess players didn’t stop learning once AI went superhuman - but their training and perspective changed. That’s the educational challenge we haven’t fully faced yet: how to structure learning so generative AI becomes a meaningful addition rather than a shortcut.
Thank you for sharing! I love this concept...it makes me think about how, as we move toward a more frictionless society (Uber, Hinge, Instagram, etc), effort is no longer the barrier to accessing what we want. But when instant gratification becomes routine, it seeps into deeper parts of our lives, (temporarily) dulling our innate desire for purpose. Learning, by contrast, provides purpose precisely because it requires effort, or at least traditionally has. The classic example - as the pearl that forms through friction in an oyster, purpose often emerges from struggle... if we strip all the friction from our lives and academic experiences, what kind of people are we evolving into?
I like your framing of friction as something that generates purpose. In education, the “struggle” is not a flaw in the process but part of what shapes resilience and meaning. If we train ourselves (and students) to expect every obstacle to dissolve with instant feedback, we risk dulling that deeper drive for purpose. The challenge for us in higher education is actually to protect certain kinds of friction, so students experience the value of working through uncertainty rather than optimizing it away.
Totally. Sounds like developing grit needs to stay a core tenet of the academic curriculum