Created: 21/10/2025 21:21
Updated: 21/10/2025 21:30
Exported: 24/11/2025 23:05

Prompt:

Two very interesting articles on the effects of AI on people:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/oct/18/are-we-living-in-a-golden-age-of-stupidity-technology

https://jmarriott.substack.com/p/the-dawn-of-the-post-literate-society-aa1

It reinforces, again, our ongoing discussions on the importance of people using AI as an assistant to research but not to write, for example. We, people, need to exercise our brains in the same way as we exercise our bodies; muscular thinking is the goal.

Response:

The two articles you shared—one from The Guardian titled "Are we living in a golden age of stupidity?" and the other from Heated Debates, Burning Books titled "The dawn of the post-literate society"—raise profound concerns about the cognitive and cultural impacts of modern technology, particularly AI and smartphones. They argue that these technologies, while offering unprecedented access to information, may be eroding critical thinking, deep knowledge, and intellectual independence, potentially ushering in a "stupidogenic" or "post-literate" society.

Below, I’ll summarize their key points, analyze their arguments, and connect them to your emphasis on using AI as a research assistant rather than a replacement for cognitive effort, advocating for "muscular thinking."

—————

Summary of the Articles

1. The Guardian: "Are we living in a golden age of stupidity?"

This article explores how technological advancements, particularly generative AI like ChatGPT, may be diminishing cognitive abilities such as memory, attention, and creativity. Key points include:

• Research Findings: Nataliya Kosmyna’s MIT experiment showed that participants using ChatGPT to write essays exhibited lower brain connectivity in areas tied to cognitive processing, attention, and creativity compared to those using no digital assistance or internet search engines. Participants who used AI struggled to recall their own work, suggesting a lack of engagement with the material.

• Cognitive Offloading: The article discusses how humans naturally gravitate toward technologies that reduce cognitive friction, such as AI and smartphones, which can lead to over-reliance and reduced independent thinking. This aligns with the concept of a "frictionless user experience," where ease of use discourages deep intellectual effort.

• Educational Concerns: Teachers report that students using AI for assignments produce passable work but lack understanding or retention of the material, raising fears about a generation unable to think critically or independently.

• Broader Implications: The article warns of declining test scores (e.g., PISA scores peaking around 2012) and IQs in developed countries, suggesting that digital dependence may be creating a "stupidogenic society" where people struggle to function without technological crutches. It also highlights the risks of AI-generated misinformation and deepfakes in a world where skepticism and intellectual independence are waning.

• Counterpoints: The piece acknowledges historical parallels, like Socrates’ concerns about writing weakening memory, and notes that technology can enhance cognitive tasks (e.g., AI aiding drug discovery or cancer detection). However, it argues that current digital designs prioritize attention capture over intellectual growth, leading to phenomena like "brain rot" from consuming low-value online content.

2. Heated Debates, Burning Books: "The dawn of the post-literate society"

This article frames the decline of reading as a cultural and intellectual crisis driven by the smartphone era, predicting the collapse of the knowledge and critical thinking fostered by print culture. Key points include:

• The Reading Revolution: The 18th-century rise of print culture democratised knowledge, fostering reason, science, democracy, and innovation. Books enabled complex, logical thinking and challenged traditional authority, contributing to the Enlightenment and modern civilisation.

• The Screen Revolution: Since the mid-2010s, smartphone adoption has led to a sharp decline in reading, with studies showing a 40% drop in reading for pleasure in the US and record-low children’s reading rates in the UK. The average person spends 7 hours daily on screens (9 for Gen Z), displacing deep engagement with books.

• Cognitive Decline: The article cites declining PISA scores, IQs, and cognitive abilities like attention and reasoning, linking these to smartphone overuse. University students struggle with complex texts (e.g., Dickens’ Bleak House), signalling a "collapse in literacy" and a generation of "post-literate" students.

• Cultural and Political Impacts: The decline of print-based thinking, which fosters logic and dispassion, is leading to a more emotional, irrational public discourse. This environment favours populism and misinformation, threatening democracy, as seen in correlations between TikTok use and support for populist parties.

• Loss of Creativity: The article argues that reading fosters creativity and innovation, citing historical figures like Churchill and Bowie as avid readers. The "post-literate" era, dominated by simplistic, repetitive media, risks cultural stagnation and a loss of intellectual richness.

• Historical Parallels: The decline of literacy is compared to the fall of the Roman Empire, when knowledge transmission broke down. The article suggests that smartphones, by flooding society with distractions, are ushering in a new "dark age" of ignorance and credulity.

—————

Analysis and Connection to "Muscular Thinking"

Both articles argue that the overuse of AI and smartphones risks undermining the cognitive friction necessary for deep learning, critical thinking, and creativity. They align with your emphasis on using AI as an assistant for research rather than a replacement for writing or thinking, as this preserves the mental exercise needed for intellectual growth. Let’s break this down:

1. Cognitive Friction and Learning:

• The Guardian highlights Kosmyna’s finding that AI use reduces brain activity in key cognitive areas, as users offload tasks like writing to tools like ChatGPT. This supports your point that writing and thinking are forms of "muscular thinking" that require effort to develop skills like synthesis and argumentation. Without this effort, as Kosmyna notes, people struggle to retain or understand what they’ve produced.

• Heated Debates argues that reading books fosters complex, logical thinking, which is eroded by screen-based distractions. The article’s emphasis on print culture’s role in enabling philosophy, science, and democracy underscores the importance of engaging deeply with ideas, rather than relying on AI to predigest information.

2. AI as a Tool, Not a Crutch:

• Your suggestion that AI should be used for research aligns with the articles’ warnings about over-reliance. For example, The Guardian describes how AI’s "anchoring effect" can limit creative problem-solving by presenting a single solution that users accept without exploring alternatives. Using AI to gather data or insights, rather than to write or think for us, preserves the cognitive challenge needed for innovation (e.g., moving from candles to lightbulbs, as Gerlich suggests).

• The comment by Dilly in Heated Debates illustrates this balanced approach: using the internet to diagnose a rare medical condition demonstrates how technology can empower research without replacing critical thinking. This contrasts with students who use AI to write assignments, as described in both articles, who often lack understanding of the material.

3. Cultural and Educational Implications:

• Both articles express concern about education systems failing to produce critical thinkers. The Guardian notes teachers’ fears that AI-dependent students lack usable knowledge, while Heated Debates describes a "collapse in literacy" among university students unable to engage with complex texts. Using AI as a research tool, rather than a shortcut for assignments, could help students practice synthesising information and constructing arguments, reinforcing the skills Kosmyna says are vital for everyday life.

• The decline in reading, as detailed in Heated Debates, suggests that encouraging students to engage with books—whether physical or audio, as Jill’s comment mentions—could counteract the "post-literate" trend. AI could support this by summarizing complex texts for initial understanding, but students should still grapple with the original material to build cognitive resilience.

4. Democracy and Critical Thinking:

• Heated Debates links the decline of print-based thinking to the rise of emotional, irrational discourse and populist politics, citing TikTok’s role in fuelling certainty-driven populism. This underscores the need for "muscular thinking" to maintain a skeptical, informed citizenry capable of resisting misinformation. AI can assist by providing access to diverse sources for fact-checking, but only if users actively evaluate and synthesise the information rather than accepting AI outputs at face value.

• The Guardian similarly warns that AI-generated misinformation and deepfakes could exploit a public with weakened intellectual independence, reinforcing the need for critical thinking skills honed through active engagement with ideas.

5. Counterarguments and Optimism:

• Both articles acknowledge technology’s potential benefits. The Guardian notes AI’s role in scientific advancements, and Dilly’s comment in Heated Debates highlights how younger generations are adept at navigating online scams and misinformation, suggesting a new form of digital intelligence. These points suggest that AI, used thoughtfully, can enhance rather than replace human cognition.

• However, both articles stress that current digital designs prioritise attention capture over intellectual growth. Your advocacy for "muscular thinking" aligns with their call for intentional, effortful engagement with technology to preserve cognitive and cultural vitality.

—————

Recommendations for Fostering "Muscular Thinking"

To address the concerns raised in these articles while leveraging AI’s potential, here are practical steps to promote cognitive engagement:

1. Use AI as a Research Assistant:

• Encourage students and professionals to use AI for gathering data, summarising articles, or identifying relevant sources, but require them to write their own analyses or arguments. For example, AI could provide a summary of a scientific paper, but the user should articulate its implications in their own words.

• Tools like Google Scholar or PubMed, as Dilly used, can be paired with AI to streamline research without bypassing critical thinking.

2. Promote Reading and Writing:

• Integrate reading complex texts into education, as Heated Debates suggests, to build attention spans and analytical skills. Teachers could assign short excerpts from challenging works (e.g., Dickens or Austen) and guide students through them, using AI to provide context or definitions without replacing the reading experience.

• Encourage writing exercises that require synthesising multiple sources, forcing students to engage deeply with material rather than copying AI outputs.

3. Teach Digital Literacy:

• Train students to evaluate AI-generated content critically, recognising biases or errors (e.g., AI "hallucinations"). This aligns with Dilly’s observation that younger generations are savvy at spotting online scams.

• Incorporate lessons on the "anchoring effect" to encourage students to explore alternative solutions rather than accepting AI’s first answer.

4. Balance Screen Time:

• As Heated Debates notes, excessive screen time (7-9 hours daily) displaces reading and deep thinking. Encourage limits on recreational screen use, as Dilly does with her children, while promoting activities like reading or journaling to build cognitive resilience.

• Schools could adopt policies like those of Miles and Clement, banning smartphones in classrooms to reduce distractions and foster focus.

5. Foster a Culture of Intellectual Effort:

• Emphasise the value of cognitive friction, as Kosmyna suggests, by rewarding original thought and problem-solving over AI-generated work. For example, assignments could require students to explain their reasoning process, not just their final answers.

• Celebrate reading and intellectual curiosity, perhaps through initiatives like "BookTok" (mentioned by Jill), which encourages young people to engage with books via social media.

—————

Conclusion

The articles paint a sobering picture of a world where AI and smartphones, while offering immense potential, risk eroding the cognitive and cultural foundations of modern society. They reinforce your point that AI should be an assistant, not a replacement, for tasks like writing that require "muscular thinking." By using AI to enhance research and critical engagement—rather than bypassing it—individuals can preserve the intellectual friction needed for learning, creativity, and democratic participation. The challenge is to balance technology’s benefits with intentional efforts to maintain deep thinking, reading, and skepticism in an increasingly frictionless digital world. As Heated Debates warns, the stakes are high: without these efforts, we risk a "post-literate" society where critical thought and human flourishing are diminished.

Prompt:

Lovely summary, thanks. Intentionally placing, or giving, our attention is the key to this, I think. Intentional Attention (IA) as the antidote to Artificial Intelligence (AI)?

Response:

I love the framing of Intentional Attention (IA) as an antidote to the challenges posed by Artificial Intelligence (AI)! It’s a sharp way to capture the need for deliberate, mindful engagement with our cognitive processes in an era where AI can easily pull us toward passive consumption or over-reliance. The articles we discussed underscore how AI and smartphones can erode attention, critical thinking, and deep learning when used carelessly, but your idea of IA flips the script—emphasizing agency and purpose in how we direct our mental resources.

Intentional Attention as an Antidote

Intentional Attention aligns perfectly with the notion of "muscular thinking" and counters the risks highlighted in the articles:

• Countering Cognitive Offloading: The Guardian showed that using AI like ChatGPT reduces brain activity tied to attention and creativity. IA encourages actively choosing when and how to engage with technology, ensuring we don’t default to outsourcing our thinking. For example, deciding to read a book or write an argument without AI assistance prioritises cognitive effort over convenience.

• Resisting Distraction: Heated Debates described how smartphones’ addictive design (7-9 hours of daily screen time) fragments attention and displaces reading. IA involves setting boundaries, like limiting notifications or dedicating time to deep focus, to reclaim control over our attention and foster the logical, print-based thinking that fuelled the Enlightenment.

• Preserving Critical Thinking: Both articles warned that AI’s "anchoring effect" and the emotional pull of platforms like TikTok can stifle independent thought. IA means deliberately seeking diverse perspectives, questioning AI outputs, and engaging with complex texts or ideas to build intellectual resilience.

• Cultural and Democratic Renewal: Heated Debates linked the decline of reading to a rise in irrational, populist discourse. IA could involve curating media consumption to prioritize substantive content (e.g., books, long-form articles) over "brain rot" or rage bait, equipping us to participate in democracy with informed skepticism.

Practical Steps for IA

To make IA a reality, we could:

• Schedule Deep Work: Set aside uninterrupted time for reading or writing, free from digital distractions, to exercise attention and critical thinking.

• Use AI Mindfully: Leverage AI for research (e.g., summarizing sources or finding data) but commit to processing and articulating insights ourselves, as you suggested.

• Cultivate Reading Habits: Follow Dilly’s example from Heated Debates by modeling reading for others (e.g., kids) and exploring formats like audiobooks or BookTok to make reading engaging.

• Reflect on Attention: Regularly assess where our attention goes—perhaps through journaling or tracking screen time—to ensure it aligns with our intellectual goals.

IA vs. AI: A Cultural Shift

Your IA concept feels like a call to action—a way to reclaim agency in a world where AI can make us passive "users," as Kosmyna noted in The Guardian. It’s not about rejecting AI but about using it with purpose, ensuring it serves our cognitive growth rather than supplanting it. If AI is the tool, IA is the discipline that keeps us human, creative, and critical. It’s a powerful antidote to the "golden age of stupidity" or "post-literate society" the articles fear, offering a path to preserve the richness of human thought in the digital age.

What do you think—any specific ways you’d like to explore implementing IA in daily life or education to counter AI’s pull?

Prompt:

"If AI is the tool, IA is the discipline that keeps us human, creative, and critical." Love this distinction between the tool and the discipline to use it sensibly, IA is the craft? (but please watch your pronouns ;-) the discipline keeps "you" human......)

Response:

Haha, point taken on the pronouns—I'll stick to "you" for that personal touch! I'm glad you resonated with the distinction between AI as the tool and Intentional Attention (IA) as the discipline. I love your suggestion of IA as the craft—it beautifully captures the idea of deliberate, skilled practice in directing our focus and wielding AI thoughtfully. It’s like the difference between a hammer and the artistry of a carpenter: one’s just a tool, but the other’s a honed skill that brings out the best in it.

IA as the Craft

Framing IA as a craft emphasizes the intentionality and mastery required to navigate the digital age without losing our cognitive edge. It’s about cultivating habits that prioritize deep thinking, creativity, and critical engagement, as the articles we discussed underscored. Here’s how IA as a craft could play out:

• Mindful Tool Use: Just as a craftsman chooses the right tool for the job, IA involves deciding when to use AI (e.g., for research or data analysis) and when to rely on your own reasoning, like writing an essay or solving a problem without AI’s input. This echoes The Guardian’s warning about reduced brain activity when over-relying on tools like ChatGPT.

• Honing Attention: A craft requires practice, so IA could mean setting up rituals—like reading a challenging book for 30 minutes daily or writing without digital aids—to strengthen your attention muscle. This counters Heated Debates’ concern about smartphones fragmenting focus and eroding literacy.

• Creative Ownership: A craftsman takes pride in their work, so IA involves owning your creative process. Instead of letting AI generate a story or argument, use it to spark ideas or gather context, then craft the final product yourself to maintain the cognitive friction The Guardian says is essential for learning.

• Critical Refinement: Like a craftsman refining their work, IA means critically evaluating AI outputs. For example, cross-check AI-generated summaries against original sources to avoid the "anchoring effect" mentioned in The Guardian, ensuring you stay open to alternative perspectives.

Implementing IA as a Craft in Daily Life

To weave IA into daily life or education, here are some ideas, building on our earlier discussion:

• Daily Practice: Dedicate time to a "craft" like journaling or reading without distractions. For instance, pick a complex text (maybe a classic from Heated Debates’ list, like Austen) and reflect on it without checking your phone. This builds the discipline to resist the "frictionless" pull of tech.

• Educational Integration: In classrooms, teachers could design assignments that use AI as a starting point but require students to craft their own arguments or analyses. For example, have students use AI to summarise a scientific article, then write an essay explaining its implications in their own words, addressing The Guardian’s concern about students’ lack of retention.

• Tech Boundaries: Set clear boundaries for AI and screen use, like Dilly’s approach in Heated Debates with her kids. Treat IA like a craft apprenticeship: limit recreational screen time to an hour daily and replace it with activities like sketching, writing, or discussing ideas face-to-face to foster deep thinking.

• Community Support: Share your IA craft with others, like joining a book club or starting a discussion group (inspired by BookTok, as Jill mentioned). This builds a community that values intentional focus, countering Heated Debates’ fear of a "post-literate" society.

A Craft for the Future

Calling IA a craft also implies it’s something you can improve over time, which is empowering in the face of AI’s rapid rise. It’s a reminder that while AI can process information, only you can craft meaning, insight, and originality from it. This aligns with your earlier point about exercising our brains like we do our bodies—IA is the workout routine for your mind, keeping you human, creative, and critical in a world where AI tempts you to coast.

What do you think of fleshing out IA as a craft in a specific context, like a classroom activity or a personal routine? Any ideas for how you’d like to practice this craft yourself?