Editor’s note: GeekWire publishes guest opinions to foster informed discussion and highlight a diversity of perspectives on issues shaping the tech and startup community. If you’re interested in submitting a guest column, email us at [email protected]. Submissions are reviewed by our editorial team for relevance and editorial standards.
You are using AI to write and so is your boss, your intern, and virtually everyone else. That ship has sailed so arguing whether to board is a waste of breath.
The real question is: how do you use AI?
AI is a fork in the road disguised as a shortcut. Down one path, it’s a coach that studies your weaknesses, challenges your assumptions, and pushes you past your limits. Down the other, it’s a ghostwriter, and you are putting your name on someone else’s thoughts, slowly forgetting that you ever had your own.
The tension between these two paths is a defining cognitive challenge of our time. Psychologists call what pulls us toward the ghostwriter cognitive offloading, and we have been doing mild versions of it forever, from scribbling shopping lists to storing phone contacts. But with AI we are no longer offloading trivia. We are offloading thought itself. And the ease of doing so is a temptation that people struggle to resist.
The easy path: A downward spiral
When you ask ChatGPT to draft your email or memo, you are not just saving time. You are skipping a cognitive workout. And like any muscle left idle on the couch, the brain responds accordingly: it atrophies.
This easy path creates a vicious cycle.
First, AI addiction: the more we use large language models (LLMs), the harder it becomes to stop. Researchers at the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences describe a dual-factor dependency: functional dependence, where we rely on AI for productivity, and existential dependence, a deeper psychological attachment involving identity, emotional regulation, and even companionship. Unlike our relationship with calculators or spell-checkers, LLMs are colonizing the higher floors of cognition: analysis, synthesis, persuasion, judgment.
Second, we get weaker, and the gap widens. A Microsoft study found a significant negative correlation (r = -0.49) between the frequency of AI tool usage and critical thinking scores. The MIT Media Lab went further, strapping EEG monitors to participants’ heads: ChatGPT users exhibited the weakest brain connectivity of any group tested. They struggled to accurately recall the contents of essays they had just “written.” The tool was doing the thinking; the human was merely holding the steering wheel of a self-driving car. Meanwhile, AI models improve every quarter. The distance between what we can do unassisted and what the machine can do grows like a crack in a windshield, spreading quietly until the whole thing shatters.
Third, cognitive surrender: the act of adopting AI outputs with close to zero scrutiny. In a series of experiments involving more than 1,300 participants, Shaw and Nave found that frequent AI users stopped checking the AI’s work. When the AI was wrong, so were they. They had surrendered not just the labor of thinking but even the responsibility to verify it. The better the AI gets, the more completely we capitulate.
This vicious cycle inspired me to pen the following Zen Koan about AI:
Read without reading.
Write without writing.
Think without thinking.
Can you be intelligent by being dumb?
I don’t think so.
The other path: AI as a coach
So much for the ghostwriter. Let’s talk about the coach.
The same tool that threatens to dull your cognitive capacities can, if wielded with discipline, sharpen them instead. The key shift is in your goal and mindset: use AI to improve the quality of your work, not merely the quantity or speed.
Here is what that looks like in practice.
Brainstorm, don’t delegate. Use AI as a sparring partner for ideation. Push it to generate dozens of angles on a topic, then argue with its suggestions. The goal is not to accept its output but to wrestle with it, letting the tangle create ideas neither of you would have generated alone.
Stress-test your arguments. Ask the AI to find the holes in your reasoning, to steelman the opposition, to identify the counterargument you have been avoiding. This is the intellectual equivalent of hiring a boxing coach who spars with you.
Build the skeleton yourself. Construct your own outline and message before consulting the machine. The architecture of an argument is where much of the real thinking lives. If you outsource the blueprint, you are left decorating someone else’s house.
Sharpen your research. Use AI to surface related work, adjacent fields, and sources you might have missed. Let it expand the radius of your awareness without replacing the judgment about what matters.
Polish. Let AI improve your grammar, tighten your diction, and flag unclear passages. This is the digital equivalent of a copy editor, a role that enhances the writer without replacing them.
Improve clarity. Ask the AI whether your prose is doing what you intend. Is the argument landing? Is the structure logical? This turns the machine into a mirror that reflects your thinking back to you with useful annotations.
Review everything. This is non-negotiable: Read the output with the skepticism of an editor, not the gratitude of a customer. Check facts. Verify claims. Ensure the voice is yours. If you cannot explain and defend every sentence, you have not written an article; you have notarized one.
Finally, learn from the process. After each project, examine what the AI revealed about your weaknesses and strengths. Did it consistently improve your transitions? That tells you something. Did it catch logical gaps you missed? That tells you something, too. Treat each collaboration as a tutorial in your own cognitive blind spots, and celebration of your strengths.
This article was written using exactly the process I have described. I used AI to brainstorm, to pressure-test my argument, hunt for research and statistics, and to improve my prose. But the thesis is mine. The structure is mine. The voice, the metaphors, the convictions, and the errors are mine. I reviewed every claim. I rewrote passages the AI mangled. I cut suggestions that were technically smooth but intellectually empty.
It took longer than handing the title to an LLM and telling it to “write it,” but that is precisely the point. Every time you open a chat window, you are standing at the fork again. AI coach or AI ghostwriter.
Read the full article here
