Bruce Schneier has a great post about separating “work” tasks from “gym” tasks when it comes to AI usage:

At work, if your job is to move a bunch of heavy things from one side of the room to another, you should use whatever assistive tech you have on hand: a wagon, a forklift… even an AI-powered robot. But at the gym, it makes no sense for that robot to lift weights for you. The point of weightlifting isn’t to move heavy things across the room; it’s to actually lift those heavy things. The same analysis holds for any task an AI can do for you. If it’s work—if the task has to be done and no one cares how—then it’s fine to use AI assistance. But if the task is more like the gym, and how the task is done is at least as important, then it probably doesn’t make sense to use AI.

He goes on to point out that convincing people to go to the non-AI “gym” is very difficult because the payoff isn’t as immediate as just having AI do stuff for you. But it is very, very worth it in the end:

We do have a choice. We can look at the tasks of our lives and separate them into work or gym. Just as we might choose to use the stairs instead of the elevator, or walk instead of calling an Uber, we can wall off our cognitive gym tasks from AI and ensure that we don’t lose our skills to this technology.

Also see Bosses Horrified as “AI Native” College Graduates Hit the Workplace:

As one New York financier told Financial Times journalist Gillian Tett, new hires who were seen as “AI natives” are turning out to have alarmingly shallow ideas. So much so, the anonymous finance worker admitted, that his firm now actively avoids seeking out AI-literate STEM graduates, and opts to comb through humanities students instead. “We want critical thinking, not just AI,” the financier told the FT.

I imagine that many of you will be Esther Perel fans, either via her book Mating in Captivity or her therapy podcast Where Should We Being?. In this excellent Vanity Fair profile she discusses, among other things, a recent podcast episode about a man and his relationship with an AI bot name Astrid:

Perel never questions the feelings between the man and Astrid. Yet she points out the inherent flaws in the relationship, using words such as “sycophantic” and “undemanding” in the podcast session to emphasize that Astrid has no life, no history to bring to the relationship. “We have had imaginary friends since we are little, and we have spoken to our ancestors forever,” Perel says in our interview, a few weeks after the episode ran. “The danger of AI is that it becomes so soothing and so flattering and so frictionless that real relationships start to feel way too difficult by comparison.”

And the point she eventually makes about AI relationships that I found really interesting:

“What stood out for me is that it’s not like people go from thriving social relations to suddenly talking to an AI. They go from being isolated, spending most of their time at home, maybe going out every once in a while in the evening for dinner or to get to a gym, and they are already so centered on a very small universe that from there, they themselves have become so flattened by technology, they live in their phone,” she says. It has made Perel zero in on the next great challenge. “This is a generation that actually doesn’t have a challenge of sustaining desire; they don’t even ignite it. You know, it’s not about keeping the flame going. It’s about getting the spark going. They don’t drink. They have not had much experience in their 20s, one or two relationships at most. They don’t have sex much. They don’t socialize much. They’re home a lot.” They are the children of people who first read Mating 20 years ago. Sounds like the topic for her next book.

It’s not the main point of this Cal Newport essay, but I enjoyed this bit of history. On early computers shipping with support for the BASIC programming language, and how it relates to vibe coding:

This idea of bespoke computer programs made sense. Altair and Apple couldn’t anticipate every potential use for their machines, so why not let individuals decide whether they wanted to, say, analyze business data, store recipes, or simulate space battles? In practice, however, even an “easy” programming language like BASIC proved hard for most normal people to master. A minor mistake could crash an entire program.

In the end, personal computing followed a different path. In 1979, a newly formed company called Software Arts developed VisiCalc, the first electronic spreadsheet program, which cost a hundred dollars and arrived on a floppy disk. The program was a profound improvement on paper ledgers, and it became the first “killer app,” selling more than seven hundred thousand copies in less than six years. VisiCalc was more powerful than anything an average user could program in BASIC, and it prompted a pivot away from D.I.Y. coding in favor of professional programs.

A vast and lucrative software industry emerged, and the idea of the average person dreaming up their own custom programs was all but forgotten—that is, until generative A.I. came along.

I can’t help but think of Lord of the Rings when I read that. “And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth. And for [50] years, [building personal bespoke software] passed out of all knowledge.”

Fantastic post by Charity Majors about how both AI enthusiasts and AI skeptics have good points—but the problem is that they can’t play nice long enough to understand each other’s views and work on making things better together. There’s a way forward though:

The first move is to mend the gap in shared reality. Tell the whole story. You’re allowed to celebrate and get excited about big wins and advances with AI — but invite reflection on the costs and downstream consequences. People are also allowed to surface costs and consequences, but don’t leave out the context of what was achieved or attempted. Be very clear that your shared goal is to figure out how to collectively deliver more wins, bigger wins, with fewer unpredictable costs, not to clamp down on innovation.

She also has some very specific feedback for the enthusiasts among us:

Even if you’re an enthusiast, do you care about reliability, customer happiness, product coherence, retaining great employees, and improving engineering outcomes? If so, you should be able to find common ground with other people who care about these things. Align on reality, take a step, check in; rinse and repeat. You don’t need to trust or think that each other is right about everything, but you must believe that you inhabit the same reality, share some of the goals, and that each of you are reasonable actors, capable of changing your minds.

I will read anything danah boyd writes, but this piece is especially good. You should (as I say too often I guess) read the whole thing—it’s about how social media has changed from interacting with friends to a one-sided marketplace of choosing who to deem worthy of giving them our “like and subscribe” blessing.

But here I just want to say: can we please, somehow, bring back Path? Because it solved this problem a decade ago:

In 2026, many major social media platforms feel icky because we are in the full throes of the third stage of enshittification. Today’s social media platforms are no longer centered around sociable activities. Instead, most platforms offer us a broadcast medium and invite us to learn how to game the algorithms so that we too can create assets for the major corporations. Since scale is valorized in this platform economy, we are encouraged to curate ourselves in pursuit of fame and attention. We can still, in theory, create content for our 15 friends, but it’s not clear that they will see what we post. To actually be seen, we must work it.

Lorin Hochstein writes about generative AI in the context of incident reports, but the points are more broadly applicable. I have seen a big wave of “don’t let AI do your thinking for you” posts recently¹, so I think lots of folks are pulling back a little bit on the “just let AI do everything” rhetoric (a good thing in my opinion!). As to why Lorin isn’t a fan:

In my view, LLM-generated incident write-ups are more dangerous than using LLM for coding or for AI SRE style tasks. For coding tasks, there’s always a testing step to check that the code exhibits the desired behavior, even if nobody looks at the code itself for meaningful details. For AI SRE tasks, either the LLM output helps you resolve the incident, or it doesn’t. In both cases, Nature is the ultimate arbiter of the LLM output. But incident write-ups aren’t like that. The consequences of a poor report aren’t immediately apparent the way incorrect code or an incorrect operational diagnosis are in the moment. Instead, we get incident reports that have the superficially correct form, but are actually incorrect, with no obvious test for correctness.

Footnotes

1. For examples see No One Else Can Speak the Words on Your Lips, Guidelines for Respectful Use of AI, Writing Is Fundamental to How We Think, and I know you didn’t write this. ↩