In the fast-paced world of generative AI, we often focus on the performance metrics of our models, measuring throughput and parameter counts. However, a significant conversation is shifting toward the human side of this equation: what happens to our own minds when we outsource the friction of daily thought? John Nosta argues that we are witnessing an erosion of cognitive capacity similar to the degradation of physical health in the absence of exercise. Just as clinicians track Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) to assess physical independence, Nosta introduces the framework of Activities of Daily Thinking (ADTs) to track our cognitive autonomy.

The core concern is that AI, while incredibly efficient, removes the 'cognitive friction' necessary for deep intellectual growth. When a machine handles the heavy lifting of interpretation, drafting, and decision-making, we feel a productivity boost in the immediate term. Yet, the underlying muscle required to wrestle with complex ideas, construct logical arguments from scratch, or simply endure the discomfort of uncertainty begins to atrophy. This is not necessarily an argument for luddism or a rejection of advanced technology; rather, it is a strategic proposal to retain agency over the essential processes of human cognition.

To combat this, Nosta outlines five specific practices that serve as a checklist for maintaining a sharp, independent mind. These are not grand, life-altering shifts, but rather mundane, repeated acts: read without immediate AI-aided summaries, write to discover your own thoughts rather than generating content, make small decisions independently, embrace the cognitive labor of disagreement, and—perhaps most difficult of all—stay with a question even when it feels uncomfortable. By intentionally injecting this friction back into our daily routines, we ensure that our tools remain assistive devices rather than replacements for the self.

For students navigating an academic landscape increasingly filled with AI-generated essays and instant answers, this framework offers a vital perspective. It challenges the instinct to view 'easier' as 'better' in education. If learning is the result of cognitive struggle, then bypassing that struggle fundamentally undermines the education process. Ultimately, this isn't a protest against the progress of artificial intelligence, but a call to maintain the 'human in the loop'—not just in the sense of safety protocols, but in the context of personal identity and intellectual development.

In the fast-paced world of generative AI, we often focus on the performance metrics of our models, measuring throughput and parameter counts. However, a significant conversation is shifting toward the human side of this equation: what happens to our own minds when we outsource the friction of daily thought? John Nosta argues that we are witnessing an erosion of cognitive capacity similar to the degradation of physical health in the absence of exercise. Just as clinicians track Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) to assess physical independence, Nosta introduces the framework of Activities of Daily Thinking (ADTs) to track our cognitive autonomy.

The core concern is that AI, while incredibly efficient, removes the 'cognitive friction' necessary for deep intellectual growth. When a machine handles the heavy lifting of interpretation, drafting, and decision-making, we feel a productivity boost in the immediate term. Yet, the underlying muscle required to wrestle with complex ideas, construct logical arguments from scratch, or simply endure the discomfort of uncertainty begins to atrophy. This is not necessarily an argument for luddism or a rejection of advanced technology; rather, it is a strategic proposal to retain agency over the essential processes of human cognition.

To combat this, Nosta outlines five specific practices that serve as a checklist for maintaining a sharp, independent mind. These are not grand, life-altering shifts, but rather mundane, repeated acts: read without immediate AI-aided summaries, write to discover your own thoughts rather than generating content, make small decisions independently, embrace the cognitive labor of disagreement, and—perhaps most difficult of all—stay with a question even when it feels uncomfortable. By intentionally injecting this friction back into our daily routines, we ensure that our tools remain assistive devices rather than replacements for the self.

For students navigating an academic landscape increasingly filled with AI-generated essays and instant answers, this framework offers a vital perspective. It challenges the instinct to view 'easier' as 'better' in education. If learning is the result of cognitive struggle, then bypassing that struggle fundamentally undermines the education process. Ultimately, this isn't a protest against the progress of artificial intelligence, but a call to maintain the 'human in the loop'—not just in the sense of safety protocols, but in the context of personal identity and intellectual development.