What’s strong here is the way it reframes AI risk away from intelligence replacement and toward friction removal, where ease, fluency, and rapid alignment quietly lock cognition into its existing grooves. By grounding the argument in semantic networks, spreading activation, and expert–novice asymmetries, it makes clear why LLMs amplify bias differently depending on the depth of a person’s internal structure. The notion of “cognitive fitness” as a protective architecture feels like the real contribution, especially as a way to think normatively without collapsing into hype or moral panic.
I like your phrasing here, “cognitive ease” and excellent job reinforcing what happens to the brain when we don’t have friction; swimming in an endless pool of shallow old connections, unable to build new.
What’s strong here is the way it reframes AI risk away from intelligence replacement and toward friction removal, where ease, fluency, and rapid alignment quietly lock cognition into its existing grooves. By grounding the argument in semantic networks, spreading activation, and expert–novice asymmetries, it makes clear why LLMs amplify bias differently depending on the depth of a person’s internal structure. The notion of “cognitive fitness” as a protective architecture feels like the real contribution, especially as a way to think normatively without collapsing into hype or moral panic.
I like your phrasing here, “cognitive ease” and excellent job reinforcing what happens to the brain when we don’t have friction; swimming in an endless pool of shallow old connections, unable to build new.
Thanks for the feedback, Jenny!