Jeroen Sangers logo Jeroen Sangers

AI also answers, without saying so, that there is no need to check it, and that “no” is “cognitive surrender”

When you ask an AI a question, it doesn’t only answer that question. Without saying so, it also answers another one: does this need checking? And the implicit answer is always no. That silent “no” is the core of what the researchers Shaw and Nave call “cognitive surrender”: you are not delegating a task while keeping your judgement, you are giving up the judgement itself.

That is different from using a tool. A calculator or a search engine takes work off your hands, but the verdict on the result stays yours. AI is as fast as intuition, yet its answer arrives in the shape of reasoning: ordered, fluent, sure of itself. It imitates reflection without doing it, and that is exactly why it switches off the urge to reflect. Seen through Daniel Kahneman’s distinction between fast, intuitive thinking and slow, deliberate thinking, AI takes the seat of slow thinking without ever activating it.

The experiments Alexander Rink describes make this visible. When the AI deliberately gave a wrong answer, 73% of the people who consulted it went along with it, and they also felt almost twelve points more confident than those who solved the same problem without help. More confidence, less accuracy. Under time pressure, the dependence didn’t drop: it rose.

The important nuance is that this can be interrupted, though not completely. With a small reward for getting it right and immediate feedback on every answer, the share of people who corrected the machine doubled, from 20% to 42%. The mechanism is simple: you surrender your judgement when the cost of not thinking is invisible, and you take it back when that cost becomes visible. Even so, almost six in ten still accepted the wrong answer. In real life there is rarely anyone to tell you the AI got it wrong, so the friction has to come from you: for instance, write down your own answer before you look at its.

When AI gets it right, it genuinely helps. The problem lies in letting its answer be the end of your thinking instead of the beginning.

See AI as a tool and you delegate tasks; see it as a colleague and you delegate processes

How you picture AI decides what you ask of it. If you see it as a tool, you pick it up for a specific problem and put it down again: you hand it one-off tasks, one at a time. If you see it as a colleague who uses the tools, you hand it whole processes: preparing the weekly summary, going through the inbox every morning, turning a set of notes into a document.

That shift forces you to do what you would do with a new person on the team. You give them a manual on the first day: who you are, how you work, how you write, what they must never do without asking. You give them access to what they need, such as your email, your calendar or your documents. And you ask them to keep a record of what they have done, so tomorrow they don’t start from scratch. Give a colleague vague instructions and they don’t know what to do; AI is exactly the same.

From there on, capabilities stop being features you operate and become tools the colleague chooses. Some come in the toolbox already, like creating a document or a spreadsheet; others are specialists who bring their own methods, like reviewing a contract. It can even work at a fixed time while you do something else.

What tends to get overlooked is that a colleague has limits too. The more you delegate, the more it matters to decide in advance what it may do on its own and what needs your approval: drafting an email is one thing, sending it is another.

Organising your notes is thinking: hand it to AI and you lose the thinking

Organising your notes is the thinking itself, not a chore you get out of the way first. When you decide that one note belongs next to another, or that an idea fits one topic rather than another, you have to ask yourself what it means, what it clashes with and what it is good for. Only you can make those connections, because they grow out of your context: what you already know and what you care about.

That is why handing the job to AI costs more than it seems to save. The machine gives you back a tidy system, but the order reflects how it understands the material, not how you do. You end up with an archive the AI can find its way through and that you no longer recognise as yours, and you miss exactly the moment when a loose idea becomes your own.

The line runs between administrative and intellectual work. Filing receipts, moving files by a rule or summarising a meeting is maintenance, and there AI helps a lot. Deciding how two ideas relate is something else.

None of this means keeping AI away from your ideas. It can suggest connections, synthesise your own notes or ask you questions, as long as the last step is yours: you judge what it proposes and let into your system only what truly fits. There is a practical side too. As Nick Milo puts it, AI is a brilliant amnesiac: it forgets everything between one conversation and the next. The context you give it, in files you own, is what makes it help you think instead of thinking for you. For the same reason, AI can take over the upkeep of your system once you give it the map. Maintaining is not the same as connecting.

In AI, general methods that scale with computation end up beating systems built on human knowledge

In artificial intelligence, general methods that make use of more computation end up winning, and by a wide margin, over systems into which someone has built what they know about the problem. As Rich Sutton argues in The Bitter Lesson, this did not happen once. It has happened again and again over seventy years of research.

The reason is the price of computation. Each unit of computing costs less than the last, exponentially, yet researchers tend to work as if the available power were fixed. With fixed power, putting your knowledge of the problem into the system is almost the only way to improve, and it works: the system performs sooner, and it is satisfying to see your own understanding inside the machine. A few years later there is vastly more computation available, and that knowledge-laden system stalls while a simpler one, which only knows how to search and learn, overtakes it.

Chess is the clearest case. The machine that beat Kasparov in 1997 did not understand the game the way a grandmaster does: it explored enormous numbers of positions on specialised hardware. Researchers who had spent years programming chess knowledge received it with dismay, because that is not how a person plays. The same thing happened later with Go, with speech recognition and with computer vision, where hand-designed edge and shape detectors were dropped in favour of networks that learn from data.

The two families of methods that keep scaling with no limit in sight are search and learning. Neither depends on the domain: they work wherever there is enough computation.

In theory, leveraging human knowledge and leveraging computation need not exclude each other. In practice they do. Time spent on one is time not spent on the other, each approach creates personal attachments, and built-in knowledge complicates systems in ways that keep them from scaling. That is what makes the lesson bitter: what wins is exactly what looks least like how we think we think.

Underneath lies a broader idea. The actual contents of a mind, its space, its objects and their relations, are endlessly complex, and any simplification we impose falls short. What is worth building is not our discoveries, but the capacity to discover.

Choosing what you attend to is choosing your life

Your experience is whatever you pay attention to. What fills your attention fills your days, and your days add up to your life. So deciding where your attention goes is, in practice, deciding how you live.

The gap between what you say you value and how you actually spend your time is usually a matter of attention rather than values: attention that goes wherever the environment pushes it. Every interruption is a small decision about what you are going to experience, and if you leave it, your inbox, a message or the day’s urgent problem makes it for you. A leader who considers developing their team essential can go months without a single real conversation with anyone on it, without once changing their mind about how much it matters.

Managing your attention is therefore something different from concentrating or producing more. It means noticing the moment something tries to take your attention, and deciding yourself where it goes, based on your priorities. The result shows less in ticked-off tasks than in how closely your life resembles the one you would choose.

The part that gets overlooked is internal. A mind used to constant interruptions becomes a source of distraction in its own right: it does every small task the moment it comes up, for fear of forgetting it, and it struggles to sit with “I don’t know” when a search engine is one tap away. That is why switching off notifications solves only half the problem, the outer half. The other half you train like a muscle: noticing that your attention has wandered, and bringing it back, again and again.

A vividly imagined future lets you feel whether you actually want it

When you really picture a future situation, with the place, the people and the small details, you are doing more than daydreaming. Your brain builds a scene out of what it already knows: memories, facts and past experiences, recombined into something that does not exist yet. The more concrete the scene, the more believable it becomes.

Then your brain starts looking around. Which needs could I meet here, which goals move closer? The motives that come up first tend to matter most, because they come straight from your deepest values. At the same time you know which behaviour usually works out well for you: a walk when you are stuck, cooking after a bad day, replying right away to someone you care about.

Finally, the feelings arrive. You get a preview of what that future is like: pride, relief, boredom, loneliness. That preview is information. It answers a question a list of pros and cons cannot reach: is this a future I want to wake up in? And if so, what can I do today to make it more likely?

So when a choice is hard, it pays to do more than calculate. Spend a few minutes living each option concretely, as if you were already there. What you feel then belongs in the decision. It may be the best data you have.

Content is an asset with a lifespan: fleeting content wins an audience, lasting content builds the business

Every piece of content you make has a cost, the time or money to produce it, and a value that can then stay, grow or shrink, just like physical assets. That value axis is the real choice you make with each piece, more than the format or the platform.

Fleeting content, such as a Reel or a post, is valuable the moment it goes out, but that value disappears almost immediately, unless you use it to attract a new audience. Lasting content, such as a course or an email sequence that keeps converting, often costs more to make, but its value compounds: it keeps working long after the publication date.

Spreading yourself across too many platforms mostly feeds fleeting content, which leaves no time to build the lasting assets that carry the business in the long run. Deliberately limiting the number of platforms is therefore the condition for working on something that lasts.

How visible you are says nothing about how fulfilled your life is

We have started using visibility as the measure of a fulfilled life: how large your network is, how many conversations you keep going at once, how often you show yourself. The underlying assumption is that depth translates itself outward into output and connection. But that is an assumption, not a law, and the people who live most deeply are rarely the loudest.

The real measure is something else: can you experience a moment fully without immediately turning it into a strategic goal? A sunset is then just a sunset, not a photo opportunity. That ability to be present without managing the experience is rarer than it seems, and it produces no content, so the systems around us never reward it.

The tricky part is that the performance of an inner life, with its morning walks, gratitude rituals and carefully shared insights, has become almost indistinguishable from the real thing. The only difference: the performance always happens within a frame of broadcasting, and the real thing happens precisely when nobody is watching.

Removing your own ability to give in makes you stronger in a negotiation

If you can always give in a little more in a negotiation, you automatically give the other side a reason to keep pushing: after all, there is still room. The counterintuitive solution is to remove that room yourself. Give up, in advance, the authority to move any further, and the pressure disappears. Not because you negotiate harder, but because there is simply nothing left to gain by insisting.

This is exactly what a salesperson does with “I’ll have to check with my manager”: they can no longer make concessions themselves, so they become much harder to move than if they could make the call. You can use the same mechanism for yourself by giving a third party the deciding vote: a partner who has to agree, or a fixed threshold above which you automatically pause. You stay the friendly, reasonable person, while the room to negotiate is fixed somewhere else.

The pattern also works against you when you don’t recognise it. Every time you say “in principle” or “usually”, you signal, without meaning to, that the exception is open for negotiation. A boundary that leaves no room for interpretation rarely gets tested.

Delegating a task without the why delegates the action, not the judgment

Almost any task beyond the basics requires decisions along the way: which version, which tone, how much depth. If you hand over only the instruction and not the reason behind it, the other person has nothing to hold on to except that instruction. The moment the situation drifts from what was written down, there is nothing to fall back on, and the work lands back on your desk for you to decide.

That is why delegating without explaining often feels like losing time rather than gaining it. You get back something that doesn’t quite fit and end up redoing it. It works the other way too: when someone delivers far more than needed, it is rarely slowness. More often the scope was unclear, and they assumed more depth than a few bullet points required.

The why of a task is only half of it. The other half is your general judgment, which usually lives in your head: whom you consult first, what you need to know before committing, how you weigh cost against quality. Make it explicit and your team can decide without waiting for you. Two concrete things help. First, say what “good enough” means right now, because under a heavier workload the bar tends to drop and nobody says so out loud. Second, set the threshold for escalating: from which client, which amount or which risk you want to be told.

That is the difference between delegating tasks and delegating authority. With the first, the work leaves your desk but the decisions keep waiting for you. With the second, both leave, and the task makes more sense to the person doing it, because they can see where it fits.