When Thinking Becomes Optional
Eric Solomon Ph.D.
I’m following up the previous post with this one on purpose.
Where the Upskillist article talks about AI as a creative amplifier, this piece asks a quieter, and more uncomfortable, question:
what happens when tools don’t just support thinking, but start quietly replacing parts of it?
The article isn’t about the creative industries specifically. It’s about cognition, narrative, and decision-making. But it lands squarely in territory that matters for creative work, especially once AI tools become frictionless and ubiquitous.
The core tension here isn’t “AI is bad for thinking.” It’s more subtle than that.
When systems make it easier to skip effort, we don’t just save time, we sometimes skip engagement. And engagement is where understanding, taste, and judgment tend to form.
For creative practice, this matters.
If ideation becomes instant, do we still sit with problems long enough to understand them? So, if synthesis is automated, do we notice what’s missing?
When a narrative is generated, do we lose our grip on why one version feels truer than another?
None of this is an argument for going “back to pen and paper.” It’s an argument for intentional use.
AI tools are superb at smoothing over uncertainty. Creativity often depends on not smoothing it too early.
I’m sharing this article because it adds an important counterweight to more optimistic takes. Not to cancel them out,but to keep the conversation honest.
Used well, AI can expand creative possibility. Used lazily, it can quietly hollow out the very skills it’s meant to support.
That tension will come up a lot here.