I have always had the theory that we as a human civilisation act like humans, just like humans when we are born, I.e babies, we are primitive in everything, we speak using cries, we cant wear clothes, we cant eat very hard food, and as we progress in our age, everything becomes easier and we start doing more than eating, we start cooking to eat, we start sewing clothes that we wear and during our peak of the age of 40, we do everything with efficiency and the quality of our lives are the best but as we progress in our ages, most of the old people start losing ability to do things they could do simply eg eat, wear clothes until their ultimate demise which is not that far from this last stage. Now using this as a link we tend to notice that during the start of human civilisation, we would speak in clicks and signs, wear leaves just to cover our private parts and as we progress we become better and more efficient in everything like commuting, we invent cars and planes, talking, we have better communication systems eg the phone i am using currently but slowly as we age we start becoming primitive again seen in that humans started communicating using emojis, people started wearing clothes just to cover the private parts and everything else was left open and now I believe lack of deep thinking will become another primitive thing we turn back to, so maybe we aren't that far from our human demise as a population 👀 not to dampen anyone's mood though!
Mr Irvine good afternoon, and thanks for this article! I am a Millennial, and I have to say that even in my generation Ai is becoming a threat to deep thinking, processing, journaling, everything basically! Pretty sad even though useful sometimes, I have to admit!I’m 36 and I’ve just enrolled to university this year, Psychology. I’m Italian but I chose a British university and re start writing essays, studying and everything in between in a foreign language is not easy! But yeah, this post really put me back on track and gave me even more motivation to keep going, practising and getting better day by day ( without AI of course 😌)! Have an amazing day and thanks again!
It might be true, but I have been noticing that people have slowly started distancing themselves from AI and mindless scrolling. Especially when they notice the downsides after using them for a while. Even I put down my phone and picked up a book, a person that has never found entertainment outside of video games and tv shows until recently, couldn’t even listen to an entire album. In my head I see a future where looking down at your phone and using AI to outsource basic thinking is going to as taboo as smoking.
Unfortunately AI is a threat to all generations. Whoever uses it is exposed to the risk of not using critical thinking and problem solving skills anymore, therefore losing them in the long run. As with most things, the key would be to educate the general population to the use of these tools, so that they can then teach it to their kids. This, however, has never and will never take place.
As a Zillennial (born between millennials and gen Z), I see a lot of people from Gen X and Boomer generations be completely absorbed by their phones, social media, and use AI as a "game" to make cool pictures, with no interest in their privacy, security or ethics around it. I've had to argue with people who would feed it my baby photos, explaining that I don't want AI to learn off of my pictures, because reasons X, Y and Z, and I've been answered with obtuseness and "it's just a cool thing! lighten up!" I fear older generations are not equipped to fully understand the threat it poses.
New generations, however, if correctly educated, would have an easier time understanding the dangers of social media over-usage (/abuse) and AI, but there is nobody out there to teach them. Their parents don't want to learn, and their teachers can barely use a computer correctly.
Unfortunately, this is what happens when technology gets developed, but only a few people actually choose to understand it.
It is the same thing to the way social media is built: they are built like supermarkets, designed to drain you fo your attention in exchange for quick dopamine hits. Yet, almost nobody knows or cares and decided to act on this to not fall in the trap.
I share the concern about the possible atrophy of deep thinking. But I’m not sure the primary mechanism will be individual laziness or even intellectual outsourcing.
The more interesting question may be structural.
Historically, deep thinking required a specific environmental condition: time between stimulus and response. A mathematician proving a theorem, a philosopher writing an argument, or a scientist working through a problem all operate in environments where latency is tolerated—even valued.
The systems we increasingly live inside operate on the opposite principle. They reward speed, continuous output, and immediate reaction. In such an environment, the issue is not simply whether individuals choose to think deeply. The issue is whether the surrounding architecture still allows it.
AI may accelerate this shift—not because it “does the thinking for us,” but because it compresses the acceptable time window for thinking.
If answers can be produced instantly, slow thinking begins to look like inefficiency.
Over time, deep thinking may not disappear—but it could quietly shift from a norm into something closer to an eccentricity: admirable, perhaps, but structurally unnecessary.
So the real question may not be whether Gen Beta will be capable of deep thinking.
The question may be whether the systems they inhabit will still make room for it.
Mr Irvine, by you publishing this post you're already making me feel I've started the deteriorating process you anticipate, because I've thought almost exactly the same ideas for a while... But it was YOU who wrote them!
Promise I'll start trying to prevent the downfall by writing more often.
Thank you for the inspiration!
(BTW, I'm GenX. Are "gens" our new horoscopes? LOL)
A very compelling article. Sadly, we rush headlong into embracing technological change without ever examining the consequences of what we do. I recall back in the 1980s, as Facebook took off, wondering why no one was teaching our kids the importance of privacy and how this new technology can be used to punish the recklessness of youth in school admissions, job applications, loan requests, etc. Who could have ever imagined the intentionally damaging use of social media as a force to promote cultural, political, and social destruction and the deliberate manipulation of the technology to incentivize the pursuit of the very worst qualities in human nature -- and the fact that we as a society continue to allow all this!
We can look at current times and find many examples of human activities that given way to a collective coarsening in their practice, a cheapening of standards, and a loss of human expression that was more sophisticated, intellectually rigorous, or simply more creative.
On the most common level, all we have to do is look at the way we dress, with the attire for events or occasions that once called for high dress degenerating into slovenly, where t-shirts and blue jeans are now considered acceptable in situations that were previously celebrated with elegance. Even weekly religious services no longer bother with Sunday best.
Another areas is statesmanship. Compare the oration of, say, Theodore Roosevelt or Winston Churchill with the embarrassing level of public speaking we hear from current leaders, especially our political leadership. "You lie!" "Those predictions [of climate change catastrophes] were made by stupid people." "...in 1917, the great pandemic .....Probably ended the Second World War. All the soldiers were sick.”
Look at America's heroes. Early in the 20th century, the country's most popular heroes were Charles Lindbergh, Babe Ruth, and Will Rogers. In this century, so far it is Spider Man, X-Men, and Harry Potter. (For a while, in the 1990s, it was Larry the Cable Guy.)
Car manuals in the 1960s told you how to adjust valve clearances, now they tell you not to drink the battery fluid.
Handwriting, letter writing, and impeccable grammar have given way to text messaging, cryptic abbreviations, and emojis.
Few schools teach American civics anymore, a decline that began back in the 1960s, in part, due to fear of political controversy in a polarized climate along with a shift to standardized testing. More than half of American adults (58%) fail basic civics tests, and 70% cannot pass a fundamental literacy quiz regarding the three branches of government. A lack of civic knowledge is linked to decreasing trust in government institutions, according to Pew Research Center data, which fuels the deplorable state of political discourse and basic governing we see today.
Of course, there are many other examples. One thing is clear though-- an increasingly commercialized life in our culture has given way to expediency in all areas of life, with great social detriment that no one thinks about until after something valuable is lost.
I was hesitant to utilize AI for many reasons. One was that I hated that so many were losing their jobs because of it , and two , I worried that in utilizing it , maybe I’d lose my voice. But as with everything , I had to acknowledge that there are both advantages and disadvantages to this tool. What would matter is how I choose to use it. I do not blindly accept what an AI tool says. I don’t automatically accept the suggestions made , the “polishing” of what I write . I ask questions, I call it out when it errs , and it does. My voice will be gone only if I choose to hand it over to AI.
Sadly, unfortunately, there is cause for concern for the present and future generations. If you’re become accustomed to having everything handed to you , to wanting everything now without having to put in the work, then AI will seem like a gift of the gods. Nothing is required of you , except to copy and paste. That is deeply concerning. The exchanging of ideas, the discussions that follow as a result of the exchanges, the questions that arise, the new information received, are all what promotes deep thought. The absence of that would make for a robotic generation, allowing themselves to be led , instead of leading. That’s frightening.
People thought motion pictures would steal the ability to imagine as one does with books. People thought calculators would take away computational skills. People thought video games would make people dumb. People thought the internet would suck people out of the real world and into digital dungeons.
Did these things happen? Yeah, to some people. But we still have authors and film writers. We still have mathematicians. Some video games nerds are operating military drones. And many people have built careers on the internet in creative ways.
Technology doesn’t take a person’s will to think or do. If a person is a thinker, they will be a thinker. These folks tend to use technology to expand and advance, not become stagnant. If a person is not a thinker, well…
Hi, Ryan. There is a difference between being a thinker and being what I refer to as a Thinker, with a capital T. See https://open.substack.com/pub/morebetterthinking/p/are-you-a-thinker. There is also a difference between ordinary thinking and what I am referring to as deep thinking. The “computational skills” you mention do not require deep thinking. Proving, say, the quadratic equation does require deep thinking.
I do not dispute that those in Gen Beta will be able to think. My concern is that they will be unprepared to engage in deep thinking.
Ok. I read your thinker article you referenced in which you separate people into Thinkers and Feelers. But now there are thinkers with a lowercase T? You’ve suggested that a generation may become incapable of engaging in a natural human function because of a new technology. My point is many technological advancements posed the same question you’re asking, and we’re still here. We are still thinking. If you want to say there is a spectrum scaling between “thinker” and “Deep Thinker”, fine, but technology doesn’t change how humans work. You know what affects one’s ability to think, Think, or feel more than technological advancements? Parenting, teachers, mentors, peers, people, self efficacy.
If one is a thinker, Deep Thinker, Feeler, or whatever else, they will likely continue to be regardless of generation and regardless of technology. They just need an environment to thrive.
So is your point that future generations will have information too easily available? That doesn’t seem to be a hindrance to deep thinking either as tech advancement has historically made information faster and more accessible.
No, that isn’t my point at all. Also, I can’t make my point any clearer than I already have in my Generation Beta post. (If I could, I would have done so.) Maybe take another look at it?
I believe this is inaccurate. Main reasoning is the pushback AI has seen already. While it is popular and being developed still, there are people who shun it as there have been for all new innovations. As a millennial the big fear I remember parents and teachers having at school was how much the calculator was going to hinder our development. We would use it far to much to do all the work for us. It's a bit funny of course since the generation that came after got cell phones and those concerns about using them in school has been a point of topic ever since.
If gen Z and the first bits of Alpha have been able to survive and thrive despite the cell phone being a powerful tool for them in their early years, the next generation will be fine with A.I. The main and chief reason I believe this is structure and mentorship. The easy solution will always be A.I. but I believe people want to improve, adapt and create constantly. Some slower than others, sure, but they will find something they like and it will help develop those skills.
People will want to read stories written by other people. They will enjoy a movie or show made by a person more than an A.I. video creation. They will find a hobby they like rather it be digital or physical and engage in it with other people.
I do worry what A.I. will do for imagination, but I do not think it will remove peoples ability to deep think. As I am sure you know, every generation, regardless of the tools at hand, has those who thrive and those who are sort of idling by. The newer generations will have proactive people come along and they will have idlers too. I think humanity will be fine.
I think as a people become more like passengers than drivers in our life. AI changes from being a tool for us and we become more the material on which AI works on.
In the workplace engineers mostly cut and paste in Microsoft word docs and simple collect data and keystroke it into a Statistics program and are surprised when they don’t get the results they wished for.
We have so many ways to think, spatially, emotionally, mathematically, geometrically, rationally, irrationally, and linguistically. There are probably more that I don't know. We may be at some risk of being able to receive and transmit complex ideas linguistically, but I am not worried, AI is brilliant at that and if we leverage our other thinking modalities we can use AI to compliment our powers. It should be a joyful collaboration once we master it.
Hi, Valerie. I am an old person, and I know that throughout history old people have complained about the shortcomings of subsequent generations, but—wait for it—THIS TIME IS DIFFERENT!
I have always had the theory that we as a human civilisation act like humans, just like humans when we are born, I.e babies, we are primitive in everything, we speak using cries, we cant wear clothes, we cant eat very hard food, and as we progress in our age, everything becomes easier and we start doing more than eating, we start cooking to eat, we start sewing clothes that we wear and during our peak of the age of 40, we do everything with efficiency and the quality of our lives are the best but as we progress in our ages, most of the old people start losing ability to do things they could do simply eg eat, wear clothes until their ultimate demise which is not that far from this last stage. Now using this as a link we tend to notice that during the start of human civilisation, we would speak in clicks and signs, wear leaves just to cover our private parts and as we progress we become better and more efficient in everything like commuting, we invent cars and planes, talking, we have better communication systems eg the phone i am using currently but slowly as we age we start becoming primitive again seen in that humans started communicating using emojis, people started wearing clothes just to cover the private parts and everything else was left open and now I believe lack of deep thinking will become another primitive thing we turn back to, so maybe we aren't that far from our human demise as a population 👀 not to dampen anyone's mood though!
Mr Irvine good afternoon, and thanks for this article! I am a Millennial, and I have to say that even in my generation Ai is becoming a threat to deep thinking, processing, journaling, everything basically! Pretty sad even though useful sometimes, I have to admit!I’m 36 and I’ve just enrolled to university this year, Psychology. I’m Italian but I chose a British university and re start writing essays, studying and everything in between in a foreign language is not easy! But yeah, this post really put me back on track and gave me even more motivation to keep going, practising and getting better day by day ( without AI of course 😌)! Have an amazing day and thanks again!
Thanks, Un(h)earthing, for reading me. You have a great day as well!
It might be true, but I have been noticing that people have slowly started distancing themselves from AI and mindless scrolling. Especially when they notice the downsides after using them for a while. Even I put down my phone and picked up a book, a person that has never found entertainment outside of video games and tv shows until recently, couldn’t even listen to an entire album. In my head I see a future where looking down at your phone and using AI to outsource basic thinking is going to as taboo as smoking.
Great read!!
Unfortunately AI is a threat to all generations. Whoever uses it is exposed to the risk of not using critical thinking and problem solving skills anymore, therefore losing them in the long run. As with most things, the key would be to educate the general population to the use of these tools, so that they can then teach it to their kids. This, however, has never and will never take place.
As a Zillennial (born between millennials and gen Z), I see a lot of people from Gen X and Boomer generations be completely absorbed by their phones, social media, and use AI as a "game" to make cool pictures, with no interest in their privacy, security or ethics around it. I've had to argue with people who would feed it my baby photos, explaining that I don't want AI to learn off of my pictures, because reasons X, Y and Z, and I've been answered with obtuseness and "it's just a cool thing! lighten up!" I fear older generations are not equipped to fully understand the threat it poses.
New generations, however, if correctly educated, would have an easier time understanding the dangers of social media over-usage (/abuse) and AI, but there is nobody out there to teach them. Their parents don't want to learn, and their teachers can barely use a computer correctly.
Unfortunately, this is what happens when technology gets developed, but only a few people actually choose to understand it.
It is the same thing to the way social media is built: they are built like supermarkets, designed to drain you fo your attention in exchange for quick dopamine hits. Yet, almost nobody knows or cares and decided to act on this to not fall in the trap.
I share the concern about the possible atrophy of deep thinking. But I’m not sure the primary mechanism will be individual laziness or even intellectual outsourcing.
The more interesting question may be structural.
Historically, deep thinking required a specific environmental condition: time between stimulus and response. A mathematician proving a theorem, a philosopher writing an argument, or a scientist working through a problem all operate in environments where latency is tolerated—even valued.
The systems we increasingly live inside operate on the opposite principle. They reward speed, continuous output, and immediate reaction. In such an environment, the issue is not simply whether individuals choose to think deeply. The issue is whether the surrounding architecture still allows it.
AI may accelerate this shift—not because it “does the thinking for us,” but because it compresses the acceptable time window for thinking.
If answers can be produced instantly, slow thinking begins to look like inefficiency.
Over time, deep thinking may not disappear—but it could quietly shift from a norm into something closer to an eccentricity: admirable, perhaps, but structurally unnecessary.
So the real question may not be whether Gen Beta will be capable of deep thinking.
The question may be whether the systems they inhabit will still make room for it.
Mr Irvine, by you publishing this post you're already making me feel I've started the deteriorating process you anticipate, because I've thought almost exactly the same ideas for a while... But it was YOU who wrote them!
Promise I'll start trying to prevent the downfall by writing more often.
Thank you for the inspiration!
(BTW, I'm GenX. Are "gens" our new horoscopes? LOL)
A very compelling article. Sadly, we rush headlong into embracing technological change without ever examining the consequences of what we do. I recall back in the 1980s, as Facebook took off, wondering why no one was teaching our kids the importance of privacy and how this new technology can be used to punish the recklessness of youth in school admissions, job applications, loan requests, etc. Who could have ever imagined the intentionally damaging use of social media as a force to promote cultural, political, and social destruction and the deliberate manipulation of the technology to incentivize the pursuit of the very worst qualities in human nature -- and the fact that we as a society continue to allow all this!
We can look at current times and find many examples of human activities that given way to a collective coarsening in their practice, a cheapening of standards, and a loss of human expression that was more sophisticated, intellectually rigorous, or simply more creative.
On the most common level, all we have to do is look at the way we dress, with the attire for events or occasions that once called for high dress degenerating into slovenly, where t-shirts and blue jeans are now considered acceptable in situations that were previously celebrated with elegance. Even weekly religious services no longer bother with Sunday best.
Another areas is statesmanship. Compare the oration of, say, Theodore Roosevelt or Winston Churchill with the embarrassing level of public speaking we hear from current leaders, especially our political leadership. "You lie!" "Those predictions [of climate change catastrophes] were made by stupid people." "...in 1917, the great pandemic .....Probably ended the Second World War. All the soldiers were sick.”
Look at America's heroes. Early in the 20th century, the country's most popular heroes were Charles Lindbergh, Babe Ruth, and Will Rogers. In this century, so far it is Spider Man, X-Men, and Harry Potter. (For a while, in the 1990s, it was Larry the Cable Guy.)
Car manuals in the 1960s told you how to adjust valve clearances, now they tell you not to drink the battery fluid.
Handwriting, letter writing, and impeccable grammar have given way to text messaging, cryptic abbreviations, and emojis.
Few schools teach American civics anymore, a decline that began back in the 1960s, in part, due to fear of political controversy in a polarized climate along with a shift to standardized testing. More than half of American adults (58%) fail basic civics tests, and 70% cannot pass a fundamental literacy quiz regarding the three branches of government. A lack of civic knowledge is linked to decreasing trust in government institutions, according to Pew Research Center data, which fuels the deplorable state of political discourse and basic governing we see today.
Of course, there are many other examples. One thing is clear though-- an increasingly commercialized life in our culture has given way to expediency in all areas of life, with great social detriment that no one thinks about until after something valuable is lost.
I was hesitant to utilize AI for many reasons. One was that I hated that so many were losing their jobs because of it , and two , I worried that in utilizing it , maybe I’d lose my voice. But as with everything , I had to acknowledge that there are both advantages and disadvantages to this tool. What would matter is how I choose to use it. I do not blindly accept what an AI tool says. I don’t automatically accept the suggestions made , the “polishing” of what I write . I ask questions, I call it out when it errs , and it does. My voice will be gone only if I choose to hand it over to AI.
Sadly, unfortunately, there is cause for concern for the present and future generations. If you’re become accustomed to having everything handed to you , to wanting everything now without having to put in the work, then AI will seem like a gift of the gods. Nothing is required of you , except to copy and paste. That is deeply concerning. The exchanging of ideas, the discussions that follow as a result of the exchanges, the questions that arise, the new information received, are all what promotes deep thought. The absence of that would make for a robotic generation, allowing themselves to be led , instead of leading. That’s frightening.
People thought motion pictures would steal the ability to imagine as one does with books. People thought calculators would take away computational skills. People thought video games would make people dumb. People thought the internet would suck people out of the real world and into digital dungeons.
Did these things happen? Yeah, to some people. But we still have authors and film writers. We still have mathematicians. Some video games nerds are operating military drones. And many people have built careers on the internet in creative ways.
Technology doesn’t take a person’s will to think or do. If a person is a thinker, they will be a thinker. These folks tend to use technology to expand and advance, not become stagnant. If a person is not a thinker, well…
Hi, Ryan. There is a difference between being a thinker and being what I refer to as a Thinker, with a capital T. See https://open.substack.com/pub/morebetterthinking/p/are-you-a-thinker. There is also a difference between ordinary thinking and what I am referring to as deep thinking. The “computational skills” you mention do not require deep thinking. Proving, say, the quadratic equation does require deep thinking.
I do not dispute that those in Gen Beta will be able to think. My concern is that they will be unprepared to engage in deep thinking.
Hope this clarification is helpful!
Ok. I read your thinker article you referenced in which you separate people into Thinkers and Feelers. But now there are thinkers with a lowercase T? You’ve suggested that a generation may become incapable of engaging in a natural human function because of a new technology. My point is many technological advancements posed the same question you’re asking, and we’re still here. We are still thinking. If you want to say there is a spectrum scaling between “thinker” and “Deep Thinker”, fine, but technology doesn’t change how humans work. You know what affects one’s ability to think, Think, or feel more than technological advancements? Parenting, teachers, mentors, peers, people, self efficacy.
If one is a thinker, Deep Thinker, Feeler, or whatever else, they will likely continue to be regardless of generation and regardless of technology. They just need an environment to thrive.
I agree that technology does not change how humans work. For more on this, see my early posts, including this one: https://morebetterthinking.substack.com/p/the-evolution-of-rationality
So is your point that future generations will have information too easily available? That doesn’t seem to be a hindrance to deep thinking either as tech advancement has historically made information faster and more accessible.
No, that isn’t my point at all. Also, I can’t make my point any clearer than I already have in my Generation Beta post. (If I could, I would have done so.) Maybe take another look at it?
I believe this is inaccurate. Main reasoning is the pushback AI has seen already. While it is popular and being developed still, there are people who shun it as there have been for all new innovations. As a millennial the big fear I remember parents and teachers having at school was how much the calculator was going to hinder our development. We would use it far to much to do all the work for us. It's a bit funny of course since the generation that came after got cell phones and those concerns about using them in school has been a point of topic ever since.
If gen Z and the first bits of Alpha have been able to survive and thrive despite the cell phone being a powerful tool for them in their early years, the next generation will be fine with A.I. The main and chief reason I believe this is structure and mentorship. The easy solution will always be A.I. but I believe people want to improve, adapt and create constantly. Some slower than others, sure, but they will find something they like and it will help develop those skills.
People will want to read stories written by other people. They will enjoy a movie or show made by a person more than an A.I. video creation. They will find a hobby they like rather it be digital or physical and engage in it with other people.
I do worry what A.I. will do for imagination, but I do not think it will remove peoples ability to deep think. As I am sure you know, every generation, regardless of the tools at hand, has those who thrive and those who are sort of idling by. The newer generations will have proactive people come along and they will have idlers too. I think humanity will be fine.
I think as a people become more like passengers than drivers in our life. AI changes from being a tool for us and we become more the material on which AI works on.
In the workplace engineers mostly cut and paste in Microsoft word docs and simple collect data and keystroke it into a Statistics program and are surprised when they don’t get the results they wished for.
We have so many ways to think, spatially, emotionally, mathematically, geometrically, rationally, irrationally, and linguistically. There are probably more that I don't know. We may be at some risk of being able to receive and transmit complex ideas linguistically, but I am not worried, AI is brilliant at that and if we leverage our other thinking modalities we can use AI to compliment our powers. It should be a joyful collaboration once we master it.
Hi, Steve. Just to be clear, I am not opposed to using AI. (See https://open.substack.com/pub/morebetterthinking/p/using-ai-to-stress-test-beliefs). What worries me is outsourcing our thinking and thought-related skills to it.
This is so true.
You may be a deep thinker, but not original: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a4vnuv/old_generations_complain_about_the_next_one_since/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Hi, Valerie. I am an old person, and I know that throughout history old people have complained about the shortcomings of subsequent generations, but—wait for it—THIS TIME IS DIFFERENT!