Much of the frustration people feel toward AI doesn’t come from what these systems can or can’t do. It comes from an uncomfortable truth that few want to admit: the greatest benefits of large language models flow disproportionately to people who already understand the domain they’re using them in.
AI doesn’t replace thinking. It amplifies it. For users with real context, experience, and judgment, an LLM becomes a force multiplier—accelerating research, sharpening reasoning, and expanding creative or analytical reach. But for those who quickly find themselves out of their depth, the same system feels unreliable, confusing, or outright wrong. The answers don’t quite land. The outputs feel shallow or incorrect. Progress stalls.
That gap leads to a common failure mode: shutting off one’s own thinking and expecting the model to fully substitute for it. When that doesn’t work, the blame shifts outward. The tool is accused of being dumb, biased, broken, or overhyped. Instead of interrogating assumptions, refining prompts, or engaging critically with the output, the user disengages—and often mocks the technology itself.
This reaction shows up most clearly when people try to “trick” AI into making mistakes, treating those moments as proof of its inadequacy. But this behavior often masks something else: insecurity. It’s easier to ridicule a tool than to confront the realization that effective use of it requires skills—attention, reasoning, synthesis—that one may not have fully developed.
The deeper issue is not that AI is insufficiently powerful. It’s that many people want it to eliminate the need for effort altogether—to accept half-formed thoughts, minimal curiosity, and zero follow-through, and still produce clean, correct answers. They don’t want a collaborator or an amplifier; they want an autopilot.
And even if AI eventually gets closer to that level of mind-reading capability, it may not solve the problem. Those who resist learning, refining, and engaging will likely remain dissatisfied. When understanding feels out of reach, the instinct is to villainize the thing that exposes the gap.
AI is not a shortcut around competence. It is a mirror. It reflects the quality of the questions you ask, the attention you bring, and the thinking you’re willing to do. For some, that reflection is empowering. For others, it’s deeply uncomfortable.
The people who lean in—who treat AI as a system to be guided, managed, and challenged—will move faster and further than before. The people who expect it to think for them will grow frustrated, cynical, and eventually irrelevant.
The divide isn’t between humans and machines. It’s between those willing to think with new tools and those hoping the tools will let them stop thinking altogether.
The Pursuit of Originality 
Leave a comment