Deep Questions with Cal Newport - The AI Resistance is Forming. (Should You Join?)

Episode Date: September 14, 2026

After a week spent debating AI’s impact on humanity, Cal wants to turn his attention back to AI’s impact on humans. To support this shift, he brings on the writer Brad Stulberg who recently decided that he was “done” with AI. They explore whether this is a resistance movement in the making… Video from today’s episode:  youtube.com/calnewportmedia More from Cal Download Cal’s FREE guide to cultivating a deeper life: calnewport.com/ideas Learn more about Cal’s books: calnewport.com/books Listen to Cal’s podcast: thedeeplife.com/listen Chapters (0:00) A new paper calls LLMs a "cognitive virus" (4:03) Brad gave AI a real shot — then quit (8:13) Why everything online now sounds the same (13:22) Plank 1: Effort, struggle, and the click-of-a-button economy (20:11) You can take a gondola to the summit, but you didn't climb it (28:30) Plank 2: AI is an average maker (33:39) AI swirl: pseudo-productivity turned up to 11 (49:40) Treat AI like ultra-processed food (55:08) Getting it off your phone, and the lesson of sports analytics (1:00:13) Team Human and the humanist resistance Sponsors: https://www.horizon3.com/deep https://www.calderalab.com/deep https://www.notion.com/cal https://www.factormeals.com/deep50off (Use code "deep50off") Credits: Podcast Production: Jesse Miller Newsletter/Research: Nate Mechler Theme Music: Jay Kerstens Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

So there's a new paper making the rounds. It's called Large Language Models as a Cognitive Virus. It's written by a distinguished group of professors from all around the world. Now, the core argument in this paper is that LLMs, as they spread, are like a virus that is going to change collectively the way that cognition happens. And these changes could be very negative. Now, I'm going to be honest with you. When I read this paper, it woke me up.

Because here's what's been going on. The AI discourse in recent months has really been focused on existential questions. Questions like, are swarms of AI monsters going to kill us all? Or questions like, are we just one model update away from LLM-based tools, been able to solve all of our problems and ushering in some sort of digital utopia? These questions are fun and exciting and frustrating. And I got involved in some of these debates because, you know, I didn't want people to be more anxious and they needed to be. And I thought there were some absurdities being floated around in here.

But this paper reminded me that my main focus in my work is you. You being the individual. My main focus is helping individuals figure out what is the best way to navigate the current technological landscape that allows you as a human being to flourish. I should be focusing less on the impact of AI on humanity and more on the impact of AI on humans. All right. So I was having these thoughts. And then I got a call from my good friend Brad Stolberg. Now, you know Brad, because he's been on the show many times.

He's an author most recently of the New York Times bestseller, The Way of Excellence. And Brad called me and he started giving me this impassioned speech about how he was done with AI. He tried it, people told him, you need to be using this, don't be cynical, this is the future, and he tried. And he said, you know what, this is not making me better at the things I care about. It's not making me a better human. It's not making my life better. It's actually running contrary to many of the things that I live in my life and write about

about what makes human life meaningful. So you know what? I'm done. And I said, Brad, I got to have you on the show. Because what you're talking about sounds like the beginnings of a pro-human resistance movement to this sort of totalitizing influence of artificial intelligence, exactly the type of issue that we should be discussing, not about whether the superintelligent AI is going to kill us with lasers or bees with bombs strapped onto.

We should be talking about how should you as a person be thinking about AI right now if your goal is to flourish as a human. We need that to be a part of the conversation. Arguably, that should be the biggest part of the conversations, because that's what what most people actually care about is how is this going to impact my life? How do I keep my life meaningful? So I had Brad on and we walked through it. I walked through why did he make that decision? What were the planks of this platform on which he's building this sort of insipient resistance movement? We got some of the objections. Look, we didn't come away with some sort of crystal clear philosophy

that I'm saying all of you have to follow and this is the right way to do. But I came away thinking this is the type of conversation we need to be having right now. This is what matters as much as trying to understand the minutia of exactly what harness was used in the solving of this math equation and what does that mean for the general math ability. I'm kind of tired of those discussions. Let's get back to the question of how do humans flourish in our current technological world. So if you've been a little bit anxious about AI or if you've been frustrated thinking everyone's talking about this and it's not making me happier, I'm not sure what I want to do with it, I think this conversation is going to be useful to you. And I think,

You're going to enjoy it. All right. So let's get into it. All right, Brad, well, welcome back to the show. Where I wanted to start, I want to level set by just asking you right now, what role does AI play in your day-to-day life and how has that changed over time? Right now, it plays a very minimal role in my day-to-day life. AI has essentially, for me, become a supplement to Google. And what I mean by that is I'm still in the habit of going to Google to search something.

So I'll literally just go to Google, www.com, and search something. And then occasionally, I think it's Gemini. Is that the right? Is that Google's AI product? Whatever Google's AI product is, it'll tell me a top line result and then ask if I want more. And sometimes if I'm asking it, like, what's the weather in Greenville, South Carolina going to be today? I trust the top line AI answer. And the key thing is it wasn't always that way.

So you gave a real effort to experimenting and exploring the roles of AI in your work before you arrived at this. So what was going on before? What were you trying before you came to your current position of minimal use? So I think I started at this current position of minimal use. And then I had a conversation with someone whose work I respect a ton who will not be named. This was about six, seven months ago, who really encouraged me to use AI. And so essentially-Darial Lomaday. We know you're talking about Dore-A-Lamaday.

You're good friend. Essentially said, like, Brad, I think you are being, I think your skepticism is starting to border on cynicism. And I think you're missing the boat. And a lot of the things that you're saying might make sense in theory. But in practice, like, you should try using this tool. I think it's going to help you. I think it's going to make your writing better.

It's going to make your life easier. And because this is someone I really respect, I said, all right, I'm going to actually give it a try. So I got a $20 a month chat GPT membership and I got a $20 a month clawed membership. And initially I started by running pieces of writing through the machine and asking it for five suggestions to make the piece better or asking it what I missed that I should reconsider or asking it if I was going to cut 30% of this, what would I cut? Never just rotely accepting the answer and doing it, but really trying to use it is a thought partner, right? That's how it was portrayed to me. It was portrayed as like you have a New York City caliber editor that you're going to get to work with.

And at first, I was pretty stoked by it. I remember calling you Cal and being like, Cal, maybe you're being too much of a cynic here. Like, it's giving me pretty good ideas. And then about a month and a half in, what I realized is it gives me the same pretty good idea. That's not really even idea. It's just a way of reassuring me that what I have is good enough. And then one line that sounds really interesting, but. When you actually toss and turn it in your head, there's nothing underneath it.

And I realized that it wasn't making my work better. It wasn't making my workflow better. So I said, all right, I'm just going to use this as a copy editor. So if I have a newsletter that I'm putting out or an essay that I'm working on, I'm just going to run it through the machine and tell me, please check for any grammatical and spelling errors. And it's great. It catches all the grammatical and spelling errors. However, it can't resist. it can't resist adding in a little beat and saying, hey, if you want three ideas to punch it up,

here's what I'd suggest. And the suggestions were pretty flat. And the suggestions were also the same style and tone and synthetic feel to what I was reading in other people's work who I noticed had gotten pretty sloppy. And I'm just like, just stop. Just give me the freaking grammar errors. And it got to a point where it was just annoying, like uninteresting and annoying. annoying. And, you know, for as much as I have challenges when I ask my wife to edit my work for

grammar and spelling, because she's an attorney and she catches everything and sometimes I don't make the changes she suggests, I'd much rather be annoyed with my loving human wife than with a robot. So I've essentially stopped using AI for everything. Right. And you're seeing the opposite. In the world of online content, which you see, you're seeing the opposite. You're seeing quality degrading. You're seeing sharpness of ideas, flattening. You're seeing telltale signs of slop. I mean, every time I

talk to you, you're a little bit depressed about the state of online discourse. But for people out there who don't, aren't reading a lot online, what is it that you're seeing happening around you by sort of our peer group of writers? Well, I think our peer group of writers

I mean that broadly, mainly like, not people we know, but writers. In general. Yeah, writers in general. Yeah, writers in general. And I think not even writers. I think people that want to be writers that were never really serious about the craft of writing, and that's worth separating. The writing is just completely homogenized and soulless. Yeah. Like everything sounds the same.

Everything has the same structure. Everything has the same rhythm. Everything has the simple declarative. It's not this. It's that short sentence interspersed at the same intervals. Everything has these really fluffy metaphors that, again, at first, seem fascinating. And then you continue reading and thinking about it and you're like, this is, this is just a house of cards. Like there's nothing underneath this metaphor.

This is like something trying to sound smart. I heard our mutual friend Derek Thompson put it this way, which is the AI robots feel like every sentence they write has to be more evocative than the last sentence. And that's just not good writing. It's like weird, synthetic writing. So I think that's happening. And then another thing that I think is happening is that it is degrading the, you know, the experience of writing itself. Part of what makes good writing good

is that the person struggled to produce it. Because in that struggle, the best ideas come out, the best way to deliver those ideas come out, the best work comes out through struggle. And the click of a button in picking and choosing what you want is not the same kind of struggle as actually writing. And I think as a result of that, you can produce a lot more work, but the quality of the work goes down and the quality of your

life, the quality of your experience with the craft goes down. Right. I don't think that we should be automating the things that we claim are our crafts. I think a quick break for my conversation with Brad to talk about some of the sponsors that makes this show possible. So fall is here. All the travelist summer is over, but what this means is my obligations are piling up faster and faster.

And I find when things get this frantic, nutrition is often the first thing to slip. This is where Factor enters the scene. Factor makes chef created, dietitian designed, ready to eat meals so that you don't have to choose between real food and convenience. And here's the thing,

these meals are ready to eat in only two minutes, meaning that even when I'm in a rush, I know I can get, for example, a lunch I love, like the Santa Fe chicken with peppers and potatoes, which is very good. That is also going to give my body what it needs. That last part is important with over 175 band ingredients. Every Factor meal is designed around what supports a healthier lifestyle and nothing that doesn't.

So let's eat real. Head to FactorMeals.com slash deep 50 off, the word deep, the number 50, the word off, and use code deep 50 off to get 50% off and one free breakfast item per. box for one year while supplies last until October 31st, 2026. That's code deep 50 off at factormeals.com. Deep 50 off at factormeals.com. See website for more details. I also want to talk about our friends at Horizon 3. Now, here's the thing about AI. It's here for better and for worse. And with it comes a whole host of security concerns. Now, here's the thing about cybersecurity. The scariest thing isn't the attack that you see coming. It's the attack path you didn't, you didn't

even know existed. This is where Horizon 3 enters the scene. Horizon 3 is an AI-native proactive security platform that changes that reality. Here's how it works. Horizon 3's Node-Zero is an autonomous AI hacker that continuously attacks your own environment at machine speed the same way a real attacker would, finding all the areas that are vulnerable. You can stop guessing and start knowing that your defenses are intact.

And because Node-Zero's result is a loop, hack-fack-factor. fix. Verify repeat. It finds the problems. You fix it. And in one click, you then confirm that it's secure. So see exactly what an attacker would find in your environment before they do. Go to horizon 3.a.ai slash deep and request your free node zero demo. Visit horizon3.a.ai slash deep. Again, that's horizon 3.a.a. slash deep. No commitment required. Results in hours, not weeks. All right, let's get back to the talk. Well, so let's get into this because when we, you know, we were talking about this before on the phone, it really seemed like there was three major planks to your, I'm sort of done with AI platform.

And I think it's worth looking at each of these in turn because we don't normally hear this so systematically explored. I think it's important. So your first plank had to do with effort, right? I mean, your new book is that the way of excellence? You know, you're someone who knows a lot and has written recently a lot about the role of the pursuit of excellence in creating meaningful life. And you've talked to me about how you see real clashes with that human reality when you see AI being more increasingly used. So let's get into that plank a little bit. So what's going on here in your mind with the role of effort in meaning and how AI might undermine that?

In order to find meaning in just about anything in life, whether it is a relationship, whether it is a work product, whether it is a leisure activity, you have to exert effort and you have to struggle. Everything worthwhile in life requires effort. By definition, the promise of AI is that it eliminates or it mitigates or it shrinks the effort. I call it the click of a button economy. You want an essay?

Click a button. You want a recipe? Click a button. You want a training plan? Click a button. You want a script for asking someone out on a date? Click a button. It eliminates the struggle that leads to the feelings of satisfaction whether you achieve or fail.

And the common retort to this, which I totally sympathize with, is, well, if you're just using AI for a few things, you can exert effort on other things. And in theory, I think that's great. But what happens is the more that you use AI, the more it's like the slippery slope. And you're like, oh, well, if it corrected all the grammar in my piece, maybe I'll ask it to rewrite that paragraph that I was struggling with. And oh, if I asked it to rewrite that paragraph I was struggling with, maybe I'll ask it for 10 different conclusions. And I'll just choose the one I like best. So it's still me doing the work. But it's not you doing the work anymore.

It's the machine doing the work. And I think that so much of the promise of AI is efficiency. but nobody wants their gravestone to read he was efficient. Like we want to struggle for meaning in our life. We want to exert effort in all excellence in any domain, whether it is in the culinary arts as a chef, whether it is in athletics, whether it is in writing, which is our craft,

whether it is in medicine. Like all excellence at root is ultra-human. It doesn't mean that there aren't tools involved, but the more of it the tools cannibalize and overtake the humanity, the less quality in craft you're going to see in the thing. And there's mass produced everything, right? There's factory medicine, there's factory farming, there's factory mass produced training and sport.

There's factory mass produced writing. And that's fine. It's cheaper. The masses sometimes like it, but it's not good. It's not quality. and I think that if we have a choice in our life to pursue quality, both the production of quality and the consumption of quality, like, that makes a good life. And I worry the AI is selling this false promise that actually that's not what matters. What matters is rote efficiency in quantity.

Right. Well, I mean, an aspect to what you just said there that I hadn't thought about before until I read the study that I talked about in the intro to this program that was thinking about L. in use like a cognitive virus. And part of that construction was we're underestimating the addictiveness of this type of interaction as well. So just like you were saying, I'm just using an LLM to do X is going to turn pretty soon to I'm using it for almost everything else because there is something that is irresistible about having a linguistic conversational partner that is listening to you that is reflecting things back, that is largely telling you, like, this is good, what you're doing is smart. You know, there's a construction that especially the GPT models have where if you're asking for

advice about anything, it will always say, yeah, that's good. I like this a lot. There's just one thing I would change. And that turns out to be like the ideal way to give feedback to someone because it makes you feel smart, but it's not just fully affirmational. And it gives you that excitement of like, I have an idea that. I just have to tweak it a little bit and this is really good. And it is pretty addictive.

And so anyways, that paper set it up is like, look, you let this in one place that's going to spread other places. But I think what you're pushing on this little bit because I think this is countercultural for a lot of people. You're saying struggle's good. Quality is good. You know, for a human to have experiences that are quality. This seems to me like one of the big points in the way of excellence is the pursuit of excellence is life affirming. Right. That struggle is life.

affirming. If you were to take the AI philosophy and apply it to the topic of excellence, it would say, having done something excellently is what matters and the quicker you can get there with whatever help you can, the better, which completely belies what you found, which is it's always the struggle and in the process in which we find meaning. So why, I mean, is that right? And why are we falling prey to that? Why don't we, why have we been trained to think struggle or friction somehow means that something bad is happening? I think that there's a couple of things worth addressing here. The first is sometimes struggle and friction is bad.

And we should work to minimize struggle and friction. I mean, I drive a car. I don't walk everywhere. However, if I never use my body for anything physically, that whole muscular and cardiovascular system would atrophy. So I protect certain parts of my life where I am very focused on exerting my body. and as a result, I feel good and I have a body that I can continue to use.

I think the same thing is true with our brains and with our social and emotional intelligence. And a lot of what AI says is, hey, we've now got a car for your brain and we've got a car for your social emotional intelligence and we want you to drive it everywhere. And what I'm arguing is that unlike a car, which you literally can't drive up the stairs of your house,

AI is, to your point, a linguistic conversation partner that is in your pocket that you can take with you everywhere. So as much as cars crept into life and led to this obesity crisis and so on and so forth, and to be clear, not just cars, but the industrial revolution, we can't carry these machines around with us everywhere, whereas we can with AI. I think the second thing that I would say is that you can take a gondola to the top of a mountain and still have an incredible view at the top. But if someone asks you what the mountain was like

and what you learned climbing the mountain, you're not going to have any good answers. It's not going to be an interesting answer. So even if you lie and you post the picture of yourself on the top of the mountain and say, I climb this mountain, when you fall asleep at night, you're not going to be as fulfilled as if you'd climbed the mountain yourself

because you took a gondola to the top of the mountain. So if you outsource mountain climbs in your own, own life to AI, well, then you better be prepared not to be fulfilled and to have a more empty life. Again, the more that you outsource to the machines, I feel like the more you're going to, you're going to have this experience of an emptiness or a shallowness. And then I would also argue that it's just not that interesting to me. Right. Like, machines can do a lot of things better and faster than humans.

You know, there was this AI company that had a robot. that broke the marathon world record and a bunch of tech bros were like, this is the coolest thing ever, it outran a human. And I'm like, this is the dumbest thing ever. Yeah. Like, I could get in my car right now

and drive faster than your little robot. Like, so what? Yeah, the machine's faster than a human. Get on a bicycle. But I don't care. Because, exactly. But even another example would be if a tour de France rider

put a motor on their bike, no one would care of it. They won the tour de France. So there's something about humans striving to attain their potential, that one, is very fulfilling to the individual human doing the striving, and two, that other humans appreciate. This is the slow food movement. This is why we love to go see great recording artists perform acoustic sets that are minimalist. This is why I think that at the end of the day, good human writing is going to be heads and tails above what the machine produces

because it's our shared humanity that is expressed through this. And I worry with the AI being like a cognitive virus, that it's going to encroach on more and more of that humanity and ourselves and our communities. And as a result, our lives are going to be shallower and emptier. I think another way to think about this is it's like the phone, right? Phones have incredible uses, including my smartphone. I would not trade my smartphone back, at least not yet.

However, as you pointed out, you were at the vanguard of this with digital minimalism, we just kind of went into phones with like, oh, yeah, we see all the benefits of the phones, but we don't really see the cost or if we do, we don't want to think about them. So we'll just kind of accept whatever cost and go with the flow and increasingly use our phones for everything that phones make easier. And we know as a result of that experiment 10, 15 years later, that you were right, it didn't work out, right?

We've got all of these problems with fractured attention in mental illness and youth, in ubiquitous distraction, and the inability to focus that are increasingly, being traced back to phones. And I'm not saying that we put AI back in the box. What I am saying is that we separate areas of our life where we want to strive for excellence in craft, in mastery, in quality, and we protect those from the AI virus. I'm with you on that. I'm with you on that.

I'm also with you. I mean, I think this feeds into it. There's this weird state that Silicon Valley is in right now. And they've done this before. I've written about this before. But the big AI companies, the frontier LLM labs in particular, they're still in this pre-IPO state where they think their goal is just to prove that their technology is impressive or powerful, right? Which is different than what a normal consumer, mature consumer product company would do, which is I'm going to convince that you that my product is valuable to you, right? So they're not out there making the case.

here is a tool we built that's going to make this part of your life better and here's why and here's why we think we should use it. They're out there talking about, you know, we're solving math theorems and we have swarms of, you know, AI robots, you know, they're going to kill us all.

You should all just be generally impressed by how powerful our technology is. And then it's sort of being left to the individual to be like, you need to figure out how to actually use this in your life. The cultural pressure is just use it or get left behind. And so we've inverted this consumer product relationship where it typically was,

you're going to have to sell me pretty hard to convince me to spend money on the new roto router. You're going to have to really, in your ads, be like, you're going to get fertilizer spread four times quicker

and it has a better whatever. And I'll be like, okay, I can see exactly how it's going to help my life. That's the way we normally think about products. Somehow with AI, and we've seen this with other digital products in the last two decades.

The onus is on the user. It's like you are a loser. If you don't go out and become, essentially like a tech R&D review for them and figure out how to use this. And, you know, what's wrong with saying, I'm happy to deploy a tool if and when someone convinces me that it's going to be really valuable in my life. But my default really has to be getting on with productive struggle and producing good

stuff. I can't be out there product testing every tool and experimenting and building agents swarms on my open claw and posting it out on X. Like, I actually want to live my life. Once the tool is undeniable, then maybe I'll use it for that purpose. But this seems to be an issue here, right? is like the pressure you got, which the pressure I got was like, you got to just try this. You can't not be using it.

You're going to be left behind, which we're used to that rhetoric now. But if you went back 40 years ago and someone talked that way about any consumer products, you'd be like, what are you talking about? It's not my job to figure out why this is useful. And I think the last couple of products that were like this were at FTs, like those weird digital pixelated art forms that people were spending millions of dollars on that I'm pretty sure now are literally worth absolutely nothing in crypto. Yep.

And I don't think that AI is going to be a bubble or a nothing burger in the same way the NFTs were. However, I do think it's interesting that NFTs were sold as like this, you're going to be left behind. And I kept being like, I don't really get the point of this. And I'm feeling the same way about some use cases of AI. Yeah. Now, if I've got a massive data set in Excel, and it's a gazillion rows, and I'm not a data scientist,

and I want to feed it to Claude or chat GPT and say, pull out all the emails with dot edu addresses, that's a great use case, right? There's nothing meaningful about the struggle of going and doing that by hand. But to me, that's very different than writing or than falling in love or dating. And I say falling in love or dating, because increasingly I hear stories, from young people in high school and college that are literally like going to the bathroom on a date to ask Claude how to respond to something in a conversation they're having. And to me, like, oh, no.

And then the conversation partner is going to ask Claude what he or she should say back. And now it's two machines talking to each other. There's just something about that. You thought I was going to order the chicken. But no. Instead, I got the beef. and it turned out to be like a turpentine can full of germinating gerbils, you know, some sort of metaphor that's... Yeah, I think here's the thing.

I think if you suck at something, AI is great because it's going to make you average. I think that if you're average at something and you keep using AI, it's going to keep you at average. I think if you are great or you want to be great, you should probably resist using AI in most cases, particularly for creative work. Yeah. Because by definition, AI homogenizes... around an average. And it's not just me saying this. Your colleagues at Georgetown

released a paper earlier in creativity that found that AI can write a punchy sentence, no doubt about it, but all the punchy sentences sound the same. So the word that they used was mass homogenization, and I call it like a soulless mean. So if you're interested in pursuing your best mastery, quality,

excellence in one area of your life, I would protect that area from the machines. For me, that area is creative work. And this is your second plank. So we can clarify the structure here. So the second plank in your argument for this resistance is the results are average. And you got to be careful about using tools that just draw you towards the average. I want to add a wrinkle to it as well, though, because you are saying if you're bad at something,

well, it'll bring up your performance because average is better than bad. But that also leaves out the reality that how do you get good at something? Like you have to get your own skill to average en route to getting good. right so actually like who's going to be bad at something i'll give an example someone who's entry level in a job most things they're new at they're not super valuable yet to the company and my advice has always been the people in entry level jobs don't think about is this my passion or do i like this or what you got to think about i got like a two-year window here to make myself indispensable at least in some areas and the only way to do that is the struggle deliberate practice i struggle at

something, I'm not very good at it, the next time a little bit better, next time a little bit better. I keep doing that until I'm indispensable at that, and now I have leverage to move up. So even just going from bad to average is not nothing, right? Because productive struggle, you can think about that the same way that the strain on your muscle helps the muscle grow. And if you want to get stronger, you have to have productive struggle. So I might expand what you're saying from, I'm just thinking out loud here, but I might expand it from one area that you really want to protect. I would think about my entire professional life and say, If this is a skill that there will be value in me getting really good at, I would be very wary

about pressing the easy button because how do you get better if you don't first get okay? Yeah, I think that's true. And I think the challenge here is there's an agency problem where in large organizations, large corporations, especially those that, you know, are trying to produce shareholder value on a quarterly cycle, they don't care about your long-term development, right? you might as well be a cog in the machine. And the goal is like mass produced as much as possible. That's so different than craft and excellence.

So I think a part of it too is like ask yourself, what is the foremost goal in the top of your value structure? Is it just growth and output for the sake of growth and output? And if you, again, if you want your gravestone to read, you know, he was efficient or he produced tons of average quality work, then yeah, like use the machine. for everything. But I think a part of this resistance, or at least this thoughtful use of this new tool, has got to be, hey, like, there are parts of my life, there are parts of my work, there are parts of my being where the goal isn't just efficiency and output. The goal is excellence. The goal is craft. The goal is mastery. And for those parts of life, I'm actually not going to use the machine, because the machine is an average maker. And you see this in the output.

of the machine. Like, it's so easy now to identify AI writing because it's very average. It's very easy to identify when people prepare for a meeting and their whole talk track for the conversation they want to have with their boss was generated by AI because it's all the same. So I don't think that it makes for different or interesting or better work in most cases. Again, I want to be careful because I'm already seeing like the comments that people are going to leave. If you are in a contest to sift through big data to find certain patterns or structures, absolutely.

Artificial intelligence makes tons of sense for that use. But if you're trying to produce something that is new, that is creative, that is innovative, that's going to make you feel something while you do it and that's going to make the person who consumes your work feel something, then, yeah, I don't think that the robots are ever going to compare to good humans. So I'd rather try to become a good human. because even if you fail, you'll have lived a life where you strived for something and you weren't just, you know, essentially an automaton putting prompts into a machine. Yeah, it is weird that if we look back historically at figures that we admire, it's never the decadent king living, you know, the aloof king living a life, a complete luxury and never has any hardship. That's never the character we look at.

We always look at the character that had the struggle, that that overcame obstacles, that produced something. something beautiful that was painstaking. We look at Einstein's hair going white from the effort of proving the general theory of relativity. And yet the model sometimes that seems to be pitched by the AI boosters is how you could be like the king. You don't have to do it. You just machines will do things for you. And you can just have the life. If you decide you want to go play croquet out into Versailles lawns, you can just go do that.

Which is interesting because it goes against all human nature. We never look at that and say, say that's the ideal. But I have, I want to expand, because I don't know if this works or not, but I want to expand your critique here beyond just creative work because I'll tell you what I'm worried about is someone who observes and writes about technology and knowledge work. I'm really worried about what's happening into standard non-creative office jobs, right? Because as I wrote about in slow productivity, we have this issue in knowledge work where it's hard to measure quality. It's hard to measure true productivity. I can't really point to a pile of widgets and say, this is what I produced, right? it's much more ambiguous and overlapping and unclear workloads or what have you.

And so we have the sort of heuristic and knowledge work of pseudo productivity. Visible efforts are a proxy for useful activity. The more visible effort, the busy you are, the more useful I'll assume you be. It's just like this rough heuristic that managers have. The problem is if that's the heuristic managers have and then AI comes along, they're going to say, oh, everyone should use AI because these sort of performative kabuki theater type of, I'm doing stuff, like emails are moving back and forth. And here's a PowerPoint that's summarized from a Zoom, which you can then send to an email,

which will then summarize, and then you can send over to me and then I will summarize it, ignore it. Like all this sort of like visible, visible activity that none of it is directly connected to a value-producing outcome. AI allows you to essentially accelerate that. And so now I've been hearing from more and more people. They're like, my job is miserable. Like I, my workload has never been hired.

They've doubled. I hear this often. They've doubled the amount of like, projects to expect me to work on and work on these projects just means like slinging AI slop back and forth to be consumed by other AIs that are going to turn it into other slop or whatever. And so I think it is, even if you're not doing creative work, this demand we have in knowledge work to use more AI right now is actually just taking the already absurd aspects of knowledge

work that we were all struggling with and I've been writing about and just turning them up to 11 on the spinal tap amplifier dial. And so even if you're not, hey, I want to just feel human, producing creative work just going to make someone feel something. Even if you're just in an office job, and I'm not saying this is easily solvable because those bosses are pushing this, but I just want to commiserate. If you're in an office job, right now the AI pressure is take the worst part of knowledge work, the constant distraction, performative pseudo-productivity and now do it 10 times more. I don't know if that's sustainable. Hey, I want to take another quick break for my conversation with Brad to hear from some, sponsors that makes this show possible. Caldera Lab does things differently. Most people don't know this,

but men's skin is 25% thicker, oilier, and ages differently from women's, which means men need clean formulas engineered for their biology. This is where Caldera Labs line of skin care products enters the scene. Now, lately, I've been reaching for one of these products in particular, their eye serum. I'm not always tired, but most mornings, now that I'm, you know, in my upper 20s, instead of my young 20s, right? I certainly wake up looking tired, and that's why I've been using the eye serum to reduce a look of fatigue, puffiness, and dark circles that I so often get around my old eyes. And on top of other benefits, I like most of all that this is a routine that is simple.

No need for a, you know, 10-step skincare ritual. It's one product, morning, 9.5. a small habit with big results. So if you'd like to look a little more rest and refreshed, visit calderalab.com slash deep and use code deep for 20% off your first order. I also want to talk about our longtime friends at Notion. Look, in knowledge work, AI shouldn't just be about going as fast as possible and burning as many tokens as possible.

It should help you do the important things better. This is why I like what Notion is up to. Notion is the AI workspace where your team's knowledge, projects, and agents all come together in one place. Teams using Notion move faster, cut frictions and costs by consolidating tools, and stay aligned. Because everything lives together, Notion has the context it needs to answer questions instantly. Automate busy work and keep your efforts moving. It's AI designed to strengthen teamwork, not replace it. over 100 million users, Notion is trusted by 98% of the Forbes Cloud 100 and 95% of the top 50 AI

companies, including OpenAI, cursor, lovable, and more. Learn more about how Notion can support your business at notion.com slash cow. Now, this is all lowercase letters, notion.com slash cow to try Notion today. And when you use our link, you're supporting our show. All right, let's get back to my conversation with Brad. I can't be. That's a great point. It made me think of for a long time in traditional knowledge work jobs. We talked about email swirl. So like you're on an email and people are cced and like the email is just going back and forth and the person responds at 4.30 in the morning and the other person responds at 9 p.m. at night and it's like everyone feels like they need to be in on the email and

it just swirls and swirls and swirls and swirls. And it creates all of this work and all of this back and forth ultimately for nothing when a simple phone call would have done. It's almost like now there's AI swirl. And everything feels like email swirl because the cost of producing work is essentially zero. So you get caught up in all of this swirl and it feels. But even there, I got to push back on a use of work. Yeah.

The cost of producing visible work activity has been reduced to zero. I like that. Yeah. The cost of producing visible work activity has been reduced to zero. And you just can get caught up in this swirl. and the result is going to be average at best. So it kind of gets back to like if I wanted an excellent company, I would make sure that the company had norms and values

where it was ultra-human right now. Because you have to look the other way. Now, if I wanted a company that could mass produce stuff, you know, the TEMU marketplace of knowledge work, then yeah, fire up the tokens. Like, give me the AABATs, just spit stuff out. but I don't think those companies

are going to produce anything memorable you can't last to be totally honest there's no competitive advantage if mainly yeah but the bigger issue is in knowledge work

so all this stuff that's being AIified is not typically ultimately the thing that's making them money it's the sort of internal whirlwind where you demonstrate

that you're working on things so that's the irony of it is it often gets in the way of hey whatever it is we we do like ultimately we produce programs for whatever and now we're amplifying all the emails meetings and discussions of this and it's and everyone is in a whirlwind but in the end you don't have better quality programs or programs being created more often like this there's often a disconnect

between the macro productivity of a firm which is dollars in versus dollars out and the sort of internal sense of pseudo productivity you can amplify the internal massively without really changing or negatively impacting that ratio of dollars going into salaries and dollars going out in terms of like revenue that's generated. And it gets back to what you're saying earlier, Cal, about just the hype, whereas like if you're not using this, you're falling behind. I hear this all the time in my executive coaching clients where, especially with VC firms, every single company now has to have an AI enabled solution.

But no one asks like, why or like what's the AI doing that's so special. It's just like, oh, it's got to be a part of what we're. we're doing. And even if we don't have it, you know, my CEO is going to force me to contrive a way to say that now we're using AI. And it's like just like this total hype thing. And I think fewer people than we need are asking like why and so what. And those that are being really honest, I think, are saying the why is because we're just going to be so efficient. And the so what is, yeah, we're going to lose some quality. And we're going to lose a lot of human satisfaction of the people doing the work because the more of it the humans use the machines, the more they're going to

start to resemble machines in cogs themselves. And that's the so what? Like I think a prime example of this is AI therapy. Like there's these companies that are making essentially bots that do therapy. And back to like the virus metaphor, I think it started off for very good reason, which is, hey, there aren't enough therapists. Not everyone has access to a good therapist. There are bad therapists. So if we can give people that can't afford therapists or that are in rural areas, you know, access to a therapy bot that's better than nothing. And that may or may not be true, by the way, there's increasingly stories of the AI bots going rogue and telling people like, you know, there was a recent story I heard someone was in substance use recovery and the AI

bot said, this week sounds really hard. I can totally understand if you need meth to get through it. Like, so I'm not, I'm not totally going to trust, you know, the bot to do therapy for me. But even though those companies start, you know, by saying, oh, this is for people that don't have access. But then you look at what those companies are doing and now they're trying to get the best therapist in the world to use AI to be more efficient, to be more productive, to be less human. And I don't think that they're not going to be the best therapist in the world if they agree to do that. Because therapy is an inherently human to human thing, just like writing is, just like leading a company is. in another story that I've heard a lot of while I'm ranting are from like CMO or product off chief product officer CPO or CROs who like spent all this work with their team

doing like intense human thinking and then they go to the CEO and it's so clear of it the CEO asked chat GPT what it would do and chat GBT tells it exactly what you said your plan sounds great I just changed this one thing so then the CTO comes back and says actually, like, I'd like to do my plan plus this one thing. And, like, even that is homogenized. It's like, of course, in all of my clients know, they're like, I think my boss just asked AI. Yeah. Yeah. So, like, how is this better? Yeah. I don't, I don't, and that gets back to plank number two. I don't, I don't think it is better. So I think that it is, it is an easy off ramp from exerting effort. And it is atrophying not just the exertion of effort in any one thing, but the skill of

exerting effort itself. If everything in your life is without friction, okay, if you order food with the click of a button, if you date with the click of a button, if you do math with the click of the button, and now you write with the click of a button, and you get every single question answered the minute that you want to answer with the click of a button, you are going to lose the skill of exerting effort. So when you sign up for men's league basketball or women's league basketball and you have to practice, you're not going to be able to practice because you're just not used to facing friction in any area of your life. Or when shit hits the fan in your life and you do face friction, involuntarily, you're not going to be able to handle it because everything is one

tap, one click. So it's reducing the skill of exerting effort. And I think that is increasingly just homogenizing everyone towards this soulless synthetic average that is all about mass production, ultra-processed information, ultra-process relationship, ultra-process organizational structure. But no one's talking about the quality. I've yet to hear anyone say, is this helping us do excellent work? Yeah. I mean, have you? In this entire conversation, I hear about efficiency, I hear about productivity. I've never heard anyone say, is this leading to quality work? It's not usually part of the conversation. Even in the areas where LLMs are well-suited, like structured language, like producing computer code, even there, you talk to coders and they're like, it's blah. You know,

It saved me time because I would have to, I would have written something better, but it would have taken me more time. So it's not so, it's not so good. Which I've heard you talk about, right? Is ultimately, if our goal is not efficiency, ultimately if our goal is not busyness, you know, if our goal is to live a good life, the factors that matter for that seem either unrelated to what AI offers or in many cases actually in direct conflict. I think that's right. I think the point of a good life is to care deeply and feel deeply and feel like you are contributing to causes and projects in people that matter to you. Full stop. So if artificial intelligence frees you up to spend more of your full human spirit and capacity on things that matter to you, because instead of doing the complicated budgeting, you now have a, to do it for you or a spreadsheet to do it for you, that's great. I think that if you allow AI to encroach on what ought to be sacred, the things in your life that do matter most to you where you want to feel something, then I think that it is absolutely getting in the way of living a good life, of being fully human. Because we think that we're using the machine, but like a virus, the virus uses you. The machine uses you.

You become more machine. Like the more you use the machine, the more you start to resemble the machine. And I don't think too many people would want to trade their humanity for the existence of a machine because a machine can't care about things and a machine can't feel. What makes us human is our ability to care about things and our ability to feel. And the more that we use AI for anything, the less we're going to care about it and the less we're going to feel. I have this thought that when it comes to even the use cases that you're talking about where like, okay, sure, if you have a rote thing you need to do in a spreadsheet

and like a tool can help you, like, sure, like do that if get that out of your way or whatever. There my growing stance is, yes, dot, dot, dot, once that's been made sufficiently natural or easy. Right? Like, in other words, it's also not your responsibility to learn how to use

like a complicated software development coding harness in order and work out a terminal with skill files to try to get commands from Claude that's going to speak to an API and help remove columns from your spreadsheet. It's okay if you say that would be useful, but I also want to wait until it's easy, right?

So in the GPT6 Astra launch video, which I actually liked, because instead of focusing on us trying to convince you that this is just generically powerful and scary, it focused on a very specific use case, the use case it focused on was natural language interface the software. And I was like,

that's a great picture of the future. instead of having to move a mouse and click on menus and know that in order to thicken the line on PowerPoint, you've got to go to style and then the border and then click an arrow and then click down there. If you could say, hey, can you take the arrow in the middle of this PowerPoint, make a little bit thicker? No, not that thick. Turn it around. That's actually be great, right? Because it's, I don't want, I don't have to learn how to click around on something.

The key thing was trying to get this to look good, not learning the menus. But you can wait until it's that easy, right? Like, fine, make it that. In other words, you can have relatively high standards of, Yeah, when the cost to learn is much less than the cost of the sort of benefit of removing rope, then I'll pay attention or whatever. I think that's also as K as well. But the way I'm talking now wants me to, I want to step back and I want to generalize.

Like what I'm doing there was starting to lay out some rules, basically, of like how, if you're a part of this pro-human resistance movement, what then, how do we, how do we could consolidate this down? Like, what are the rules or how do you approach AI? How do you approach your life as part of this movement? So I was kind of forming one there. Like be okay, even when AI is just going to get rid of something annoying, it's okay if you wait until it's easy to use. Like maybe that's a rule or a heuristic, whatever we want to call it.

How else are we thinking about it? If someone is like, yeah, I'm thinking about joining, you know, Brad, what are the heuristics or rules they should have in mind now as they navigate forward and are going to encounter AI or be pushed to use AI in various ways? I would think of AI like ultra-processed food because it is. it's ultra-processed information, it's ultra-processed content, ultra-processed material. By definition, right? It takes all this information, it processes it really fast, and it spits something out. And much like ultra-processed food doesn't have fiber, so you digest it really fast, the AI ultra-processing, you lose context, and you lose all the hard work that went into doing it.

So I am not opposed to eating a cliff bar or a bag of Cheetos from time to time. But if my diet centered around just eating ultra-processed foods, I'd feel like crap and I wouldn't be healthy. And I think we need to think of AI the same way. Except unlike food, which is one part of our life, AI, at least as the large companies and their leaders are telling us, is going to pervade into all corners of our life. So I think one rule would be where am I okay eating ultra-processed food and where do I want the real thing in my life?

and that's for each and every one of us to decide. Like, I don't need to pull out a map in my car and figure out how to get to the baseball field for my son's tournament because, you know, the ability to navigate on a road just isn't that important to me. So I'm happy to use AI. However, if I use the app for the map and then it says, oh, by the way, I can also write essays for you,

it's very tempting to click that and be like, oh, wow, it got me to the baseball field really well. Maybe it can write this essay really well. That's where I need to step. in and say, I don't even care if it can write better than me. I don't think it can. But even if it could, I don't want it to because what gives my life meaning is the struggle of writing well, so I'm not going to let it encroach on this part of my life.

Can I expand that baseball example, too, get your take on this aspect of it as well? Because the other thing you might do as you get to the park is think, man, I wonder, I think my son might need another inch on that back. Yeah. Or no, like, you might need to do back, right? And you're like, but I don't know. And this is complicated. So there's a temptation, like, well, let me just ask AI.

It will very, because I went through this recently, it will very confidently be like, yeah, this is what you should do and blah, blah, blah. And it makes you feel great. You're like, oh, like, this is a great option. I'm such like a good dad. I figure it out. What's the harder thing to do there? The thing with struggle is like, I'm going to talk to the other coaches, the other coaches, the other parents. And I'm going to get real learned experience from other humans.

And in my case, I did that. And that's when I figured out what bat my son really needed. And it turned out, oh, you could get the eight. AI to just, you could go back, like, actually, I think this option's better. And I'm like, yeah, you know what, you're right. It literally says, I've changed my mind. Actually, I'm going to, this is actually the right answer, whatever. And I was like, well, this isn't useful.

This is a place where you want to, you want to connect with other people that are involved, like, in this sport and have knowledge. And they know your son. And they've seen him play. And they can give you their own experience of like, well, you know, I did go with like one of these larger drop, you know, bats that was composite. it, but it really is a hard swing plane, like stuff for a kid that size and blah, blah, blah. And there's something very human in that, too. So I don't, maybe I'll throw that in there as well. It's not just generating text that you don't have to write.

Sometimes getting information, you're getting this algorithmically massac, you know, pre-chewed information that's going to taste good. But trying to figure things out is actually a very human thing as well. And I am still confident, and maybe naively so, that by trying to figure things out, unless you're a moron, if you do it in good faith and in earnest, the result is going to be better. You are going to get a better bat recommendation if you talk to the coach, if you talk to some of the other moms and dads, then if you just plug it into the machine. And if you take your kid to dicks or play it against sports and, you know, demo the different bats,

but all of that takes effort. So what AI is going to say is you don't have to talk to the other parents. Okay, well, now I'm no longer in community with these people. you don't have to go demo the bats with your kid. So now I'm missing on in time with my kids. You can just do this with a click of the button. And I guarantee you, Cal, the future is more and more search engines, integrate AI, is you can click the button right here.

We think your son should be using a 29 Easton. Here's three different varieties. Here's the composite. Here's the aluminum. Click here to buy the bat. You're done. What is that? That is efficient.

But if you start to do that for everything in your life, what do we just skip out on? We skipped out on community. We skipped out on learning. We skipped out on spending time with your kid. like who cares if you're more efficient now some people might say that all that matters to me in life is again being efficient i want my gravestone to read no one was more efficient than brad uh brad printed money selling you know 47 different books at the same time because he had AI writing the books and each was a choose your own adventure for the like what a boring shitty life and what a

boring shitty product that i'd never be proud of yeah so i would much rather master a skill in strive for excellence, even if I'm never going to win a Pulitzer Prize or win a gold medal or whatever, who cares? I want to see what my best work is like. And my best work is going to be better than the work of the machine. And when the machine can do it better than me consistently,

then I'll reconsider. But like, prove me wrong. How do we deal with the addictive aspect, which is new to me, but I'm hearing more about it. When doing these rules for how you approach selectively using things like a language model, There is that addictive nature.

Use it here. You're going to use it everywhere. I think that one answer is take it off your phone because I think that if it's with you in your pocket all the time, just the ease of access for everything, you're going to reach for it. I think another is to take it off your computer. So like all of these, because when I was using Claude and Chat GPT, right,

they all have these plugins. So you can just plug it into your browser or whatever. So it's always one click. click away. Well, I'll tell you what, it's a lot easier to put your sentence that you're struggling within if all you have to do is click once, then if you have to go to a website, sign in. So I'd sign yourself out. And then I do think, especially if you're trying to be great at something, I'd say just use it and realize it sucks. Like, it's not interesting. It's not good. If I thought the AI was making my writing more ultra-human and better, then I would use it. But it's not. It's not doing

any of those things and the writing that I read that does use it is is not any better. So I would just say like be warned and you know and if you think I'm wrong like use it and see how it goes and see how it goes in the long term. I think another great example of this. I'm a little all over the place here but bear with me is the analytics revolution in sport. So for the longest time sport was like ultra human right. Scouts would go they'd watch players perform and they just kind I had a feel for what was going to work out. And then a couple decades ago, the analytics revolution came. It started in baseball where people said all these scouts are too old school.

They're doing everything by their eyes and their guts. And actually, we need to run numbers for everything. And we're going to change the game this way. In the early adopters of the analytics revolution, they did great. They outperformed really good teams on much lower salaries because they were using all these analytics. But then what happened? Much like with AI, people said, oh, analytics is going to solve everything.

So we're just going to look at analytics for everything in sport. And since then, those teams and those organizations have underperformed, and the pendulum has now swung back toward coaches who really deeply understand the game, who don't just look at the analytics, right? Who don't just say, we're always going to go for it on fourth down because that's what the analytics say, no, who have a feel for the game, who incorporate these tools when they make sense after they were litmus tested for in this case over a decade, but who still retain like the human, drive towards excellence. And I think that that might be true in knowledge work. We can almost think of this, like an analytics revolution in knowledge work. Yeah, but you need the human coach to make the decision. And if the human coach uses analytics for everything, they're going to, I mean, that's

another problem is the more that you use these tools, the more that you lose your human discernment to decide what to take and what not to take from the tool. It's this homogenization effect. Like everything just converges towards a soulless mean. The work product, how you think, how your colleagues think, how the meetings are going, because the people all prepped for the meetings using the same tool. And it's kind of just like dull machines talking to dull machines. In everything great that I've come across recently in reporting for this book in my own life,

whether it's sport, whether it's art, whether it's a book. None of it, none of it included AI at all. I mean, are we being naive or bad? I guess, you know, for some people, that's impossible. the main issue would be if you're a computer programmer or if you have a boss in a big knowledgework company that's like, I don't care. I want to just see you doing a lot of AI stuff. I mean, there's obviously a lot of cases here where this is hard. But just because something that's hard doesn't mean it's not right.

I agree. I think that's the pushback that I've gotten. And I heard this recently from a team that said, I'm with you on all of this, Brad. They were a team of product designers. And they straight up said, but like the CEO of the company has told us we don't care as much of. about quality, you need to keep up with everyone else, so it's output. And now these people feel like cogs. And I told these people, CEO wasn't in the room, like, get a new job. What's the output anyways? They're talking about. Or I don't want to say too much to give it away.

Or be comfortable that work is just not going to be at all the source of meaning in your life and you're going to be a cog in the machine. But these are people that normally would spend, you know, a week doing whiteboarding and brainstorming in devil's advocate work. and really testing how something should be. And the CEO is like, no, just put it in AI and let AI do those iterations for you and then just ship, make it, make it, make it. And they're essentially like what used to be

really creative human work. Now I feel like a cog in a machine. And I tell this to my CEO and I say the work is going to be worse. And the CEO says, I don't care. I agree with you. It might be a little worse, but the marginal cost of the work being worse is less than the benefit of just shipping, shipping,

shipping because everyone's using AI to ship. And what I would say is like, well, that sounds like a race to the homogenized mean and find another job or, you know, great, go do that job, be done with work at five every day and learn how to play the cello or deadlift 600 pounds or, you know, grow orchids, whatever it might be, do the ultra-human part of your life somewhere else. But this is a tale as old as time, right? Like, I mean, so much of mass culture is just accepting lower quality mass-produced stuff because it's faster and it's cheaper. And what I'm here to say is where we have agency, I can't wave a magic wand and change the economy, but what I can say human to human is your human life doesn't have to be mass-produced

stuff that is cheaper and more efficient. There's been so much talk about what AI is going to do to humanity with a capital H at the existential level and not enough talk about what AI is doing to our own unique humanness, and I think I'm focused there. Yeah. And I would just say remember all the other technology in the last 20 years that were powerful and had excitement around them, even if it was not fully sketched out at first. And we led into our lives without intention, and they ended up making a lot of things worse. Like, this is a tale that happens again and again.

I mean, I wrote a whole book about how this happened with email. Like email, it was like, yeah, this is great. I want to use the fax machine. My voicemail is annoying. But we led to our life without thinking about it. What else is going to happen if we put in low friction, digital communication? And it really broke work. It made knowledge work into a sort of constant stream of stressful catch-up on an inbox

that makes us switch our context once every two minutes, makes it impossible to think clearly, burns us out. And we stumbled into that, unforced error. Social media on smartphones was similar. It's like, I don't know, this seems cool, right? Like it's novel and it's fun, and I can see the relationship status of my high school girlfriend and like this is kind of the Arab Spring like how stuff is going on and it kind of felt cool and you know you look up 10 years after that and you're like oh my god my brain is rotting

as TikTok is showing me nonsense it's like algorithmically optimized to create chemical reactions in my brain it's digital math right we end up and we're like okay so we probably should have been more intentional about that as well AI is like the biggest of these things because it can touch on multiple different spheres of life so same idea if we just say this is a cool technology there's cool potential, embrace it as fast as you can, the future will be good. Our recent past tells us that's not what's going to happen. Like the people who come out okay come into these technologies way more intentional. And what is their North Star?

Living a deep, good human life, right? That's like why I didn't ever start using social media. And that is a bet that really paid off for me, right? Even though people at the time were like, what are you talking about? This is crazy. But I was using the North Star of like, I want a deep human life. Like that's what's important. I'm not a product tester.

I'm not a someone who writes reviews of new technology right like I'm trying to do the things I'm doing and that's my standard so I feel that same way about AI now is that to argue is it useful or not wrong conversation to argue is it dangerous or harmless

people should have that conversation you don't have to have that conversation is the conversation the people in charge of it are heroes or rogues maybe a good conversation for some people to have you don't have to care about that conversation And the conversation that matters for you is my life deep and meaningful? Can this technology if deployed in specific ways make it better or worse there?

And where the answer is worse, I'm not going to use it. And where the answer is better than maybe I will. And you know what? It might be a couple of years before you even have many of those use cases. Maybe you never will. And that's fine. And define better. Better is not just efficiency.

Yeah. Right? At least for me, it's not. If better is efficiency for you, then yeah, it might make it better. but define better because if I ask is AI making my work better, the answer is an unequivocal no. If I ask, is AI making my work easier, then the answer would be yes. But better and easier are two different things. And I'd say like, you know, try to be excellent.

And I think that that just requires feeling your way through and caring and all these things that machines can never do. And the last thing that you want is to turn yourself into a machine or to quote the Harvard and Santa Fe researchers to have the machine virus replicate in your brain and then soul till you are less human and more machine-like. Yeah, which technology does. It's just what it does. People who are on, you know, algorithmic social media all the time, it just, they're

different people. The way they see the world is different. The way they talk is different. The way their ability to think is different. Their subjective experience of the world is different. Their emotional chemical state is different. Technologies affect us. I mean, I recently read Walter Ongs on Oral

and literature, literacy and culture, right? This whole thing is the technology of writing changed the way our brains work, right? In that case, it was a positive way, but it's powerful, right? Technologies change who you are and they change your brain. So we always have to be very careful.

And I think this feels like a time, especially this stage before we have a lot of, like just clear cut, everyone uses this, you know, tool that has clear utility and is built into all of our machines. And this early stage is very experimental. You don't have to be the crash test dummy

or the test pilot. That's okay, right? You can wait until you have a use that's going to be, or you're kind of convincing me here, Brad, that it's like a, what I like about this, this philosophy is that it's not, it's not saying what everyone should do,

but it is given an approach, which is work backwards from what makes a life meaningful, and that's perfectly reasonable. That's a good way to approach life. And a lot of AI uses right now don't make life more meaningful. And that's fine then, if you want to say,

like, I don't need that in my life. And come back to our three planks, right? Is it diminishing the skill or the art of exerting effort in a meaningful way? Is it making your work better or more average? And is it making your life excellent or not? Yeah. And if you click all three and the answer is yes, number one, I actually don't want to exert effort on this because I'd rather exert effort elsewhere in my life. Check.

Number two, I'm never going to be great at churning butter. I'm happy to let a machine do it for me or buy it at the grocery store because I don't care about being great at churning butter. I'm happy to have average butter. Great. Check. Number three, you know, where I buy my butter and if my butter is churned doesn't contribute to a meaningful life, check. Now, I think that churning butter is one thing, but AI is, in theory, going to do a lot more than churn butter for us. So we just have to be really deliberate about where we allow it in and what boundaries we set. Now, are you optimistic this could spread? I think, Going in favor of this movement is the really terrible job that the AI CEOs have done in talking to the public in trying to impress their investors. They've doomed-trolled the public so severely that basically they're hated now.

So that might help, right? I think that maybe helps the cause. I think it could spread. So here's my evidence, okay? The most highlighted line in my book and the line that is always shared that I see that I'm tagged in all the time has nothing to do with like, sports or athletics or even performance. I'll read it. This is the part of the book that's the most highlighted part of my book. I said, the reason I write is because AI can't make me feel what it's like when a sentence finally clicks, when the words line up and land just right. The reason I deadlift

is because no robot or algorithm can feel a heavy-ass bar start to move off the ground. There are tools that can write more words. There are tools that can lift more weight, more efficiently, more easily. But that's not the point. The point is the experience. The point is the feeling of being alive. When you increasingly automate, this kind of experience in all corners of your life, your life becomes increasingly void of texture. It becomes shallow and empty. It's the opposite of excellence.

Find what makes you feel alive and protect it. That is it. That's the most underlying shared line in the book. So if a book on excellence that has like, you know, eight paragraphs on AI and two of those paragraphs are what's being shared, it gives me hope that there's at least some people out there that get this message and that that want to be part of I guess I don't know what should we call it Cal the humanist resistance I really see this is the overlap of our work right what you call the deep life what I call excellence and the relationship that it has with these new technologies

um and and I think that like it is ultimately a humanist resistance yeah and humanism says that humans are special humans are unique there's something about the mind body system and the nervous system that makes a human subjective experience incredible. And we should champion that and we should protect it. And not at the risk of becoming cynical, not at the risk of becoming old grumpy curmudgins, but also not just going with the flow. Because again, while no AI company has ever said that this is going to make you excellent at what you do, I've also yet to hear a compelling case that this technology is going to make you more human. I've never heard anyone say it's going to make you more human. And I think that I want to be more human. I mean, I put it as simple as

I'd rather support team human than put my effort into increasing the stock valuations of Sam Altman's private equity holdings, right? Who we know who we know thanks to your piece is like the least weird of the weirdos. Yeah, they're all pretty weird. All right, I want to end here by reading something you posted on Instagram recently, which I think is another good summary of what we just talked about. So you wrote, we are at a point in history, not nearing it,

but here, where everyone is going to have to decide if they are content to numb themselves with an endless stream of fentanyl-like digital slop, or if they're going to fight for their humanity and touch grass and challenge themselves

and create and contribute and love. I'm with you. I want to do that latter thing that you're talking about, and I don't think I need a ton of AI in my life to do it. And if those things appeal to you, then it's okay

that you're not right now trying to, you know, configure your private swarm of AI monsters to do whatever the hell, you know, you saw on a YouTube channel somewhere. So, Brad, I appreciate you coming on, making the key, the pitch for team human in an age in which AI is increasingly

being shoved down our throat in a sort of ambiguous, unsettling way. Hopefully a lot of people take you up on it. I think Brad's book, The Way of Excellence, gives you a good primer of what matters in life and what is degraded, when you instead are just seeking out efficiency and quantity. So, Brad, always a pleasure.

Thanks for once again joining the show. Thank you, Cal. Appreciate you. All right, so that was my conversation with Brad Stolberg. I sort of like where we ended up is a call to support team human instead of trying to support the valuation of Sam Altman stockholdings. Anyways, all this is up for debate, interesting direction to start thinking about. I mean, I like these notions of struggle is good, learning to do hard things is good, hard stuff is good.

We're not trying, efficiency for efficiency's sake doesn't mean anything. Knowledge work has become kabuki theater and AI is just making the plays even more ridiculous. I think these are all interesting topics and I'm glad we got a chance to talk about. So anyway, thank you, Brad for joining us on the show. You got to check out Brad's book, The Way of Excellence. It's fantastic. he's got a great Instagram feed as well. I read some of that on the episode today.

So if you're an Instagram user, check that out as well. All right. So I think that's all the time. We have no office hours. I'm not going to open my inbox this week because this conversation took longer than originally planned. But I will see you next week. And until then, as always, stay deep.