Totally agree — “surface-level engagement” is exactly the phrase I’ve been circling around without quite naming it. That’s the subtle risk, I think: you feel productive, even insightful, but you haven’t actually done the real thinking yet. It’s like reading a menu and thinking you’ve tasted the meal.
And I really resonate with your point about emotional connection. When I’m too “efficient,” sometimes the work starts to feel oddly transactional — like I’m just slotting in the next block of text or ideas, rather than wrestling with them. I don’t think EA work has to feel emotionally intense all the time, but there’s a danger if it becomes purely mechanical.
That said, I’m with you: AI can absolutely empower people who might otherwise struggle to express their ideas clearly — whether due to language barriers, confidence, or just inexperience with writing. I’ve seen it give people a kind of voice they didn’t have before, and that feels like a win.
"The key is finding the balance." Yes, exactly. Maybe the hard part is that the balance will look different depending on the person, the task, and the stakes involved. But just being aware of the tension seems like a good first step.
Have you found any specific habits or “guardrails” that help you stay on the deeper-thinking side when using ChatGPT?
There’s definitely something qualitatively different about really reading a paper vs. getting a summary, even a good one. I’ve noticed that when I rely too much on ChatGPT or similar tools to summarize studies, I sometimes end up with a false sense of confidence — like I “get” it, when actually I’ve missed key caveats or limitations that only become clear when reading the methods section or skimming figures.
I totally agree that tools can help in the “discovery” phase — finding relevant papers faster, generating search terms I hadn’t thought of, or even helping me decide which ones are worth digging into. But I still feel like the deep understanding (and the kind of judgment that comes with it) only happens when I go through the paper myself.
Also, yes to your point about being able to talk confidently about the details — I’ve had that experience too, where being fluent in a study’s methods actually changes how seriously people take an idea. That kind of credibility seems hard to fake with summaries alone.
I didn’t mean to suggest it’s an either/or thing, and I totally agree that it’s possible (and probably healthy) to feel both worry and optimism at the same time. That’s actually where I find myself most days too.
The title was more of a shorthand to capture that tension — not to say we must pick one side, but to get people into the headspace of asking: “What’s actually going on here, and how should we feel about it?”
Totally agree — “surface-level engagement” is exactly the phrase I’ve been circling around without quite naming it. That’s the subtle risk, I think: you feel productive, even insightful, but you haven’t actually done the real thinking yet. It’s like reading a menu and thinking you’ve tasted the meal.
And I really resonate with your point about emotional connection. When I’m too “efficient,” sometimes the work starts to feel oddly transactional — like I’m just slotting in the next block of text or ideas, rather than wrestling with them. I don’t think EA work has to feel emotionally intense all the time, but there’s a danger if it becomes purely mechanical.
That said, I’m with you: AI can absolutely empower people who might otherwise struggle to express their ideas clearly — whether due to language barriers, confidence, or just inexperience with writing. I’ve seen it give people a kind of voice they didn’t have before, and that feels like a win.
Have you found any specific habits or “guardrails” that help you stay on the deeper-thinking side when using ChatGPT?
There’s definitely something qualitatively different about really reading a paper vs. getting a summary, even a good one. I’ve noticed that when I rely too much on ChatGPT or similar tools to summarize studies, I sometimes end up with a false sense of confidence — like I “get” it, when actually I’ve missed key caveats or limitations that only become clear when reading the methods section or skimming figures.
I totally agree that tools can help in the “discovery” phase — finding relevant papers faster, generating search terms I hadn’t thought of, or even helping me decide which ones are worth digging into. But I still feel like the deep understanding (and the kind of judgment that comes with it) only happens when I go through the paper myself.
Also, yes to your point about being able to talk confidently about the details — I’ve had that experience too, where being fluent in a study’s methods actually changes how seriously people take an idea. That kind of credibility seems hard to fake with summaries alone.
I didn’t mean to suggest it’s an either/or thing, and I totally agree that it’s possible (and probably healthy) to feel both worry and optimism at the same time. That’s actually where I find myself most days too.
The title was more of a shorthand to capture that tension — not to say we must pick one side, but to get people into the headspace of asking: “What’s actually going on here, and how should we feel about it?”
The tension between agreeing on the results but differing on the reasoning is something I struggle with too. It's good to be constructive.