A Coder and Writer Chooses to Resist AI
An author who learned to code in the mid-2000s and built a writing career through deliberate struggle now actively avoids AI tools. The decision reflects a growing concern among skilled professionals about what gets lost when machines handle the cognitive work.
The author spent hours debugging code and rewriting sentences-work that felt essential at the time. Those repetitive cycles built thinking patterns that shaped both a computer engineering education and a writing voice. The inefficiency was the point.
What changes when AI handles the work
Code generation tools like OpenAI's Codex now produce functional applications in minutes. AI writing systems generate content at scale. The skills that once required years of practice now compress into prompt engineering.
This shift troubles the author for a specific reason: cognitive offloading. Handing difficult thinking to machines creates a habit. The mind atrophies when it stops doing its own work.
Research supports the concern. Studies show that even brief use of AI chatbots can reduce cognitive performance. The brain adapts to outsourcing. Over time, the capacity to think through problems independently weakens.
The stakes for younger professionals
The author worries about writers and developers entering the field now. They may never experience the struggle that builds judgment. They may treat technology as mysterious and supreme rather than something they can understand and question.
If young professionals cannot grasp how their tools work, they cannot identify problems or fix them. They cannot push back. They become dependent on systems controlled by companies they don't understand.
This matters beyond individual careers. When AI companies privatize thinking itself-turning cognition into a service people must buy-the stakes become political.
A deliberate inefficiency
The author codes and writes manually despite knowing that AI would be faster. The work is slower. It produces less output. By conventional measures, it fails.
But it preserves something else: the ability to think without outsourcing that thinking. It keeps the mind active on sensitive decisions rather than letting probability-based software decide.
The author frames this as a form of resistance. When large corporations use efficiency and convenience as tools to capture wealth and attention, choosing slower methods becomes an act of protection.
It also becomes the price of building character-the cost of becoming the person you want to be rather than the person the system wants you to become.
For writers and developers evaluating AI tools, the question isn't whether the technology works. It's what you lose when you stop doing the thinking yourself.
Your membership also unlocks:
