The promise of AI was always that it would handle certain kinds of work so we could focus on others. It was going to free our time, reduce friction, and let us concentrate on what requires human judgment and creativity.
That promise assumed we would divide the labor wisely. That we would hand off the operational drag—the scheduling, formatting, and summarizing that eats the day before we’ve had a chance to think. We would keep the cognitive friction—the hard work of wrestling with ambiguity, forming a point of view, and figuring out the right approach. The work where your value is actually made.
Instead we handed over the thinking first. Because cognitive friction is the effort you most want relief from, and AI makes it so easy to skip. ChatGPT became the fastest-adopted platform in history, appealing directly to our instinct for instant gratification. We did not divide the labor. We outsourced it.
The cost is becoming clear. When we outsource the cognitive struggle, we erode our capacity to think. At work, it shows up as “workslop”: polished output with no real thinking behind it. More than 40% of workers have already encountered it. At the individual level, the pattern is even more troubling.
A recent study of 1.5 million AI conversations mapped what this looks like in practice. First, users ask: “What should I do?” Then they accept the answer with minimal pushback. Then they come back and do it again. And then, often too late, comes the regret: “I should have listened to my intuition.” This is not a single moment of poor judgment. It is a pattern that compounds. Each cycle makes the next one more likely, and over time, it does not just reduce the quality of output. It atrophies the judgment that made the person valuable in the first place.
This is a division-of-labor problem. And it is one that economics has been grappling with since Adam Smith broached the topic in his revolutionary 1776 book, The Wealth of Nations. He showed that 10 workers in a pin factory, each handling one step, could produce around 48,000 pins a day, while one worker doing every step might not finish a single pin. But Karl Marx observed something that Smith’s efficiency model did not account for: When you divide labor, workers can lose connection to what they produce. They make parts of things and never see the whole. As he wrote in his seminal 1867 work, Das Kapital, they become “appendages of the machine.”
Smith showed what division of labor produces. Marx showed what it can cost. What makes this 21st-century moment different is that for the first time, the labor being divided is not physical. It is cognitive.
