The core principle of problem solvers in the AI era: what determines the value of the tool is whether you let AI replace output or force output. Yesterday, when discussing using AI to assist learning, someone in the comments said I have a "problem solver mentality." Indeed, I have recently been using it to practice for the IELTS 🤣, but this is just one of the interactive cognitive use cases. I happened to see the boss of Shenfish mention that "long-term use of AI will weaken cognition and memory," which aligns very well with my simple understanding of the human brain. When humans attempt to outsource all memory, analysis, and even judgment to AI, the brain's atrophy and decline are inevitable; use it or lose it. In fact, the backlash from tools has objectively existed from calculators to search engines; any tool aimed at lowering cognitive thresholds will cause those who overly rely on it to regress. However, the tool itself is neutral; its danger lies in providing users with the illusion of being omnipotent. If you treat AI as a ghostwriter or a babysitter, your brain will deteriorate like muscles in a long-term weightless environment; but if you treat it as a sparring partner, it becomes your exoskeleton. The cognitive rules of the human brain: input (reading/listening to lectures) is extremely cheap and deceptive, while the real moat lies in output (active retrieval). The reason I advocate turning AI into a 1V1 tutor is precisely because it perfectly runs this loop: - Tools like NotebookLM are responsible for structured input, noise reduction, internalization, and tracing back, transforming a 1-hour class into notes that can be read in 5 minutes, ensuring a high signal-to-noise ratio in storage. - Gemini is responsible for high-pressure forced output, generating interactive quizzes based on the organized logic, completing the immediate retrieval loop. It turns rigid static notes into dynamic 1v1 practical drills. This perfectly aligns with the objective cognitive rules of the human brain. This can certainly be used for exams, but it is also effective for any other learning, even for sorting out the industrial chains of various sectors in the secondary market, for any learning that requires paperwork. Does having AI mean people no longer need to learn? I don't think so. While others use AI to replace their brains, I use AI to upgrade my brain. If the form of interactive quizzes is labeled as "problem solver" thinking, following brain science and objective memory rules, it would be a pity for those who believe AI can replace everything.