AI Is Making Us Efficient — But Are We Thinking Less?

In less than a decade, artificial intelligence has moved from an abstract concept into the everyday workflow of millions of people — drafting emails, summarising research, generating code and scripting presentations in seconds. The speed of this adoption, a Nation.Africa columnist argues, is precisely what makes the moment worth interrogating. Efficiency has arrived. But has it arrived at a cost?

Writing in the Nation.Africa opinion section, Gori, a communications specialist and university lecturer, poses a question that sits at the intersection of technology and human psychology: is Kenya using AI to amplify the human mind, or quietly delegating the work of thinking to machines that do not think at all?

What Innovation Actually Requires

The writer’s concern begins with a simple observation about how breakthroughs happen. Innovation, Gori argues, is rarely accidental. It typically starts with a problem that demands a solution — and the path from problem to answer is paved with effort that is, by nature, uncomfortable. People read widely, consult colleagues whose perspectives differ from their own, debate half-formed ideas and sometimes spend sleepless nights wrestling with questions that resist easy answers. Occasionally, a breakthrough arrives during a quiet moment of reflection, when the mind has had time to synthesise what it has absorbed.

That process — iterative, friction-laden, deeply human — is precisely what the writer suggests is at risk when AI becomes a shortcut rather than a tool. When a student can produce a passable essay without engaging with the assigned material, or a professional can draft a strategic brief without seriously examining the underlying problem, the mental muscles that produce genuine insight go unexercised.

Skill, Not Substitution

Gori is careful not to frame AI itself as the villain. In the hands of a skilled worker, the writer acknowledges, AI increases productivity exponentially. The technology has transformed how professionals write, research, communicate and collaborate — and those gains are real. The concern is directional: the question is not whether to use AI, but whether its use reinforces or replaces the habits that make people capable of producing original work.

This distinction carries particular weight in the Kenyan context, where the country’s ambitions in innovation and digital transformation depend on a population capable of critical, independent thought. AI tools developed elsewhere reflect the priorities and assumptions of their creators. The ability to evaluate, adapt and build on those tools — rather than simply consume their outputs — requires exactly the kind of deep thinking that over-reliance threatens to erode.

The column’s implicit challenge is clear: Kenyans, educators and institutions must be deliberate about when AI serves as a lever and when it functions as a crutch. Efficiency is a worthy goal. But if the cost of doing things faster is a gradual loss of capacity to think through hard problems slowly, the long-term price may outweigh the short-term gain. The writer’s argument is ultimately less about technology and more about intellectual discipline — and who bears responsibility for preserving it.

Sources: Nation.Africa.