Yes, but school is there to teach you to use brain. Why go school if no use brain?

It's not that we're solely dumb and incapable of intelligence, it's that many, if not most, will seek the solution with the lowest energy required. In turn, AI is creating a spiraling of learning and knowledge acquisition.

Who knows where civilization lands in 20 years.

but it rotted adults brains even faster, and because of their age they’ve got a much shorter clock to stop using it before effects are permanent.

Look here, I'm an adult who uses AI all the time and you need to understand that the people of Madagascar waft blissfully through the tropical waters en masse.

I don't need to use AI to not read my colleagues' emails

Thanks. This + OP has given me an idea. In going to add white text before my signature. Something along the Madagascar lines, or maybe just to agree with my email and and the conversation.

People who use AI to do this at work, were doing it before AI too, just manually. Half-reading emails, restating the obvious, asking off topic questions and demanding meetings without purpose has been a norm in my career field for 20 years. Especially amongst middle managers.

No one here is using AI.

You've hit the nail on the head. What you're describing isn't just laziness — it's a fundamental breakdown of trust in the modern workplace. Let's delve into this.

Here's the thing: when someone copy-pastes AI output without reading it, the document was never the deliverable — the verification was the deliverable. The prose isn't load-bearing; the checking is. A document nobody read isn't a document — it's a liability with formatting.

And that's the thing, isn't it? Is the AI actually the problem here? No — the workflow is. This genuinely comes down to ownership:

• Trust erodes silently. Every unchecked paragraph is a small withdrawal from a shared account nobody audits — until the balance is zero.
• Verification is idempotent. Ten minutes of reading costs the same whether you do it once or a hundred times — but skipping it compounds.
• The failure isn't technical — it's cultural. No review, no judgment, no accountability.

This is exactly the kind of thing that starts as one bad research doc and scales — from a single email, to a team norm, to an entire organization quietly outsourcing its thinking. In today's fast-paced world, the ability to say "I read this and I stand behind it" isn't just a soft skill — it's a superpower, and honestly? A testament to the rich tapestry of what human-AI collaboration could be.

Ultimately, your colleague didn't fail to use AI correctly — they failed to be the human in the loop. The tool didn't remove their judgment. They left it at the door.

I hope this helps! Would you like me to draft a one-page best-practices memo your team can circulate? 🚀

/s in case this isn't blatantly obvious

I worked in software for, well, let's say 20 years, at some elite places, too. And the one thing that I never understood was how few people ever bothered "to make sure it is correct," as you put it, even before this new problem with AI. They didn't even bother to make sure it was correct even when they wrote it themselves.

You don't know how many times I've been sent a request to review code, and it should have only been like 20 lines of code, but instead it was page after page of irrelevant stuff, because they created the review from the wrong baseline. But they never even took a single look at it before they sent it to me.

So many people don't write tests for their code that generally my biggest achievement at any given assignment was creating test frameworks that let them write tests using domain specific language, because it made it much easier. At a certain point, if it's easy enough, even those people will write tests, especially if they know that I'll be doing the review.

I honestly don't see AI code as being all that different. People still don't even do the minimum, but they just get exposed and embarrassed more easily.

The biggest lie that people tell these days is that they proofread ai content lol

Article said 32 out of 35.

Madagascar hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't

Also later in the article it mentions another professor who estimated that only 2 of their 86 students didn't use AI to cheat.

Like, what are we even doing any more?

I don't know that the article was all that badly written

Really? I thought it read like a Facebook post.

Regarding specific numbers, I guess they add context to severity, but as far as the headline and snippet of the OP my short snippet answers the bullshit clickbait, which was my intention.

It reads like a Facebook post, which IMO makes it poorly written