The writing process is an essential part of thinking. Using AI to generate substantive text risks producing vague or incorrect ideas that are difficult to detect. Furthermore, using AI without labeling it is misleading to the reader.

While AI excels at transcribing audio, analyzing data, and brainstorming, it should not replace the core act of writing. Even with detailed prompts or editing, the author argues that the cognitive benefits of writing oneself are irreplaceable. The author acknowledges AI's advantages in speed and effort but maintains that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits for meaningful content.

The goal of research is to form and communicate accurate beliefs, a process best served by personal engagement with the text. As Paul Graham noted, writing reveals gaps in knowledge and forces the organization of arguments, surfacing contradictions that an AI would likely overlook. The author concludes that while future models may improve, current AI remains unsuitable for delegating substantive thought and communication.