These two topics seem like strange things to compare, and until reading this article from the Opinion section of the New York Times I wouldn’t have even considered it:
I’m Begging You: Never Write With A.I.
By Bret Stephens NYT Opinion Aug. 4, 2026
The premise of Bret’s piece is that you should “Never let A.I. do your writing for you.” And why you might ask?
- “writing with A.I. is that it’s mentally enfeebling…ushering us further into what The Atlantic’s Rose Horowitch calls our “postliterate age”
- writing “compels thought”
- “what the A.I. can supply in eloquence it subtracts in effort and authenticity”
And he goes on. Bret’s article is a really good assessment of AIs impact on society due to these skills never being honed, through daily practice, and as the “most essential skill for clear thinking”, personal betterment and democratic self-governance… great article!
But what the heck does this have to do with FSD and autonomous driving. I’m stepping out on a limb with this one, but I submit that the issues are one and the same.
- Full Self Driving (FSD) is “mentally feebling”
If you have an opportunity to read my post about the OOTL problem you’ll understand that when you let the car do the driving for you, there are some important thought processes that aren’t being used and over time could actually atrophy (my opinion)
- active driving ‘compels thought’
Ever observe the actions of a ‘distracted driver’? It becomes obvious that they’re NOT thinking about the task of driving, but are locked into whatever social media interchange they’re engaged in at that moment. Active, attentive driving requires clear thinking and decision making. It’s not easy or intuitive, and (usually) improves with practice.
- And what about effort and authenticity?
On the flip side, ever see a car using self-driving make a really stupid decision? As smart and capable as Tesla’s full self driving technology has become, stopping in the middle of the road for a small pile of leaves, or screeching to a halt thinking a squirrel is going to cross the road, or turning down a one way street (the wrong way), or not yielding to another car in a tricky intersection where human gestures would have solved the stand-off, etc.
When people are actually doing the driving, there’s a whole engagement process going on which is more human to human than machine to machine. There’s effort involved, and ‘authenticity’. When we are engaged in the driving process better things happen. And the less engaged we are, the less learning and honing of skills is happening.
No one is perfect, and neither are our machines. But letting the machines do the work for us the majority of the time will have consequences. And as Bret writes, “We become better writers by the constant effort that mundane writing demands. We become better thinkers by investing into that writing a degree of attention we’d never give it if we relinquished the task to A.I.”
I’ll substitute ‘writing’ for ‘driving’, and claim ‘We become better drivers by the constant effort that mundane driving demands. We become better drivers by investing into that driving a degree of attention we’d never give it if we relinquished the task to A.I.’
Who would have thought anyone would ever try to compare writing to driving?