Between Ease 
and Effort: Judgement in an Age of Fluent Machines

Contributed by: Dr. David Mattie ’96 ’97 ’20, Assistant Professor,

The Gerald Schwartz School of Business

We are living through a radical shift in how we contemplate our work. Artificial intelligence now drafts our memos, writes our code, summarizes our meetings, and answers our hardest questions in prose so smooth and confident that it is easy to mistake the machine's fluency for our own understanding. The promise is palpable. Many of us feel relief at the friction removed from a task, but at the same time, a tacit concern about what is being lost as we increasingly over rely on AI to achieve outcomes.

Today's work requires that we look honestly at that concern. We have built tools that make us faster, and we have assumed, almost without examining it, that faster means more capable. But, under certain conditions, the speed and quality of our output may be improving while skill beneath it could be thinning.

Our corporate dashboard shows improvements, while the people behind it could be slowly forgetting how to do the very thing the dashboard measures.

Two recent studies clarify this concern. The first followed people over months as they were trained, across tens of thousands of trials, to categorize unfamiliar objects. As they practised, the work migrated out of the overloaded prefrontal cortex toward visual and motor regions; the skill became automatic and held up even while the person was distracted by another task. Mastery, in other words, is something the brain physically builds slowly, effortfully until it no longer needs to strain. The second study asked people to write essays either assisted or unassisted with AI.

Those who relied on AI showed the weakest and least connected neural engagement, could hardly quote what they had just produced, felt little ownership of it, and did not fully re-engage even after the tool was taken away.

These findings point toward a question that deserves serious study. When a machine returns an answer that is polished and confident, it removes not only the labour but the experience of struggle — the uncertainty, hesitation and difficulty we rely on to sense whether we are actually learning. We interpret the ease of achieving an outcome as evidence of competence, but it may be nothing of the kind. I call this a fluency hijack: the suppression of the very signal that would warn us that learning is not happening, leaving a gap between the competence we feel and the competence we hold. What the science of learning has long understood is that some difficulty is not an obstacle to be overcome but the work itself. Psychologists call these desirable difficulties. It is the effort and productive struggle that turns out to be the very thing that imprints a durable skill into the mind. A fluent answer from a large language model removes the desirable difficulties worth experiencing.

Human judgment may be the skill of the moment, not technical fluency with the latest frontier models that could be obsolete within the year.

The human judgment developed through struggle allows us to know when to let the machine carry the load and when to carry it ourselves. Judgment of that kind can't be downloaded or upgraded. It is built the same way every other expertise is built - through the effort we are now tempted at every turn to skip. The risk, if we skip it, is a slow skill atrophy we won't notice until we need it, and this can happen while every business dashboard looks healthy. We must not run our companies, our classrooms, or our own minds on autopilot. Autopilot is a marvel when someone capable is watching the instruments, and a potential catastrophe when no one is. The same is true of "intelligent" machines. To adopt AI is to stay awake at the controls and continue to ask what we are gaining, what we are surrendering, and whether the people in our companies are still growing or simply producing. What gives me hope is that none of this asks us to choose between the human and the machine, rather to use these tools deliberately, embrace the difficulties that make us capable, and treat judgment as the thing most worth cultivating. We have always been a place that learns the most by doing hard things. Our task, then, is to carry that same mindset into this new moment — to let the machine do what it does well, and to continue to struggle with the human work that makes us who we are.

The fluent answer asks nothing of us. Learning has always been built from what is asked.

David Mattie, PhD ’96 ’97 ’20

Assistant Professor, BBA Marketing and Enterprise Systems, The Gerald Schwartz 
School of Business

the xaverian digital | e. alumni@stfx.ca · t. 902 867 2186 © 2026. All Rights Reserved

StFX is located in Mi’kma’ki, the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi’kmaw People.