AI Outperforms Humans in Countless Areas |
Artificial intelligence is here to stay.
AI demonstrably outperforms humans in countless areas.
AI can provide answers, insights, and information almost instantly.
The human brain requires years of ongoing personal effort to develop critical skills and knowledge.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is here to stay. AI is an immensely powerful force. AI demonstrably outperforms humans in countless areas. Regarding insights and answers, this performance capacity is available 24 hours a day. However, and self-evidently, this is not the case with the development of skills and knowledge for humanity (Casey et al., 2005).
In the Beginning and Thereafter
In terms of the ongoing building of insight, skills, and knowledge, research indicates that brain development is a lengthy process that continues into the early 30s. During these years, ongoing self-initiated thinking and self-directed effort are associated with the process of self-advancing learning actions (Giedd, 2004; Kolk & Rakic, 2022; Mousley et al., 2025; Sowell et al., 2003).
This is because achieving expertise requires a sustained daily effort of at least 10,000 hours (often cited as a colloquial benchmark) or a decade of focused study and training. It is also important to note that expertise is always domain‑specific; the effort invested develops mastery in a particular discipline rather than a generalized capacity. This entire process will bring most people into their early 30s before they reach what could be considered a reasonable level of expertise in their chosen discipline (Ericsson et al., 1993; Ericsson, 2006).
Consider the following two examples. A teacher writes a word on the board and asks what it means. Once the definition is given, the teacher tells the class that students will need to write a sentence using the word, then a paragraph. Group (1) will use computers and AI. Group (2) will be required to use a dictionary and present the sentence and paragraph with their own handwriting.
Results and Responsibilities
We already know what the outcome will be. Group (1) will complete the task in minutes, if not seconds. Group (2) may require 20 to 30 minutes to complete the task. The question that must now be asked and answered is as follows: Which group created complex neurological connections, neuronal assemblies, and additional intricate brain maps that further advanced their cognitive capacities in critical thinking, higher-order thinking, reasoning, and complex intellectual analysis, and which group did not? Does this analysis or answer really matter? Whatever the answer is, and whatever choices are made, there will be consequences for which the decision-maker will be responsible (Doidge, 2010, 2015; Fields, 2008; Kleim & Jones, 2008; Zatorre et al., 2012)
Application Is a Universal Requirement
Advancing in skills and knowledge in all human endeavors requires decades of meticulous, well-organized, and self-controlled work. What all of this universally demonstrates is that for humans to develop genuine skills and knowledge in any discipline, there are initially two requirements: (1) listen to the expert (teacher, coach, instructor, mentor), and (2) do the work for as long as it takes to achieve a level of mastery (Ericsson, 2006).
Once this level of mastery has been achieved, the next step is to continue this process for another 10, 15, or 20 years to at least achieve what could be considered expertise. How old are brain surgeons? What do they have to do to achieve this level of expertise? AI requires no time; answers are provided instantly (Ericsson et al., 1993).
AI Is Instant and Powerful; However, the Development of Human Skills and Knowledge Is Not
The self-evident reality, as noted, is that AI can answer anything instantly, but answers alone do not create skills or knowledge. Everyone can see the peak of Mount Everest. The only way to reach it is to listen to the expert and do the work, which requires skills, knowledge, and, most certainly, the intrinsic qualities of discipline, dedication, determination, perseverance, and resilience. Again, AI requires none of this.
Without Physical Play, There Will Be Consequences
As such, allowing young, developing minds (i.e., from birth to the age of 18, the legal age of adulthood) unlimited access to computers and AI to provide answers to questions does not and will not develop handwriting, mental or emotional intelligence, or the strength of character pertaining to discipline, dedication, determination, perseverance, and resilience, nor will it develop and advance their intellectual skills and knowledge and their associated complex neurological architecture of the brain.
The research is unambiguous: It is essential to develop skills and knowledge from day one of school (and even before). This process must also include the universal importance of physical play. Computer gaming is not play (Bodrova & Leong, 2015; Duckworth et al., 2007; Ibaibarriaga et al., 2025; James & Engelhardt, 2012; Lillard et al., 2013; Longcamp et al., 2008; Masten, 2001; Perea, 2025).
How Many Years Does It Take to Become a Brain Surgeon?
Research also confirms that this personalized, effortful mental and physical action leads to stronger long-term retention and transfer of knowledge. As such, one needs to keep in mind that this passive AI receipt of answers bypasses the cognitive and physical effort required to build brain-based connections and mind-based self-regulation capacities, as well as deeper insights, skills, knowledge, and understanding (Bjork & Bjork, 2011; Pintrich, 1999; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006; Schmidt & Bjork, 1992; Sweller, 1988).
Education Has Always Been a Marathon
Education is and has always been a marathon, not a sprint. The sprint offered by computers and AI will give answers, but answers alone do not always advance skill or knowledge. Throughout history, the development of human excellence has rested on the same unchanging foundations: disciplined effort, deliberate struggle, and the slow, cumulative cultivation of one’s capacities (Pintrich, 1999; Vermunt, 1996).
The Evidence Immutable
Within this environment of reflective and effortful engagement, goal‑setting theory provides a complementary mechanism for growth. The evidence is clear: specific, difficult goals require individuals to operate at levels of effort and focus that approach the upper limits of their current capacity.
These goals mobilize sustained attention, increased effort, and greater persistence, and it is through this continued engagement with challenge that individuals extend their mental, emotional, and physical capabilities, leading to measurable improvements in skills and knowledge (Linderman et al., 2003; Locke & Latham, 2002).
Research in elite performance similarly shows that individuals who continue to engage with high levels of challenges, and who are able to tolerate the psychological and physical demands associated with such effort, are the ones who develop the perseverance, resilience, discipline, dedication, and determination that is required to progress far beyond what may be described as typical levels of performance (Golby & Sheard, 2004; Jones et al., 2007; Linderman et al., 2003; Locke and Latham, 2002; Stambulova et al., 2009).
Unrelenting Persistence
Taken together, the research is unequivocal: Effortful action strengthens and reorganizes the brain’s immensely complex architecture, advancing the mind and intellect, deepening skills, knowledge, and understanding through intentional questioning, analysis, and critical thinking, and mobilizing the psychological persistence required to extend one’s thinking, emotional, psychological, and motor learning capacities, willpower, and strength of character. As such, it is this unrelenting persistence and the self-initiated, universal effort that advance holistic human capabilities (Fields, 2008; Golby & Sheard, 2004; Jones et al., 2007; Kleim & Jones, 2008; Locke & Latham, 2002; Pintrich, 1999; Stambulova et al., 2009; Vermunt, 1996; Zatorre et al., 2012).
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2015). Vygotskian and Post-Vygotskian Views on Children's Play. American Journal of Play, 7(3), 371-388.
Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society, 2(59-68), 56-64.
Casey, B. J., Tottenham, N., Liston, C., & Durston, S. (2005). Imaging the developing brain: What have we learned about cognitive development? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(3), 104–110.
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long‑term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–1101.
Doidge, N. (2010). The Brain That Changes Itself. Scribe, Melbourne.
Doidge, N. (2015). The brain’s way of healing. Scribe, Melbourne, London.
Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, 38(685-705), 2-2.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch‑Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.
Fields, R. D. (2008). White matter in learning, cognition and psychiatric disorders. Trends in Neurosciences, 31(7), 361-370.
Giedd, J. N. (2004). Structural magnetic resonance imaging of the adolescent brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1021(1), 77–85.
Golby, J., & Sheard, M. (2004). Mental toughness and hardiness at different levels of rugby league. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(5), 933-942.
Ibaibarriaga, G., Acha, J., & Perea, M. (2025). The impact of handwriting and typing practice in children’s letter and word learning: Implications for literacy development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 253, 106195.
James, K. H., & Engelhardt, L. (2012). The effects of handwriting experience on functional brain development in pre‑literate children. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 1(1), 32–42.
Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2007). A framework of mental toughness in the world’s best performers. The Sport Psychologist, 21(2), 243–264.
Kleim, J. A., & Jones, T. A. (2008). Principles of experience‑dependent neural plasticity: Implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(1), S225–S239.
Kolk, S. M., & Rakic, P. (2022). Development of prefrontal cortex. Neuropsychopharmacology, 47(1), 41-57.
Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., & Palmquist, C. M. (2013). The impact of pretend play on children's development: a review of the evidence. Psychological bulletin, 139(1), 1.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R., Zaheer, S., Liedtke, C., & Choo, A. (2003). Six Sigma: A goal‑theoretic perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 21(2), 193–203.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35‑year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.
Longcamp, M., Zerbato-Poudou, M. T., & Velay, J. L. (2005). The influence of writing practice on letter recognition in preschool children: A comparison between handwriting and typing. Acta Psychologica, 119(1), 67-79.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238.
Mousley, A., Bethlehem, R. A., Yeh, F. C., & Astle, D. E. (2025). Topological turning points across the human lifespan. Nature communications, 16(1), 10055.
Perea, M. (2025). The impact of handwriting and typing practice in children’s letter and word learning: Implications for literacy development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 253, 106195.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self‑regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 459–470.
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test‑enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long‑term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.
Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3(4), 207–218.
Sowell, E. R., Thompson, P. M., Holmes, C. J., Jernigan, T. L., & Toga, A. W. (2003). Mapping cortical change across the human life span. Nature Neuroscience, 6(3), 309–315.
Stambulova, N., Alfermann, D., Statler, T., & CôTé, J. E. A. N. (2009). ISSP position stand: Career development and transitions of athletes. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(4), 395-412.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
Vermunt, J. D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive, and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies. Higher Education, 31(1), 25–50.
Zatorre, R. J., Fields, R. D., & Johansen-Berg, H. (2012). Plasticity in gray and white: neuroimaging changes in brain structure during learning. Nat Neurosci, 15(4), 528-536.