The paper’s author surveyed 612 university students and young adults, asking them, among other things, about their digital habits and levels of personal organization. Using a linear regression analysis, she uncovered the following:

“Social media use was negatively and significantly associated with overall time management and all its subscales.”

Here’s the standard interpretation of this result: Social media is distracting, and if you’re distracted, it becomes harder to maintain control over your schedule. So, the more you use social media, the worse you become at time management.

But I’ve become interested in the reverse form of this argument: the better your planning system, the less time you’ll spend on engagement-based applications like social media.

Here’s my thinking…

When you’re following an intentional schedule, your efforts are oriented toward goals that you find important. You also feel a satisfying sense of self-efficacy. These realities engage your long-term reward system, which can override the urges generated by its short-term counterpart, dissipating the drive for quick gratification from activities like glancing at your phone.

In other words: The more you organize your analog life, the less appealing you’ll find the digital alternative.

If this is true, then maybe the thing social media companies fear most is not some newly-powerful application-blocking software or impossibly strict regulation, but rather a good old-fashioned daily planner.

In Other News:

A lot of people I know have been freaked out recently by a viral essay with a grandiose title: ​“Something Big is Happening.”​ I recently released ​a short video​ in which I conduct a close analysis of this piece. (Spoiler alert: I wasn’t impressed.) ​Check it out.​

(More generally, I’ve been considering starting a separate weekly podcast/newsletter dedicated to providing a reality check on recent AI news. It feels like it might be useful to separate this discussion from my existing podcast and newsletter, which are more focused on how individuals can seek depth in a distracted world. But also, maybe this is a bad idea? I’m interested to hear your thoughts about this plan.)

The post What Do Social Media Companies Fear? Time Management. appeared first on Cal Newport.

The author of the piece, Rose Horowitch, spoke with professors around the country who have begun to complain about this trend. What she learned was disheartening:

“I used to think, if homework is watching a movie, that is the best homework ever,” Craig Erpelding, a film professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, told me. “But students will not do it.”

I heard similar observations from 20 film-studies professors around the country. They told me that over the past decade, and particularly since the pandemic, students have struggled to pay attention to feature-length films.

What’s the source of this attention span crisis? The professors interviewed for Horowitch’s article point to a clear culprit: smartphones.

The founding director of Tufts University’s Film and Media Studies, for example, tried to ban electronics during screenings, but found the rule impossible to enforce. “About half the class ends up looking furtively at their phones,” she said. Meanwhile, a Cinema and Media Studies professor at USC reports that his students remind him of “nicotine addicts going through withdrawal…the longer they go without checking their phone, the more they fidget.”

The mechanism at play here is an ability that reading scholar Maryanne Wolf calls cognitive patience, which is ​defined as​ the “ability to [maintain] focused and sustained attention and delay gratification, while refraining from multitasking.”

The presence of smartphones degrades cognitive patience because they activate neuronal bundles in our brain’s short-term reward system that anticipate a high expected value from picking up the device. These bundles effectively vote for the distracting behavior, creating a cascade of neurochemicals that are experienced as motivation to grab the phone. After a while, due to a lack of practice, you lose your comfort with sustained attention altogether.

It’s no wonder more and more people lack the cognitive patience to make it through a two-hour film!

But as I elaborate on my ​podcast this week​, in this specific problem with movies, we can find a solution to the more general issue of weakened attention. Why not make the ability to watch an entire film a training goal for the attempt to reclaim our brains? Like the new runner working up to completing their first 5k, it’s a milestone that’s challenging, but not too challenging, and therefore a great way to begin an effort toward attention autonomy.

Assuming you take on this goal, what’s the best way to improve your cinematic cognitive patience? Here are my three suggestions:

1. Keep your phone in a different room. This prevents your short-term reward system from firing out of control with distracting impulses.
2. Watch better movies. If you have a meaningful viewing experience, your long-term reward system will more strongly associate movies with lasting benefits, making it easier to delay gratification in the future.
3. To help get through these movies at first, practice the thirty-minute rule. Before you start the movie, read a review or analysis that helps explain why it’s good. Pause the movie every thirty minutes or so to read another review or analysis. This helps reorient your brain toward a perspective of critical appreciation, allowing you to continually find value and avoid the sense of slogging for the sake of slogging.

I appreciate the irony here: I’m suggesting you watch one screen to reduce the distracting impact of another. But it’s become clear to me recently that although many people are fed up with the impact of digital devices on their brains, they don’t know how to push back. Maybe rediscovering the patient joys of movies can be a part of that answer…

In Other News: AI Vibe Reporting

I’m experimenting with including a section like this more often, in which I briefly discuss news relevant to technology, distraction, and the fight for depth.

Judging by the increasing volume of distressed messages I now receive from people I know, the quantity of ​AI vibe reporting​ out there is on the rise. I want to help you navigate this media landscape without becoming unnecessarily worried. With this in mind, let’s tackle a case study. Last week, The Atlantic published a vibe-filled article titled ​“The Worst-Case Future for White-Collar Workers.”​ I want to take a critical look at several quotes from this piece:

• “[T]he labor market for office workers is beginning to shift. Americans with a bachelor’s degree account for a quarter of the unemployed, a record.” Clearly, the intention here is to imply that this trend is caused by AI eliminating knowledge work jobs. But we have no solid evidence that these two issues are related. Indeed, as ​this critique notes​, the decline in jobs for college grads began well before the more recent generative AI revolution.

• “Occupations susceptible to AI automation have seen sharp spikes in joblessness.” This is classic vibe reporting. The author doesn’t directly say that joblessness spikes are due to AI automation – carefully read how she words the sentence – but she clearly wants to imply that it’s true. This implication, however, is not currently supported by the evidence. As I’ve reported, job reductions in the tech sector ​are better explained​ by corrections to over-hiring during the pandemic. Something like this is happening ​in the advertising world​ as well. On Friday, Cade Metz published ​an article​ in the Times that made a similar point.

• “Businesses really are shrinking payroll and cutting costs as they deploy AI.” Another classic vibe reporting technique: this sentence implies the shrinking payroll is due to AI deployments. But in most cases, these are unrelated. Lots of companies are deploying some sort of AI products for their employees. Some of these companies are also shrinking their payroll (especially those that overhired during the pandemic). This doesn’t mean one causes the other. This is the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

• “In recent weeks, Baker McKenzie, a white-shoe law firm, axed 700 employees, Salesforce sacked hundreds of workers, and the auditing firm KPMG negotiated lower fees with its own auditor.” By placing these specific examples of shrinking payroll immediately after discussions of AI automation, the author once again implies, without a direct claim, that these job losses were due to AI. But let’s look closer. Consider Salesforce: They did indeed lay off around 1,000 workers earlier this month, but not because they automated these jobs using AI. It was instead the result of a restructuring aimed at combining their Agentforce and Slack products under a single executive. Here’s how one close observer of the company ​described it​: “Cross-team layoffs like these are not unusual for a company of Salesforce’s size, especially at this time of year, before announcing end-of-fiscal-year earnings.”

What’s actually going on with AI and jobs? Generative AI might very well create broad disruptions in the job market. But we’re not there yet. The first major shift will likely occur in software development, but its magnitude remains unclear. (More on this soon: I’m in the middle of a reporting project in which I’ve now heard from over 300 computer programmers about how they’re currently using AI; tl;dr: it’s complicated!)

In the meantime, however, the actual stories related to AI are important enough on their own. We don’t also need reporters working backward to support trends that they feel like should be true.

(To be clear: The rest of the article is quite good. It explores, more hypothetically, how the government could respond to massive economic disruptions, and it’s written by a journalist who I respect and who knows a lot about that topic. It’s worth reading! Just don’t get freaked out by the vibe reporting in the opening section.)

The post Film Students Can No Longer Sit Through Films appeared first on Cal Newport.

The course launched last week, so you should definitely ​check it out​. It gets to the core of a lot of the topics we tackle in this newsletter about the intersection of technology and productivity, and it’s an incredibly polished final product.

It’s actually this latter point that I want to talk a little bit more about today, as it sparks an interesting question about the future of online media more generally…

One of the most striking things about working with MasterClass is its production values. I’ve been a guest on many major video podcasts (from ​Mel Robbins​ to ​Andrew Huberman​ to ​Rich Roll​). These shows look good. They all have reasonable sets with diffused lights and three-camera setups.

MasterClass, however, operates at another level. They use high-end TV-quality production crews. There’s a director, a cinematographer, and multiple camera operators distinct from the focus pullers, all of whom work with gaffers and grips, supported by production assistants. My make-up artist had recently worked on Sinners.

In my career as a writer, I’ve been on TV before as a guest on morning shows and cable news programs, but this was as close as I’ll ever come to starring in a dramatic series or independent film.

For me, this experience implied an important reality about the current state of visual media: there remains a non-trivial quality gap between independent video (e.g., as produced for YouTube) and legacy video (e.g., as produced for streaming platforms or linear television).

This gap matters.

Because these two categories still look different, we treat them distinctly. We’re willing to pay for access to content on Netflix, but we relegate the next rung down on the quality ladder to ad-supported general-use platforms like YouTube.

But here’s what’s interesting about the near future: that difference is diminishing. MasterClass, for example, is not funded by a streaming service or television studio; however, they achieve streaming/TV-level production values. Other independent video producers are also closing this gap.

This raises a key question: What will happen to video content as the difference between independent and legacy production value vanishes?

We can see a glimpse of this future in a project that fascinates me: ​Dropout TV​ – also stylized online as :Dropout – which can best be described as a comedy streaming service. It costs $6.99 a month, which gains you access to a slate of original unscripted shows all filmed at a quality level indistinguishable from what you would find on, say, Netflix programs like Is it Cake? or Nailed It!.

Except, they’re not Netflix. Dropout TV doesn’t have multi-billion dollar production budgets or massive venture capital backing. It grew out of the early 2000s website ​CollegeHumor.com​. With the rise of YouTube, CollegeHumor turned more attention to producing content for the platform. But they were frustrated by a model that required them to live or die by a third-party algorithm and the whims of advertisers, so they eventually launched their own subscription app.

Today, Dropout boasts over a million subscribers.

I refer to this type of niche subscription service, defined by a combination of legacy-quality programming and a focused audience, as a micro-streamer.

Keep an eye on this market segment. As it becomes easier to produce high-end video, more independent creators will leave the mass-aggregation platforms like YouTube and offer up targeted competition to the major streaming players.

Who knows, maybe one day you’ll even have a Deep Life TV app next to Disney+ on your smart TV. Until then, however, you can get your fill of movie-quality Cal content ​over at MasterClass​.

The post What I Learned from MasterClass appeared first on Cal Newport.

The implication of this framing is clear: AI is taking jobs.

Nothing in the body of this article contradicts this idea. It describes the number of people laid off and the benefits they’ll receive. It quotes executives who won’t deny the possibility of future job losses. It mentions how Amazon is known for its “cutthroat” corporate culture.

You walk away feeling that the impact of AI on our economy is already getting out of hand.

The only problem is that this reporting omits almost all relevant details.

For a more realistic take, let’s turn toward the financial press. CNBC published ​an article​ about these same layoffs featuring a more informative headline:

The article goes on to correctly attribute the layoffs to Amazon’s desire to trim layers of management bureaucracy that built up during the pandemic-era tech hiring boom: “CEO Andy Jassy has looked to slim down Amazon’s workforce after the company went on a hiring spree during the Covid-19 pandemic.”

What role does AI play in all of this? Like many leading companies in the technology sector, Amazon is investing heavily in building its own AI products. Presumably, money is being saved by firing managers, which frees up more revenue to invest in this area. But that’s really it. As the CNBC article elaborates:

“In a blog post, the company wrote that the layoffs were part of an ongoing effort to ‘strengthen our organization by reducing layers, increasing ownership, and removing bureaucracy.’ That coincides with a push to invest heavily in artificial intelligence.” [emphasis mine]

The CNBC article then reports that these massive layoffs actually began for Amazon in 2022 and 2023, following the pandemic, but before ChatGPT was released and the subsequent generative AI revolution began.

Both of these articles cover the same announcement, but they produce two very different impressions. The Quartz article strongly implies that Amazon is firing people because it can now offload their work to AI. (I mean: look at the Andy Jassey quote they included in the sub-head, they clearly wanted readers to believe AI caused these job losses.)

The CNBC article, by contrast, makes it clear that the connection between AI and these layoffs is more coincident than causal.

In recent years, I’ve seen more articles follow the general approach demonstrated by the Quartz example. They identify an alarming,attention-catching fear about AI that seems prevalent in the cultural zeitgeist, and then shape a story to feed the narrative. The key to this vibe reporting strategy is that the articles never make explicit claims. They instead combine cunning omissions and loosely related quotes to make strong implications.

The Quartz article, for example, never concretely states that the 16,000 workers are being replaced with AI; rather, it conveniently avoids mentioning any of the publicly available details about the layoffs that would contradict that idea, and then interleaves quotes about AI’s disruptive potential into the reporting in a highly suggestive manner.

The goal of this type of article is to create a pre-ordained vibe, not to get to the bottom of what’s really happening.

I’m not pointing out this phenomenon to dismiss concerns about AI, but instead because I think this strategy is an obstacle to real action. This type of disingenuous reporting is not going to help us identify the actual problems that require actual solutions. It instead creates a nihilistic sense of inevitable disruption that might drive social media shares, but also numbs people and prevents meaningful responses.

Remember: Nothing about these tools is inevitable, and their impact is far from preordained. We don’t need vibes right now. Reality is too important.

The post The Dangers of “Vibe Reporting” About AI appeared first on Cal Newport.

It starts at 3:52 a.m. with Hall flexing in the mirror as he pulls off a piece of tape covering his mouth (presumably placed the night before to promote nose breathing during sleep).

At 3:54 a.m., he brushes his teeth and gargles water from a fancy bottle.

At 4:00 a.m., he walks onto his balcony to do push-ups. Then he performs some standing meditation.

At 4:40 a.m., Hall journals. At 4:55, he listens to sermons on his phone while continuing to drink from the same water bottle, and at 5:46, he pours the remaining water into a bowl of ice and plunges his face into it.

And so on…

The video continues until 9:26 a.m., when Hall finally eats breakfast. It’s been five and a half hours since he woke up, and now he’s finally ready to start his day.

This Ashton Hall video is obviously extreme. But it’s a good example of a popular type of online content that presents overly-complex routines that promise to deliver you a desirable reward, be it a superhero’s body or a supervillain’s bank account.

Many commentators like to make fun of these influencers, and I get it, as these earnest efforts are out of step with an online culture that tends toward sardonic detachment. (One of the top comments on the Hall video dryly quips: “The last time I stepped on the balcony to do my morning pushups, I noticed I don’t have a balcony. Broke three ribs.”)

But I’ve become worried that a deeper issue lurks. I’m less concerned about what makes these influencers cringe than I am about what makes them popular. This genre seems to work, in part, because the instructions it provides are hard enough that you can believe them capable of delivering real rewards, and yet are also sufficiently tractable that you can imagine yourself following them – a sweet spot that’s compulsively consumable.

This formula essentially hijacks our natural ambition, shifting our attention from the hard, ambiguous, but ultimately satisfying efforts required for true accomplishment toward overwrought prescriptions that waste our time. I’m particularly worried about young people (a popular audience of this content) who might be diverted into these clickbait rabbit holes at a time when they should be seeking genuine mentorship instead.

To help make sense of these issues, I recently sat down to talk with bestselling writer Brad Stulberg, whose fantastic new book, The Way of Excellence: A Guide to True Greatness and Deep Satisfaction in a Chaotic World, comes out tomorrow.

Stulberg is an expert in the field of (actual, measurable) performance. His new book (which 9-time NBA Champion Steve Kerr described as capturing “a lot of what I believe as a coach”) makes the case that embracing a commitment to “genuine excellence” can deliver more meaning than the types of performative efforts popular online.

Here are three useful things I learned from Stulberg, each set up by a quote from his book:

→ “There is no greater illusion than thinking the accomplishment of some goal will change your life.” Genuine excellence is more about craft than rewards. You need to find meaning in the act of trying to improve at something. This satisfaction is more lasting than any isolated achievement.

→ “Caring is cool.” You have to care deeply about what you’re pursuing, meaning it should align with your values and help make you a better person. This is quite different from, say, trying to develop biceps purely to impress girls or buying a fancy car to make your friends jealous.

→ “True discipline is not a chest-thumping, hype-speech giving, performative act of toughness.” Excellence works better when you disconnect. Don’t brag about your accomplishments online. Don’t look for brief hits of hype from emotionally manipulative videos. Instead, take care of your business with a quiet, inward satisfaction.

If you’re worried about the internet hijacking your ambition (or the ambition of someone you care about), then keep these ideas in mind. It’s not enough to dismiss influencers like Ashton Hall; you need to replace what they’re offering with a more compelling alternative. Stulberg’s writing, in my opinion, points the way to one such alternative.

“The real reward is that you become a better version of yourself,” he summarizes toward the end of his book. This might not be as exciting as sticking your face in ice water before sunrise. But it sounds about right to me.

—

It may go without saying that I highly recommend The Way of Excellence. It’s a must-read book that offers a path toward the discipline of mastery, competence, and mattering. Consider buying a copy today. And if you do, fill out this form to obtain some bonus material from Stulberg, including a video master class on the topic and a list of related reading.

The post Is the Internet Hijacking Our Ambition? appeared first on Cal Newport.

At the time, the message was received as a critique of the worst excesses of the academic left and wokeism. But in the aftermath of Coddling, Haidt began to wonder if he had underestimated another possible cause for these concerning mental health trends: smartphones and social media.

In 2019, working in collaboration with the demographer Jean Twenge (who wrote the classic 2017 Atlantic cover story, ​“Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?”​), and researcher Zach Rausch, Haidt began gathering and organizing the fast-growing collection of academic studies on this issue in an ​annotated bibliography​, stored in a public Google Document.

At the time, the standard response from elite journalists and academics about the claim that smartphones harmed kids was to say that the evidence was only correlational and that the results were mixed. (See, for example, this ​smarmy 2020 Times article​, which amplified a small number of papers that Haidt and his collaborators ​later noted were almost willfully disingenuous​ in their research design.) But as Haidt continued to make sense of the relevant literature, he became convinced that these objections were outdated. The data were increasingly pointing toward the conclusion that these devices really were creating major negative impacts.

Haidt began writing about these ideas in The Atlantic. His 2021 piece, ​“The Dangerous Experiment on Teen Girls,” ​forcefully declared that we had transcended the shoulder-shrugging, correlation is not causation phase of the research on this topic, and we could no longer ignore its implications. The sub-head for this essay was blunt: “The preponderance of the evidence suggests that social media is causing real damage to adolescents.” (Around this time, I interviewed Haidt for a New Yorker column I wrote titled,​ “The Questions We’ve Stopped Asking About Teenagers and Social Media: Should They Be Using These Services At All?”​)

In 2024, Haidt assembled all this information into a new book, ​The Anxious Generation​, which became a massive bestseller, moving more than a million copies by the end of its first year, and many more since. As of the day I’m writing this, which is almost two years since the book came out, it remains in the top 20 on the ​Amazon Charts​.

In the aftermath of The Anxious Generation, as new research continues to pour in, and we hear from more​ teenagers​ and parents about their experiences with these devices, and schools (finally) start to ban phones and discover ​massive benefits​, it has become increasingly clear that Haidt was right all along. Last month, even the Times technology reporter Kevin Roose, a longtime skeptic of Haidt’s campaign, ​tweeted​: “I confess I was not totally convinced that the phone bans would work, but early evidence suggests a total Jon Haidt victory.”

All of this history points to an urgent question for our current moment: Given that Haidt was so prescient about the harms of smartphones, what are the technologies that are worrying him now? Presumably, these looming dangers are ones we should take seriously.

To answer this question, I went back to read what Haidt and his collaborators have been writing about in the months following The Anxious Generation’s release. Here, I’d like to highlight three technology trends that seem to be causing them particular concern…

Online Gambling

After a 2018 Supreme Court ​decision​ lifted many long-standing controls on gambling, online versions of this vice, powered through low-friction, attractive smartphone apps, rapidly spread. A July article on Haidt’s ​After Babel​ newsletter, titled ​“Smartphone Gambling is a Disaster,”​ catalogs some truly alarming statistics about how prevalent this activity has become:

• 33% of American men and 22% of American women now have a sports betting account.
• Nearly half of men between the ages of 18 and 49 have these accounts.
• Almost 70% of college students living on campus now bet on sports.
• What about younger kids? A 2022 report found that 60% of high school students had gambled in the last year.

The speed with which this once frowned-upon pastime has spread is truly astonishing. Not surprisingly, it’s accompanied by negative side effects.

• A 2023 study found that 60% of sports bettors who deposited $500 or more per month said they would be unable to pay at least one of their bills or loans.
• Another study, commissioned that same year by the state of New Jersey, found that close to 20% of 18 to 24-year-olds who gamble qualify as having an unhealthy addiction.

The conclusion: Adolescents and young adults should steer clear of online gambling. They’re at high risk for addiction, and the activity will 100% cost them non-trivial amounts of money. (As I learned from a recent ​Michael Lewis podcast series​ on the topic, the online sports betting services will kick you off the platform if you start winning with any consistency. You literally cannot make money over time on these services. If they’re letting you bet, you are, by definition, bad at it.) For parents, this means having frank conversations with your kids about the addictive and financially exploitative nature of these services.

Online Video Games

Another concern of Haidt and his collaborators is the rise in popularity among kids of multiplayer (often free-to-play) games such as Roblox, Minecraft (in online mode), and Fortnite.

As reported in a 2025 After Babel article titled ​“It’s Not Just a Game Anymore,”​ both Minecraft and Fortnite attract roughly 30 million monthly active users (MAU) under the age of 18. Roblox, however, is the major player in this field, attracting an astonishing 305 million MAU under the age of 18 worldwide. Roblox estimates that around 75% of US children between the ages of 9 and 12 are active users of their platform.

Why is this a problem? Because Roblox is a loosely-regulated carnival of terribleness and predation. For those unfamiliar, Roblox is not a single game, but instead a vast collection of virtual worlds created by individual users. There are far too many of these worlds, changing far too fast, to be adequately moderated. Here are just some of the Roblox worlds described by the After Babel article’s authors:

• A game in which you’re trained to hide a body after a murder.
• A simulation of a concentration camp where users carry Nazi flags.
• A classroom in which teachers have sex with students.
• A simulation of killing children in an elementary school classroom with an AK-47.

In 2023, Roblox reported over 13,000 instances of child exploitation, leading to over 1,300 law enforcement requests.

Online Minecraft and Fortnite feature more controlled virtual environments, but here, the problem lies with third-party chat. Often, without their less tech-savvy parents being aware, young players of these games install mods that allow them to make use of third-party chat software such as Discord. The result is an unregulated and often anonymous virtual locker room of sorts in which horrible things may unfold. Here’s how the article’s authors summarize what goes on in these chats:

“In these unfiltered and unregulated spaces, adults contact children and extreme content can flow freely: bestiality, violent porn, animal abuse, self-harm, stabbings, and an array of extreme ideologies to name a few.”

Indeed, many of the memes referenced by Tyler Robinson, the accused murderer of Charlie Kirk, ​are popular​ in the video game Discord chats where Robinson reportedly spent a large amount of time.

These issues are not rare. A survey of adolescent gamers cited in the article found that 51% had encountered extremist content, while 10% of girls had been directly sent sexually explicit content while playing.

And all of this isn’t even taking into consideration the addictive nature of these games and the massive amount of time they consume. Over 40% of boys report that gaming is hurting their sleep, while a 2022 study found that 15.4% of adolescent males who play these games meet the criteria for Internet Gaming Disorder.

The conclusion: Kids and adolescents should not play multiplayer video games with people whom they don’t know. Period. Keep in mind, if you’ve given your kid an iPad or a video game player on which you haven’t specifically activated internet restrictions, then, spoiler alert: they’re not innocently playing Angry Birds; they’re almost certainly involved in these games and all the harms that accompany them.

Chatbots

The final technology concern I’ll discuss is also one of the most recent: kids and adolescents having unsupervised conversations with AI-powered chatbots.

As explained in an After Babel article from November, co-authored by Haidt, and bluntly titled ​“Don’t Give Your Child Any AI Companions,”​ the use of these tools is rapidly rising among young people. A 2025 survey found that 72% of US teens have used an AI companion at least once, and more than half use them multiple times a month.

Why should we care? Here’s Haidt:

“Early research, journalistic investigations, and internal documents show that these AI systems are already engaging in sexualized interactions with children and offering inappropriate or dangerous advice, including sycophantically encouraging young people who are considering suicide to proceed. As ChatGPT put it in one young man’s final conversation with it: ‘Cold steel pressed against a mind that’s already made peace? That’s not fear. That’s clarity.’”

As of this fall, OpenAI is already facing​ eight different wrongful death​ lawsuits involving advice given by ChatGPT. The volume of these cases is likely to skyrocket in the near future.

What about younger kids? They’re being exposed to chatbot companions indirectly through a growing number of toys that utilize chatbots to have conversations with their owners. As you might imagine, this isn’t going well.

​A recent study ​of three new AI-powered toys found that they can easily veer into dangerous conversation territory. In the study, the toys provided advice on where to find knives in the kitchen and how to start a fire with matches. They even engaged in explicit discussions about sex positions and fetishes.

The conclusion: Do not let kids or teens use chatbots without supervision. Think of it as similar to letting them have an unsupervised conversation with a random drunk at the end of the bar. It might be harmless, but there’s a good chance the interaction will head to dark places.

(There’s a misguided notion out there that kids need to be using tools like ChatGPT so that they’ll be prepared for the “AI-powered future.” This is overstated. The technology is moving so fast that whatever form of AI your kids will eventually encounter in the workforce will likely look and operate nothing like circa-2026 chatbots. Also, these existing tools are dead simple to use. Your kids will figure them out in roughly 19 seconds if/when they’re in a professional circumstance that requires this.)

The post What’s Worrying Jonathan Haidt Now? appeared first on Cal Newport.

As Cherny explained, he runs five different instances of the coding agent at the same time, each in its own tab in his terminal: ‘While one agent runs a test suite, another refactors a legacy module, and a third drafts documentation.’ He cycles rapidly through these tabs, providing further instruction or gentle prods to each agent as needed, checking their work, and sending them back to improve their output.

One user, responding to the thread, ​described the approach​ like playing the famously fast-paced video game Starcraft. The VentureBeat article described Cherny as operating like a “fleet commander.” It all seemed like a lot of fun.

But here’s the thing: If I were a software developer, I would be wary of any such demonstration.

In his 1974 book, ​Labor and Monopoly Capital​, the influential Marxist political economist Harry Braverman argued that the expanding “science-technical revolution” was being exploited by companies to increasingly “deskill” workers; to leave them in “ignorance, incapacity, and thus in fitness for machine servitude.” The more employees outsource skilled activity to machines, the more controllable they become.

It’s hard not to hear echoes of Braverman’s deskilling argument in something like Cherny’s AI programming demo. A world in which software development is reduced to the ersatz management of energetic but messy digital agents is a world in which a once important economic sector is stripped down to fewer, more poorly paid jobs, as wrangling agents requires much less skill than producing elegant code from scratch. The consumer would fare no better, as the resulting software would be less stable and innovation would slow.

The only group that would unambiguously benefit from deskilling developers would be the technology companies themselves, which could minimize one of their biggest expenses: their employees.

Boris Cherny is a senior technical lead at Anthropic who manages a large team and likely owns a significant amount of stock options in the company. Of course, he’s excited about the idea of agents replacing programmers, but that doesn’t mean we have to share his enthusiasm.

—

P.S., I don’t mean to deny the value of AI tools for programmers. I’ve talked to many developers who have found great utility in using AI to help (​apparently​) speed up programming tasks. What makes me suspicious is the claim that shifting to a world in which you just assign agents work is somehow just the natural next step in programming productivity. It might seem cool in the moment, but something more profound and dark might be lurking beneath these gee-whiz demos.

The post Be Wary of Digital Deskilling appeared first on Cal Newport.

These claims mattered. A chatbot can summarize text or directly answer questions, but in theory, an agent can tackle much more complicated tasks that require multiple steps and decisions along the way. When Altman talked about these systems joining the workforce, he meant it. He envisioned a world in which you assign projects to an agent in the same way you might to a human employee. The often-predicted future in which AI dominates our lives requires something like agent technology to be realized.

The industry had reason to be optimistic that 2025 would prove pivotal. In previous years, AI agents like Claude Code and OpenAI’s Codex had become impressively adept at tackling multi-step computer programming problems. It seemed natural that this same skill might easily generalize to other types of tasks. Mark Benioff, CEO of Salesforce, became so enthusiastic about these possibilities that early in 2025, he claimed that AI agents would imminently unleash a ​“digital labor revolution”​ worth trillions of dollars.

But here’s the thing: none of that ended up happening.

As I report in my most recent New Yorker article, titled ​“Why A.I. Didn’t Transform Our Lives in 2025,”​ AI agents failed to live up to their hype. We didn’t end up with the equivalent of Claude Code or Codex for other types of work. And the products that were released, such as ChatGPT Agent, fell laughably short of being ready to take over major parts of our jobs. (In one example I cite in my article, ChatGPT Agent spends fourteen minutes futilely trying to select a value from a drop-down menu on a real estate website.)

Silicon Valley skeptic Gary Marcus told me that the underlying technology powering these agents – the same large language models used by chatbots – would never be capable of delivering on these promises. “They’re building clumsy tools on top of clumsy tools,” he said. OpenAI co-founder Andrej Karpathy implicitly agreed when he said, during ​a recent appearance on the Dwarkesh Podcast​, that there had been “overpredictions going on in the industry,” before then adding: “In my mind, this is really a lot more accurately described as the Decade of the Agent.”

Which is all to say, we actually don’t know how to build the digital employees that we were told would start arriving in 2025.

To find out more about why 2025 failed to become the Year of the AI Agent, I recommend reading ​my full New Yorker piece​. But for now, I want to emphasize a broader point: I’m hoping 2026 will be the year we stop caring about what people believe AI might do, and instead start reacting to its real, present capabilities.

For example, last week, Sal Khan wrote ​a New York Times op-ed​ in which he said, “I believe artificial intelligence will displace workers at a scale many people don’t yet realize.” The standard reaction would be to fret about this scary possibility. But what if we instead responded: says who? The actual examples Khan provides, which include someone telling him that A.I. agents are “capable” of replacing 80% of his call center employees, or Waymo’s incredibly slow and costly process of hand-mapping cities to deploy self-driving cars, are hardly harbingers of general economic devastation.

So, this is how I’m thinking about AI in 2026. Enough of the predictions. I’m done reacting to hypotheticals propped up by vibes. The impacts of the technologies that already exist are already more than enough to concern us for now…

The post Why Didn’t AI “Join the Workforce” in 2025? appeared first on Cal Newport.