The core rule of question solvers in the AI era: whether you are letting AI replace output or forcing it to output determines the value of the tool Yesterday we talked about using AI to assist learning, and someone in the comment section said that I am a 'problem solver'. Indeed, I have been using it to test my IELTS recently ， But this is just one of the usage scenarios for interactive cognition I just saw Mr. Shenyu mention that 'long-term use of AI will weaken cognition and memory', which is actually very consistent with my naive understanding of the human brain. When humans attempt to outsource all the tasks of memory, analysis, and even judgment to AI, brain inactivity and atrophy are inevitable In fact, tool backlash objectively exists from calculators to search engines, and any tool aimed at lowering cognitive barriers will degrade those who overly rely on it. However, the tool itself is neutral, and its danger lies in providing users with the illusion of omnipotence. If you treat AI as a nanny for ghostwriting and watching, your brain will be lost like muscles in a long-term weightless environment; But if you treat it as a training companion, it's your exoskeleton The cognitive laws of the human brain: Input (reading/listening) is extremely cheap and deceptive, and the real moat lies in output (active extraction). The reason why I advocate turning AI into a 1v1 tutor is precisely because it perfectly runs this circuit: -NotebookLM and similar tools are responsible for structured input, noise reduction, internalization, and traceability, washing a 1-hour lesson into notes that can be read in 5 minutes to ensure high signal-to-noise ratio storage -Gemini is responsible for high-voltage forced output, generating interactive tests based on organized logic, and completing real-time extraction circuits. Transform rigid static notes into 1v1 dynamic practical exercises This perfectly conforms to the objective cognitive laws of the human brain. This can certainly be used for exams, but any other learning, even for sorting out the industry chain of various industries in the secondary market, and for any learning that requires paper work, is effective. Do AI people no longer need to learn? I don't think so Others use AI to replace the brain, while I use AI to upgrade the brain. If we use diode thinking in the form of interactive tests and label this deliberate practice that follows the laws of neuroscience and objective memory as a 'test taker', it is a pity that those who believe AI can replace everything