In an era where AI-generated text, emails, and even art flood our daily lives, the re-emergence of a clip from an old Lex Fridman Podcast featuring renowned psychologist and neuroscientist Charan Ranganath has reignited public discourse. The viral video doesn’t warn of a robot apocalypse or AI taking over jobs. Instead, it poses a more chilling reflection: What if the real danger of AI is not what it does—but what we allow ourselves to become because of it?
Ranganath, a professor at the University of California, Davis, and director of the Dynamic Memory Lab, is known for his groundbreaking work in memory, brain imaging, and cognitive neuroscience. But it was his candid observation in this resurfaced clip that has captured fresh attention: "One of my fears about AI is not what AI will do, but what people will do."
The Autocomplete Problem: Convenience at the Cost of Expression
In the conversation, Ranganath recalls his own experience with email autocomplete—a tool designed to save time and streamline communication. What he noticed, however, was not efficiency, but a quiet erosion of intentional thought.
"About a third of the time, it wasn’t what I wanted to say. A third of the time, it was exactly what I wanted to say. And a third of the time, I said, ‘Well, this is good enough. I’ll just go with it.’” Over time, he observed, he was no longer shaping his own messages. The machine was subtly shaping them for him—and he was letting it.
That, according to Ranganath, is where the real concern lies. Not in AI's capacity to replace human thinking, but in our tendency to surrender to its conveniences without critical reflection.
Maladaptive Adaptation: A Human Problem
Ranganath argues that much of the dysfunction emerging from modern tech isn't due to the technology itself, but rather how humans adapt to it—often in maladaptive, counterproductive ways. Citing text messaging as an example, he notes how communication has become “Spartan and devoid of meaning,” stripped down to efficiency over emotion. It’s not that the technology failed us—it’s that we reshaped ourselves to fit it.
He illustrates this point further with a simple but symbolic image: the dome-shaped keys on a keyboard. “You’ve adapted to that to communicate. That’s not the technology adapting to you. It’s you adapting to the technology.”
What Are We Really Losing?
The larger question looming behind Ranganath’s concerns is: What are we sacrificing at the altar of convenience? Expression? Originality? Thoughtfulness? If our minds begin to mirror the predictive models of autocomplete or become passive consumers of pre-packaged prompts, what happens to creativity, empathy, and critical thinking?
Ranganath, who is also a published author and musician, understands the beauty of human nuance. His book Why We Remember delves into the architecture of memory and the neural networks that allow us to hold on to our past. Ironically, it may be our increasing reliance on AI to “remember” for us—recommend songs, suggest replies, autofill memories—that weakens these very systems.
An Echoing Warning in the Age of Generative AI
With tools like ChatGPT, Midjourney, and AI voice generators now mainstream, Ranganath’s decade-old remarks hit harder than ever. The question is not whether AI is dangerous—but whether our behavior around AI is becoming too complacent, too unquestioning, too automated.
His words urge a pause, a moment of reflection. Are we adapting to machines in ways that enrich our lives—or in ways that chip away at our humanity?
As the clip circulates again and inspires conversation, one thing is clear: the psychology of how we use AI may be more important than the technology itself. The machines may be learning fast—but it's up to us to decide whether we’ll keep thinking for ourselves.
Ranganath, a professor at the University of California, Davis, and director of the Dynamic Memory Lab, is known for his groundbreaking work in memory, brain imaging, and cognitive neuroscience. But it was his candid observation in this resurfaced clip that has captured fresh attention: "One of my fears about AI is not what AI will do, but what people will do."
The Autocomplete Problem: Convenience at the Cost of Expression
In the conversation, Ranganath recalls his own experience with email autocomplete—a tool designed to save time and streamline communication. What he noticed, however, was not efficiency, but a quiet erosion of intentional thought.
"About a third of the time, it wasn’t what I wanted to say. A third of the time, it was exactly what I wanted to say. And a third of the time, I said, ‘Well, this is good enough. I’ll just go with it.’” Over time, he observed, he was no longer shaping his own messages. The machine was subtly shaping them for him—and he was letting it.
That, according to Ranganath, is where the real concern lies. Not in AI's capacity to replace human thinking, but in our tendency to surrender to its conveniences without critical reflection.
Maladaptive Adaptation: A Human Problem
Ranganath argues that much of the dysfunction emerging from modern tech isn't due to the technology itself, but rather how humans adapt to it—often in maladaptive, counterproductive ways. Citing text messaging as an example, he notes how communication has become “Spartan and devoid of meaning,” stripped down to efficiency over emotion. It’s not that the technology failed us—it’s that we reshaped ourselves to fit it.
He illustrates this point further with a simple but symbolic image: the dome-shaped keys on a keyboard. “You’ve adapted to that to communicate. That’s not the technology adapting to you. It’s you adapting to the technology.”
What Are We Really Losing?
The larger question looming behind Ranganath’s concerns is: What are we sacrificing at the altar of convenience? Expression? Originality? Thoughtfulness? If our minds begin to mirror the predictive models of autocomplete or become passive consumers of pre-packaged prompts, what happens to creativity, empathy, and critical thinking?
Ranganath, who is also a published author and musician, understands the beauty of human nuance. His book Why We Remember delves into the architecture of memory and the neural networks that allow us to hold on to our past. Ironically, it may be our increasing reliance on AI to “remember” for us—recommend songs, suggest replies, autofill memories—that weakens these very systems.
An Echoing Warning in the Age of Generative AI
With tools like ChatGPT, Midjourney, and AI voice generators now mainstream, Ranganath’s decade-old remarks hit harder than ever. The question is not whether AI is dangerous—but whether our behavior around AI is becoming too complacent, too unquestioning, too automated.
His words urge a pause, a moment of reflection. Are we adapting to machines in ways that enrich our lives—or in ways that chip away at our humanity?
As the clip circulates again and inspires conversation, one thing is clear: the psychology of how we use AI may be more important than the technology itself. The machines may be learning fast—but it's up to us to decide whether we’ll keep thinking for ourselves.
You may also like
Michael J Fox to make huge TV comeback in first role after devastating health battle
King Charles's heartbreaking plea to Prince William over 'mistake' in royal first
Arsenal set for huge £175m Viktor Gyokeres transfer boost as Andrea Berta handed summer war chest
Gogglebox star Pete Sandiford's 'real age' leaves fans stunned as they say he 'looks 18'
Emmerdale's Mack framed as sad death teased - but John's downfall 'sealed'
