As a founder, here's the shift I've watched take hold over the last year. My partner
@JeremyAuger of
@lucid_vc calls it the cognitive load inversion and it looks a bit like this:
For decades the deal was simple. Whoever made the thing carried the work: research it, write it, edit it, then send it up for a skim. Our org charts and pay bands still assume that's how it runs.
AI flipped it. One prompt now does the research, the draft, the design in minutes. The person who asked absorbs almost none of the load, and the work reaches a reviewer before any human has read it, the author included.
The load didn't disappear. It moved downstream. A production bottleneck became evaluation overload, and the reviewer, usually the senior, higher-paid person, is now the first real set of eyes. Push a question back to the author and they often can't answer it. They never engaged with the material.
This isn't lazy colleagues. It's structural. Staffing a senior person to review is working as designed. The problem is what they review now: instead of pressure-testing finished thinking, they supply the judgment that was never applied, doing the junior person's job on top of their own.
Then the trust tax hits. The moment a reviewer suspects a model wrote it, collaboration turns into audit. Verify, correct, or send it back. AI promised to remove effort and instead relocated it, with suspicion stacked on top.
Jeremy's fix, in order of leverage:
Make authorship mean something. You send it, you own it: read it, can defend it. AI drafts, a human underwrites.
Protect how judgment gets built. Senior people review well because they spent years in the reps. Let AI absorb that work and the next generation never builds the instinct, and the people who can actually review run dry.
"AI made words cheap and left the price of judgment exactly where it was. The bill goes to the reviewer."
READ THE POST HERE:
lucidventures.substack.com/p…