The Forklift and the Fundamentals: AI, Guidance, and Learning
January 16, 2026
In her recent blog post, Eliana Nodari examines the role of artificial intelligence in education through Ted Chiang’s metaphor of AI as a “forklift in the weight room.” Her central concern is not that AI exists, but that it may allow students to bypass the mental effort required for genuine learning. According to Nodari, the process of writing itself is a form of intellectual training; outsourcing any portion of that process risks weakening the development of critical thinking skills.
“Writing is thinking. If we outsource that thinking to AI, we risk losing the struggle that actually helps ideas form.” — Eliana Nodari
Nodari emphasizes that writing is not merely a way to display knowledge, but the process through which knowledge is created. If AI performs the challenging parts of writing—choosing words, structuring sentences, maintaining flow—students may produce polished work without ever developing the cognitive and analytical skills that writing is meant to teach. Her concern highlights the educational value of effort, reflection, and sustained engagement with ideas.
Why This Concern Matters
Nodari’s critique is especially persuasive in a Gen Z media environment characterized by speed, multitasking, and constant consumption. Students today are immersed in content that is immediate and polished—social media posts, TikToks, or short-form articles dominate attention spans. In this context, AI-generated writing can easily blend in, giving the appearance of understanding without actual engagement. Nodari’s warning reminds us that fluency without comprehension is not learning; polished output is only meaningful if it reflects genuine thought.
I agree with Nodari that AI used with no thinking is not educational. If a student simply copies AI output, learning is effectively bypassed. However, her argument also assumes that all AI assistance inherently undermines education. I want to extend her claim by exploring how AI can be used thoughtfully as guidance, scaffolding, and a tool to cultivate curiosity.
When AI Becomes Guidance, Not a Shortcut
Many students do not turn to AI because they want to avoid effort; they turn to it because they are uncertain or lack the foundational knowledge to begin. In these situations, AI can function less as a shortcut and more as a guide—prompting questions, clarifying confusion, and supporting the development of critical skills. A student struggling to frame an argument or identify evidence can use AI to explore possibilities and learn the mechanics of writing while still engaging mentally with the ideas themselves.
Ethan Mollick, a professor at the Wharton School, makes this distinction clear in his book Co-Intelligence. He argues that AI becomes harmful when it replaces thinking students could perform themselves. However, when students are still learning, AI can act as a tutor: helping them test ideas, explore alternatives, and gain feedback while remaining intellectually engaged.
“The danger is not using AI to help you think, but using AI instead of thinking.” — Ethan Mollick, Co-Intelligence
This perspective refines the forklift metaphor. Using a forklift to lift for someone else entirely prevents growth. But using it to teach proper form, demonstrate technique, or safely engage with the “weights” before strength develops can foster understanding and build foundational skills. In the classroom, AI can function in the same way: supporting students to understand concepts before they are ready to independently manipulate them.
Curiosity and Learning in a Media-Saturated World
The distinction between harmful and productive AI use is particularly important given how Gen Z interacts with information. Students have grown up in an environment dominated by rapid media consumption. Attention is fragmented, and instant answers are expected. In this context, AI can either reinforce passive consumption or encourage active learning. When students use AI to ask questions, test ideas, or explore material they do not yet understand, it becomes a tool that cultivates curiosity and supports learning rather than replacing effort.
Intent is the key factor. If AI merely supplies answers that students could already generate, it undermines thinking. But when used to explore, question, and experiment, AI can help students build the mental “muscles” required for deeper understanding. The cognitive work shifts from mechanical drafting to strategic problem-solving, pattern recognition, and evaluative thinking— all of which are essential for long-term intellectual development.
Balancing Struggle and Support
The challenge, then, is balancing productive struggle with guided learning. Nodari rightly emphasizes that thinking must happen in the act of writing itself; students cannot learn purely through observation or copying. However, providing structured guidance through AI allows learners to safely engage with material beyond their current level of expertise. In other words, support and challenge are not mutually exclusive—they can coexist in ways that promote growth.
Just as athletes use equipment to learn proper form before lifting heavy weights, students can use AI to explore frameworks, clarify ideas, and practice fundamentals before independently generating polished writing. In both cases, the tool becomes a scaffold, not a replacement.
Conclusion
Eliana Nodari’s caution about AI removing effort from learning is valid and essential. Writing should remain a space where thinking occurs, reflection matters, and ideas are wrestled with. At the same time, thoughtful use of AI can provide guidance, foster curiosity, and support students as they develop foundational skills necessary for independent critical thinking.
The central question is not whether students use the forklift, but whether they are learning how to lift. When AI is used intentionally to support exploration and learning, it can serve as an educational tool rather than an intellectual shortcut. By framing AI as guidance rather than a replacement, students can cultivate curiosity, engage deeply with ideas, and develop the higher-order thinking skills that Nodari and other scholars value.
References
Mollick, E. (2024). Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI. Portfolio.