1. The mood of 2026, and why it feels like a real transition
I think a lot of us can feel the hinge in the air right now. It is not just that AI is impressive. It is that AI is beginning to occupy the exact psychological territory that used to define adulthood for “idea people,” namely the feeling that you can still push the frontier with your own mind.
In my own case, two things made this visceral.
First, I used GPT-5.2 while helping a lawyer friend assemble an expert witness report. Watching it juggle dozens of constraints at once, legal posture, evidentiary tone, the internal logic of arguments, the “what will a judge do with this” realism, and still maintain coherence, felt like a qualitative shift. It did not feel like autocomplete. It felt like a high bandwidth cognitive partner that could hold a sprawling structure in working memory and keep it stable while iterating.
Second, I watched the “Erdős problems” discussion, where AI is solving long contemplated mathematical problems. At present over half a dozen Erdős Problems, including #728, have been marked as solved with AI in the last month alone. 
You can argue about how “new” these results are, and people are arguing about it. That argument is part of the point. Even when the novelty is contested, the system’s ability to navigate, generate, formalize, and verify is already altering the topology of intellectual life.
This is the backdrop for two terms that I think name what a lot of us are feeling.
2. Frontier Disenfranchisement
Frontier Disenfranchisement is the objective shift: the domain where individual human cognition can reliably generate frontier-level novelty is shrinking, not because humans are worsening, but because the machine frontier is moving faster than we can run.
A subtlety matters here. It is easy to caricature this as “humans will never have original ideas again.” I do not think it has to be absolute to be real. If the probability that a human idea is both new and important collapses, the lived experience is still a loss of franchise, even if rare exceptions remain.
In my earlier writing, I framed this as the approach of a “Final Library,” a repository of machine-generated insights and conceptual expansions so large that humans cannot even navigate it directly. The key idea was not that the space of ideas is finite, but that the subset “reachable by human minds” is small and will be exhaustively explored by machines that can search, combine, evaluate, and elaborate at industrial scale. Of course this is years away, but it is clearly coming. 
That is what “frontier disenfranchisement” feels like from the inside. It is standing at the boundary while the map expands beyond the range of your legs.
3. Epistemic Infantilization
Epistemic Infantilization is the psychological risk that follows from the asymmetry. A child depends on adults to explain the world, to resolve confusion, and to tell them what is real. A post-frontier human can begin to relate to knowledge in a similar posture: dependent on an authority whose reasoning you cannot fully reconstruct.
This is not about intelligence in the abstract. It is about power in the epistemic relationship.
The system can produce reasons faster than you can check them. The system can cite literatures you did not know existed. The system can generate proofs and formal verifications you cannot personally audit end-to-end.
6. Why the transition can feel infantilizing, even when it is not “bad”
There are at least three reasons the transition feels infantilizing even when it is not necessarily dystopian.
First, it reorganizes the adult sense of agency. A scientist wants to be a causal node in the growth of knowledge, not merely a consumer of it.
Second, it creates dependency. If you cannot independently re-derive the reasons, you are structurally dependent on an epistemic authority.
Third, it compresses the dignity of effort. When the machine can generate hundreds of plausible research programs in the time it takes you to write one careful page, your effort can begin to feel like a child’s drawing next to a printing press. That feeling can be corrosive, even if it is not philosophically fair.
7. The hopeful part, retirement from the compulsion to be original
And yet, I do not actually experience this only as a loss. I experience it partly as relief.
There is a kind of lifelong anxiety that comes with trying to generate scientific ideas under scarcity. Scarcity of time, scarcity of attention, scarcity of cognitive bandwidth, and scarcity of “good questions.” If the world is moving toward cognitive abundance, then one obvious human response is to stop treating originality as a moral obligation.
This is where the retirement analogy lands for me. Retirement is not infantilizing when it is chosen. It is a transition out of constant performance pressure. It can make room for a different kind of life, one that is less about proving yourself and more about witnessing, learning, and enjoying the unfolding of reality.
In the second half of my life, I can imagine it being genuinely nice to become more of a spectator. Not an ignorant spectator, but a liberated one.
One thing I keep wanting to say, to myself and to other people, is that now is the time to take your shots. If Frontier Disenfranchisement is real, then we are living in the last interval where a human thinker can still plausibly throw an idea into the world that is both meaningfully novel and meaningfully theirs. That sounds dramatic, but it is really just a sober inference from the trajectory. Once automated discovery becomes routine, the frontier stops feeling like a place where individual human cognition can matter on its own terms, and the reward structure around being “first” collapses into a kind of background noise.
I do not mean this as a plea for everyone to become “original” in the heroic sense. I mean it in a simpler sense. We are at a unique point in time where a human can still seed the future, and those seeds will soon be harvested and evaluated at machine speed. In that world, the most valuable thing you can do in the closing window is to externalize what you actually think, while you can still feel the contours of your own ignorance and the edges of the unknown. Because once the Final Library begins to feel complete, the temptation will be to stop trying. And the tragedy would not be that AI surpassed us. The tragedy would be that we voluntarily went quiet right at the moment when it was still possible to leave intellectual fingerprints on the handoff.
In practice, there will not be one Final Library. There will be multiple synthetic canons, built by competing organizations, each generating an overwhelming volume of synthetic writing, synthetic data, and synthetic hypotheses. The result is not only cognitive abundance but epistemic fragmentation. Much of what matters will be siloed behind proprietary walls, policy constraints, security restrictions, and economic gates. The public will not be able to reference a single shared corpus, and even experts will struggle to audit claims whose supporting proofs, datasets, or toolchains remain private. This multiplies the risk of Epistemic Infantilization, because dependence is no longer just on machine intelligence, but on institutional access.
9. Closing
I think we are living through a transition that is both exhilarating and structurally humiliating. It is humiliating because it threatens the adult identity of the thinker. It is exhilarating because it promises a world where discovery becomes a constant feature of life, not an occasional miracle.
Frontier Disenfranchisement names the external shift. Epistemic Infantilization names the internal risk. The hopeful path is to accept the handoff of means while insisting, personally and culturally, on adulthood in the realm of ends.
Let us not give up. Let us adapt to abundance without surrendering authorship over meaning.
Iterated Insights 
Leave a comment