Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critiques the evolving role of learning in the context of advanced AI systems that can autonomously produce outputs traditionally associated with human competence. It argues for a framework of post-instrumental learning that emphasizes the preservation of essential human capacities—such as end-setting and contestability—amidst the delegation of tasks to AI. The authors highlight the risk of "capacity dissolution," where reliance on AI diminishes individuals' ability to engage meaningfully with the learning process and the outputs generated by these systems.
As AI takes over more tasks, the erosion of critical human capacities poses a profound risk to our understanding of learning and accountability.
As AI systems become capable of producing the essays, code, reports, summaries, plans, and decisions through which institutions usually recognize competence, a familiar question becomes harder to answer: what is learning for? Existing AI ethics rightly emphasizes present failures--bias, opacity, hallucination, labor extraction, privacy risk, and weak accountability. But if the case for learning rests only on those failures, then each technical improvement appears to weaken it. This article develops a different answer. Using the idealization of AI that executes specified tasks flawlessly while lacking authority over purposes, legitimacy, and responsibility, we argue for post-instrumental learning: learning that preserves the capacities people and institutions need when many useful outputs can be delegated. We analyze five such capacities--end-setting, reason-giving, contestability, refusal/revision, and participation--and name their erosion capacity dissolution. The central case is assessment under generative AI. When a polished artifact no longer reliably evidences understanding, institutions must assess the learner's accountable relation to AI-mediated work rather than the artifact alone. The takeaway is practical: AI governance should evaluate not only whether systems perform well, but also whether their deployment leaves people able to understand, challenge, revise, and share responsibility for the practices those systems mediate.