One of humanity’s most remarkable cultural achievements is the division of explanatory labor. When my daughter came down with a fever, I solved the problem by consulting a pediatrician, who shared a likely diagnosis of the flu. Unlike the doctor, I wasn’t able to tell my daughter much about the mechanism by which the flu leads to fever, or exactly why it was so important for her to keep drinking fluids. But the explanation I acquired—roughly “fever because flu”—was what was needed to treat her.

Society runs on this efficient type of information sharing. Just as coordinating specialized skills can streamline the fabrication of products—be it pins or cars or newspapers—coordinating specialized knowledge can facilitate the answering of questions. You can drive a car even if you don’t have the expertise to manufacture one yourself, and I benefited from the pediatrician’s explanation even though his understanding far exceeded my own.

“Who Has Expertise in the AI Age?” Tania Lombrozo. 2026 October 3. The Atlantic.

I wondered about the universality of this. I suspect how much someone trusts external expertise depends on Openness to Experience.

This trait reflects a person’s level of imagination, curiosity, intellectual depth, and preference for variety. Individuals scoring high enjoy novelty, abstract thinking, and art, while those scoring low prefer routine, tradition, and practicality.

Going through a rural school, I knew lots of people who distrusted both doctors and mechanics unless they were part of the in-group. A family member, a trusted friend, or someone who those vouched for. Loyalty mattered more than expertise.

These are people who refuse to get a flu vaccine because no one in their trusted circle mandated it.

Fox News, Newsmax, Info Wars, Steve Bannon are their places for news because they cultivate a relationship over accuracy.  It’s about the feeling. Trump is their president because of the feeling. Not because he has or will do what’s good for them. The justification comes after the intention.

Exporting expertise to AI without due diligence is what’s already done. Obey the first Google result with a click bait title. Trust the soybean farmer about whether that weird spot on your skin is cancer.

The trouble arises when our connections to other minds become a little too seamless, and we start to lose track of where our own understanding ends and another’s begins. When we receive an explanation from an expert—such as “fever because flu”—we might mistakenly conclude that we’ve learned more than we really have.

I personally read a ton of news about science and tech from various feeds whether RSS or social media. At least a half dozen a day plus another dozen I skim enough to get the gist. I then regurgitate that stuff in conversations. It’s why it bothers me when people call me intelligent. I’m just a parrot without understanding this stuff.

The worry is AI does the same as I do: parrot stuff without understanding, which leads society astray. How much damage have I done to society by spouting stuff and people listened? Multiply that by billions and there’s the risk.