AI: Amplifier of Cognitive Overload in Modern Work

In today's professional world, organizational overload has become so pervasive that few people question it. This overload, characterized by an incessant flow of tasks and unexpected demands, is now perceived as the norm. Individuals adapt by developing defense mechanisms, and this constant pressure simply becomes the reality of work.

The introduction of AI in this context has not changed the game. On the contrary, it seems to reinforce this pattern. AI users do not question the health or relevance of this cognitive overload. Instead, they leverage these tools to navigate an already saturated environment. Success is measured by the ability to manage an increasingly complex context and juggle a growing number of tasks, fueled by the satisfaction of making progress in this apparent chaos.

New technologies, like AI, rarely disrupt existing paradigms. They tend to reinforce the systems in place, even if they claim to disrupt them. As Tressie McMillan Cottom explains, systems that promise to fix dysfunctions often end up reproducing the same underlying dynamics. Leaders talk about "AI-izing" all aspects of work, but without fundamentally changing how power and decisions circulate within organizations. Critics focus on middle management and efficiency gains, but the fundamental structures remain unchanged.

Over time, this overload becomes an integral part of professional identity. Being effective at work now means being able to manage the noise, juggle competing inputs, and stay afloat in chaos. This dynamic is internalized, and tools like AI amplify this system by facilitating the management of overload, which further raises expectations.

Herbert Simon pointed out that "a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention." Organizations develop "defensive routines" to protect the status quo, as Chris Argyris observed. Byung-Chul Han describes how this external pressure becomes internalized, transforming competence into the ability to manage more, respond faster, and process more context. Feedback loops reward this behavior, and it becomes part of professional identity.

AI, instead of serving as a catalyst for deeper efficiency, is used to cope with a reality that we have largely created. We have always normalized overload and built systems to support it. What is new is that AI amplifies this pattern while giving the impression that we are finally mastering it. Work expands to fill the available space, and so does the context. In this maximalist phase of the AI craze, resisting this expansion is part of the challenge.

People are starting to argue that this constant "soup" of inputs, interruptions, and competing demands is actually necessary. They claim it fuels innovation, keeps people sharp, and that without it, progress would slow down. What begins as an adaptation transforms into justification. The very conditions that make thoughtful work more difficult are redefined as the reason why good work occurs.

One strange outcome is that when you operate with calm, determined efficiency, and true focus, it can feel uncomfortable. It gives the impression that something should be happening. It seems to lack something. Overload becomes so normalized and even celebrated that suggesting doing less, or processing less, starts to feel almost heretical.

In Han's framework, the mechanism is that external pressure becomes internalized. People begin to define competence as the ability to manage more, respond faster, and process more context. Feedback loops reward this behavior, and over time, it becomes part of identity. Tools like AI then amplify the system by facilitating the management of overload, which further raises expectations. The result is that people not only endure the overload, they actively support it, and stepping away from it starts to feel uncomfortable, even wrong.

What I observe is that instead of viewing new technology as a catalyst for being more efficient at a deeper level, we assume that things are (and will remain) as they are. Then we use technology to help us cope with a reality that we have largely created. We have always done this. We adapt to overload, normalize it, and build systems that support it. What is new is that AI gives us a tool that can amplify the pattern while giving the impression that we are finally taming it.

Work expands to fill the available space, and now the context does too. Information, inputs, signals, all of this will grow to fill whatever you allow. In this maximalist phase of the AI craze, resisting this expansion is part of the work.