The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence is transforming how individuals acquire, process, and apply knowledge, enabling faster decision-making and policy development. AI-driven technologies enhance personalized learning, critical thinking, and problem-solving, particularly within strategic decision-making; however, it is crucial to address concerns of overreliance, overuse, diminished critical thinking skills, and ethical implications. AI should be the sidekick, not the superhero—sharp minds lead machines, not follow them. By evaluating the impact of generative AI on learning, we can identify both the advantages and challenges that technological advancements present for our future military leaders. We must define the balance between independent thought, creativity, and the integration of AI to help shape AI’s long-term role in developing leaders and enhancing decision-making for effective military operations.
Mortimer Adler once said that learning is “an interior transformation of a person’s mind and character, a transformation which can be effected only through his own activity.” This understanding emphasizes the idea that genuine learning is not a passive process—it requires deep engagement, critical thinking, and personal effort. In an era increasingly dominated by AI and digital tools, there is a growing concern that learners may become overly reliant on technology and decrease their intellectual capacity. When an individual’s cognitive engagement is primarily directed toward navigating a computer program—whether an AI-driven tutor, an adaptive learning platform, or a search engine—it is easy to mistake memorization for true understanding. The rapid availability of answers at one’s fingertips may create an illusion of proficiency when, in reality, the knowledge has not been fully internalized or critically understood.
AI makes it incredibly easy to avoid having to think. It can generate answers, construct briefs, draft outlines, and even assist in policy creation; however, AI is limited by its training data, relying solely on learned patterns rather than true reasoning. Once you experience the ability to no longer think, it becomes addicting, and an easier alternative than spending time in critical thought. The more that individuals depend on computers to do their thinking, the less they truly learn. Taking the easy route is tempting—after all, as Adler also noted, learning is painful. Humans naturally seek ways to conserve effort, reduce stress, and minimize energy expenditure—taking the path of least resistance. However, if we consistently choose convenience over critical thinking, we risk losing one of our most defining traits, one that sets us apart from other mammals—the ability to reason and make decisions.
AI is becoming increasingly embedded in daily life, transforming the way we work, communicate, and make decisions. From virtual assistants and personalized recommendations to smart home devices and automated customer service, AI streamlines everyday tasks and enhances convenience. As AI continues to evolve, its role in our livelihoods will only expand, making it an essential tool for productivity and innovation. Rather than resisting this technology, we should embrace it. AI has the potential to enhance and expand our knowledge, enabling more informed decision-making. It can accelerate processes, optimize efficiency, and analyze vast amounts of data, providing deeper understanding to dynamic situations.
An increasing reliance on AI during the critical years of cognitive development may shape the decision-making abilities of future leaders, equipping them with those powerful analytical tools while simultaneously risking the erosion of independent critical thinking and problem-solving skills. AI has the capability to surpass human intelligence as AI is constantly learning and advancing—however, human intelligence requires work and education from individuals and whole generations. Historically, leaders made decisions based on given information, previous experiences, and their interpretation of unfolding events, relying solely on knowledge, advisors, and real-world reports and exposure. In contrast, future leaders will have instant access to vast amounts of data, enabling them to make decisions more rapidly and with fewer logistical constraints. The challenge lies in processing vast amounts of data, determining what is truly relevant for decision-making, and applying human judgment to guide the process effectively.
While AI offers significant technological advantages, it also introduces potential risks that cannot be overlooked. One of the greatest concerns is the possibility of leaders becoming overly reliant on AI-driven analysis and recommendations, which could gradually erode their ability to think independently. AI operates based on patterns and historical data, but it lacks true intuition, contextual awareness, and the ability to account for unprecedented scenarios. If decision-makers lean too heavily on AI without developing their own critical thinking and problem-solving skills, they may struggle to adapt when AI fails or is unreliable due to limitations in contingency planning or gaps in its training data. In high-stakes environments with unpredictable variables, leaders must exercise sound judgment without solely depending on algorithmic outputs. True leadership goes beyond accessing information—it requires the ability to analyze, question, and integrate knowledge to make decisive and effective choices under pressure.
A prime example of deliberate decision-making is John Boyd’s OODA Loop (observe, orient, decide, act), a fundamental framework in military strategy. AI can enhance this process, accelerating decision cycles and refining situational awareness, reducing cognitive load, and improving battlefield effectiveness:
| OODA Loop Cycle | Human Execution | AI Enhancement |
| Observe | Gather and observe information from the environment. | Collect and process massive data streams from multiple sources in real time. |
| Orient | Analyze and interpret data. | Analyze and contextualize data, improving situational awareness. |
| Decide | Make a choice based on what information is available. | Provide decision-support tools, predictive modeling, and recommendations. |
| Act | Implement the decision and take action. | Help refine execution strategies, optimize logistics, and strengthen operational effectiveness; enhance autonomous weapons and aircraft. |
When an individual is heavily reliant on AI, the real challenge arises when it is unavailable, compromised, or unable to adapt to unforeseen contingencies. Future contested and degraded environments with rising peer adversaries may restrict access to AI-connected networks, reducing reliance on AI for decision-making, execution, and strategic planning, thereby demanding greater adaptability and independent problem-solving skills. In such moments, we must have leaders who can still work through complex problems, assess risks, and take decisive action—relying on their own cognitive abilities rather than an algorithm. This highlights the importance of restricting AI in educational settings to foster cognitive development, enabling individuals to enhance their ability to adapt to change and think dynamically in real time rather than relying on technology to do it for them.
Not Either/Or—but Both/And
As illustrated in the OODA Loop, AI can amplify human capabilities by rapidly collecting, analyzing, and disseminating vast amounts of data, significantly accelerating situational awareness and decision-making processes. With access to extensive information and human input, AI can support decision-making through predictive modeling and simulations—tasks that take humans significantly longer to complete. Additionally, AI can accelerate the decision cycle while executing with autonomous systems and weapons. Though the possibilities of AI are vast and impressive, it is crucial to remember that its role should not be to replace, but to complement human intelligence.
For future military leaders, it is critical that education and training prioritize independent thinking and decisive action rather than an overreliance on AI-driven systems. Leaders must develop the confidence to question AI outputs, evaluate their accuracy, and consider multiple perspectives before making informed decisions, rather than blindly accepting computer-generated recommendations. AI struggles in unpredictable, high-stakes environments where training data is insufficient to cover every potential contingency. Future conflicts will demand leaders who can adapt in real time, assess emerging threats, and execute decisions based on experience, judgment, and battlefield awareness—not just what a computer system suggests. To maintain a strategic edge and operational superiority, military leaders must cultivate a disciplined decision-making process that integrates AI as a tool while ensuring that human intuition, adaptability, and ethical reasoning remain at the forefront of command decisions.
The rapid evolution of AI presents both a strategic advantage and a formidable challenge in shaping the next generation of military leaders. AI can enhance decision-making, optimize operations, and expand battlefield awareness, yet it must remain a force multiplier—not a replacement for human intellect. The true test of future leadership lies in striking the right balance: leveraging AI’s capabilities while preserving the independent thought, adaptability, and critical reasoning essential for command in today’s volatile geopolitical environment. In an era where peer adversaries are racing to develop their own AI-driven strategies, our leaders must be prepared to outthink, not just out-tech, the competition. AI should sharpen human cognition, not dull it—because the future of warfare will be won by those who can command both machine intelligence and the power of the human mind.
Amanda “WANG” Collazzo is a US Air Force major pursuing a master of science in defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School. She is an MQ-9 evaluator, pilot, and weapons officer, with experience in multiple overseas contingency operations. She has a master of science from the University of Louisville and two bachelors of arts from The Ohio State University.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.
Image credit: Staff Sgt. Nicolas A. Cloward, US Army