Today I was kneading bread dough made with my grandma’s Parker House and crescent roll recipe, but it didn’t feel right. Ok. Let’s be honest. It didn’t “look” right. My Kitchen Aid was struggling to knead it while bouncing up and down, motor struggling despite me holding down the torso of the machine to keep the dough hook immersed in the dough. Something wasn’t right. I checked the recipe multiple times. Amount of water? Check. Yeast? Check. Egg? Check. Flour? Check. Wait a minute, flour. I used bread flour. I didn’t remember if my grandma used bread flour. I wanted to reach for my phone to ask copilot what was wrong. (note: reach for the phone to ask copilot; not call someone)

​

I didn’t. I carried on without turning to my crutch. Before my Kitchen Aid motor exploded, I withheld the sixth cup of flour, turned the dough onto the counter and started to knead by hand like my grandma taught me. The dough was definitely stiff and even after five minutes of kneading, there was no way I was going to get that last cup of flour incorporated into the dough like the recipe said. I wanted to call my grandma. I could see, hear, feel her so vividly as I kneaded the dough, remembering the little dough balls she would give me to knead alongside her while she worked her large mass of dough. How I wished I could call her. I remembered how she walked me through a pumpkin pie tragedy one November as I was attempting to bake her pumpkin pie recipe. It wouldn’t set. I called. She walked me through the recipe. We realized I’d forgotten to incorporate the egg. We giggled. She suggested I let it cool a bit and then attempt to beat in the egg to a warm pumpkin mixture already poured into the crust and half-baked. It worked to a degree. The egg curdled a bit due to the heat, but together we salvaged the pumpkin pie over the phone, using our own thinking.

​

In this story, relational interactions led to critical thinking and problem solving. Relationships and cognition are related, and technology can impede both. In my situation, I couldn’t call my grandma, but I did pull from my memory a time we worked out a catastrophic pumpkin pie incident which helped me work out the current problem all while smiling with a beautiful relational memory. Technology counterproductively erodes both relational interactions and critical thinking and problem solving.  

​

We now turn to Copilot, ChatGPT, or whatever agent we are becoming close to for answers to our problems, curiosities, wonder, advice, or counsel. I think about how my own children consult TikTok for recipes rather than calling me. It hurts. It signals something larger than a generational shift. It isn’t just me being replaced. The world is profoundly changing. Technology is a double‑edged sword. It can connect us when great distances separate us, but that is not how it is most often used. Instead, it increasingly replaces the small, relational interactions that once sustained families.

​

People turning to technological agents rather than to human beings who genuinely know and care for them are choosing convenience over relationships. Like millions of individuals, young and old alike, they are drawn to tools that promise instant solutions. In doing so, they bypass the relational processes once nurtured through presence, conversation, and shared struggle. Research now describes this as relational offloading, the quiet transfer of emotional and relational labor to technological agents (Denegri-Knott et al., 2024). This shift risks severing the kinds of relationships that historically cultivated love, care, compassion, and shared meaning. What is at risk today is the kind of care my grandmother freely gave, leaving both the giver and receiver isolated.

​

Salvaging a failed pumpkin pie together over the phone stands in stark contrast to today’s convenience culture. My grandmother and I struggled through uncertainty. We engaged in dialogue, laughter, and shared problem‑solving. We were present with one another. Psychological research now warns that AI companions and assistants offer unconditional, frictionless support, which paradoxically raises the perceived cost of human relationships (Hasan, 2026). When relationships feel slower, messier, or demanding, people disengage. My children turning to TikTok or my immediate urge to ask Copilot what was wrong with my grandma’s crescent roll recipe instead of reaching out to a human being represents this cultural shift that prioritizes efficiency over emotional connection.

​

Face‑to‑face micro‑conversations are what build relational resilience. I have always resisted the idea that “quality time” matters more than quantity. Relationships are built through quality and quantity. Conversations about nothing are precisely what digital tools displace through technoference, technology interrupting relational presence (Neeraj et al., 2024). Convenience is quietly eroding our relationships, and we often do not realize what has been lost until those small conversations disappear.

​

Beyond the relational loss I noticed that afternoon, there was a second, quieter realization, a realization that was also cognitive. The process my grandmother and I navigated together promoted collaborative critical thinking. Our relationship allowed for questioning, reasoning aloud, trial and error, and problem‑solving. She did not explicitly give me answers. She asked questions, thought alongside me, laughed with me, and stayed present through uncertainty. In doing so, she mentored me and guided my thinking rather than replacing it.

​

In that moment, relational interaction produced cognition. This is what contemporary scholars describe as cognitive offloading, the delegation of thinking to external tools (Gerlich, 2025). Research increasingly shows that when users rely too heavily on AI tools, critical thinking declines (Govil, 2025). When individuals retain agency and think through problems themselves, confidence and originality increase. The pumpkin pie incident was a beautiful memory that I cherished while struggling with my dough. But, it also represented a type of familial cognitive apprenticeship requiring patience, dialogue, and human presence.

​

Using generative AI to replace problem‑solving and consultation changes how people think. Prolonged reliance leads to lower neural engagement, reduced originality, and behavioral disengagement, particularly among younger users (Govil, 2025). Thinking together requires effort. It requires uncertainty, time, and conversation. It is far easier to outsource thinking than to remain engaged in the slow work of reasoning with another person.

​

Is sacrificing a twenty‑minute phone call with Mom worth it when Copilot, Claude, or chatGPT can deliver an answer immediately? That question tells us what kind of thinking we value and what kind of people we are becoming. If I had access to Copilot thirty years ago, I might never have struggled through that pumpkin pie with my grandmother. I might never have built the memory, the confidence, or the thinking skills that came from that moment.

​

What cognitive growth are we sacrificing when we choose convenience over relationship? What memories are you sacrificing? What relationships are you tearing down by relying on technology instead of someone who loves you? What is this new technology doing to our families and to humanity?

​

References

Denegri-Knott, J., Jenkins, R., Molesworth, M., & Grigore, G. (2024). Platformised possessions and relational labour. Marketing Theory, 24(1), 23-44.

​

Gerlich, M. (2025). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1), 6.

​

Govil, R. (2025). Higher Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Economic & Political Weekly, 60(45), 35.

Hasan, N. B. (2026). AI Efficiency Versus Human Empathy: A Paradox of AI and Human Agents in Service Support Interactions. Sociology Lens, 39(1), 73-82.

​

Neeraj, M. S., Nirmala, B. P., Janardhana, N., & Sharma, M. K. (2024). Family system and problematic technology usage. Archives of Mental Health, 25(2), 176-178.