The enrichment paradox: critical capability thresholds and irreversible dependency in human-AI symbiosis

Checked 30 Sept 2026. Open license (CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC0, public domain): full text indexed and used in synthesis.

As artificial intelligence assumes cognitive labor, no quantitative framework predicts when human capability loss becomes catastrophic. We present a two-variable dynamical systems model coupling capability (H) and delegation (D), grounded in three axioms: learning requires capability, practice, and disuse causes forgetting. Calibrated to four domains (education, medicine, navigation, aviation), the model identifies a critical threshold K* approximately 0.85 (scope-dependent; broader AI scope lowers K*) beyond which capability collapses abruptly-the "enrichment paradox." Validated against 15 countries' PISA data (102 points, R^2 = 0.946, 3 parameters, lowest BIC), the model predicts that periodic AI failures improve capability 2.7-fold and that 20% mandatory practice preserves 92% more capability than the simulation baseline (which includes a 5% background AI-failure rate). These findings provide quantitative foundations for AI capability-threshold governance.

• Han & Liu 2026 provide survey evidence that supervisory support "weakened the negative associations between AI dependence and research autonomy and innovative behaviour," a micro-level, empirical analogue of Park et al. 2026's model result that mandatory practice preserves capability—together suggesting structured human oversight is the practical lever against AI-induced deskilling. Trace →
• Delegation buys immediate performance at the cost of human engagement: in Hao et al. 2026 the Delegated Reasoning group "achieved the highest task performance" yet the Concerted Interpretation group "reported significantly greater use of self-regulation strategies," and Wu et al. 2025 show the performance boost "did not persist in subsequent tasks performed independently by humans" while intrinsic motivation fell—a small-scale signature of Park et al. 2026's "enrichment paradox." Trace →
• Park et al. 2026 argue that deskilling belongs on the top-tier AI-governance agenda alongside alignment, bias, and misuse: their model "reframes the policy question from 'should we adopt AI?' to 'how capable should AI be allowed to become in specific domains,'" warning that "incremental AI improvement can trigger discontinuous societal consequences" near a critical threshold K*≈0.85. Trace →
• Capability-threshold governance of the kind Park et al. 2026 propose presumes reliable measurement of what AI systems can do, but Mullens & Shen 2026 show that foundation is shaky: "half of the hardest GPQA items contain chemically or logically indefensible answers," and "answering the persona question requires evaluation infrastructure the field does not yet possess." Trace →

• Supervision and doctoral educationanchor