Have We Stopped Thinking in Full Sentences?

I recently came across a fascinating document from 1965— minutes from a meeting of the Data Processing and Computer Society of N.Z (the original name of IT Professionals) that were pasted into a large Minute Book (pic below).

It’s a glimpse into a different era—one where meeting minutes were meticulously documented, decisions were formally recorded, and language was structured and precise. Looking at it now, it’s striking how much has changed.

Fast forward to today, and meeting minutes have mostly been replaced by recordings, action points, and quick summaries. Formality has given way to informality, efficiency has overtaken precision, and technology has fundamentally reshaped how we document, communicate, and remember. But has this shift made us better—or worse—at communication?

The Death of the Formal Record

Once upon a time we wrote detailed narratives capturing discussions, context, and nuance. Today, we rely on AI-generated summaries, automated transcripts, and shorthand bullet points often focused purely on actions and decisions. When we do receive a long email we let AI is now summarise it, suggest responses, which in turn prioritises brevity over depth.

In theory, this should make us more efficient. Why spend time composing lengthy emails when AI can extract key points? Why carefully craft a response when an auto-generated reply will suffice? Yet, in this shift toward automation, something crucial is being lost. Without well-crafted minutes, emails, and reports, we risk losing the "why" behind decisions, the human element in communication, and the ability to think critically about what’s being said.

Even worse, AI summaries can strip out tone and intent. A message meant to be reassuring might come across as abrupt. A nuanced argument might be flattened into generic corporate speak. The reliance on AI-generated content may be convenient, but it also creates a risk: if we stop actively engaging in communication, do we also stop actively thinking about it?

The Evolution (or Erosion?) of Language

It’s not just meeting documentation that has changed—language itself is evolving under the weight of digital efficiency. We’ve gone from well-structured reports to Slack messages, from full sentences to emoji-laden shorthand, from carefully crafted memos to AI-generated pro forma responses.

AI tools, while powerful, tend to flatten language. They optimize for clarity, sure, but they often lack depth, creativity, and nuance. The result? A slow erosion of rich vocabulary and complex thought in favour of generic, templated communication.

This shift doesn’t just affect how we communicate—it shapes how we think. When we default to pre-written AI suggestions, autocorrect, and templated responses, we risk losing the mental rigour that comes with carefully constructing arguments and articulating thoughts. Complex ideas require complex language, and without practice, we may lose the ability to engage in deep, analytical thinking. Are we becoming so accustomed to fast, simplified communication that we’re no longer training our minds to process and express complexity?

This raises important questions:

• Are we becoming too reliant on AI-generated text?

• Is our ability to craft persuasive, thoughtful arguments diminishing?

• Are we losing the ability to recognize—and value—nuance in communication?

Am I sounding like a luddite?

A Double-Edged Sword

There are undeniable benefits to our new mode of operation. Removing unnecessary formality means less bureaucracy, faster decision-making, and greater accessibility. But are we also losing the ability to appreciate complexity? The art of persuasive, thoughtful writing is about more than efficiency—it’s about shaping ideas, influencing others, and preserving meaning in ways that AI, shorthand, and bullet points might struggle to replicate.

Looking at this document from nearly 60 years ago, I can’t help but wonder—are we improving efficiency at the cost of something more valuable? Perhaps the real challenge isn’t about rejecting informality but about finding balance. Technology should support, not replace, our ability to communicate effectively. If we let AI dictate our words, we risk losing something fundamental—not just language, but the ability to think deeply, engage critically, and articulate ideas with depth and clarity.

Are we witnessing a necessary evolution in communication, or are we dumbing things down to the point of losing meaning?