How AI Is Reshaping the Way Teams Think

This post is part of our series on expertise and AI. If you're concerned about preserving and enhancing the value of your expertise as AI advances, consider joining our short course—starting August 6th—to learn the psychological strategies needed to make your expertise even more valuable with AI.

We’ve collected hundreds of stories from professionals navigating the introduction of AI into their daily work. One of the most consistent patterns shows up in how teams begin to think together differently.

Early on, many teams describe a sense of acceleration. Documents come together more quickly. Ideas move faster from draft to discussion. AI helps organize thoughts, summarize conversations, and reduce friction in group processes. People adopt it naturally—first for small tasks, then for more central parts of their workflow.

Over time, the texture of collaboration starts to change. Meetings become quieter, with fewer spontaneous turns. Group documents reflect a kind of smooth consensus, even when no real discussion has taken place. Participants talk about alignment, but find it harder to explain how decisions were made or where they began.

These are classic signs of what we call the Integration and Blurring phases. AI is fully present in the workflow, and its influence on the symbolic and cognitive dynamics of the team becomes more noticeable. In these states, collaboration still appears functional. Output is steady. But people begin to sense that something is different.

Certain psychological traits help explain how these shifts unfold. Teams with high Cognitive Permeability tend to absorb AI suggestions easily, letting the model’s framing shape the conversation. When that permeability isn’t accompanied by Symbolic Plasticity—the ability to reinterpret, reshape, and reclaim meaning—the group’s language starts to reflect the model more than the team. One participant described it as if the group was using the model’s words even when they weren’t quite theirs.

Identity Coupling often emerges at the emotional layer. People begin to run their ideas through the model before sharing, using it as a kind of filter. This often feels efficient and safe. Over time, it becomes part of the rhythm of how ideas show up in the room.

The result is a quiet re-patterning of collective intelligence. What used to emerge through interpersonal exchange, shared memory, and negotiated meaning now follows a different path. Teams don’t necessarily lose their capacity to think together, but the way they do it becomes more dependent on the AI's structure. Some describe a sense of parallel play—still together, still engaged, but no longer building something shared from the ground up.

Some groups remain more flexible. They pause to notice how the model is shaping their internal language. They ask different kinds of questions and pay attention to whose voice is guiding the synthesis. In those teams, AI becomes part of a wider loop—less a central node, more a temporary prompt or lens. These teams show higher Symbolic Plasticity, and often maintain a stronger sense of authorship over time.

As AI continues to shape the conditions of shared thinking, the human experience of group work is shifting. The changes are often small. A different tone in a document. A faster sense of agreement. A missing layer of friction that once made things more real.

Not every team feels these shifts in the same way. But across the stories, there is a growing awareness that something relational, something symbolic, is being reconfigured. Not everyone names it the same way. Some feel relieved, others unsettled. What they share is a sense that there's a change in how collective work feels.