Recently finished this one. This is a pop philosophy book on why, epistimologically, it makes sense to just use expert opinion (without checking their reasoning or reasons carefully yourself) generally. It was written just before widespread AI use, with more of a focus on vaccine denial and conspiracy theory. But I think it has a lot to do with AI use, especially in schools and conversation. Many students are turning to an AI to complete homework and study, with mixed (and often disastrous) results.

Importantly, the book only makes the moral case in a weak sense. The main good is ‘justified, true beliefs held’ with a minimum of error, time, and effort. It does argue that we have to use expert testimony for most of our beliefs (wikipedia) anyway; and that the best way to manage expert incentives and opinion is institutional (and not trying to become an expert in everything yourself).

Overall, I found it troubling to read. The rationalization is pretty compelling, and there are few glaringly obvious leaps or gaps. Worse, the rationalizations aren’t hard.