<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>DEV Community: Oleh Volostnykh</title>
    <description>The latest articles on DEV Community by Oleh Volostnykh (@olehvolos).</description>
    <link>https://dev.to/olehvolos</link>
    
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://dev.to/feed/olehvolos"/>
    <language>en</language>
    <item>
      <title>AI Won't Save You From Forgetting How to Think</title>
      <dc:creator>Oleh Volostnykh</dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2026 13:05:55 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>https://dev.to/olehvolos/ai-wont-save-you-from-forgetting-how-to-think-55mp</link>
      <guid>https://dev.to/olehvolos/ai-wont-save-you-from-forgetting-how-to-think-55mp</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I want to make a claim that might age badly, and I'm making it anyway.&lt;br&gt;
The more we offload thinking to AI tools, the more we need deliberate practice to stay sharp. And LeetCode — for all its baggage — is one of the few structured ways most developers have to do that.&lt;br&gt;
Not for interviews. For your brain.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Something is quietly happening to developers right now&lt;br&gt;
Nobody announces it. There's no error message.&lt;br&gt;
But ask yourself honestly: when was the last time you worked through a non-trivial logic problem without reaching for Copilot, ChatGPT, or a Stack Overflow snippet in the first five minutes? When did you last choose a data structure because you reasoned through the trade-offs — not because autocomplete suggested it?&lt;br&gt;
AI coding tools are genuinely useful. I use them daily. But there's a cost that compounds slowly and invisibly: you stop exercising the reasoning muscle, and eventually, it weakens.&lt;br&gt;
You don't notice until someone asks you why your solution works — and you have to think harder than you expected.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;What forgetting actually looks like&lt;br&gt;
It doesn't look like incompetence. It looks like learned helplessness disguised as efficiency.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;You paste a problem into ChatGPT before sitting with it for even two minutes&lt;br&gt;
You can read code well but struggle to write logic from scratch under any pressure&lt;br&gt;
You know a nested loop is "probably bad" but can't articulate why, or what the better approach is&lt;br&gt;
You feel vaguely anxious when the AI gives you a wrong answer — because you're not sure how to verify it&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;That last one is the one that should worry you. If you can't sanity-check the output, you're not using a tool. You're depending on one.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Why DSA and algorithms are actually the right antidote&lt;br&gt;
Not because Google-style interviews are a good measure of engineering talent — they're often not.&lt;br&gt;
But because DSA problems are the most concentrated form of a skill you use constantly in real work: breaking down a problem you've never seen before, reasoning about it carefully, and arriving at a solution you can defend.&lt;br&gt;
Working through a sliding window problem trains you to notice patterns in data. Implementing a graph traversal from scratch forces you to hold state in your head. Getting a time complexity wrong and figuring out why teaches you to question your own assumptions.&lt;br&gt;
None of that is interview prep. All of it is thinking.&lt;br&gt;
And thinking is exactly what AI is tempting us to skip.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The bar is low — and that's the point&lt;br&gt;
I'm not suggesting grinding 300 hard problems on a leaderboard.&lt;br&gt;
Twenty minutes, a few times a week. One problem. No solution tab open. The goal isn't to solve it — the goal is to try before you give up. To sit with the discomfort of not immediately knowing the answer, and work through it rather than outsourcing it.&lt;br&gt;
That habit — trying first, thinking before reaching — is what erodes fastest in an AI-assisted workflow. It's also what makes you the kind of engineer who can actually steer AI tools well, rather than just accept whatever they produce.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This isn't nostalgia for a pre-AI world&lt;br&gt;
AI tools are here, they're useful, and they're not going anywhere. The developers who will use them best aren't the ones who delegate the most — they're the ones who've kept their own reasoning sharp enough to know when the output is wrong, when the approach is suboptimal, and when the problem itself is being misunderstood.&lt;br&gt;
DSA practice won't make you immune to bad AI output. But it keeps the critical faculty alive - the part of you that reads a solution and thinks "wait, that doesn't feel right" and knows how to follow that instinct.&lt;br&gt;
That instinct is worth protecting.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Are you still doing any deliberate problem-solving practice, or has AI tooling changed how you think about that? Genuinely curious where other devs land on this.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
      <category>ai</category>
      <category>discuss</category>
      <category>career</category>
      <category>productivity</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
