What Are We Losing When We Stop Typing What We Want to Say?

We are living through a change as subtle as it is revolutionary: the role of the keyboard, that extension of our fingers, the bridge between thought and text, seems to be diminishing. Large language models, advanced voice assistants and multimodal interfaces offer us the opportunity to dictate or simply ask an algorithm to write for us. Some estimates suggest that by around 2028, the voice will have replaced the keyboard as the predominant means of inputting information. And while for many people this may be a logical development, I can’t help wondering what we might be sacrificing in that transition.

As an intensive user of LLMs, and possessed of a rigorous prompt-crafting mentality, I continue to write my posts, my prompts and my reflections via a keyboard. I hardly use the voice feature these programs offer, except for some interventions and fun games in my section in the National Radio (audio in Spanish, from RNE), an environment that demands aural immediacy. And to be completely honest, I don’t feel especially confident giving instructions by voice; I guess I’m just not familiar with it.

It’s not that the voice is a bad tool, it’s that my method is based on avoiding ambiguity. In a fluid conversation with an AI, that clarity, to a large extent, is lost. And with it, a certain degree of control.

In contrast, writing forces us to slow down our thinking, to structure it, to revise it. The act of typing is slow, human, it requires decisions: choosing a word, a phrase, correcting as you go… Little has been written about the wonderful advance being able to write on screen has meant; to be able to change something without having to scratch a line of writing through on a piece of paper. Dictating reflects the fluidity of speech, the cadence of dialogue, but it also opens the door to interpretation, to misunderstanding, to what the system “thinks” you meant.

It’s not just a question of speed — speaking is obviously faster than typing — so much as depth. The interface determines thought. By dictating a “prompt” while driving or walking the dog, I am ceding part of the control to AI, I am trivializing the premise of “I think, you execute” for that of “I speak, you interpret”.

When I see people dictating prompts to AI while walking or driving, I’m concerned: first, because if you don’t have anyone to really talk to, you should find someone, not replace human contact with a chatbot, unless you want to end up like Joachim Phoenix in Her. Second, because by turning AI into something we talk to everyday, we are anthropomorphizing it, and when we do that, we fall into the psychological risk of expectations, of wanting emotional feedback, mistakenly believing we’re having a conversation. And third, and even worse, because we exercise very little control over what we think, how we feel, what our position is on certain issues, etc. That data feeds the system, without us usually being aware of the repercussions.

The keyboard forces us to structure, it protects us from unthinking spontaneity. By moving to voice interfaces, we stop thinking in terms of “key, word, phrase” and move to “voice, system, result”. The interface changes, and so does our thinking. In education, in creativity, in productivity, this change has consequences. Some research shows that typing activates neural circuits other than handwriting or speaking. That writing favors retention, reflection and the integration of ideas. Talking to a machine feels immediate, but it‘s a shallow conversation.

Whether the voice will completely replace the keyboard is still not fully clear. But we are already in the transition phase, and in Europe, which values careful speech, precision and refined thinking, we should ask ourselves not so much when we will do it, but how (or if) we do it. It is not a matter of resisting change, but of deciding which parts of our thinking we want to preserve and which parts we are willing to delegate to the machine.

For the industry, writing is already obsolete. But for those of who still believe in cogito ergo sum, using a keyboard remains an act of freedom: a space for doubt, thought, revision, authorship. And when that space shrinks in favor of an uninterrupted dialogue with a machine “as if it were human,” we have to ask ourselves: how much of our mind are we putting at risk? How many thoughts are left untyped?

It is not simply a matter of making the decision of whether to type or speak. It is, rather, a matter of evaluating how much of our mental modularity we are willing to abandon. When the keyboard is no longer the central tool, something changes in us. And that change is much more than technical. It is cultural, cognitive and human. Because technology not only changes how we interact with technology, it also changes how we think.

—

This post was previously published on Enrique Dans’ blog.

***