Artificial intelligence can calculate complex poker strategies, analyse enormous amounts of information and produce answers in seconds. But poker professional, psychologist and bestselling author Maria Konnikova believes our growing dependence on the technology could come at a considerable cost.
Konnikova has warned that handing everyday intellectual tasks to AI risks weakening the very skills people need to make good decisions. Her concerns have taken on renewed relevance following a recent appearance at the RiskX cybersecurity event, where she emphasised the importance of maintaining human judgement in an increasingly automated world.
The Danger of Outsourcing Our Thinking
Konnikova’s position is particularly interesting because she understands both the strengths and limitations of artificial intelligence. She holds a PhD in psychology from Columbia University, has won a World Series of Poker bracelet and has accumulated more than $1 million in live tournament winnings.
During a March 2026 appearance on the Artificial Happiness podcast, Konnikova discussed how technology is changing the way people concentrate, write and make decisions. One observation captured her concerns particularly well.
“People who start outsourcing their writing to AI are outsourcing their thinking.”
The problem, she argues, is that writing isn’t simply a means of recording thoughts. The process helps people develop ideas, challenge assumptions and discover weaknesses in their own arguments.
When software handles that intellectual work, the finished product might look impressive, but the person using it may have learned very little.
In her discussion, Konnikova also examined the importance of attention, the role of emotion in decision-making and the ability to recognise when technology is providing an answer rather than genuine understanding.
The full 39-minute episode, The Attention Crisis That Could End Human Progress, includes a section examining AI’s capabilities in poker and the advantages human players can still possess.
A Fresh Warning About Human Judgement
Konnikova returned to similar themes during a recent RiskX cybersecurity event, where she discussed decisions made under pressure and with incomplete information.
Kiersten Todt, who participated in the event, subsequently highlighted Konnikova’s advice about allowing time to assess information before acting. Maintaining critical thinking skills and paying attention to important details were also central messages.
Those recommendations have implications far beyond poker. Businesses are increasingly integrating AI into research, customer service, financial analysis and other processes where decisions may carry significant consequences.
The danger isn’t necessarily that the technology makes an obvious mistake. It is that people become so accustomed to receiving plausible answers that they stop questioning how those answers were produced.
For Konnikova, developing good judgement remains more important than simply having immediate access to information.
Poker Has Become a Testing Ground for AI
Poker has played an important role in artificial intelligence research for years. Unlike chess, players must make decisions without knowing their opponents’ cards, introducing uncertainty, deception and imperfect information.
Specialised poker algorithms have already demonstrated extraordinary capabilities. DeepStack and other research projects showed that computers could compete with, and in certain formats defeat, highly skilled human opponents.
Modern poker players benefit enormously from that progress.
The evolution of poker study from Super/System to AI has transformed how professionals prepare for tournaments. Today’s training tools can calculate complex strategies, simulate situations and help players investigate decisions that would once have taken hours to analyse.
But there is an important distinction between obtaining a theoretically sound answer and understanding why that answer makes sense.
A solver might recommend a particular bet size against an assumed range. The player still needs to decide whether the opponent actually plays that range, how tournament pressure affects their decisions and when deviating from theory might be profitable.
That distinction reflects Konnikova’s wider concern about artificial intelligence. Access to sophisticated technology does not automatically produce sophisticated thinking.
Can AI Replace Human Poker Instinct?
The question becomes even more interesting when artificial intelligence attempts to interpret human behaviour. During the 2026 World Series of Poker, experimental technology attempted to identify physical patterns that might indicate a player’s hand strength or intentions.
The debate over whether AI can accurately identify poker tells raised questions about the limitations of technology trained to recognise behaviour. A computer might detect changes in blinking, movement or posture. Understanding why someone is behaving differently is considerably more difficult.
Poker professionals combine physical observations with betting patterns, previous encounters, stack sizes and the psychological pressure surrounding individual decisions.
Konnikova’s background in psychology makes her particularly well placed to recognise these distinctions. Her successful transition from complete beginner to tournament champion, documented in her bestselling book The Biggest Bluff, was built around understanding uncertainty rather than eliminating it.
Artificial intelligence can help players study. It cannot guarantee that somebody will interpret a complicated situation correctly.
From Poker Cheating to Much Bigger AI Fears
There is also a darker side to the technology’s development.
Poker operators must increasingly consider how advanced software could be misused. Real-time assistance, automated accounts and sophisticated methods of obtaining information threaten the integrity of games in which players are supposed to make their own decisions.
The recent switch to slide dealing at the Venetian illustrates how casinos are reconsidering security procedures amid concerns about hidden cameras and electronic devices.
Some players have raised fears about AI-assisted cheating systems that could analyse exposed cards and communicate information to accomplices. However, claims that such systems are already widespread remain unproven.
These concerns form part of a much broader conversation about AI safety.
Outside poker, mainstream news coverage increasingly examines the technology’s potential role in warfare, autonomous weapons, misinformation, surveillance and decisions that could result in human deaths.
Some scientists have also warned about more extreme future scenarios, including advanced AI systems operating beyond meaningful human control or behaving in ways that threaten humanity. Fears of AI taking control of critical infrastructure, escalating military conflicts or even contributing to human extinction remain disputed possibilities rather than established outcomes.
The immediate risks are more tangible. People can misuse AI, automated systems can produce incorrect information and poorly supervised technology can influence decisions with serious consequences. The central issue is how much authority humans should surrender to systems they may not fully understand.
The Greatest Poker Skill Could Become Even More Valuable
Konnikova’s warnings highlight a contradiction in modern poker.
Players have never had access to better training resources, yet the game continues to reward independent judgement, adaptability and an understanding of human behaviour.
A professional can memorise solver outputs and still make expensive mistakes when faced with an unfamiliar opponent. Similarly, someone who accepts every AI-generated explanation without questioning it may struggle when the software provides an incorrect answer.
The strongest players don’t simply know what to do. They understand why they are doing it, recognise when their assumptions are wrong and adapt when new information becomes available.
Artificial intelligence is unlikely to disappear from poker study or everyday life. The technology is already too useful across too many areas.
Konnikova’s argument isn’t that people should abandon technology. It is that using powerful tools should not mean surrendering the ability to think independently. For a game built around making difficult decisions with incomplete information, that warning feels particularly relevant.
