Every major technology platform eventually becomes invisible — not because it disappears, but because it gets absorbed into the background of assumptions we no longer examine. Alfred North Whitehead called this 'the fallacy of misplaced concreteness,' but there's a sharper version in the philosophy of science: Thomas Kuhn observed that the deepest function of a paradigm isn't to explain things — it's to decide which questions are worth asking at all. The dangerous moment in any technology adoption isn't when a tool fails. It's when the tool's logic quietly rewrites your sense of what counts as a problem worth solving. A team running everything through LLM-assisted synthesis doesn't just change how they answer questions — they stop noticing the questions that resist that format entirely. The practical move is almost embarrassingly simple: once a quarter, audit not your outputs but your inputs. What categories of problem have you stopped bringing to the table — not because they were solved, but because the current stack doesn't handle them elegantly?

What type of problem did you used to wrestle with regularly that has quietly disappeared from your agenda — not because it was solved, but because your current tools make it awkward to frame?

Drawing from Philosophy of science / paradigm theory — Thomas Kuhn