It's funny that you bring that up - it does seem like the concept of 'extended cognition' is one of the biggest benefits that we've collectively realized from computers (and other relatively nonvolatile communication mediums like books.)
This is a computer-oriented analogy, but most fields have their own tables and charts and maths that are tedious to keep on the tip of your mind. Still, for example, I don't need to remember the details of every API that I use; I can just remember that there is a 'do X' call available, and refer to the documentation when and if I need to actually use it.
In the same vein, I can quickly get a feel for whether an idea is possible by stringing together a bunch of abstract mental models. "Can I do X?" becomes, "are there good tools available for doing A, B, C, and D?", and that information is only a quick search away. Actually using those tools involves an enormous amount of detail, but it's detail that I can ignore when putting an idea together.
And in most cases, that 'detail' is a library or part that already abstracts a broad range of deeper complexities into something that I don't have to think about.
The question becomes something like: how do we expose people to enough information that they are aware of how much they can learn if they need to, without drowning them in trivia that they will never be interested in?
Your example also is related to my experience briefly working in P&G chemicals R & D lab; the ChemE's around me routinely used google to look up reaction kinetics of different compounds (as well as other similar queries) rather than rely on their memory of such. I was attending a local university at the time (mostly for calculus and mathematical modeling using mathematica, and french), but I'd say this experience is largely one that started my questioning the value attending university in general (I dropped out an ivy about two years later, for this reason among others).
I suspect that the concept of 'extended cognition' as it is realized with the use of computers and how people use it day to day to get work done is in conflict with how we all are mostly taught via rote memorization, and then application of information; therefore it should naturally follow that those who are heavily invested/exposed in 'non extended' cognition services have relatively more to lose, as well as any currently realistic answer to this:
>The question becomes something like: how do we expose people to enough information that they are aware of how much they can learn if they need to, without drowning them in trivia that they will never be interested in?
will bring cognitive dissonance to those who need the answer most (those with heavy exposure to relatively 'non extended' cognition services).
When you're looking at effects, I think you need to dig down into what exactly is being extended.
Are more data sources being made available? Is data being preprocessed? Is an initial task being automated?
Because the truth of any worker (in less than a ruthlessly specialized huge company) is that they may be an "extended cognition" worker, but still perform many "non-extended cognition" activities as part of their job. Because there was previously no alternative and work needs to get done.
Fast forward that, and you're never going to fully automate a goal. But you will automate sections of the process that are amenable to machines.
Advice? Recognize which type of work you spend most of your time in, and don't get caught being the "non-extended cognition" person...
This is a computer-oriented analogy, but most fields have their own tables and charts and maths that are tedious to keep on the tip of your mind. Still, for example, I don't need to remember the details of every API that I use; I can just remember that there is a 'do X' call available, and refer to the documentation when and if I need to actually use it.
In the same vein, I can quickly get a feel for whether an idea is possible by stringing together a bunch of abstract mental models. "Can I do X?" becomes, "are there good tools available for doing A, B, C, and D?", and that information is only a quick search away. Actually using those tools involves an enormous amount of detail, but it's detail that I can ignore when putting an idea together.
And in most cases, that 'detail' is a library or part that already abstracts a broad range of deeper complexities into something that I don't have to think about.
The question becomes something like: how do we expose people to enough information that they are aware of how much they can learn if they need to, without drowning them in trivia that they will never be interested in?