This distinction between ambiguous and incidental friction is brilliant. Was just talking about it with my wife because your specific example of a map has been a running debate between us. I just pick the least cost path via the algorithm to the point where I have poor spatial awareness. My father in law insists on using paper maps because he wants to know where everything is to be helpful. For me, the ease of the algorithm solves incidental friction. For him, it eliminates helpful ambiguous friction by denying him the opportunity to learn.

The wrinkle that needs to be added is that there are no truly universal rules as to what counts for incidental vs ambiguous friction - the definitions are relative to individual/project goals. I am working with some scientific instruments to map out chemical data, and 3d modeling is needed. I don’t particularly care about 3d modeling - it is incidental to me. The chemistry is the focal point. So the STL files are vibe coded so I can keep my focus on chemistry. But if I were working for the latest marvel movie, the reverse would be true. The actual chemistry would need to fit the script and the visual effect intended. To a scientist the visualization just needs to be good enough. To the film director, the world building physics and chemistry instead become the supporting actor. The challenge introduced by AI is that in ruthlessly eliminating incidental friction, you are being deliberate about what you choose not to learn. This is fine at a task level - but how many of us “found” our current expertise through incidental friction in the first place? I never wanted to do chemistry, I went to school for something else. But incidental friction led to discovery. That is my biggest worry, particularly for students and early career folks.