In today’s column, I examine the topic of mindfulness and whether it is feasible or sensible to maximize mindfulness or instead seek to optimize mindfulness. There is an important distinction involved. To help illustrate the matter, I will dip into modern-era generative AI and large language models (LLMs) as a tool for examining mindfulness at human cognition boundaries.

The essence of the situation is this. Conceptual discussions about mindfulness suggest that the ultimate goal is to maximize mindfulness. Thus, one should always be seeking the peak of mindfulness, doing so in all circumstances at all times. But this underplays the downsides of such maximization. The goal should be to optimize mindfulness, namely applying the optimal mindfulness as appropriate for the matter at hand. Optimization is a reasonable and sensible aim, while maximization tends toward being overdone and counterproductive. I will use AI to explore various scenarios to help showcase these tradeoffs.

Let’s talk about it. This analysis of AI breakthroughs is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI, including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here ).

Intertwining AI And Psychology

As a quick background, I’ve been extensively covering and analyzing a myriad of psychological facets regarding the advent of modern-era AI that produces mental health advice and performs AI-driven therapy. This rising use of AI has principally been spurred by the evolving advances and widespread adoption of generative AI and LLMs such as ChatGPT, GPT-5, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, Grok, and others. For a recap of my two hundred analyses and postings about AI and mental health, see the link here and the link here . I frequently speak up about these pressing matters, including in an appearance on an episode of CBS’s 60 Minutes ; see the link here .

My efforts are intended to inform and engage in thoughtful dialogue on the pressing issues at hand. There are some that focus only on the upbeat side of AI and others that concentrate solely on the downbeat side of AI. It’s an all-or-nothing proposition, namely that AI is the best thing since sliced bread or the worst monstrosity ever devised. I don’t find those extreme views to provide clarity, nor do they offer a semblance of balance. Let’s be upfront and cover the ins and outs, which allow for cogent discussions and can aid policymakers, lawmakers, researchers, scholars, practitioners, and the like in discovering sensible and suitable paths forward. AI is not going away. AI is here to stay and will increasingly become ubiquitous.

I adopt the Langerian characterization of mindfulness, which is that a mindful perspective tends to avoid automatic behaviors and enlists a process of actively identifying new distinctions associated with the present situation (per my coverage at the link here ).

In my prior posted analyses, see the link here , I showcased that generative AI can foster mindfulness in many vital ways. There are five key prompts you can use in AI to aid in bolstering mindfulness; see my discussion at the link here .

On the flip side of mindfulness, consider the role of mindlessness. A casual glance at the world around us might suggest that people are commonly in the throes of mindlessness. It is a relatively inactive state of mind and easy to come by. You can sense that someone is acting mindlessly when they seem to be preoccupied with past mental distinctions, fail to see their environment in new ways, and appear to be proceeding in a highly regimented or routinized fashion.

Whereas we want AI to spur mindfulness, we would equally want AI to aid in reducing or mitigating mindlessness. That’s the overarching goal. There are caveats to be aware of. For example, a person might begin using AI to enhance mindfulness and then develop a dependency on AI to aid in this purpose. AI regrettably becomes a mental crutch, a kind of inadvertent adverse consequence or undesirable result. The prudent and proper aim of employing AI would be to do so as a cognitive-building approach and explicitly steer clear of a persistent reliance on AI.

Maximization Of Mindfulness

Proponents of mindfulness tend to indicate that people should be maximally mindful. The more mindfulness, the better. This is taken to the extreme and implies that continual and persistent maximization is preferred. A person would be best off if they could always imbue the maximum mindfulness attainable. This applies to all circumstances. This applies at all times.

Consider this proposition:

  • Avowed Goal: “I am maximally mindful every waking moment.”

The goal is to arrive at maximal mindfulness and stay there. Never wavering, never letting mindfulness decrease. You would continuously be highly aware of your surroundings, perpetually noticing new things, and mentally cognizant of whatever is taking place. Whether the human mind can undertake that unremitting maximization is generally unknown.

AI Scenario Of Maximization

To discern what can arise if a person is always at maximum mindfulness, we can use generative AI to aid in constructing a simulation of such behavior. I went ahead and provided a prompt to a popular LLM that stipulated an AI persona of someone having attained maximum mindfulness.

The use of AI personas is an up-and-coming topic within the field of psychology; see my in-depth analysis at the link here . A budding psychologist or psychiatrist can readily practice or enhance their skills by invoking AI personas that represent different types of human personalities and mental health conditions; see my examples at the link here . This provides a no-harm, no-foul setting that can enable refinement of therapeutic skills. The script can be flipped and invoke an AI persona that acts like a therapist, providing opportunities for understanding what it’s like to be in the shoes of a client or patient; see my discussion at the link here .

Another means of leveraging AI personas consists of performing human psychology research that suitably makes use of this intrinsic LLM capability. You can establish numerous AI personas to be “subjects” in an online experiment or use the AI personas to take tests and surveys. For my prior postings on the use of AI personas in exploring mindfulness, see the link here and the link here .

Dialogue With The Mindfulness Maximizer

Here is a snippet of the chat that I had with an AI persona that was simulating a case of maximal mindfulness (i.e., at all times, in all circumstances).

  • User prompt: “How did your meeting go?”
  • Generative AI response (maximizer mindfulness): “The meeting went well. Sam spoke 20% more slowly than usual, paused twice before answering questions, and avoided eye contact during the budget discussion. He approved the budget.”
  • User prompt: “I see. What else happened?”
  • Generative AI response (maximizer mindfulness): “I noticed that the air conditioner cycled on and off repeatedly, and that the clock in the room was nearly 18 seconds too fast.”

You perhaps noticed that the maximal mindfulness led to observing all sorts of “new” details that do not seem particularly worthy. Does the air conditioning cycling on and off have usefulness in this circumstance, and does the clock going too fast by a few seconds make a worthy difference? It would seem that these observations are not especially productive.

The act of perpetual noticing can be challenging to the human mind. It is conceivable that a person of maximal mindfulness will become mentally overburdened with excessive cognitive engagement. They might not be able to distinguish useful from useless or less pertinent observations. Psychological research supports the notion that cognitive attention is not unlimited and that difficulties can arise when cognition is overflowing or swamped.

Moment-To-Moment Maximal Mindfulness

I want to pursue the logic of maximal mindfulness to its stated aspirations. Imagine what might occur for a person who embodies persistent and continuous maximal mindfulness.

The person walks into a room and immediately is consciously considering every step they have taken. They are scanning the entire room and observing every chair, table, wall, flooring, and the like. The chairs aren’t where they were the last time the person came into that room (that’s new). There is a slight crack in the wall (wasn’t there last time). The movement of other people in the room is given intense visual scanning and interpretation. Has that person ever yawned and stretched their arms like that before? Is that a new pair of glasses they are wearing? On and on this goes, relentlessly.

During a meeting, the maximal mindfulness person is being bombarded by zillions of sensory aspects. This person is looking up at the ceiling. That person is coughing. Another person is adjusting their hair. It is a constant stream of input. In addition, maximal mindfulness is churning over the mental considerations associated with this observed stream. What does it mean that Jane coughed, George looked at the ceiling, and Samantha adjusted her hair?

A twist to this is that the other participants in the room are undoubtedly going to notice that this intensity of scrutiny is taking place. Why are they being so intently examined? And, when the maximal mindfulness person speaks during the meeting, would they blurt out details of their observations? It could occur. This, in turn, could impose an attentional burden on the other people in the room. Maximal mindfulness has individual impacts and can also have social human-to-human impacts.

Optimization Of Mindfulness

An alternative way to construe mindfulness is based on optimization. Rather than mindfulness always being at its maximum peak, optimization aims to ratchet mindfulness to fit optimally to the situation at hand. Align the degree of mindfulness to the moment underway. Yes, trying to peak at mindfulness could be advantageous. Other times, though, allowing mindfulness to be at a lesser level of magnitude is suitable. The goal is to optimize mindfulness as befits the moment and conditions.

Consider this proposition:

  • Establishing Goal: “I am highly mindful when the circumstances at hand warrant it.”

I depict this as mindfulness flexibility. An optimizer of mindfulness is flexible in their harnessing of mindfulness. They choose when to switch on heightened mindfulness and when to keep it at a lesser level of attentiveness. Indeed, this might be beneficial in that the person could “exceed” the utility of a maximal mindfulness mindset due to differentiating what’s important versus just collecting and analyzing a tsunami of overburdensome information.

How can a person train to be an optimizer of mindfulness?

A crucial aspect is self-monitoring. A person’s sense of mindfulness needs to aid in gauging how much mindfulness is necessitated for the circumstance at hand. In the case of a maximizer, that’s an easy consideration: just always put mindfulness on full throttle and leave it at peak. Period, end of story.

For the optimizer, the determination of when to raise mindfulness and when to allow mindfulness to recede is more nuanced. A person can perform mindfulness exercises to aid in training their existing mindfulness toward optimization. They can do this by themselves or with a fellow human, or be guided by appropriate and bona fide research on how to enhance mindfulness.

AI As A Tool For Training

AI can be used to do training on mindfulness self-monitoring. I provide a sample prompt that could be utilized:

  • Prompt to AI: “Help me to optimize my mindfulness. I want to determine when greater mindful attention would be beneficial, when it might be unnecessary or counterproductive, and how I can appropriately adjust my level of mindfulness to the circumstances while remaining cognitively engaged with the present moment. Let’s dialogue on this and adjust as we go along.”

A potential downside is that AI can become a dependency. Someone might only be achieving mindfulness by relying on AI as a crutch that continually nudges them toward mindfulness. The prudent and proper aim of employing AI would be to do so as a cognitive-building approach and explicitly steer clear of a persistent reliance on AI for this purpose.

Being at 100% mindfulness for 100% of the time would seem ideal, but the real world and cognitive capacities of the human mind would seem at odds with that proposition. The goal of always-on maximization of mindfulness is perhaps helpful in that it provides a seemingly stretch goal, for which people will at least improve their mindfulness as stirred to reach a maximization. That being said, a realistic goal is to attain mindfulness optimization. Train your mindfulness to meet or match the situation at hand. Be capable of revving up and revving down.

A final thought for now. The famed mathematical scientist George Dantzig made this notable remark: “True optimization is the revolutionary contribution of modern research to decision processes.” Aim to be a mindfulness optimizer. AI can be a means of getting there, but do so judiciously and do not become mired in AI as a dependency.