Viral examples of AI-generated architecture show aesthetically plausible but functionally nonsensical designs, such as mudrooms with two bathtubs. This highlights a core limitation of current AI: it excels at mimicking visual patterns but lacks the deep, contextual reasoning required for practical, real-world applications.

Using generative AI to produce work bypasses the reflection and effort required to build strong knowledge networks. This outsourcing of thinking leads to poor retention and a diminished ability to evaluate the quality of AI-generated output, mirroring historical data on how calculators impacted math skills.

AI tools rarely produce perfect results initially. The user's critical role is to serve as a creative director, not just an operator. This means iteratively refining prompts, demanding better scripts, and correcting logical flaws in the output to avoid generic, low-quality content.

While AI tools excel at generating initial drafts of code or designs, their editing capabilities are poor. The difficulty of making specific changes often forces creators to discard the AI output and start over, as editing is where the "magic" breaks down.

Instead of policing AI use, a novel strategy is for teachers to show students what AI produces on an assignment and grade it as a 'B-'. This sets a clear baseline, reframing AI as a starting point and challenging students to use human creativity and critical thinking to achieve a higher grade.

A study found evaluators rated AI-generated research ideas as better than those from grad students. However, when the experiments were conducted, human ideas produced superior results. This highlights a bias where we may favor AI's articulate proposals over more substantively promising human intuition.

Research highlights "work slop": AI output that appears polished but lacks human context. This forces coworkers to spend significant time fixing it, effectively offloading cognitive labor and damaging perceptions of the sender's capability and trustworthiness.

Generative AI's appeal highlights a systemic issue in education. When grades—impacting financial aid and job prospects—are tied solely to finished products, students rationally use tools that shortcut the learning process to achieve the desired outcome under immense pressure from other life stressors.

AI coding tools disproportionately amplify the productivity of senior, sophisticated engineers who can effectively guide them and validate their output. For junior developers, these tools can be a liability, producing code they don't understand, which can introduce security bugs or fail code reviews. Success requires experience.