The problem with bad AI-generated work ('slop') isn't just poor writing. It's that subtle inaccuracies or context loss can derail meetings and create long, energy-wasting debates. This cognitive overload makes it difficult for teams to sense-make and ultimately costs more in human time than it saves.

Using AI to generate content without adding human context simply transfers the intellectual effort to the recipient. This creates rework, confusion, and can damage professional relationships, explaining the low ROI seen in many AI initiatives.

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.

A successful AI-powered "flipped classroom" aims for a counterintuitive outcome: increase student time on the platform while decreasing teacher time. By automating lectures and admin, the AI enables teachers to spend less time on the tool and more time on high-impact, one-on-one student interactions.

Human intuition is a poor gauge of AI's actual productivity benefits. A study found developers felt significantly sped up by AI coding tools even when objective measurements showed no speed increase. The real value may come from enabling tasks that otherwise wouldn't be attempted, rather than simply accelerating existing workflows.

AI can produce scientific claims and codebases thousands of times faster than humans. However, the meticulous work of validating these outputs remains a human task. This growing gap between generation and verification could create a backlog of unproven ideas, slowing true scientific advancement.

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.

While AI coding assistants appear to boost output, they introduce a "rework tax." A Stanford study found AI-generated code leads to significant downstream refactoring. A team might ship 40% more code, but if half of that increase is just fixing last week's AI-generated "slop," the real productivity gain is much lower than headlines suggest.

AI tools can generate vast amounts of verbose code on command, making metrics like 'lines of code' easily gameable and meaningless for measuring true engineering productivity. This practice introduces complexity and technical debt rather than indicating progress.