Skip to content

The Subtle Cost of AI Dependence

Artificial intelligence continues to reshape our industry—often for the better. It increases productivity, accelerates innovation, and reduces repetitive work. However, this transformation is not without its drawbacks. One emerging concern is the quiet erosion of human expertise, particularly when AI is used as a substitute for skill rather than a tool to enhance it.

Leveraging AI with Experience

Experienced professionals understand how to use AI effectively. For them, AI acts as a force multiplier—they evaluate, refine, and validate its outputs. Their depth of knowledge allows them to identify shortcomings, maintain quality, and guide both colleagues and the AI systems themselves through feedback and correction.

The Risk to Emerging Talent

Less experienced team members often use AI differently. Without the same contextual grounding or technical depth, they are more likely to accept AI-generated content at face value, especially with the positive and confident tone most LLMs use regardless of the accuracy portrayed. This is a natural part of early-career learning: we grow through practice, feedback, and mistakes.

However, when AI becomes a crutch rather than a collaborator, that learning can stall. Junior employees may not be equipped to question, improve, or even fully understand what the AI produces. This can result in output that is technically functional but lacks nuance, whether in code, documentation, or strategic thinking.

The consequences extend beyond individuals. Poor-quality inputs can degrade the performance of AI systems themselves. When these systems rely on feedback loops informed by mediocre human guidance, or the previous iteration deciding accuracy, the overall quality of outputs can diminish over time, creating a negative spiral.

A Hidden but Growing Problem

Today, this risk is buffered by experienced professionals still in the workforce. But as they retire or shift into non-technical roles, organizations may find themselves relying on teams that have not fully developed the foundational skills needed to lead effectively.

This transition, if left unaddressed, could lead to an organization-wide erosion of capability. The drive for short-term efficiency, automating tasks, and accelerating delivery, can obscure the long-term cost: a workforce less able to reason critically, troubleshoot effectively, or innovate meaningfully.

Everyday Parallels

This trend isn’t unique to software. Consider how drivers increasingly rely on GPS. While convenient, over-reliance can weaken our spatial reasoning skills. A 2020 study in Nature found that habitual GPS users not only showed reduced activity in brain areas related to navigation but also had less grey matter in those regions. Over time, critical thinking and intuitive problem-solving atrophy when they’re no longer exercised.

Similarly, in the corporate world, relying on AI to do our thinking for us, without truly understanding the logic behind the output, leaves us less prepared to adapt when tools fail or edge cases emerge.

This is not a new phenomenon. During the Industrial Revolution, a divide emerged between machine operators and the expert craftspeople who truly understood the manufacturing process. According to research by Kelly, Mokyr, and Ó Gráda, while fewer in number, highly trained specialists emerged as essential to advancing and sustaining industrial efficiency.

How We Preserve Expertise in an AI Age

Organizations must take deliberate steps to balance automation with skill development. Some practical strategies could include:

  1. Structured Mentorship: Facilitate formal mentoring programs where experienced professionals guide junior staff, ensuring that institutional knowledge is actively passed down.

  2. Ongoing Learning Investment: Commit to continuous professional development. Encourage not only learning new tools but deepening understanding of foundational principles.

  3. Hire for Curiosity: Seek out candidates who ask “why,” not just “how.” A genuine desire to understand systems, not just use them, is a better long-term indicator of adaptability and contribution.

  4. Adopt a Hybrid Approach: AI should augment human judgment, not replace it. Encourage employees to critically evaluate AI output, fostering a mindset where technology is a collaborator, not an authority.

  5. Establish Quality Assurance Frameworks: Create dedicated teams to review AI-generated work. These should include experienced staff responsible for setting and upholding quality standards, while holding all contributors accountable.

  6. Encourage Feedback Loops: Build systems where learnings from real-world usage of AI tools are shared across teams, improving both human understanding and AI performance.

Moving Forward Responsibly

Much of today’s AI discussion centers on replacement, what roles AI will eliminate, what industries it will disrupt. But we must also consider what expertise it might quietly diminish.

To ensure long-term resilience and innovation, organizations need to foster a culture where AI is seen as a tool for amplification, not delegation. We must protect and pass on the human insight that underpins high-quality work, critical reasoning, and deep problem-solving.

Let’s stop adding disclaimers like “ChatGPT may make mistakes” to the bottom of every tool. Instead, let’s build teams that can recognize and correct those mistakes, because they understand what right looks like in the first place.