In a Hurry?
AI is about to break the generational chain of human expertise.
When answers come from prompts instead of lived struggle, we don't just lose skills. We lose the cognitive scaffolding that makes mastery possible.
The first to fall silent will be the juniors: those who never survived a 3 AM debugger session, never sketched a layout by hand, never failed so hard the lesson burned into their bones.
They'll ship flawless-looking features at warp speed... until the AI goes down for five minutes and they're left staring at code they don't understand.
The last to realize they've been hollowed out will be the executives: tomorrow's CPOs, CDOs, and Heads of Product who climbed the ladder without ever shipping real code, without ever carrying a pager through a night of outages, without ever feeling the scar tissue of a launch that exploded in their face.
One day a subtle, systemic failure will ripple through a platform no one truly comprehends anymore—the kind of edge case a senior engineer would have caught in code review, but there are no senior engineers left who remember what to look for. And the people at the very top will finally discover the brutal punchline:The higher you climb on borrowed competence, the harder and more publicly you fall when the crutch vanishes.
Juniors lose the skill first. Executives lose the power last. And when that power collapses, it takes entire companies, sometimes entire industries, down with it.
The Last Generation Who Learned
There's something your grandmother can do that you can't.
She can fix a door hinge with a butter knife and a paper clip. Rewire a lamp without watching a YouTube tutorial. Diagnose why the refrigerator is making that sound just by listening. These aren't superhuman abilities—they're the residue of a world where knowledge was earned through friction, where every skill was hard-won through trial, error, and necessity.
Your grandmother didn't have a choice. The repairman cost money the family didn't have. The internet didn't exist to crowdsource solutions. When something broke, you learned to fix it or you lived without it.
Today, if your door lock breaks, you call a locksmith. Or you watch a 6-minute video. Or—increasingly—you ask an AI assistant to order a replacement and schedule installation. The knowledge pathway has been compressed, outsourced, eventually erased.
This is not a complaint about convenience. This is an observation about erosion.
The Internet Changed How We Know; AI Changes If We Know
When the internet arrived, it transformed how knowledge was accessed but not necessarily how it was acquired. You could Google "how to build a website," but you still had to sit down, write HTML, fight with CSS, break things, fix things, and slowly—painfully—build competence.
The internet was a map. You still had to walk the territory.
AI is different. AI is a helicopter that drops you at the summit. You get the view, but you never climbed. You never developed the muscle memory, the intuition, the scar tissue of experience.
Consider what's happening right now in design. A junior designer can type "create a modern SaaS dashboard with clean typography and subtle gradients" into Midjourney or Figma AI and receive something polished in seconds. Twenty years ago, that same designer would have spent months studying color theory, learning Gestalt principles, understanding the psychological impact of whitespace. They would have made ugly things. Many ugly things. And through that ugliness, they would have developed taste.
Taste is not innate. Taste is the residue of 10,000 micro-decisions, most of them wrong.
What happens to taste when you never make those decisions?
The CPO Who Never Shipped Code
Let's talk about product managers—specifically, Chief Product Officers who will soon oversee multi-million dollar platforms without ever having written a line of functional code, designed a user flow by hand, or truly understood the entropic chaos of software development.
This sounds impossible, but it's already happening.
In the 2000s and 2010s, great product leaders came up through the trenches. They started as developers or designers. They understood the material of their craft. They knew why certain features took three weeks instead of three days. They had felt the weight of technical debt, the fragility of scaling, the hidden complexity beneath every "simple" request.
This experiential knowledge created empathy, realism, and strategic clarity. They could look at a roadmap and feel where it would break.
Now imagine someone who came up in the age of AI-generated code and design. They prompt Cursor or GitHub Copilot. The code appears. It works. They ship it. The feedback loop is instant, but entirely abstract. They never struggled with a compiler error at 3 AM. Never refactored a function seventeen times to make it elegant. Never felt the crystalline moment when a hard problem finally cracks open.
They're managing complexity they never touched.
How do you lead what you've never done?
The Surgeon Who Never Felt Tissue
Before we get to the research, consider what's happening in medicine.
Medical schools are increasingly using AI-powered diagnostic tools and virtual reality simulators for surgical training. A resident can practice hundreds of procedures in VR before touching a real patient. The AI suggests diagnoses based on symptoms, lab results, and medical imaging with superhuman accuracy.
This sounds like unambiguous progress. And in many ways, it is.
But experienced surgeons are noticing something unsettling: younger doctors who trained heavily with simulators lack what they call "tissue sense"—the tactile intuition for how different organs feel, how much pressure is too much, how to adapt when something unexpected happens. The VR simulator is perfect. Real bodies are not.
One cardiac surgeon told The Lancet in 2024: "I can tell within thirty seconds whether a resident trained primarily on simulators or primarily on cadavers and supervised procedures. The simulator-trained ones have excellent theoretical knowledge and perfect technique in ideal conditions. But when they encounter anatomical variations or complications, they freeze. They're waiting for the software to tell them what to do."
This is not about AI quality. This is about the irreplaceable learning that happens through embodied practice—through failure, adaptation, and the visceral feedback of reality pushing back against your assumptions.
The same pattern appears in every field where AI provides a shortcut to competence.
The Research That Should Terrify You
A 2024 study from Stanford's Human-AI Interaction Lab found something quietly disturbing: participants who used AI coding assistants to complete programming tasks showed 68% faster completion times but, when tested two weeks later without AI assistance, demonstrated 43% worse retention and problem-solving ability compared to those who coded manually.
The researchers called it "competence without comprehension."
You can perform the task—but only with the prosthetic attached.
Another study, this time from MIT's Center for Collective Intelligence, tracked design students over a semester. Group A used traditional tools (Figma, Sketch). Group B used AI-assisted design platforms with natural language generation. Both groups produced comparable final projects. But when asked to critique and improve their own work, explain their design decisions, or adapt their designs to new constraints without AI assistance, Group A vastly outperformed Group B.
The AI group had learned to delegate judgment. They could produce outputs, but they couldn't think like designers.
This is not a problem of AI quality. This is a problem of human atrophy.
The Vanishing Path to Mastery
Here's what kept senior engineers, designers, and strategists sharp for decades: they had to climb the entire mountain. They started at the bottom, made every mistake, learned every hard lesson. By the time they reached leadership, they had internalized the full stack of knowledge—not just what to do, but why it matters, where it breaks, and how to fix it when no one else can.
This path is disappearing across every domain.
In music: Conservatory professors report students who can produce professional-sounding tracks with AI tools like Suno or Udio but can't sight-read sheet music, don't understand chord progressions, and struggle to improvise with other musicians. They can prompt a perfect symphony but can't explain why a minor key feels melancholic. The theoretical and embodied knowledge that made musicians versatile collaborators—capable of adapting to new contexts, jamming with others, teaching the next generation—is evaporating.
In education: Teachers who use AI to generate lesson plans, assignments, and grading rubrics are noticing they've stopped developing the deep pedagogical intuition that comes from observing hundreds of students over years. The AI gives them "best practices," but they lose the ability to read a room, adapt on the fly, or recognize when a student needs a completely different approach. Teaching becomes execution of AI-generated scripts rather than a dynamic human practice.
In art and illustration: A generation of digital artists can generate stunning imagery with Midjourney or DALL-E but never learned anatomy, perspective, or color theory. They can iterate quickly on prompts but can't sketch from life, can't correct subtle errors in proportion, and can't evolve their style intentionally because they never understood the fundamentals their style is built on.
The pattern is universal: AI raises the floor but lowers the ceiling. Anyone can produce decent output. Almost no one develops mastery.
Why would you spend three months learning video editing when Descript or Kapwing AI can assemble polished videos from a text prompt? Why study music theory when AI generates professional tracks in minutes? Why learn data analysis when Claude or ChatGPT can write Python scripts, run regressions, and generate insights faster than you can load Excel?
The rational answer is: you wouldn't.
And that's the problem.
Because the moment you skip the learning, you lose the ability to critique the output. You don't know what good looks like. You can't spot the subtle errors. You can't improvise when the tool fails. You become a high-level prompter—dependent, fragile, and ultimately replaceable.
The cruel irony: AI was supposed to free us from tedious work. Instead, it may free us from competence itself.
The Professionals Who Won't Exist
Let's catalog the expertise at risk:
Product Managers who never coded, never designed, never felt the tension between vision and reality. They can read user feedback and prompt GPT to generate roadmaps, but they lack the somatic knowledge of why certain features fight back.
Designers who never studied typography, color theory, or the historical evolution of visual language. They can generate beautiful artifacts, but they can't articulate why one solution works and another fails.
Developers who never debugged memory leaks, never optimized algorithms, never read the source code of libraries they depend on. They can prompt AI to write functions, but they can't architect systems that scale.
Strategists who never built financial models from scratch, never conducted primary research, never sat with uncomfortable data. They can generate slide decks full of insights, but they can't tell the difference between correlation and causation.
Musicians who never learned to play an instrument, never practiced scales, never improvised in a live setting. They can produce tracks, but they can't feel music.
These aren't hypotheticals. This is the generation graduating right now.
A Study in Forgotten Knowledge
In Japan, there's a term: shokunin. It means "artisan" or "craftsman," but it carries deeper weight—a philosophy of mastery through lifelong devotion to a single craft. A sushi chef spends years just learning to cook rice. A sword-maker studies metallurgy for decades before forging their first blade.
Shokunin is dying.
Not because the crafts are obsolete, but because the pathway to mastery requires sustained friction—years of failure, repetition, incremental improvement. In a world optimized for speed and convenience, friction feels like waste.
But friction is where learning lives.
The neuroscience is clear: expertise requires what researchers call "desirable difficulty." Your brain rewires itself through struggle. Through failure. Through the gap between what you want to do and what you can currently do.
AI closes that gap instantly. And in doing so, it short-circuits the very mechanism that builds competence.
The Inversion: When AI Needs Humans Who Understand
Here's the paradox that should keep you awake at night:
The better AI gets at generating solutions, the more valuable humans become who deeply understand the domain. Not because AI lacks capability, but because someone needs to know when the AI is wrong—and why.
A 2023 incident at a legal tech firm illustrates this perfectly. An AI-powered contract analysis tool flagged a merger agreement as "low risk." The junior lawyer, trained entirely on AI-assisted review, approved it. The senior lawyer, who had spent fifteen years reading contracts manually, felt something was wrong. She dug deeper. The AI had missed a subtle clause—one that would have exposed the company to $40 million in liability.
The junior lawyer couldn't see the error because she never developed the pattern recognition that comes from reading thousands of contracts slowly, painfully, manually.
The senior lawyer saved the company not because she was smarter, but because she had lived through enough contracts to recognize when something smelled wrong.
This is the inversion: AI makes expertise more valuable, not less—but only if that expertise exists.
And we're on the verge of a world where it won't.
The Question No One Is Asking
If the next generation of professionals grows up prompting AI instead of building skills from first principles, who will train the AI?
Who will create the next frameworks, the next paradigms, the next breakthroughs—if no one understands the fundamentals deeply enough to push beyond them?
Innovation doesn't come from efficiency. It comes from deep understanding, lateral thinking, and the kind of unexpected connections that only emerge when you've spent years inside a problem.
You can't prompt your way to a breakthrough. You have to become the kind of person who sees what others miss.
The Generational Divide
We're about to witness a stark professional bifurcation:
The Old Guard: Those who learned their craft before AI. Who coded without Copilot. Who designed without Midjourney. Who wrote without ChatGPT. They possess embodied knowledge—hard-won, deeply internalized, resilient.
The New Generation: Those who grew up with AI as a baseline tool. Who can produce impressive outputs rapidly but lack the foundational understanding to critique, adapt, or innovate when the AI fails or the context changes.
For the next 10-15 years, the Old Guard will be extraordinarily valuable. Companies will pay premium rates for people who actually know how things work, not just how to prompt tools that know.
But what happens after that?
What happens when the Old Guard retires and there's no next generation of experts to replace them?
We'll have a crisis of competence. A world where everyone can generate outputs but no one can solve novel problems. A priesthood of AI without acolytes who understand the religion.
The Collapse That's Already Happening
This isn't speculative. It's measurable.
Coding boot camps are reporting a strange phenomenon: graduates who can build functional apps but can't explain how loops work. Design portfolios filled with AI-generated mockups that look professional but reveal no understanding of hierarchy, contrast, or user psychology. Content creators who can produce high-volume output but can't write a compelling sentence without AI assistance.
The floor has risen—the minimum viable output looks better than ever. But the ceiling has collapsed. The gap between novice and master is shrinking because mastery requires a journey no one wants to take anymore.
But Here's What AI Gets Right
Before we spiral into complete pessimism, we need to acknowledge something critical: AI is also the most powerful democratizing force in human history.
A teenager in rural India with internet access can now learn design, coding, music production, or video editing at a level that would have required expensive schools and equipment just ten years ago. AI tutors provide personalized education to students whose schools can't afford qualified teachers. Translation tools break down language barriers that have limited access to knowledge for centuries.
A single parent working two jobs can use AI to help their child with homework they don't have time to explain themselves. A person with dyslexia can use AI writing tools to express ideas they always had but struggled to articulate. An aspiring filmmaker without access to expensive equipment can create compelling narratives with AI video tools.
This is not trivial. This is profound.
The question isn't whether AI should exist—it's how we integrate it without losing ourselves in the process.
Consider the case of GitHub Copilot in developing nations. A 2024 study from the University of São Paulo tracked developers in Brazil, Nigeria, and Indonesia. For experienced developers, Copilot accelerated their work by 30-40% without degrading code quality. They used it as a powerful assistant while maintaining their own judgment and expertise.
But more importantly: junior developers who would have struggled to enter the profession due to lack of formal education or mentorship were able to build functional, secure applications. AI didn't replace their learning—it scaffolded it, providing real-time feedback and examples that accelerated their growth.
The pattern appears across fields:
In medicine: AI diagnostic tools help rural clinics in Africa provide care comparable to major urban hospitals. A nurse with AI assistance can catch conditions a doctor might miss without expensive imaging equipment. This isn't replacing doctors—it's extending healthcare to people who had none.
In education: AI tutoring platforms like Khan Academy's Khanmigo provide one-on-one instruction to students in underfunded schools. The AI doesn't replace teachers—it allows one teacher to effectively support 30 students at different levels simultaneously.
In creative fields: Musicians in countries without conservatories can learn theory, composition, and production through AI tools that were once gated behind expensive education. The AI doesn't replace music schools—it makes musical literacy accessible to everyone.
The key difference: these are use cases where AI augments capability rather than replaces learning. Where it accelerates development rather than short-circuits it entirely.
The Critical Distinction: Augmentation vs. Replacement
There's a razor-thin line between AI as tool and AI as crutch.
AI as tool: You learn the fundamentals, then use AI to accelerate execution, explore variations, and handle repetitive tasks. The AI makes you faster, but you remain the architect of meaning. You can still perform without it.
AI as crutch: You skip the fundamentals entirely and rely on AI for everything from concept to execution. You can produce output but have no understanding of how or why it works. Remove the AI, and you're helpless.
The tragedy is that both paths look identical from the outside. Both produce results. But only one builds lasting capability.
And here's the uncomfortable truth: for people who already have access to education, mentorship, and resources, AI often becomes a crutch. It's easier. It's faster. Why struggle?
For people who don't have those resources, AI is genuinely transformative—it provides the scaffolding they never had access to in the first place.
The question we should be asking isn't "Is AI good or bad?" but rather: "How do we use AI to democratize access without erasing the learning journey itself?"
But Here's the Hope
This essay is not a obituary. It's a warning. And warnings only matter if there's still time to change course.
The answer is not to reject AI. That's Luddism, and it's futile.
The answer is to be intentional about when and how we use it.
Who Will Pay for Friction?
Here's the uncomfortable question we keep sidestepping.
While we're telling individuals to "choose the hard path," our economy—the market, shareholders, quarterly KPIs—ruthlessly rewards speed and efficiency. The manager who ships ten AI-generated features on deadline gets a bonus. The manager who spends the same time deeply developing one feature with their team risks being reprimanded for "moving too slowly."
The paradox is vicious: the benefits of avoiding friction are instant and visible in quarterly reports. The cost of lost expertise is stretched across years and only becomes apparent during systemic collapse—when everyone pays, and they pay catastrophically.
We're all hostages to short-termism, where it's economically irrational to be the person who remembers and understands.
Individual asceticism—refusing AI on principle—is noble. But it's not a solution to a systemic problem. As long as we measure and reward speed of execution but not depth of understanding, we'll just be heroic loners trying to manually extinguish a fire that our entire economic model keeps igniting.
The real question isn't whether individuals should choose friction. It's whether our institutions, our companies, our venture capital models can afford to value long-term competence over short-term velocity.
Right now, the answer is no. And that's what should terrify you most.
Because the individuals willing to climb the mountain slowly will be outcompeted, outpaced, and eventually outvoted by those riding the AI helicopter to the summit. Until the day the helicopter runs out of fuel mid-flight and everyone realizes nobody knows how to land.
Here's the framework:
What You Should Do Right Now
1. Protect Your Learning Friction
Deliberately choose hard modes. If you're learning to code, ban AI assistants for the first 100 hours. Force yourself to struggle. The struggle is the point.
If you're learning design, create 50 layouts by hand before touching Midjourney. Build the muscle memory first. Develop taste through repetition.
If you're learning strategy, build financial models from scratch. Work through case studies manually. Make the spreadsheets dance.
Friction is not inefficiency. Friction is the price of competence.
2. Alternate AI and Manual Work
Don't go cold turkey. Use AI, but in cycles. Try the problem yourself first. Then use AI. Then critique what AI gave you. Then improve it manually.
This creates a virtuous loop: you learn from doing, you accelerate with AI, you deepen understanding by evaluating AI's output.
Real example: A product designer at Spotify shared their workflow: they sketch initial concepts by hand for 30 minutes (building spatial reasoning and composition instincts), then use Figma AI to generate variations (exploring possibilities faster), then manually refine the AI outputs (exercising critical judgment and taste).
The result: they're three times faster than pure manual work, but they maintain and even strengthen their core design skills because they're constantly exercising judgment on what AI produces.
You stay sharp.
3. Study the Fundamentals Obsessively
Whatever your field, go deeper into first principles than seems reasonable. If you're in tech, study computer science theory. If you're in design, study art history and perceptual psychology. If you're in business, study economics and game theory.
AI is good at patterns. You need to understand the substrate beneath the patterns.
4. Teach What You Know
The best way to solidify expertise is to teach it. Write tutorials. Mentor juniors. Create courses. The act of explanation forces you to understand at a deeper level.
And you'll be creating the knowledge artifacts that others can use to resist the atrophy.
5. Build Your Own Tools
Don't just consume AI. Build with it. Learn how models work. Fine-tune them. Understand their limitations. The people who will thrive aren't AI users—they're AI architects.
Be the person who knows when to trust the algorithm and when to override it.
6. Cultivate Metacognition
Pay attention to how you think, not just what you produce. Notice when you're outsourcing judgment. Notice when you're blindly accepting AI outputs. Notice when you've stopped asking "why."
Metacognition—thinking about thinking—is the immune system against cognitive atrophy.
7. Use AI to Learn, Not Just to Produce
Here's a powerful reframe: instead of using AI to skip learning, use it as an infinitely patient tutor.
Ask ChatGPT to explain concepts at different levels of complexity. Have it critique your work and explain why something is wrong. Use it to generate practice problems that test your understanding. Ask it to simulate debates where you defend your reasoning.
A programmer shared this approach: "I write code manually first, then ask Claude to review it and explain what could be improved. I learn more from AI code review than from having AI write the code for me."
A designer: "I create mockups myself, then ask AI to analyze them against design principles I'm trying to learn. It's like having a design mentor available 24/7."
This is AI as scaffold, not crutch. You're using the tool to accelerate your learning journey, not bypass it entirely.
The people who will thrive aren't those who reject AI or blindly embrace it—they're the ones who understand when to use it and when to struggle without it.
The Future Is Not Determined
We're standing at a fork in the road.
One path leads to a world where humans become high-level managers of AI systems we don't fully understand, dependent on tools we can't critique, producing outputs we can't improve. A world of outsourced competence and atrophied expertise.
The other path leads to a world where AI becomes a true cognitive partnership—where humans maintain deep understanding and AI accelerates execution. Where we use the tools without losing ourselves.
The choice is not binary. It's a spectrum. And it's personal.
You can let AI dissolve your expertise, or you can use it to amplify capabilities you've built the hard way.
But here's the thing: this choice has a time limit.
Once a generation grows up without ever building foundational skills, the knowledge is gone. You can't teach what you never learned. You can't critique what you never understood.
The chain breaks.
And unlike a broken door lock, this is not something AI can fix for us.
Imagine 2035.
An average engineer opens the repository of a 15-year-old mission-critical system. Ninety-five percent of the codebase has been generated by successive waves of AI over the past decade. No one on the current team truly understands how any of it actually works underneath the surface. A mysterious production bug appears under load with a million concurrent users, and nobody can fix it. Nobody can even explain to investors—or regulators—why the entire platform just went down for six hours.
The last person who genuinely understood that code retired five years ago, taking an irreplaceable mental model with them. An entire era of deep systems knowledge walked out the door and was never passed on.
We won’t just lose skills.
We will lose the ability to maintain, secure, and evolve the very infrastructure we depend on.
This isn’t dystopian science fiction.
It’s the logical endpoint of the path we’re already sprinting down at full speed.
The Lonely Mastery
There's a Japanese calligrapher—Inoue Yūichi—who spent 40 years perfecting a single brushstroke. Just one. Decades of practice to move ink across paper in a gesture so precise, so intentional, that it transcends technique and becomes art.
No AI can replicate that. Not because the stroke is technically complex—it isn't. But because the stroke embodies 40 years of awareness, refinement, and presence. It's not a pattern. It's a life.
This is what we risk losing: not just skills, but the profound human capacity for mastery. The ability to spend a lifetime with a single question and emerge transformed.
AI gives us answers instantly. But maybe the point was never the answer.
Maybe the point was always the question—and the person you become while searching for it.
The future of human expertise isn't about competing with AI. It's about becoming the kind of person worth having a conversation with. Choose your path carefully. There are no second chances.
Author: Mark
www.humai.blog
2025 Novebmer 21
Want to gain a deeper understanding of the future of AI and its associated risks? We recommend this article for reading:
Mark
