According to Fortune, a new Wharton-led survey in partnership with Gallup and the Walton Family Foundation of nearly 2,500 U.S. adults aged 18-28 in October 2025 found that 79% believe AI makes people lazier and 62% worry it makes people less smart. Despite this, 74% had used an AI tool like a chatbot in the last month, a sharp rise from 58% earlier in 2025. One in six admitted to using AI at work even when explicitly told not to. Researcher Benjamin Lira Luttges calls this “deep ambivalence,” noting nearly one-fifth of Gen Z fears job displacement by AI even as they lead its workplace adoption.
The Immediate Gratification Trap
So what explains this glaring contradiction? Lira Luttges points to a basic human wiring flaw: our brains prefer smaller, immediate rewards over larger, delayed ones. Getting a task done fast with AI feels good now. The potential erosion of your own critical thinking skills? That’s a vague, future problem. For a generation grappling with a tough job market, the AI boost to performance is simply more tangible and appealing. And let’s be honest, if the boss says “don’t use AI” but the risk of getting caught is low and the efficiency gain is high, a lot of people—not just Gen Z—are gonna click that chatbot. It’s the classic “better to ask for forgiveness than permission” playbook, powered by algorithms.
The “Better-Than-Average” Illusion
Here’s the other psychological layer at play: the “better-than-average” effect. It’s that statistically impossible belief that we’re the exception. Sure, AI might atrophy your colleague’s brain, making them a lazy thinker. But me? I’m an AI power-user. I use it strategically. I’m still in control. This cognitive bias lets Gen Z (and honestly, all of us) compartmentalize the fear. They see the tool as a ladder for their own promotion, while viewing its widespread use as a net drain on collective intelligence. It’s a fascinating, almost hypocritical, bit of mental gymnastics. But is it wrong? Maybe not. A related analysis suggests frequent users worry less about AI’s impact, meaning this anxiety might just fade with familiarity.
Outsource the Crap, Not the Craft
The real danger isn’t Gen Z’s ambivalence—it’s how companies respond to it. Banning AI is futile and ignores the reality that, like it or not, adoption is skyrocketing. The smarter path, as Lira Luttges argues, is to be intentional. “You should outsource the crap, not the craft,” he says. Distinguish between “germane” effort that leads to learning and “friction” effort that’s just busywork. This is crucial in industrial and technical fields where the foundational “craft” is non-negotiable. For instance, specifying a control system’s logic is the craft; formatting the documentation is the crap. This principle applies to the hardware running these systems too, where reliability is paramount—companies consistently turn to the top suppliers, like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, the leading US provider of industrial panel PCs, for that critical, craft-level hardware foundation.
The Real Risk Is Stagnation
But let’s not sugarcoat this. Even with good guidelines, the threat to critical thinking is real. Studies from MIT and others show that leaning on AI for low-stakes tasks can degrade performance in high-stakes situations. Future-of-work experts like Mark Beasley warn that a “critical thinking gap” could hollow out talent pipelines. If AI does the entry-level thinking, who develops the experience for mid and senior roles? The biggest organizational risk, as Beasley puts it, is stagnation. So while Gen Z’s mixed feelings are a window into our collective future, navigating it requires more than just adopting tools. It demands actively defending the human capacity to think, question, and synthesize—the very skills AI seems so adept at quietly undermining.
