AI Is Changing Work. We Need to Learn to Direct It | Opinion

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the nature of work, and it is crucial to understand how to effectively manage these developments. Reassurance alone is insufficient; a more practical approach is needed. We must learn to direct AI tools while still nurturing the human judgment that provides purpose to our work. This distinction is increasingly significant as AI capabilities grow.

Recent research from the International Labour Organization indicates that approximately one in four workers globally may face job transformation due to generative AI, rather than outright job loss. This distinction highlights that many occupations still require human input, even as exposure to AI grows.

It is essential not to assume that job security is guaranteed or to blame workers for potential automation. Instead, we should focus on developing the skills necessary to participate in the evolving nature of work. One key aspect to reconsider is our understanding of creativity. Creativity should not be confined to traditional domains such as art or publishing.

It extends to all areas where one must understand a situation and determine better solutions, such as programming, teaching, and customer service. In these scenarios, creativity involves assessing the context and determining more effective approaches.

Critically evaluating AI-generated outputs is crucial, as a fluent paragraph may overlook its target audience, or a proposed solution may ignore essential constraints. For instance, an employee could request AI to generate customer instructions and then identify confusion points, asking for multiple explanations to compare against the actual process.

This approach ensures the technology is used with a defined purpose and responsibility remains with the human user. In my programming work, I appreciate AI's ability to suggest libraries and assemble parts of a solution, but I retain responsibility for deciding the overall solution and its alignment with the project goals. This mindset allows AI assistance to enhance productivity while still requiring thoughtful evaluation.

Research from a 2025 CHI conference study of 319 knowledge workers suggests that greater reliance on generative AI is linked to reduced critical thinking. While self-reported data does not confirm that AI diminishes cognitive skills, it raises an important question: how actively do people scrutinize AI's responses? If we prioritize speed, critical analysis may become less valued.

Conversely, if we incorporate review into the process, AI assistance can create space for thoughtful consideration. Employers, educators, and users must collectively decide what aspects to emphasize. Business leaders should encourage experimentation with sufficient time for learning, clear boundaries, and open discussions about shifting responsibilities.

Employees should practice becoming more creative and assess AI suggestions against predetermined requirements. Employers should allocate paid time for this practice and evaluate both speed and accuracy. Educators can also engage students in discussions about accepted or rejected AI suggestions, fostering a deeper understanding of the technology's role.

While this approach cannot resolve all employment-related questions, it offers a practical means to build capabilities while retaining responsibility. In summary, it is vital to improve our ability to decide what tasks truly require human attention, even as machines become more adept at assisting us. Wael Mckee, a creative director and brand strategist specializing in luxury branding and visual identity, holds these views.