My industry has relatively many young people, so almost nobody doesn't use generative AI at work.
I sometimes ask for drafts of documents or wireframes, and sometimes get something that looks like raw generative-AI output.
Using generative AI is fine — but the center of gravity sits on the AI, so there's nothing to revise. The moment I see it, I never ask that person for work again. Whether they use generative AI going forward or not, they'll probably never acquire minimum document-making ability in their lifetime.
The only way to raise output quality might be detailed feedback on what to change based on that output — but ironically, giving those instructions straight to generative AI is faster, cheaper, and higher quality.
Writing ability and logical thinking as first principles feel indispensable in any era.
It's the kind of talk in business books for first-year grads.
Having them doesn't mean high performance — but people who didn't acquire them when they should will struggle to hit above a certain quality on this kind of document or production work.
To be clear: these tasks are a tip of the iceberg even among white-collar work. Plenty of work functions without this. You can earn money without it — so lacking this doesn't mean you can't work or you're finished as a businessperson. I want to stress that.
By the way, I went to a workshop the other day.
A make-something format.
Imagine crafts.
Everyone but me was experienced; they finished toward a clear image in a blink.
The teacher walked around giving one-by-one feedback; when my turn came they went "hmm..." clearly stuck on where I should even start. (※ The teacher is a wonderful person and shared many life-insight stories from their own experience.)
Others silently improved, imaging what to fix, valuing every minute; I was in the hopeless state of "I don't know what I don't know," oddly with time to spare, moving my hands aimlessly.
It recalled a similar memory: elementary school, studying for middle-school entrance exams.
There was a math unit on "concentration" (e.g. salt-water problems). I just couldn't get it and was kept after; rereading the textbook still gave no approach.
I was scared to ask the teacher, but once I mustered courage — still didn't get it — pretended I did and went back to my desk.
Result: still understanding nothing, pretending to think for about two hours until dismissal freed me — and the whole time I thought "how many more minutes…" That idle despair felt similar.
Back: while others' work got better and better, I wasn't even at the level of feeling frustrated — nothing else to do, couldn't not move my hands, so I kept finishing bit by bit without understanding.
In the end, with the teacher's advice (actually improving it with their own hands), I didn't reach the group's average but got better than I'd expected — good.
And one big insight.
As above: work of keeping adding hands while direction is unclear and time overflows — or rather, work of somehow finishing.
Writhe-inducing boredom and discomfort — and reflecting on when I last felt that, I don't think I had in at least ten years.
Maybe new-grad early work, or college internship days: deadline fixed, tough boss, somehow make something shaped, with no idea even of the direction to aim.
In that, somehow make something plausible (so you don't get yelled at), bring it, and get it thrown back for how bad it is.
After ten years of work, unless the field is totally unrelated, even unfamiliar tasks — you can imagine the knack, and even if you can't do it yourself you can get help / feedback efficiently.
Now with generative AI, if you don't know something you can roughly make something plausible. No idle time — finish "cost-effectively." (※ In business, even before generative AI you could supplement unknown work with desk research and books. Still, generative AI carries through to finished documents/production — incomparable "cost-effectiveness.")
With that, the other day's idle despair felt very fresh.
Thinking "ah, I don't know what to do. Alone, I'd absolutely toss this, work or watch YouTube, and never touch it again" — yet since I'd come, I moved my hands and finished.
Focus was long gone, but occasionally: "oh, this might be good… ah, no. Lost again." Still, maybe a bit better than two hours ago.
Above all, the experience of trial-and-error finishing something to a certain level mattered. Not the same as quickly finishing something ugly.
However great the starting condition, you'd still have had to pass through that idle despair route.
Shortly before the workshop I read a composer's blog.
I haven't read all back numbers, but the first issue I read impressed me with wonderful content.
※ Glad to dig up a new interesting blog after a long time. Writing by smart people is nutrition my life needs — I want more.
That blog's claim: creation has two kinds:
The former axes on objective evaluation — follower counts, who praised you — while the latter axes on precision of understanding your own personality.
So in the earlier story: valuing perceiving "I feel idle / at loose ends" more than how skillfully something is made.
Push it: even without a braced "I'm creating!" posture, if you can perceive your inner state it's creation — and you can lower the bar for creative works. That's the claim.
Wonderful claim. In that idle moment I recalled that blog's point, looked inward, and it helped escape thinking "how many more minutes, I want to go home" — unbecoming of a thirty-something adult. More precisely: it helped metacognize that thinking.
…Writing this far in one go, I've lost what conclusion ties it neatly — but since I'm doing the "creative activity" of blogging, tossing it to generative AI for a nice conclusion would be too wasteful from a Create-for-Personality / C4P view.
I'll face the sense of myself trying to connect the earlier talk to the later talk.
Why stuck: if I simply connect "generative AI crap output" and "workshop despair time was good" into "relying on generative AI means you lose this time so no growth" — too simple and boring. Then I recalled C4P and wrote it, and it feels similar-but-different, and I've lost the connection point.
Well, thinking more would mean clinging to C4Q not C4P — I'll use that as an excuse and stop here.
P.S. Gaps between blog posts are growing; maybe I've been unconsciously over-aware of Create-for-Quality (C4Q). This blog is the best place to touch inner sensation and output it — so I want to lower the bar and engage.
Then again, already having a Create-for-Quality place and updating even irregularly is success — and thinking I must lower the bar to update is a contradictory story.
© 2026 ZUUHE