Why Students and Workers Fear the AI-Centered World
Well, the commencement season has come and gone. What have we learned? It seems clear that there is some trepidation on the part of students who fear that AI-generated information will lead to a reduction in available jobs as machines do the work of student/workers.
Commencement speakers at the University of Arizona and elsewhere were met with boos when they mentioned AI. As reported in a posting on the Inside Higher Education, “students have balked as commencement speakers have either told them to embrace AI, or have otherwise mentioned the ever-expanding role of the technology in a speech.”
It seems clear that a lot of students in the graduating classes of 2026 don’t want to hear about AI given that the job market for new grads is tough and many likely believe that AI is at least one factor. Still, it is a technology that affects workplace decision-making—and growing by leaps and bounds—and there’s nothing to do but learn to work with. Students need to learn how to embrace the benefits of using AI and deal with possible negative consequences of its application in the workplace.
Student Concerns
New data from Inside Higher Ed’s ongoing “Student Voice” helps map students’ complex feelings about AI and how their colleges are responding to its rise. Some 1,038 students from 203 institutions, public and private nonprofit, responded to a flash survey on AI taken in May, 2026. The upshot of this flash survey of four-year students is that most are neither AI evangelists nor outright opponents, and they’re actively using AI for coursework. At the same time, they wrestle with concerns about agency, a changing career landscape and more. Some four in 10 are explicitly concerned about dependence on AI tools, even as six in 10 see AI’s primary value to them in college as learning support.
Some 55 percent of students also expect AI to negatively impact their career prospects. Have colleges been successful in helping students navigate AI and what it means for their futures? Not really, as far as respondents are concerned: The plurality, 34 percent, are neutral on their institution’s efforts, describing them as inconsistent, while an additional 21 percent describe them as at least somewhat poor.
Student Perspectives
“Student Voice” is an ongoing survey and reporting series that seeks to elevate the student perspective in institutional student success efforts and in broader conversations about college. The six takeaways from the survey regarding AI are:
Takeaway 1: More students are using AI than ever for coursework, while a significant share—20 percent—remain resisters.
Takeaway 2: “Worried about dependence” is the most common student stance on AI.
Takeaway 3: A majority of all students expect AI to somewhat (39 percent) or very (16 percent) negatively impact their career prospects.
Takeaway 4: Just one in 10 students says that their institution is handling AI’s rise very well, in a thoughtful and proactive way.
Takeaway 5: Asked how AI can be most useful in their college experience, students are most enthusiastic about AI as learning support.
Takeaway 6: Students are somewhat split on their priorities for AI leadership at their institution.
Gen Z Say AI is Making Them Dumber
Gen Z’s distaste for AI can be seen in new research from “GoTo”, which specializes in cloud-based business communication, IT management, and remote support software. The results of the survey of 2,500 global employees conducted in partnership with Workplace Intelligence, tell a story about a workforce caught between the tools that help them and the habits those tools are forming as indicated in the study.
- 50% of employees say they rely on AI too much.
- 30% say they can no longer function without it.
- 39% believe their overreliance on AI is actively eroding their skills and making them less intelligent, a number that climbs to 46% among Gen Z workers.
Gen Z workers, more than other generations, largely feel that AI is making them dumber. Close to half (46 percent) of Gen Zeers felt this way, compared with 39 percent of workers overall. This seems unsupportable, and it’s worth mentioning that students still need critical thinking skills to apply AI when ethical dilemmas exist.
Colleen Flaherty hits the nail on the head when she says: “This commencement season saw denunciations of multiple campus speakers telling graduates about their artificial intelligence–mediated futures. To some observers, the boos didn’t make sense: How could college students—many of whom are AI power users themselves—not want to hear about the technology reshaping the world?
Dan Schawbel points out that “AI is saving workers more than two hours a day, but while employees are getting faster, some are also getting less confident, less skilled, and less certain they can do their jobs without a machine doing much of the thinking for them. That tension is the defining workforce challenge of 2026, and most companies aren’t prepared to address it.”
Working in the AI Environment
One of the clearest findings of the “Go To” research is how much external pressure is shaping AI behavior at work. Sixty percent of employees say they feel pressured to use AI tools to boost productivity regardless of whether the task calls for it. That pressure, absent the right training and policies, is a setup for misuse.
The numbers bear this out. Seventy percent of employees (up from 54% just a year ago) admit they’ve used AI for sensitive or high-stakes tasks, including legal or compliance work, decisions requiring emotional intelligence, and actions involving confidential information. These are exactly the domains where human judgment is most irreplaceable, and where AI errors carry the highest cost. The fact that this number jumped 16 percentage points in a single year suggests the problem isn’t slowing down on its own.
Compounding this is an “AI workslop” problem that’s starting to tax the entire workforce. Forty-three percent of employees say they’ve submitted AI-generated content despite suspecting it was low quality or contained errors. With that in mind, it’s unsurprising that 77% percent say reviewing AI-generated work takes more time than reviewing human work. And 66%-percent say wading through other people’s AI output creates extra work for them. The efficiency gains from AI are real, but they’re being partially offset by a flood of under-reviewed, unreliable output that everyone else must spend time, energy, and resources to clean up.
Conclusion
The employees who will create the most value aren’t those who use AI the most, but the ones who know how to work alongside it. Workers should focus on contributing the judgment, context, and creativity that AI cannot supply, while letting AI handle the volume, speed, and synthesis it does well. Companies that train employees to operate in that partnership model, rather than simply handing them tools and expecting results, will be better positioned when the next wave of AI capabilities arrives.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, PhD, professor emeritus Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, and June 16, 2026. Visit Steve’s website to learn more about his activities.