The Illusion of Output

AI makes it easy to produce output. You can generate code, designs, marketing ideas, user flows, or even a prototype in a few minutes. It looks impressive on the surface. It also creates a trap. People start to believe output means productivity.

It does not.

Output is cheap now. Anyone can create something. The real question is whether that something solves the right problem. And this is where the gap becomes obvious.

I see this a lot in the way people talk about AI. You can find countless examples of “I built this in 10 minutes”. Some look exciting. But if you check the details, most of them do not solve a real user problem. They are not reliable. They cannot run in real conditions. They fall apart the moment you try to scale or integrate them.

The same pattern shows up at work. People generate things quickly, but the output does not always move the problem forward. It creates noise rather than progress. People ask AI to generate code they cannot debug. Others create a dozen screens without understanding the flow. Some write long documents that do not clarify anything. It feels productive because something appears on the screen, but the output becomes a distraction.

Productivity has never been about the amount of output. Productivity is about solving the right problem with the most efficient solution. To do that, you need domain knowledge. You need context. You need experience making trade-offs. AI cannot do this part for you.

AI can help you move faster. But only if you know where you are going. Without expertise, AI just accelerates confusion. You get more things, not better things. This is why strong practitioners get a clear advantage. They use AI to amplify their judgment. They ask better questions. They evaluate solutions. They know what good looks like. AI becomes the leverage.

Weak practitioners do not get the same effect. AI gives them more surface area to cover, more decisions to make, and more ways to make mistakes. Their lack of fundamentals becomes more visible. They ship faster, but also break things faster.

For non-engineers, this is important to understand. AI will not replace the need for expertise. It will not turn you into an engineer or a designer, or a product builder overnight. It reflects how much clarity you already have. If you do not understand the problem deeply, AI cannot fix that. It can only generate more output that you cannot evaluate. 

There is also a common argument online comparing AI-generated code with compiled code from a compiler. They argue that if we do not review compiler output, we should not need to review AI output. They miss the key point. A compiler follows a deterministic algorithm. It transforms your code into machine code in a predictable and verifiable way. AI does not work like that. You cannot predict what AI will generate, and you cannot assume correctness from an LLM model.

Some people say, if the code can run, why do I need to check the code? While it’s true, running code only proves the happy path. It does not prove correctness, reliability, security, or long-term cost. It only shows that one specific scenario worked once. And in real systems, that is not enough. 

The real multiplier is still the same. AI plus domain expertise. AI takes your strengths and scales them. It also takes your weaknesses and scales them. This makes the fundamentals even more important. Focus on your strength, don’t scale your weaknesses. Thinking clearly. Understanding problems. Making good decisions.

If you enjoy thoughts like this, follow me. I share what I learn as we navigate the AI era together.