AI Fatigue: Weariness with Artificial Intelligence
There is a feeling that many people may be starting to experience amidst the increasingly massive use of artificial intelligence (AI): fatigue. This is not because AI is not useful, but because its presence feels increasingly difficult to avoid. In work, education, creative industries, social media, and even daily life, AI is being offered as a solution to almost every problem.
We are introduced to new models, new applications, new prompting techniques, and various ways to make work faster and more efficient. In such a situation, a question arises that seems simple but is becoming increasingly relevant: does everything truly need to be assisted by AI?
This question does not stem from an anti-technology stance. Personally, I use AI, study it, and in an academic context, I teach various issues related to AI and digital communication. However, the more intensely this technology is used, the stronger the desire becomes to preserve certain spaces from technological intervention.
Amidst the onslaught of AI-generated work, I simply want to read writing that is entirely done by humans, grade assignments that are truly written by students themselves, enjoy photos or designs without having to ask if the image is AI-generated, or simply browse social media without being flooded with content about the latest AI tools, tips, and tricks. There is even a simple desire to enjoy an idea without having to know or guess the prompt behind it.
This kind of anxiety can be read as part of a phenomenon recently called ‘AI fatigue’. This term does not merely refer to saturation with a new technology, but can be understood as a response to the increasing intensity, speed, and demand for AI adoption. When almost every activity is offered to be automated, optimised, or assisted by machines, the use of AI can slowly shift from a choice to a kind of expectation. People no longer just ask whether AI can help a job, but also feel the need to explain why they are not using it.
In this context, fatigue towards AI does not always mean a rejection of the technology, but rather an anxiety regarding the narrowing space to choose when technology needs to be used and when humans need to work without technological assistance.
The issue becomes important because generative AI and agentic AI do not only assist technical tasks. This technology has entered realms previously considered human cognitive and creative activities: writing, searching for ideas, constructing arguments, creating images, producing music, summarising readings, translating, and even providing responses that resemble empathy.
Thus, discussions about AI should not stop at questions regarding efficiency, productivity, or the accuracy of results, because such discussions will inevitably focus on the benefits of AI. We also need to consider more fundamental consequences: what happens when parts of the processes of thinking, creating, communicating, and learning are increasingly delegated to machines?
This question relates to Sherry Turkle’s ideas regarding the relationship between humans and technology. In ‘Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other’ (2011), Turkle discusses the paradox of digital technology: technology can make humans more technically connected, but at the same time, it can create forms of alienation and distance in social relations. Technology can fulfil some of our needs for communication and presence, but such fulfilment is not always identical to human closeness and the true meaning of ‘being present’.
More than a decade later, this issue has taken a new form through the development of conversational AI. In ‘Artificial Intinuity: How We Become Attached to Machines That Pretend to Care’ (2026), Turkle expands her focus to the human relationship with machines capable of communicating using language that increasingly resembles human conversation. The presence of chatbots and generative AI systems introduces new forms of interaction where machines are no longer just tools displaying information, but can provide responses that feel personal, supportive, and even emotional. This development complicates the boundary between technology as an instrument and technology as an entity that we treat as if it possesses social capacity.
This is where the issue of AI fatigue becomes more than just a matter of technological saturation. As AI becomes increasingly capable of performing tasks that previously required human ability, we need to consider not only what we can gain from technology, but also which abilities we might increasingly fail to practise. Writing, for example, is not merely the activity of producing text. The process of writing forces one to choose words, construct arguments, organise thoughts, face writer’s block, and revise ideas. Similarly, reading is not just about obtaining a summary of information. Reading allows one to confront complexity, ambiguity, and ideas that cannot always be immediately understood.
Therefore, when AI takes over parts of these processes, the evaluation of technology should not be based solely on the quality of the final product. An AI-generated piece of writing might be more grammatically correct and completed faster. An AI-generated image might look more visually perfect. An AI summary might be much faster than reading an entire book. However, the quality of the final result does not always reflect the value of the process undertaken by humans to produce something. In education, for example, the goal of…