AI fatigue is a strange modern problem because it arrives wearing the costume of efficiency.
For years we were told that smarter tools would buy us time. And in a narrow sense, they do: a good model can draft a function, summarize a codebase, generate tests, rewrite documentation, translate between languages, and propose fixes faster than a human can type. The trap is that speed is not the same thing as ease. When you compress the “making” part of work, you don’t automatically compress the “thinking” part. You often inflate it.
A lot of people experience this as a paradox. They ship more. Their calendars look fuller. Their backlogs shrink in visible places. Yet they feel more depleted, more scattered, and oddly less satisfied by the work. That isn’t laziness and it isn’t “resistance to change.” It’s what happens when the bottleneck moves from production to judgment.
Judgment is expensive. It costs attention, context, and responsibility.
Before AI, a programmer might spend a morning wrestling a single problem: reading, designing, implementing, testing, and iterating. The work was hard, but it had a coherent arc. Now the same morning can dissolve into six parallel threads because each thread is “only an hour with AI.” You can ask for a refactor, then while the model responds you ping a second prompt about a bug, then you remember you should add metrics, then you open a new tab to check what the latest agent can do, then you review an auto-generated pull request, then you notice you still haven’t decided what you actually believe about the architecture. The model never tires between tasks. You do.
The fatigue isn’t just about volume. It’s about fragmentation. Each context switch has a hidden tax: you reload the mental state of a system, the constraints of a ticket, the story of a bug, the “why” behind a decision, and the social terrain of whoever will read your code. AI makes it easy to start. It does not make it easy to finish.
There’s a second layer, quieter but corrosive: the feeling of being turned into a perpetual reviewer. When a machine can generate plausible output on demand, the human role shifts toward approving, rejecting, and patching. That sounds lighter than creating from scratch, but it often feels heavier, because it’s a constant posture of suspicion. Is this correct? Is it secure? Is it maintainable? Is it subtly wrong in a way that will bite in production? Reviewing is a high-alert activity. Do it all day and your brain starts looking for exits.
And then there’s tool FOMO: the sense that if you don’t keep up, you’ll fall behind. New models, new agents, new IDE plugins, new workflows, new “best practices” announced every week. Keeping up starts to resemble doomscrolling, except the stakes feel professional: your competence is on the line, your employability is on the line, your identity might be on the line.
So what do you do with this—besides gritting your teeth?
Start by recognizing that AI fatigue isn’t a personal failing. It’s a predictable response to an environment that rewards throughput while quietly transferring coordination costs onto the individual. Once you see it that way, the strategies become less like “self-care” and more like basic operational discipline.
One useful move is to treat AI like a power tool, not an always-on companion. Power tools are fantastic, but you don’t keep the drill running on the table next to you “just in case.” You pick it up for a specific cut, then you put it down. In practical terms: decide in advance what kinds of work are “AI-eligible” and what kinds are “human-only.”
Examples help. AI-eligible: boilerplate, rote transformations, first drafts, alternative implementations, test scaffolding, documentation outlines, log parsing, code search summaries. Human-only (at least at first): defining the problem, choosing trade-offs, naming the abstraction, setting boundaries, deciding what not to build, evaluating risk, and anything that would be catastrophic if it fails quietly. Use AI to accelerate execution after you’ve established intent. If you start with AI before intent, you outsource the hardest part and then spend hours arguing with the results.
A second strategy is batching. The worst pattern is prompt–wait–prompt–wait, like you’re playing mental ping-pong. Put AI work into blocks. For example: 25 minutes of prompting and generating options, then 50 minutes of focused integration and verification, then a short break. The point is not the exact timing; it’s preventing the day from becoming an infinite sequence of micro-decisions.
Related: remove “latency gaps.” When you’re waiting for output, don’t fill the gap with random browsing. That trains your attention to fracture on cue. Have a default replacement: stand up, stretch, take two minutes to write down what you’re trying to decide, or read a single relevant source file. Small, repeatable rituals beat heroic willpower.
Third: cap the number of simultaneous threads. AI makes parallelism seductive; your brain is not a CPU. Pick a maximum—three active tasks, for instance—and enforce it by writing the others down somewhere safe. The relief comes from knowing you’re not dropping them; you’re postponing them deliberately. Many people discover that the exhaustion was less about work and more about the fear of forgetting.
Fourth: rebuild “muscle memory” on purpose. If you feel less confident reasoning without AI, don’t wait for a crisis to expose it. Do small, regular drills: solve one bug a week without assistance; write a small function from scratch before checking suggestions; explain a design in plain language to a rubber duck; sketch a concurrency scenario on paper. This isn’t nostalgia. It’s resilience. A pilot uses autopilot, but still trains for manual flight.
Fifth: lower the temperature of review. If AI-generated code forces you into constant vigilance, change the game: narrow the scope of what you ask for. Instead of “implement the whole feature,” ask for a small, testable slice. Demand invariants and edge cases. Ask for a failure mode analysis. Use the model as an adversary as often as a helper: “Assume this approach is wrong—how would it fail?” That turns review from vague dread into a structured checklist.
Finally, some of the most effective countermeasures are social, not individual. Teams need norms: What is acceptable AI usage? What must be understood by the author? When is it okay to ship generated code? Who owns the decision when the model’s suggestion is plausible but unfamiliar? Without norms, everyone improvises, and improvisation is exhausting.
Leaders also have a responsibility to stop mistaking “more output” for “less load.” If AI increases throughput, you can spend the dividend on quality, refactoring, and learning—or you can spend it on more tickets until people break. Many organizations will choose the second option by default, because it looks good on a dashboard. If you want to keep good people, you have to choose intentionally.
AI fatigue is real because the mind is not infinitely elastic. But it’s also manageable once you stop treating AI as magic and start treating it as infrastructure: powerful, useful, and in need of guardrails. The goal isn’t to go back to the old world. It’s to build a new one where speed doesn’t come with a permanent tax on attention—and where the human remains more than a tired judge stamping an endless assembly line.
Leave a Reply