If you had to follow this simple rule in the AI age: 'Never ask someone to review content if the review will take longer than the time it took you to create it,' how would that change the way you work?
In the midst of the AI "revolution", it’s tempting to believe that these tools will simply streamline our work and save us time. But from my own experience, AI is often creating more work for me—not less. The rapid feedback loops and nonstop flood of content are both a blessing and a curse. Here’s why.
One vivid example comes from a day when I was crafting a strategy document with the help of AI. As I was focused on it, a coworker sent me a presentation they had generated using AI, asking for my review. Once I completed my draft, I also sought feedback from three other colleagues. Each document had clear direction and context—quality work, no doubt. But reviewing and responding to this rapidly produced content often takes longer than the original creation.
The sensation is an odd mix of enthusiasm and excitement paired with overstimulation and overwhelm. AI’s ability to instantly generate ideas and outputs means there are no natural boundaries anymore. Inspiration is continuous and simultaneous, and we are essentially vomiting content out all at once.
This flood necessitates discipline. Just because AI can generate unlimited content doesn’t mean it should. Throttling our interaction with AI and deliberately aiming for outcomes aligned with our core goals is critical. I’ve fallen into the trap myself—working late into the night fueled by enthusiasm and the ability to run multiple AI agents on various topics simultaneously. Right now, this all feels like navigating uncharted territory.
Boundaries are key—curbing the overstimulation by limiting AI activation. We already live in an overstimulating world. Although many acknowledge this problem, I see less restraint than I would expect from peer knowledge workers.
One significant challenge is the create and review cycle with AI-generated content, which can feel like a form of doom scrolling.You create content, get feedback, revise, then repeat—a mental treadmill with no clear exit. This cycle breeds two specific fatigues: decision fatigue and review fatigue. Decision fatigue drains your mental energy from constant choices about what content to create or revise. Review fatigue wears you down from endlessly evaluating peer input and edits.
What helps is developing a framework to decide what content truly deserves your energy. This framework guides you to prioritize outcomes over ideas, so you aren’t led astray by every shiny new possibility AI suggests.
Having a core set of critical documents to operate from and using supporting materials like explainers and presentations strategically helps contain the workload. I’m working to limit myself to one main developer advocacy operating system to maintain focus and reduce unnecessary proliferation of content.
I aim for a discrete set of living documents updated collaboratively with clear guardrails on when and how AI content is created. Setting these boundaries is essential to avoid the overwhelm of nonstop content generation.
A misconception I want to challenge is the idea that AI inherently saves time. Often, it creates more work by speeding up the idea-to-execution loop without a corresponding pause for reflection or strategy. The instant gratification of seeing results instantly triggers a “should I?” moment requiring deliberate discipline to resist chasing every idea.
Ultimately, working with AI demands balance—embracing its power while consciously managing its impact on our time and energy. For me, this means recognizing when to push forward and when to step back and breathe. Without these boundaries, AI is less a time saver and more a creator of additional work.
The future of AI-assisted work depends on this delicate balance. Setting boundaries, reducing overstimulation, and fostering discipline will let us harness AI’s promise without drowning in the flood of content.
