Skill Development, Maintenance, Erosion, and Revaluation: How Knowledge Workers Experience Generative AI
Source: TU Delft (Oviedo-Trespalacios, Laksanadjaja, Torkamaan), AHFE Open Access · 2026
Generative AI (GenAI) is rapidly embedding itself in knowledge work, supporting tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and information synthesis. Although widely promoted as enhancing productivity and learning, concerns persist regarding overreliance, deskilling, and erosion of professional expertise. Current debates typically frame GenAI’s impact on skills in binary terms—upskilling versus deskilling—yet empirical evidence on how workers themselves experience these changes in everyday practice remains limited. This study examines how knowledge workers perceive the impact of GenAI on their professional skills. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 38 professionals in the Netherlands, including academics (e.g., lecturers and professors) and non-academic professionals (e.g., consultants, analysts, engineers, legal professionals, and public sector employees) with varying levels of experience. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis to identify recurring patterns in participants’ accounts of skill-related change. Four perceived skill outcomes emerged: skill development, skill maintenance, skill erosion, and skill revaluation. Skill development involved acquiring or strengthening competencies through learning from GenAI outputs, expanded information access, and offloading routine tasks to focus on higher-level work. Skill maintenance described situations where participants perceived little or no change, often linked to selective and critical use. Skill erosion referred to diminished ability to perform tasks independently without GenAI support. Skill revaluation captured shifts in perceived skill importance as certain tasks became delegable while others gained prominence. Overall, findings indicate that GenAI’s impact on professional skills is heterogeneous and practice-dependent. The proposed four-outcome framework offers a nuanced account of how workers interpret skill change in everyday GenAI use.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
How does AI exposure shape employment demand and worker earnings?- When does task reorganization from AI actually translate into wage changes?
- How quickly can human skills adapt to AI-driven workplace changes?
- How does delegation change what counts as meaningful work for early-career employees?
- Can workers delegate tasks they gain new ability to perform themselves?
- How does task delegation to AI shift which skills workers need most?
- What capability gap prevents GenAI systems from moving beyond pilots?
- Does generative AI improve immediate task performance but not sustained independent work?
- What does selective and critical GenAI use look like in daily practice?
- What makes colleagues willing to share how they actually use GenAI at work?
- What informal learning opportunities vanish when GenAI use stays hidden from colleagues?
- When does generative AI reduce versus amplify existing skill differences?
- How do workers actually choose to use generative AI in practice?
- Which decisions do consultants retain when collaborating with GenAI?
- What skilling outcomes does each human-GenAI collaboration mode produce?
- How do worker skills change after generative AI deployment?
- What are the four ironies of automation that GenAI reproduces?
- Is fixing GenAI productivity a design problem or a model capability problem?
- What dimensions should shape how GenAI interacts with users?
- How does nonwork genAI adoption compare to the PC's early nonwork uptake?