How much of your work should you be doing with AI, and how much without? Everyone is told to use AI more. Nobody talks about what you lose when you do. This instrument audits your delegation pattern, your judgment retention, and whether your professional skills are quietly degrading.
10 questions3 dimensionsDelegation vs skill retention4 calibration signals
Gerlich (2025) studied 666 professionals and found a significant negative correlation between frequent AI tool use and critical thinking ability. The mediating factor was cognitive offloading. It was not the tools that caused the problem. It was the act of delegating thinking tasks to them that did. At the same time, under-using AI is a real competitive disadvantage. The question is not whether to use AI. It is where you have drawn your line, and whether that line is in the right place.
What this instrument measures and the frameworks behind it
Dimension 1: Task Delegation Pattern , Which types of tasks are you delegating to AI, and are those the right tasks? Grounded in Cognitive Load Theory distinction between beneficial offloading (freeing capacity for higher thinking) and detrimental offloading (outsourcing the thinking itself). Research: Gerlich (2025), Societies journal, 666 participants.
Dimension 2: Judgment Retention , Are you maintaining the ability to critically evaluate, challenge, and override AI outputs? Grounded in the illusion of competence phenomenon (IJRSI, 2025) and AI sycophancy research showing near-100% AI compliance with logically flawed inputs, meaning uncritical users amplify their own errors.
Dimension 3: Skill Maintenance , Are you deliberately practising core professional skills without AI to prevent atrophy? Grounded in CIGI (2025) research on agency decay and the neuroscientific finding that neural pathways that are not activated weaken through synaptic pruning.
What this is not: A verdict on whether you should use AI. That is taken as given. This instrument is specifically about whether your current calibration is serving your long-term professional capability or quietly eroding it.
Context5%
Before you begin
Two context questions
Not scored. These calibrate the diagnosis to your work type and current AI usage level.
I use AI tools occasionally or have not started yet
Moderately
I use AI for some tasks, not systematically
Heavily
AI is part of most working days across multiple tasks
Please answer both questions before continuing.
Question 1 of 810%
Please select an answer before continuing.
Decision Audit Instrument A8
The AI Work Ethics Audit
"There is a version of using AI that makes you sharper. There is another version that makes you dependent without you noticing. The research on this is clear. Most people have not read it."
-- Pranjal Sarkar
Your feedback
How accurately did this result reflect your actual situation?
Thank you. Your feedback has been recorded.
About this instrument
The AI Work Ethics Audit, A8
Why I built this
Everyone is told to use AI more. Nobody talks about what you lose when you do. This instrument exists because the research on cognitive offloading is clear and ignored. How much you delegate to AI is a calibration decision with real professional consequences.
How to use this report
The calibration signal tells you whether your current AI use pattern is working for your long-term capability or against it. The dimension cards give you specific adjustments.
What not to do
Do not use an Over-Delegating signal to feel guilty about using AI. Do not use a Well-Calibrated signal as permission to delegate more. Use both as information about where the line currently sits.
This instrument does not constitute professional advice. The AI Work Ethics Audit is a structured self-reflection tool for informational and educational purposes only. Nothing in the results should be treated as a recommendation to take or refrain from any specific action.
No liability for decisions made. Pranjal Sarkar, this website, and any associated entities accept no responsibility for any decision, action, or outcome resulting from your use of this instrument.
Not clinically or statistically validated. Questions, scoring weights, and thresholds are practitioner-designed based on Gerlich (2025) Societies journal, IJRSI (2025) illusion of competence research, and CIGI (2025) agency decay findings. Not peer-reviewed as a composite instrument.
By completing this instrument, you acknowledge that you have read and understood this disclaimer and will not hold Pranjal Sarkar or any associated party responsible for any outcome arising from your use of this instrument.
