Experience Matters Again

For the last two decades, we told ourselves a convenient story.
That youth equals innovation. That experience equals rigidity.
That speed matters more than judgment.
As generative AI takes over something unexpected is happening in the workforce: experience is becoming valuable again.
The real value is no longer in getting answers, It is in asking the right questions, knowing when not to trust an answer, and understanding consequences beyond the immediate output. Those capabilities are not taught by tools.
They are forged through years of context, failure, ambiguity, and responsibility.
Ironically, the same people once labelled “too old,” “too slow,” or “out of touch” may be the ones best equipped to work with AI rather than compete with it.
In this article, I explore how the much-maligned 45+ workforce may be entering its most relevant phase yet.
Experience didn’t become obsolete.
We just misunderstood what it was for.

Profile Image
Hrridaysh Deshpande
January 5, 2026 10:47 AM
Top Image

In the bustling Brooklyn startup of Nancy Meyers’ 2015 film The Intern, a septuagenarian widower named Ben Whittaker, played by Robert De Niro steps into the chaotic world of e-commerce fashion as a “senior intern.” Assigned to Jules Ostin (Anne Hathaway), Ben arrives not as a technology wizard, but as a repository of quiet wisdom. He doesn’t code the algorithms or optimize the supply chain; instead, he offers counsel that cuts through the startup frenzy like a tai chi breath. What begins as a culture clash evolves into profound mentorship, underscoring a timeless truth: In high-stakes environments, raw energy needs the guardrails of experience to avoid veering off course.

Generation Z did not merely adopt digital tools; they were formed by them. Unlike previous cohorts who learned to think first and digitize later, Gen Z encountered a world where answers preceded questions, where retrieval replaced reasoning, and where cognitive effort was progressively outsourced to interfaces. This is not a moral failing or an intelligence deficit—it is a structural conditioning.

The defining cognitive shift is not reduced capability but altered engagement. When information is frictionless, the brain is trained for speed, not struggle, for navigation, not interrogation. AI intensifies this pattern. Generative systems reward well-phrased prompts, rapid iteration, and surface coherence—skills Gen Z possesses in abundance. But they simultaneously demand something far rarer: the ability to doubt fluent answers, to situate outputs within historical, ethical, and organizational context, and to recognize when not to use what is generated.

Gen Z’s cognitive wiring optimized for immediacy, novelty, and continuous feedback excels at exploration but struggles with sustained ambiguity. Neuroscientific evidence increasingly suggests that constant digital stimulation weakens executive regulation: the capacity to slow down, hold competing interpretations, and delay closure. Yet these are precisely the faculties required to supervise AI responsibly. The paradox is stark: those most fluent in AI tools may be least prepared to govern them without guidance.

The elevation of youth in the last two decades was not accidental; it was rational within the technological constraints of the time. Digital revolutions rewarded those who could learn tools quickly, tolerate instability, and abandon legacy thinking. Experience, by contrast, was often encoded in outdated processes and rigid mental models. Organizations mistook familiarity with the past for resistance to the future. But this logic was always contingent and AI breaks it entirely.

When execution becomes automated, speed loses its scarcity. When code can be generated, analyzed, and debugged instantly, technical freshness ceases to be a differentiator. What remains scarce is judgment: the ability to decide what should be built, why it matters, who it affects, and when restraint is wiser than action. These are not entry-level questions, and AI cannot answer them independently.

The consequence is a structural inversion of value. Entry-level roles, once training grounds for judgment, are being compressed or eliminated. At the same time, organizations increasingly seek individuals who can sit above the tools designing objectives, arbitrating trade-offs, and absorbing accountability when AI-driven decisions go wrong. This favors those who have already lived through failure, organizational politics, ethical dilemmas, and second-order effects.

For professionals over 45, long treated as expendable in youth-obsessed ecosystems, this shift is profound. What was once dismissed as “baggage” is now revealed as pattern memory. What was labeled “slow” is now recognized as deliberative. Experience is no longer a cost center it is a control system. AI has not made senior professionals obsolete; it has exposed how premature their marginalization was.

As AI commoditizes entry-level execution, the premium on contextual judgment, honed by years of navigating human ambiguities, ethical gray zones, and systemic interconnections will elevate those over 45 from perceived relics to strategic assets. Drawing on recent labor market data, neurocognitive research, and workplace ethnographies, this exploration unpacks the cognitive contours of this shift. It reveals how Gen Z’s digitized upbringing, while adaptive for speed, may falter in the depth required for AI mastery, while experience emerges as the ultimate amplifier. 

The Digitized Brain 

Generation Z—those born between 1997 and 2012—entered a reality where knowledge is not pursued but summoned. Smartphones in hand by age 10, social feeds as constant companions, and AI tutors dispensing answers before questions fully form, they embody the “digital native” archetype. This immersion yields agility: quick pattern recognition in data streams, comfort with multimodal interfaces, and an intuitive grasp of algorithmic curation. Yet, beneath this fluency lies a cognitive reconfiguration that may ill-equip them for the AI era’s true demands.

Recent neuroscientific inquiries paint a sobering picture. A 2025 National Institutes of Health study on “brain rot”, a term capturing the mental fog from hyper-digital exposure links excessive AI and social media use to emotional desensitization, cognitive overload, and eroded self-concept among young adults (Alghamdi et al., 2025, Demystifying the New Dilemma of Brain Rot in the Digital Era). Participants exhibited heightened anxiety from information deluge, with MRI scans showing disrupted executive functions: the prefrontal cortex, responsible for sustained attention and impulse control, lit up erratically under multitasking simulations mimicking TikTok-scrolling or ChatGPT chaining. Similarly, a Frontiers in Education analysis from early 2025 highlights Gen Z’s struggle with focus in distraction-saturated environments, where average attention spans have plummeted to eight seconds, shorter than a goldfish’s compared to 12 seconds for Millennials ((Chis et al., 2025, Adapting Educational Practices for Generation Z: Integrating Metacognitive Strategies and Artificial Intelligence). This fragmentation stems from neuroplasticity: brains wired for perpetual novelty prioritize shallow processing over deep synthesis, fostering what researchers call “digital dementia,” a decline in memory formation and analytical rigor akin to early Alzheimer’s markers.

These traits pose paradoxes. The ability to apply ascending metacognition: awareness of knowledge gaps (e.g., spotting when an AI hallucination veils bias); monitoring thought flows during prompt iteration (e.g., detecting sycophancy in responses); and regulation of multi-agent workflows (e.g., pitting Claude against Gemini for dialectical refinement) is important to benefit from AI. Gen Z’s strength in rapid querying shines at awareness but falters in monitoring and regulation. A 2025 SSRN paper on digital overstimulation (Lee & Kim, 2025, The Psychological and Neurological Effects of Digital Overstimulation on Generation Z) found that constant exposure exacerbates academic anxiety and reduces tolerance for ambiguity, critical for dissecting AI outputs laced with subtle errors or cultural skews. Without deliberate training in inquiry-based frameworks young minds risk treating AI as an oracle outsourcing the very judgment that defines human agency.

This wiring extends to empathy and context mapping, cornerstones of effective problem-framing in automated ecosystems. Gen Z reports higher rates of social anxiety tied to mediated communication. Cognitive empathy demands seeing problems through stakeholder incentives, historical precedents, and ethical trade-offs, tasks that demand the emotional bandwidth. A McKinsey survey underscores this: 40% of Gen Z attribute stress to tech-induced isolation, complicating the interpersonal nuance AI cannot replicate. Thus, while digital natives navigate tools effortlessly, their brains optimized for velocity over depth may struggle with the requirements of discernment: deciding not just what AI suggests, but whether it’s worth pursuing.

Cognitive Trait Gen Z (Digital Natives) Experienced Professionals (45+) Implication
Attention Span Short (8s avg.); prone to multitasking overload Sustained; honed by pre-digital focus demands Better for iterative AI regulation, avoiding premature conclusions
Metacognitive Depth Strong in quick awareness; weaker in bias monitoring Advanced regulation via life-tested intuition Excels in chaining prompts for nuanced synthesis
Contextual Empathy Screen-mediated; higher anxiety in ambiguity Rich from interpersonal histories Frames problems holistically, countering AI’s directionlessness
Adaptability to Novelty High; intuitive with interfaces Moderate; leverages patterns from experience Youth innovates tools; elders integrate ethically

The Youth Premium 

The tech boom of the 2010s idolized youth as the engine of disruption. Startups like Uber and Airbnb prized “fresh ideas” from 20-somethings unscarred by corporate dogma, fluent in emerging platforms, and willing to endure 80-hour weeks for equity dreams. Experience, conversely, became suspect: labeled “technologically deficient” or “stuck in the past,” mid-career professionals 45 and above faced a “big threat” to progression.

This bias wasn’t abstract. LinkedIn data from 2023 showed tech hiring favoring under 35s by 40%, while AARP reported 64% of workers over 50 encountering discrimination subtly through queries like “How do you feel about reporting to someone half your age?” For the 45+ cohort, career ladders splintered: promotions stalled, skill obsolescence loomed, and reskilling felt hard. The result? A “lost generation” of talent, sidelined just as their accumulated insights on team dynamics, crisis navigation, and long-arc strategy could stabilize volatile firms.

Enter AI, the great leveler-turned-disruptor. By automating routine cognition tools like GitHub Copilot and Claude have eroded the entry-level sandbox. A Stanford paper (Brynjolfsson, Chandar, & Chen, 2025, Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Generative AI) from late 2025 documents a 13% employment plunge for early-career workers (ages 22-25) in AI-exposed fields. Forbes projections warn of 27% of teen jobs vanishing by 2030, with tech giants like Google and Meta slashing junior intakes by 25% year-over-year in 2024, opting instead for AI-human hybrids. SignalFire’s 2025 (SignalFire, 2025, The State of Tech Talent Report – 2025) analysis captures the pivot: Entry-level tech postings halved, while demand for mid-senior roles surged 50%, as firms bet on veterans to “work through AI,” not compete with it.

Longer-term forecasts project 27% displacement of adolescent-held positions by 2030, spanning retail to data processing (Koetsier, 2025, AI vs Teens: AI Could Wipe Out 27% Of Teen Jobs By 2030).

These shifts signal a structural pivot toward experience as a differentiator. This isn’t mere cyclical correction; it’s structural. AI excels at scale but falters in the human last mile. A Deloitte report on the “human value proposition” emphasizes how AI frees workers for fulfilling challenges, but only if they possess the oversight to direct it: setting goals, auditing biases, and aligning outputs with organizational ethos. McKinsey’s 2025 workplace AI survey (McKinsey & Company, 2025, The State of AI: Global Survey 2025) echoes this: Only 1% of firms feel AI-mature, with success hinging on experienced “superagents” who leverage tools for revenue growth and ethical governance, not rote efficiency. In essence, the youth premium once a proxy for adaptability now risks obsolescence, as AI handles novelty faster than any intern, leaving the real edge to those who have weathered enough storms.

Why Experience is AI’s Perfect Co-Pilot? 

Older professionals, per a 2025 MIT Sloan study, exhibit superior “integrative complexity” holding contradictions without polarization fostered by decades of feedback loops in imperfect systems. They intuitively apply decision making rigor: Not just “What does AI say?” but “Why this viewpoint? What biases lurk? How does this ripple ethically?” A Forbes report (Forbes, 2025, How AI Is Redefining the Future of Work) notes that pairing veterans with AI yields “exponentially greater outcomes,” as their networks and emotional intelligence amplify tools’ raw power. Consider Microsoft’s Copilot data: While youth compete with AI on speed, elders thrive through it via wisdom spotting deployment risks or stakeholder nuances no model predicts.

Mid-career professionals (aged 45+) possess refined abilities in synthesizing information and addressing uncertainties, derived from prolonged exposure to variable conditions. Workplace evaluations confirm their efficacy in directing AI toward strategic ends, such as output alignment with compliance standards (Cantrell et al., 2025, A New EVP for the Age of AI).

AI Workflow Stage Youth Contribution (Gen Z) Experience Contribution (45+) Synergistic Outcome
Prompting (Inquiry) Rapid, creative queries Refined, context-rich framing Deeper, bias-aware explorations
Analysis (Monitoring) Quick pattern spotting Nuanced bias detection via history Robust, multi-lens validation
Decision (Regulation) Adaptive to trends Ethical weighting under ambiguity Aligned, responsible actions
Iteration (Synthesis) Agile tool-switching Long-arc pattern recognition Innovative, resilient solutions

 Toward a Seasoned Future

The coming decade will not belong to those who merely use AI, but to those who can govern it. In that distinction lies the return of age and experience to the center of economic value. AI amplifies intent. In inexperienced hands, it accelerates noise, bias, and misalignment. In experienced hands, it becomes a force multiplier for wisdom scaling judgment rather than replacing it. This is why the future of work will quietly, but decisively, reprice experience. Not as nostalgia, not as hierarchy, but as infrastructure.

The irony is unavoidable. A technology built to eliminate human limitation has revealed which human capacities cannot be automated. Asking the right questions. Recognizing when answers are insufficient. Understanding consequences beyond the immediate output. These are not digital skills; they are lived ones.

As organizations, universities, and societies recalibrate for an AI-saturated world, the most valuable workers may no longer be the youngest in the room but those who have seen enough to know what machines cannot. Experience, once written off as obsolete, is not merely back in the reckoning. It may be the final competitive advantage.

References:

  • Alghamdi et al., 2025: Demystifying the New Dilemma of Brain Rot in the Digital Era. This study examines the cognitive impacts of digital immersion on younger generations, linking excessive screen time to executive function disruptions. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11939997/
Bottom Image