Blood in the Instructional Design Machine? — from drphilippahardman.substack.com by Dr. Philippa Hardman
The reality of AI, job degradation & the likely future of Instructional Design
This raises a very important, perhaps even existential question for our profession: do these tools free a designer from the mind-numbing drudgery of content conversion (the “augmented human”)? Or do they automate the core expertise of the learning professional’s role, e.g. selecting instructional startegies, structuring narratives and designing a learning flow, in the process reducing the ID’s role to simply finding the source file and pushing a button (the “inverted centaur”)?
The stated aspiration of these tool builders seems to be a future where AI means that the instructional designer’s value shifts decisively from production to strategy. Their stated goal is to handle the heavy lifting of content generation, allowing the human ID to provide the indispensable context, creativity, and pedagogical judgment that AI cannot replicate.
However, the risk of these tools lies in how we use them, and the “inverted centaur” model remains deeply potent and possible. In an organisation that prioritises cost above all, these same tools can be used to justify reducing the ID role to the functional drudgery of inputting a PDF and supervising the machine.
The key to this paradox lies in a crucial data point: spending on outside products and services has jumped a dramatic 23% to $12.4 billion.
This signals a fundamental shift: companies are reallocating funds from large internal teams toward specialised consultants and advanced learning technologies like AI. L&D is not being de-funded; it is being re-engineered.