Following Kenneth Schlenker’s Attention is the New Intelligencetalk at SXSW London 2026, intO’s Head of Research, Laetitia Sfez, reflects on what the rise of AI means for attention, agency and human decision-making. As AI becomes increasingly embedded in the products and services we use every day, she explores why product and UX teams must think beyond efficiency and automation, and consider how intelligent systems can support human judgement without quietly replacing it.
For much of the digital era, technology has been built around abundance. More content, more information, more connections, more notifications, more opportunities to engage. Success was often measured by growth in attention: clicks, views, sessions, engagement and time spent. In many respects, the dominant technology platforms of the last two decades were designed to maximise participation in an environment where information remained relatively scarce.
AI changes this dynamic. When information becomes effectively unlimited, the bottleneck moves elsewhere. The question is no longer whether we can generate more content, ideas or recommendations. Increasingly, it is whether people can meaningfully process, evaluate and act upon them.
Attention is Only Part of the Story
From a research perspective, however, attention is only part of the story.
The more fundamental issue may be agency.
Many of today’s AI systems are not simply providing information. They are shaping how information is encountered and interpreted. They summarise documents before we read them. They recommend actions before we consider alternatives. They prioritise certain signals over others. They increasingly sit between individuals and the decisions they make.
This is not necessarily problematic. In many cases it is enormously valuable. AI can reduce cognitive burden, increase productivity and help people navigate complexity. The benefits are real and increasingly visible across both personal and professional contexts.
Yet every technological advance tends to create new forms of dependency alongside new forms of capability.
The Role of Friction
Throughout the history of UX, reducing friction has generally been treated as a positive goal. Products that are easier to use tend to be more successful than those that are not. But AI introduces an interesting tension. If the purpose of a system is to minimise effort, there comes a point at which effort itself begins to disappear.
That matters because some forms of effort are not obstacles. They are part of the process through which people learn, reflect and exercise judgement. Critical thinking, evaluation and decision-making all require cognitive investment. As AI becomes increasingly capable of performing these functions on our behalf, we are likely to encounter new questions about which tasks should be automated and which should remain meaningfully human.
A New Responsibility for Product Teams
For product and UX teams, this suggests a shift in emphasis.
Much of the current conversation around AI remains focused on capability. What can the technology do? What can be automated? What can be accelerated? These are important questions, but they are not sufficient on their own.
Research has an important role to play in understanding the second-order consequences of AI adoption. How does behaviour change when recommendations become more influential than exploration? How do trust relationships evolve when users increasingly rely on machine-generated outputs? What happens to confidence, expertise and decision-making when cognitive effort is consistently outsourced?
These questions are less visible than measures of efficiency or productivity, but they may ultimately prove more important.
Designing for Human Agency
As AI becomes embedded within everyday products and services, organisations will need to think carefully about the relationship between intelligence and agency. The most successful systems may not be those that simply help users do things faster. They may be the systems that help people remain thoughtful, intentional and in control whilst navigating increasing complexity.
Schlenker’s talk argued that attention is becoming a new form of literacy. There is much to support that view. The ability to direct focus amidst overwhelming abundance will almost certainly become more valuable in the years ahead.
But alongside attention, we may need to develop another literacy: understanding when to rely on AI and when to rely on ourselves.
For those designing the next generation of products, that balance may become one of the defining challenges of the AI era.
If your team is exploring how AI is reshaping user behaviour, decision-making or product experiences, I’d be happy to continue the conversation. Get in touch with me to discuss the challenges you’re facing, the questions you’re wrestling with, or how research can help you design AI-enabled products that create value without compromising human agency.
Laetitia Sfez Head of Research, Studio intO
📩 Get in touch with Laetitia: laetitia@studio-into.com
What do global teams miss when they try to understand local users? As part of our first Local Lens report, The Myth of the Digital Health Native, we spoke to Tokyo-based researcher Maya Azumi about the realities of healthtech adoption in Japan. In this conversation, Maya reflects on the cultural nuances that shape behaviour, the assumptions global teams should be cautious of, and why some aspects of a market can only be understood through lived experience.
What happens when one of product development's most accepted assumptions turns out to be wrong? In Japan, highly connected, digitally fluent Millennials are proving surprisingly cautious adopters of health technology. This article explores what their behaviour reveals about the limits of demographic thinking and why context remains one of the most overlooked drivers of product success.
