TLDR: New research by Professor Tilanka Chandrasekera of Oklahoma State University demonstrates that integrating generative AI tools into the design process significantly boosts human creativity and lowers cognitive load. An experiment with design students revealed that those who utilized AI for conceptualization not only produced more creative outcomes but also maintained this enhanced creativity even when AI tools were later removed. The findings suggest AI acts as a valuable partner, offering novel perspectives and automating mundane tasks, thereby freeing up human designers for more intuitive and empathetic work, though caution against over-reliance is advised.
A groundbreaking study led by Professor Tilanka Chandrasekera, an award-winning academic from Oklahoma State University and director of its Mixed Reality Lab, reveals the profound impact of generative artificial intelligence on human creativity and cognitive processes. Published on September 25, 2025, the research challenges conventional views on AI’s role, asserting that these tools can significantly augment human creative capabilities rather than diminish them.
Professor Chandrasekera, also recognized as IIDA’s 2025 Educator of the Year, embarked on this research to understand how generative AI influences creativity, particularly concerning cognitive load. His experiment involved 40 design students, divided into two groups, undertaking a two-phase design task. In the initial phase, both groups were tasked with designing urban furniture. Crucially, one group was permitted to use a text-to-image generative AI tool to aid in conceptualization, a common hurdle for many students. In the subsequent phase, both groups were given a new design brief for similar furniture, but neither was allowed to use AI.
The results were compelling: the group that utilized AI in the first phase consistently scored higher on creativity metrics and reported a lower cognitive load across both phases of the experiment. Conversely, the non-AI group exhibited lower creativity scores and experienced higher cognitive demand. Chandrasekera highlighted a ‘learning effect that carries forward when using AI,’ indicating that the benefits of AI integration extend beyond immediate use, fostering a sustained improvement in creative output. He concluded that ‘AI tools can augment human creativity by providing novel perspectives and solutions.’
Addressing the skepticism that often surrounds AI use, Chandrasekera firmly stated his disagreement with the notion that using AI constitutes ‘cheating.’ He emphasized that AI, fundamentally, is ‘a compendium of what we have created and discovered,’ akin to a vast library whose utility depends on effective engagement. He pointed out that generative AI tools cater to diverse learning styles, particularly visual learners, by providing immediate visual conceptualizations that might otherwise be challenging to form from written descriptions alone.
Beyond academia, Chandrasekera foresees significant applications for AI in professional design environments. He envisions generative AI streamlining tasks such as creating 3D and virtual reality renderings for clients and automating routine processes. By ‘offloading some of these tasks to AI,’ designers can reduce their cognitive load, thereby creating ‘more room to be creative and to infuse humanity into your work.’ This perspective aligns with his belief that AI should serve as a ‘partner in precision,’ handling technical aspects like reviewing building codes, evaluating materials, and ensuring compliance.
However, the research also comes with a cautionary note. Chandrasekera, referencing insights from Michael Gerlich, Ph.D., acknowledged the risks of over-reliance on AI, which could potentially erode critical reasoning skills or foster automation bias. He stressed that AI integration must be approached with ‘careful consideration and intentionality,’ ensuring human designers remain actively engaged in the decision-making process.
The study also touched upon the broader landscape of AI adoption. While awareness of AI is nearly universal by 2025, its practical integration within design firms remains uneven, often hindered by a lack of formal training, institutional policies, and concerns regarding intellectual property and ethics. Academic programs, however, have shown greater agility, with almost three-quarters of surveyed schools integrating AI into various aspects of design education by 2025, though faculty training still lags behind student exploration of platforms like ChatGPT, MidJourney, and DALL-E.
Also Read:
- MIT Pioneers Training Method for Personalized Object Localization in Generative AI
- Harvard Pioneers Adaptive AI Frameworks for Modern Pedagogy
Ultimately, Chandrasekera underscored the irreplaceable human element in design. He asserted that while AI excels in precision, the ‘aesthetics, the spatial quality’ and the ‘humane qualities of a space — its warmth, its sense of belonging — are things AI cannot replicate, at least not now.’ He concluded by quoting Christian Norberg-Schulz, emphasizing that human experiences are largely shaped by ‘intuition, empathy, and the subtle ways we connect to our environments,’ qualities that remain uniquely human.
