Students remained cautious about relying on GenAI throughout the creative process, citing imperfect outputs and perceived loss of ownership¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Interview participants' main concerns were perceived imperfection or incompleteness of AI-generated outputs, and some expressed hesitancy about depending solely on AI-generated assets, preferring to modify or recreate them to preserve a personal connection with their work. → Leman Figen Gül 2025

Evidence¶

Leman Figen Gül 2025¶

Leman Figen Gül, Burak Delikanlı, Oğulcan Üneşi, Ertuğrul Ömer Gül. (2025). Development and applications of Generative AI in architectural design studios. ITU A|Z • Vol 22 No 3 • November 2025 • 751-774. https://doi.org/10.58278/0.2025.109

q2 · i? · qualitative · r2

Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews (N=6) in the third semester. The article reports participants' stated concerns qualitatively, including "the perceived imperfection or incomplete- ness of AI-generated outputs"; a related theme was a perceived loss of ownership when employing GenAI. No effect size is printed.

"Nevertheless, participants re- mained cautious about relying on GenAI throughout the entire creative process. Their main concerns were the perceived imperfection or incomplete- ness of AI-generated outputs, prompt- ing skepticism regarding the accuracy of some results"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The most frequently cited ethical concerns about GenAI in research were hallucinated facts, fabricated references, and misleading content — related
• Students identified weaknesses in the AI feedback model: lack of real-time feedback, software/economic access barriers, and occasional incorrect or inconsistent outputs — related
• Reviewed literature reports risks of overreliance, AI errors in complex tasks, and students' uncritical acceptance of AI-generated outputs — related
• Most architecture students in the studios reported that the GenAI models used positively affected their creativity during the design process — related
• Working with imperfect AI outputs under mentor supervision was followed by students developing skepticism and independent debugging skills — related
• Design students report low trust in GenAI outputs and systematically modify and verify them, with inaccuracy the main deterrent — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Only about a third of design students report reduced creativity or project ownership from GenAI use — related
• Thematic coding of student reflections shows peers seen as understanding context and AI feedback seen as actionable, with one quarter of reflections expressing skepticism of AI — related
• Prototype generation is the only GenAI activity significantly associated with perceived loss of creativity or ownership — related
• Experimental-group students detected AI errors and enacted verification and ethical self-regulation as routine practices — related
• Student experiences with GenAI in design thinking fall into four themes: perceived benefits, ethical concerns, hesitance and acceptance, and critical validation — a broader claim this one bears on
• Post-interaction reflections reveal four preference themes: AI as formative learning aid, preference for human authority, conditional acceptance, and skepticism about educational impact — related
• GenAI use in creative contexts tends toward regression to the mean: less skilled users improve while higher skilled users decline — related
• Interviewed teachers cite poor AI output quality and risks to students' cognitive engagement as main obstacles, and subject-specific use cases as their top professional-development need — related
• LLM responses that are incomplete or incorrect prompt students to question, verify and improve the information, fostering critical thinking through cycles of validation and correction — related
• Interviews revealed six themes: enhanced efficiency, improved quality, facilitated reflection, increased interaction, improved collaboration, and concerns about over-reliance — related
• Reduced engagement with GenAI feedback functionalities was attributed to a mismatch between GenAI outputs and student expectations — related
• Students exhibited high trust in GenAI but limited critical evaluation of its outputs — reports the opposite
• Students hold cautious trust in the course-specific RAG system, expressing some level of trust but not treating it as an authoritative source and indicating they would verify important information — related