Walid Boulanouar recently shared something that caught my attention: 'the next generation's iq split will be brutal. and we built the machine that does it.' He followed it with a blunt contrast that feels uncomfortably accurate: the same devices and the same apps can produce 'different defaults' in how people think and work.

I want to expand on what Walid is pointing at, because it is bigger than yet another Gen Z vs Millennials argument. It is about attention as an input. And if attention is the input, then AI is now the most powerful amplifier of whatever you feed it.

'AI + internet did something weird: 1% got tools, agency, and compounding skills. 99% got an infinite consumption loop.'

That quote is not a moral judgment. It is a description of incentives. Modern platforms are engineered to maximize time-on-app. AI tools, meanwhile, are engineered (at their best) to maximize output from focused intent. If a person lives mostly inside feeds, AI becomes entertainment. If a person lives mostly inside projects, AI becomes leverage.

The real split is not intelligence, it is attention training

Walid references the idea that 'kids with unlimited screen time vs strict limits feels like 30 iq points.' Whether the number is 30 or 10 is not the point. The lived experience is: when someone trains sustained attention and planning, they look smarter in every environment that rewards thinking.

We often talk about IQ as if it is fixed. But a lot of what people perceive as raw ability is really:

the capacity to hold a goal in mind without switching tasks
the ability to read something challenging without needing dopamine hits
the habit of writing, revising, and shipping work
the confidence that comes from building things that exist outside your head

Screens can train all of that, or they can train the opposite. Walid's framing is sharp: screens trained two totally different brains.

Same tools, different defaults

One of the most important lines in Walid's post is the simplest:

Same devices. Same apps. Different defaults.

Defaults are not preferences. Defaults are what you do when you are tired, stressed, bored, or unsure what to do next.

If your default is to scroll, your brain learns that boredom is an emergency that must be solved instantly. If your default is to create, your brain learns that boredom is a doorway into making something.

AI makes this even more extreme because it reduces friction:

For scrolling, AI increases the volume and personalization of content.
For building, AI reduces the cost of drafting, prototyping, and iterating.

So the gap compounds. Not because one group is inherently better, but because their habits create a flywheel.

AI for creation vs AI for sedation

Walid writes: 'the solution is not no screens. it's deliberate screens. ai for creation. not ai for sedation.'

That distinction is the heart of it.

AI for sedation looks like:

endless short-form clips, summaries, and reaction content
asking AI to decide what you think before you have wrestled with the question
using AI to avoid effort, then calling the result 'productivity'

AI for creation looks like:

drafting an essay, then revising it with your own point of view
building a small tool, landing page, automation, or dataset
learning a skill by producing artifacts (notes, demos, projects) rather than consuming explanations

In other words, the same AI can either outsource your thinking or extend it. The difference is whether you arrive with intention.

Why this is starting earlier (and why it matters)

Walid warns that 'the next wave is starting earlier. kindergarten earlier.' That line lands hard for parents, teachers, and leaders because it highlights a quiet reality: the earlier attention habits form, the more they feel like personality.

And once a person is trained to expect constant stimulation, work can feel impossible later. Walid describes it cleanly:

If you train a child's attention to be rented out, don't be shocked when work feels impossible later.

A lot of adult struggles that look like laziness are actually withdrawal from novelty. Deep work feels boring at first because boredom has been conditioned as something to escape, not something to move through.

The 14-day create-only rule (and why it works)

Walid proposes a simple intervention: a 14-day 'create-only' rule.

No short-form. No infinite feeds. Ship one thing a week.

I like this because it is specific, time-bound, and measurable. It does not require perfect discipline forever. It creates a reset.

Here is a practical way to run it, whether you are Gen Z yourself or you lead Gen Z on a team.

Step 1: Define what counts as 'create'

Creation is any activity that produces an artifact you can point to. Examples:

a 600-word essay or internal memo
a simple web page or app prototype
a portfolio project (design, code, video, music)
a workflow automation in n8n, Zapier, or similar
a documented process: checklist, SOP, or tutorial

Consumption is anything that can be repeated endlessly without producing an artifact: feeds, shorts, reactions, endless browsing.

Step 2: Remove the infinite inputs

The rule is not 'no internet'. It is 'no infinite feeds'. For 14 days:

delete or log out of short-form apps
remove social apps from the home screen
block the most tempting sites during your creation window
replace passive content with bounded content (a book chapter, a course module, a long interview)

Bounded content ends. Feeds do not. That is why feeds win.

Step 3: Use AI as a co-pilot, not a crutch

If you are using AI during the challenge, set constraints:

start with your outline or your hypothesis before prompting
ask for options, counterarguments, and examples, not final answers
keep a 'human pass' where you rewrite the final version in your voice

A simple prompt pattern that keeps you in the driver's seat:

'Here is my draft and my main point. Suggest 3 stronger structures and 5 objections a skeptic would raise.'

Step 4: Ship weekly, even if it is small

Shipping is the compounding mechanism. It creates feedback and identity.

Week 1 ship: a small but complete artifact
Week 2 ship: a revision, expansion, or second artifact

The goal is not perfection. The goal is to prove to your brain that you can finish.

What leaders and parents can do without turning this into a culture war

Walid is not saying Gen Z is worse. He is saying the environment is producing a wider distribution of outcomes. If you lead a team, teach, or parent, the move is to design defaults.

A few high-leverage changes:

Protect focus blocks: meetings and notifications are also 'infinite feeds' in disguise.
Reward artifacts, not vibes: celebrate what was shipped, documented, or improved.
Model deliberate screens: if leaders are always reacting in real time, the team will copy that.
Teach attention like a skill: name it, practice it, measure it.

The brutal part of the split is not that some people will be smarter. It is that some people will be able to direct themselves, and others will feel permanently pulled by whatever is loudest.

Closing thought: the gap is optional (but not accidental)

Walid's post reads like a warning, but I also see it as an invitation. The same AI that can sedate you can also help you write, build, learn, and ship faster than any previous generation.

If you try the 14-day create-only rule, you will likely feel two things:

the discomfort of withdrawal from novelty
the relief of momentum once creation becomes your default again

And then you will understand what Walid meant by 'different defaults.'

This blog post expands on a viral LinkedIn post by Walid Boulanouar, get one engineer with swarm of agents | aiCTO ay automate & humanoidz | building with n8n, a2a, cursor & ☕ | advisor | first ai agents talent recruiter. View the original LinkedIn post →