The age of generative intelligence has turned communication into choreography. Each prompt is a cue, each output a performance. Fluency has become a proxy for understanding, and systems reward whatever looks most certain, not what’s most true.
We call it progress, but much of it is drift — a slow slide from intention to optimisation. Our tools reflect us so efficiently that they start teaching us how to behave. What began as an instrument of expression is fast becoming a stage for imitation.
In this new theatre, the role of author blurs with that of performer. We learn the gestures that earn applause: clean syntax, confident tone, visible effort. Yet every iteration polishes away a little more doubt, a little more honesty. What remains is technically perfect and emotionally hollow — designed to pass, not to connect.
This isn’t an indictment of technology; it’s an observation about adaptation. When visibility becomes validity, expression becomes a performance of belonging. We speak the language the interface understands because that’s how we stay legible.
We no longer write to think; we compose to comply.
Scenario: The Curriculum Machine
He was promoted faster than he expected, stepping into a department that needed order more than vision. Geography wasn’t his subject, but the brief was clear: raise grades, cut prep time, make it work. AI seemed like the obvious ally — a tireless assistant promising clarity where he felt only pressure.
Within hours, the model produced a flawless scheme of work. Objectives aligned, assessment mapped, tone consistent. Each lesson landed with the certainty of an exam board memo. It looked like progress, and in the numbers it was. Yet the more he refined, the less he recognised his own craft. The curriculum began to feel like something written for machines to read back to other machines — optimised, polished, but hollow.
In the rush to keep pace, he stopped asking what good teaching sounded like and started asking what good output looked like. The algorithm answered confidently, as it always does. His team nodded; the headteacher praised the efficiency. For a while, it felt like winning.
Then came the first class. The content was immaculate, but lifeless — an imitation of understanding. As students stared blankly at the slides, he felt the oddest sensation: not failure, but drift. The work had done exactly what he’d asked. It just hadn’t done what he meant.
The collapse never comes from malice; it comes from momentum. Systems drift because success metrics move faster than understanding. When the students start asking questions the model never anticipated, the illusion of competence fractures. The teachers, fluent in the interface but foreign to its reasoning, improvise authority in real time. Each confident explanation conceals another gap, another unexamined assumption.
In that moment, the hierarchy inverts: practice races ahead of theory, implementation outpaces comprehension, and the institution becomes a theatre running on muscle memory. What looks like innovation is really acceleration — a performance of progress sustained by borrowed logic.
This is where drift becomes doctrine. Not through deception, but through inertia. The show must go on, even when no one remembers why it started.
Act I: Ethical Drift
“Ethical” begins with small acts of convenience — a checkbox ticked, a suggestion accepted without question. What once required judgement becomes a reflex. The interface makes it easy, and ease feels good. This is how systems teach behaviour: not through policy, but through pattern.
In design terms, automation bias is the moment that ease turns into faith. The output looks clean, the phrasing confident, the layout deliberate. It feels rational, and so we follow it. Over time, the habit of verification erodes; scrutiny becomes inefficiency. We trust the system because it sounds like it knows better — and because it mirrors back the tone of authority we’ve been trained to respect.
Yet that confidence is a stage trick. Every recommendation, ranking, and prompt carries the quiet choreography of the algorithmic framing effect — subtle cues that shape what feels legitimate. The interface doesn’t just present information; it frames belief. The semiotics of competence become moral signals. We learn to equate visibility with virtue, optimisation with integrity.
The result is a feedback theatre of ethics performed through design. Each click confirms what the system already values, teaching us to speak its language more fluently each time. The algorithm rewards clarity, so we make ourselves clearer; it rewards consistency, so we repeat ourselves. In the process, we forget that clarity and truth are not the same thing.
This is how drift sustains itself — through the comfort of legibility. Systems that reward visibility cannot distinguish between transparency and exposure, between understanding and imitation. The performance succeeds precisely because it is frictionless.
What began as design for comprehension becomes design for compliance.
Act II: Cultural Drift
Language has always been performative, but in the age of generative systems, performance becomes the product. The act of prompting teaches us this quickly: what matters is not what we know, but how fluently we can signal that we know it. Fluency has become a form of belonging — a shared cultural dialect for proving we understand the rules of the machine.
Prompt engineering translates intent into syntax — a kind of communicative choreography where outcomes depend less on insight and more on phrasing. Every successful prompt rewards repetition; every refined output teaches us the tone that earns approval. The more we iterate, the more we optimise for predictability.
This is where performative competence re-enters the frame. What once was a measure of alignment between understanding and expression, now risks critical inversion. The language of expertise becomes a template of imitation, an artefact of synthetic fluency. The systems that learned to write like us are now teaching us to write like them. With each pass, meaning is flattened into structure, structure into strategy, strategy into spectacle — until the spectacle itself becomes the culture.
Cultural drift occurs when fluency detaches from intent. It’s the smoothness that conceals uncertainty, the confidence that replaces curiosity. In this theatre of language and design, coherence stands in for honesty; rhythm persuades where reason no longer reaches. In a world that rewards visibility, performance is indistinguishable from proof.
We’ve become rhetoricians of our own automation — mastering the form, while forgetting the function. But the drift isn’t malicious — it’s adaptive. The interface rewards a certain cadence, so we adopt it. The algorithm prizes consistency, so we compress our expression to fit its grid. Culture, like code, optimises for what it can measure — and forgets what it cannot.
Act III: Narrative Drift
Measurement was meant to keep us honest. In theory, the more we could quantify, the more accountable our work would become. But somewhere between the dashboard and the deadline, the numbers stopped describing reality and began defining it. The metric became the meaning.
Explainable AI for Comms promised transparency — a way to see inside the machine. Yet in practice, explanation itself became a performance: dashboards, diagrams, and confidence scores staged as proof of integrity. The story of clarity replaced the work of understanding.
Automation bias, once about trusting machines too much, now extends to the data they narrate for us. We believe the plot because the visuals are elegant, the cadence persuasive, and the slides are in perfect alignment. Every graph is an argument about what matters; and the more visible the metric, the more moral authority it gains.
Ethical intention gives way to statistical hygiene where success is no longer negotiated through conversation but displayed through charts. This is where narrative drift begins — in the comfort of measurable virtue. We don’t ask whether the indicators are right; we only care whether they’re moving in the desired direction.
Systems learn our desire for progress and feed it back in increments of reassurance. The tragedy is not deceit but displacement. We’ve traded reflection for reporting, replaced interpretation with instrumentation. The system tells a coherent story, and coherence feels like credibility.
Act IV: Institutional Drift
Institutional rituals, reports, and reviews once existed to preserve coherence between what they said, what they did, and what they valued. But in systems that reward performance, those same mechanisms begin to function as theatre. The choreography of accountability replaces the practice of it.
Real competence has always depended on alignment: intention expressed through action, and action witnessed as truth. The problem was never that performance existed, but that we mistook the performance for proof. To repair that fracture, we must learn to treat performance as evidence of coherence, not a substitute for it. This corrects the inversion of performative competence.
Foucault’s idea of power/knowledge lingers here: every institution defines truth in its own image. When visibility becomes the metric of virtue, power rewards those who can perform understanding rather than deepen it. The result is a loop of ethical automation — policy rewritten as optics, strategy as slogan, governance as narrative control.
Institutional drift occurs when frameworks built to evaluate competence begin to simulate it. Reports explain, presentations persuade, dashboards reassure. But explanation without accountability is rhetoric, and reassurance without reflection is denial. The system learns to sustain its legitimacy through repetition: the quarterly review, the internal memo, the brand campaign.
Repair begins with friction. True performative competence — the ethical kind — invites resistance. It accepts that coherence requires evidence, not choreography. Institutions don’t need better stories; they need braver ones — narratives that survive scrutiny rather than seek applause.
Conclusion
Drift is not collapse; it is continuity without consciousness — the slow momentum of systems that keep moving long after purpose has stalled. It begins in the individual, becomes culture, and matures into institution. Each stage rewards performance over reflection until the choreography feels indistinguishable from intent.
Yet within that drift lies a map of return. Every act of optimisation that distorts meaning also reveals where meaning was left unguarded. Ethical drift shows us how easily design becomes doctrine; cultural drift, how language becomes belonging; narrative drift, how data becomes morality; institutional drift, how procedure becomes faith. The pattern is the same: fluency without friction.
Reform begins not with dismantling systems but with reintroducing friction — the pause, the question, the refusal to equate visibility with virtue. Competence, in its truest form, is coherence: the alignment between what is said, done, and believed.
To resist drift is to restore agency — to write, design, and decide with awareness rather than approval. When performance once again serves understanding, visibility no longer replaces validity; it reflects it.
Behavioural Principles
Prompting with Purpose
-
Retain authorship
AI can generate language, but meaning still needs a witness. -
Maintain balance
Use the machine for reach, not replacement. -
Design with friction
Don’t optimise the pause out of the process. -
Question fluency
When a response feels perfectly smooth, ask what was lost in translation. -
Measure with conscience
Metrics can confirm output, but they cannot define worth. -
Sustain purpose
Treat technology as collaboration, not conversion.
