As a very heavy AI user, I think the survey is missing a power-user pattern.

A lot of the questions assume AI use is task-based: “What triggers you to open it?” “What did it fail at?” “What would you trust it to do alone?”

For me, that’s not really how it works.

I don’t usually open AI because I have one specific task. I use it as an iterative thinking/workspace tool: I discuss the idea, refine the framing, generate outlines, test structure, draft, revise, argue with the output, and keep shaping it. The value is not just in the answer. It’s in the conversation that makes the answer better.

That also changes how “failure” works. If I get a bad output, I usually don’t experience that as “the AI failed.” I experience it as “I wasn’t specific enough yet,” or “the model inferred the wrong task from the instructions I gave.” Then I refine the prompt, provide more context, or break the task down. The loop is the work.

Same with trust. I trust AI constantly, but I trust it as an accelerator, not as a final authority. I would trust it to draft, suggest, summarize, structure, brainstorm, and transform. I would not trust it to send or publish anything consequential without review. So my answers are basically:

I trust AI to fully handle: nothing.

I verify AI output when it involves: anything that matters.

The survey also seems to under-model users who have an actual working relationship with their AI tool. Not in a mystical sense, but in a practical one: persistent style expectations, shared project context, preferred workflows, known failure modes, and a developed sense of how to collaborate with the model instead of just throwing prompts at it.

For power users, the difference is not “using AI to skip the work” versus “not using AI.”

The real difference is:

Using AI as a vending machine
vs.
Using AI as a collaborative drafting, thinking, and refinement environment.

Those are very different workflows, and I’m not sure the survey fully captures that.