The generative paradox: the Anti-Prompt paradigm for human capability
Generative AI in education is usually judged by the output of human-AI teams. That focus overlooks a second outcome: what people can still understand, challenge, repair, and adapt when assistance changes or disappears. We call this tension the generative paradox and distinguish four manifestations: performance, assistance, ownership, and capability stock. We propose developmental function allocation, which complements operational function allocation and meaningful human control by treating retained human capability as a design objective alongside current joint performance. The Anti-Prompt paradigm reverses the default interaction order: when immediate generation would preempt a consequential human act, AI should first create the conditions for human construction. We distinguish the validity of a product, responsibility for its construction, and evidence of capability after support changes. Representative Anti-Prompts, a canonical interaction sequence, and stress tests spanning mathematical reasoning, experimental science, software diagnosis, and lesson design make these distinctions concrete. We conclude with falsifiable predictions about retained capability and a system-level hypothesis about the reproduction and distribution of expertise.