AI as the New Workplace Assistant—Promise, Limits, and Practical Realities
As organizations increasingly experiment with AI tools to answer employee questions, interpret policy documents, or guide internal procedures, it is tempting to see AI as a kind of universal workplace assistant: always available, endlessly patient, and capable of reducing administrative burden. But this week’s readings reminded me that using AI as a catch-all solution requires a far more grounded approach. Nemorin et al. (2023) highlight how AI is often surrounded by inflated promises, and this made me more cautious about positioning an AI assistant as a complete replacement for human judgment. Just the way that these AI bots take things so literally makes me think of the old Amelia Bedelia books!
If an internal AI tool provides incorrect information about procedures or compliance requirements, the consequences can be far more serious than a simple technology glitch. The authors also note that AI hype often conceals deeper issues related to privacy and surveillance, which pushed me to consider how internal search tools might inadvertently track or profile employees based on the questions they ask. This may inherently make the AI assistant bias as it collects information on the employee population and the types of questions they may be asking. Can you imagine an AI chatbot telling a high-performing employee they should just quit?
Similarly, Sofia et al. (2023) argue that AI is reshaping workforce expectations by creating constant demands for reskilling. This made me rethink the assumption that AI assistants automatically reduce workload; instead, employees need training to use these tools effectively and to understand their limitations, especially when the AI is interpreting policies or guiding procedural decisions. Their discussion on employee trust also resonated with me. Deploying AI internally is not just a technical decision, it is a cultural one. Employees are far more likely to rely on an AI assistant when the organization communicates clearly about how it works, what data it uses, and where human oversight still matters.
Touretzky et al. (2019) reinforce this human-centered approach by emphasizing the importance of AI literacy. Their argument that foundational AI understanding is essential made me realize that workplace AI assistants should not merely give answers but should support the development of employee judgment. When people understand how AI models process information, they become more discerning and less likely to accept outputs uncritically. The authors’ focus on ethical reasoning also shaped my thinking about internal AI tools. If an AI assistant is delivering guidance on workplace policies, the organization has a responsibility to ensure the system does so ethically, accurately, and in ways that support, not undermine, employee autonomy. Sometimes, this may expose initiatives in the organization such as a RIF (reduction in Force) inadvertently since AI tools don’t understand how to execute or properly incorporate the concept of timing in employee matters.
Overall, these readings helped me see AI assistants not as a replacement for employee work, but as a carefully governed support tool that requires human literacy, ethical design, and transparent communication. As I read my classmates’ reflections later this week, I’m curious how others are considering the balance between efficiency and responsibility in AI integration, and what they believe organizations owe employees when deploying such tools.