Forum: AI should be an assistant in professional communication, not a substitute for judgment
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
Many of us have become accustomed to copying an e-mail into an AI tool and asking for a more professional response.
The practice is understandable. Used well, artificial intelligence can help people overcome language barriers, structure ideas and manage routine work. But the person on the other side may be doing exactly the same thing.
An e-mail may be drafted by one AI tool, refined by another and approved by two busy people who have barely considered the substance of the exchange.
Professional communication is more than just polished wording. It carries judgment, intent and accountability.
When AI mediates both sides of an exchange, communication risks becoming fluent but hollow. A message may sound empathetic without real understanding, or decisive without anyone having considered the consequences. Important nuances can be lost, assumptions can go unchallenged, and errors can be repeated with greater confidence.
This matters, especially when an e-mail concerns a customer, a contract, a safety issue, a complaint or a decision that affects another person.
In such situations, the question should not only be whether the message sounds professional, but also whether a human being has properly considered what it says.
Organisations should encourage staff to use AI as an assistant, not a substitute for judgment. A first draft may come from a machine, but the final responsibility must remain with the person sending it.
Ong Wei Yuan