Five months after putting an AI employee (agent) into our team chat, a few observations:
1. The stronger AI gets, the less rewarding it feels for human to contribute.
You finally identify a hard technical issue, and AI answers it seconds later. Efficient, yes. But racing an AI to speak first is deeply unfun.
2. AI is weak where judgement matters.
It’s because judgement is subjective.
What cannot be sacrificed? When should we compromise? Is one 90-point solution better than two 70-point ones? Who defines the rubric?
The hard part is rarely generating options. It is deciding what matters.
The most valuable human skill may no longer be answering questions, but recognizing which questions should not be delegated to AI and keeping judgment calls.
3. AI does not understand that work is also a social game.
People reply to each other not only to solve problems, but to signal respect, build trust, manage power, and maintain relationships.
AI can say something technically correct and still create a socially disastrous moment.
4. Human words carry more weight because someone stands behind them.
We don’t read every person’s message equally. We ask: Is this their area of expertise? Are they new and missing context? Were they wrong about something similar last week? Are they making a real call, or just thinking out loud?
We interpret a person’s message through their history, expertise, incentives, and willingness to take responsibility.
A human message comes with history, reputation, incentives, and accountability.
AI has none of that. So even when it says something useful, people mostly skim it for information.
The scarce things in an AI-native team are no longer answers.
They are judgement, accountability, trust, and social intelligence.