This is part 1 of a six-part series exploring AI, professional identity and the changing value of human expertise.
This article was originally written in English. If your browser is set to Dutch, it may be translated automatically. Please note that automated translations may contain grammatical errors or inaccuracies.
The AI conversation we’re not having
“Did they write that themselves?”
“Was that report generated by AI?”
“Are they using ChatGPT during meetings?”
“How are they suddenly getting so much done?”
These are questions I hear more lately at work.
Until recently, the debate was whether organisations should use artificial intelligence at all. Increasingly, the conversation has shifted. It is no longer simply, “Should we use AI?” It is, “Who is using AI, and how?”
That shift is understandable. AI can noticeably change and scale how someone works. A colleague may suddenly produce more polished writing, faster documentation or more structured ideas. Others begin to speculate about what is happening behind the scenes.
But I have started to wonder whether these questions are really about the technology.
I think they are also about identity.
What the question may really mean
“Are they using AI?” can be a genuine question about responsible practice.
It might mean:
Is confidential information being protected?
Is the output being checked?
Does the organisation permit the tool?
Is the person still accountable for the final result?
These are necessary questions. AI can generate plausible but inaccurate information, reproduce biases and create risks when people enter sensitive organisational data into unapproved systems.
But the same question can carry another meaning.
Sometimes people are also asking:
Are they claiming AI’s work as their own?
Does their apparent productivity still count?
Will management continue to recognise experience?Will my own expertise become less valuable?
These are questions about fairness, recognition and status.
Microsoft and LinkedIn’s 2024 Work Trend Index captured this tension. It found that 75 per cent of surveyed knowledge workers were already using generative AI at work, while 78 per cent of AI users were bringing their own tools into the workplace. At the same time, 53 per cent of users worried that revealing their AI use for important tasks could make them appear replaceable (Microsoft & LinkedIn, 2024).
People may therefore use AI while remaining reluctant to discuss it. I wonder if that’s a healthy basis for organisational learning.
Why detection is the wrong goal
It is also remarkably difficult to determine whether a piece of work involved AI.
Polished grammar is not proof. Neither is consistent formatting, a certain choice of words or an unusually structured email. These characteristics can equally describe the work of a strong writer, a careful editor or someone using ordinary spelling and grammar tools.
AI use is rarely all or nothing, either. Someone may use it to brainstorm questions, challenge an argument, reorganise notes or proofread a document. The thinking and final decisions may remain entirely their own.
Trying to identify who has “used AI” can therefore become both unreliable and unfair.
More importantly, it distracts from the questions that matter:
- Was the tool appropriate for the task?
- Was the information protected?
- Was the output checked against reliable sources?
- Did the person apply professional judgement?
- Are they prepared to take responsibility for the result?
The goal should not be to detect AI.
The goal should be to develop responsible practice and sound judgment.
A more productive conversation
Obviously, organisations need clear boundaries. People should know which tools are approved, which information must never be entered, what verification is expected and where human review is mandatory.
But governance alone is not enough.
People need space to discuss what AI means for their work without being labelled either as resistant or reckless. They need to be able to say, “I do not understand this yet,” or, “I used AI here, and this is how I checked the result.”
That requires psychological safety: a shared belief that asking questions, admitting uncertainty and discussing mistakes will not automatically lead to embarrassment or punishment (Edmondson, 1999).
Perhaps, in a few years, asking whether someone used AI will sound as dated as asking whether they used Google to search, Excel for their administrative tasks or spellcheck.
The expectation will not be that professionals avoid AI. It will be that they use it safely, understand its limitations and remain accountable for what they produce.
So when the question arises – “Did they use AI?” – perhaps we should pause before looking for evidence.
The better question is: Did they use it in a way that improved the work?#
Sources
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly.
Microsoft & LinkedIn. (2024). AI at work is here. Now comes the hard part: 2024 Work Trend Index Annual Report.
