This is part 3 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.
Why human judgment matters in the age of AI
AI can draft a strategy document. In ten different ways. It can create ten campaign concepts, summarise a research report, prepare a project plan and turn rough notes into a polished presentation.
For professionals, this opens up remarkable possibilities. We can explore more options, test ideas more quickly and spend less time on routine production.
But the real opportunity may lie in what happens after AI produces its answer. How do we decide which ideas are worth pursuing? Which recommendations fit our organisation? And what does good judgement look like when information becomes easier to generate?
These questions bring us to an important distinction: producing an answer and making a good decision are different professional capabilities.
From producing answers to making decisions
Imagine asking AI to draft a strategy for an organisational change. Within minutes, it might produce a document containing a vision, stakeholder analysis, communication plan, milestones and risks.
That gives us a useful starting point. An experienced professional can then enrich the strategy with knowledge of the organisation. Is the organisation ready for this change? Which stakeholders need to be involved? What lessons can we draw from previous initiatives? Which recommendations are realistic within the current culture? What might people experience differently from what the strategy assumes?
These questions turn a plausible document into a strategy grounded in organisational reality. AI can help generate possibilities. Human judgment helps determine which possibilities deserve attention.
The value of context
Organisations contain far more knowledge than appears in their formal documents. Some of it lives in systems, reports and policies. Much of it lives in relationships, memories and experience.
A seasoned employee may understand why a particular process has survived several restructures. A consultant may recognise that the stated problem is only part of the challenge. A communication professional may notice that a particular phrase carries unintended meaning because of an earlier organisational experience.
This contextual knowledge can make the difference between a technically sound recommendation and one that people can genuinely act upon. AI can help us organise information, identify patterns and explore alternative perspectives. Professionals contribute by connecting those possibilities to the circumstances in which decisions will be made. The combination can be powerful.
Creating space for better thinking
Research suggests that AI performs particularly well on some tasks, while its performance can vary considerably across others. Dell’Acqua et al. (2023) describe this as a “jagged technological frontier”.
Understanding that variation is an important part of developing AI literacy. It encourages professionals to approach AI output with curiosity and critical thinking rather than automatic acceptance or rejection.
We can ask: What assumptions underpin this recommendation? What evidence supports it? Which perspectives might be missing? What alternative explanations should we consider? What are the possible consequences?
These questions help us make better use of AI. They also create opportunities for professional learning. By comparing alternatives and challenging assumptions, we can strengthen our own reasoning.
Making human oversight meaningful
As AI becomes more integrated into organisational processes, human oversight will become increasingly important. But meaningful oversight requires more than approving a generated output. People need the knowledge, time and authority to evaluate recommendations and make informed decisions. They should be able to ask for additional evidence, revise an approach or decide that a proposed solution is inappropriate.
This is particularly important when decisions affect people, public trust or organisational accountability.
Clear responsibilities, appropriate governance and opportunities for professional challenge help organisations use AI with confidence. Human judgement is not simply a final checkpoint. It is part of the process through which technology becomes useful, responsible and trustworthy.
A shift towards higher-value work
Perhaps one of AI’s greatest opportunities is the possibility of spending less time producing material and more time thinking about what that material means. Instead of drafting every possible option, we can evaluate a broader range of ideas. Instead of spending hours gathering information, we can devote more attention to assessing its relevance. Instead of concentrating primarily on the presentation, we can challenge the assumptions behind it. And instead of measuring professional contribution through output alone, we can recognise the value of better decisions.
This shift asks something of organisations, too. They will need to create space for thoughtful evaluation and recognise the people who improve decisions, not simply those who produce work quickly. Because as AI help us work faster, it also makes space for human judgment to help us decide where that speed should take us.
And perhaps that is the question worth asking whenever AI generates a promising answer:
What would make this a genuinely good decision? #
Sources
- Dell’Acqua, F., McFowland, E., Mollick, E. R., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., Kellogg, K. C., Rajendran, S., Krayer, L., Candelon, F., & Lakhani, K. R. (2023). Navigating the jagged technological frontier: Field experimental evidence of the effects of AI on knowledge worker productivity and quality (Working Paper No. 24-013). Harvard Business School.
- Eloundou, T., Manning, S., Mishkin, P., & Rock, D. (2023). GPTs are GPTs: An early look at the labour market impact potential of large language models. arXiv.
