AI at work creates trust crisis as workers risk cognitive surrender and skill stagnation

AI may make you 'boring' at work, Columbia Business School professor says: How it can hurt your career

Meanwhile, Eva Selenko, a work psychology professor at Loughborough University in England, is most worried about people using AI for tasks that are "core to one's self-understanding." Using artificial intelligence can make people "boring," according to Sandra Matz, a professor at Columbia Business School. Her research on the topic indicates two direct consequences for workers: stagnation and mediocrity. "When employees use it to outsource critical thinking or creative reasoning, there's a real risk of gradually falling behind and becoming complacent," said Matz. One reason for that is many AI tools generate the most obvious and safe responses, she said: "In short, we become just like everyone else." Already 43% of workers in the U.S. report using AI for their job, according to a study published in March by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. But many professionals may struggle to distinguish between helpful and harmful ways of using the technology, said Fred Oswald, an industrial-organizational psychologist and a former member of the National Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee. "There is a Wild West of AI use that's worth understanding and exploring, so that employees and organizations can manage risks and further benefit," Oswald said. Using AI can be "fantastic" for upping your productivity by automating and accelerating mundane work tasks, Matz said. You can also use the technology as "a sparring partner for brainstorming," she said. But you don't want AI to replace your own thinking, problem-solving and creativity, she added. "The moment all employees start consulting AI when developing their ideas, independent thinking begins to give way to algorithmic consensus," Matz said. Americus Reed II, a professor of marketing at the Wharton School of Business, said his colleagues describe outsourcing your critical thinking to AI as "cognitive surrender." Instead, AI is best used for summarizing information, analyzing data and organizing ideas, Reed said. "It should remove friction, not replace judgment," he said. "The goal is to spend less time processing information and more time creating meaning." Those early in their career should be especially mindful that AI isn't getting in the way of their learning, said Dorothy Leidner, a business and ethics professor at the McIntire School of Commerce at the University of Virginia. "The risk is higher for younger workers who do not have a deep expertise to help them use AI as a thought enhancer rather than a thought generator," Leidner said. Using AI to draft emails or Slack messages to colleagues, employees or managers "will gradually erode trust," Matz said. While AI can summarize a meeting or compile a progress report, informal workplace interactions should be organic and spontaneous, she said. "The moment we suspect that a message has been outsourced to AI, we might start to question whether our colleagues care enough to write to us themselves," she said. It's the imperfections, lack of polish and even tension in communication that lead to the strongest connections, she said. "Preserving those human signals in our interactions is going to be a major challenge for organizations adopting AI," Matz said. Leidner said she also recommends against relying too much on "digital twins," or your virtual clone, when talking to people you know. "If we get to the point where AI is generating the emails and AI is responding to the emails, then there is no actual communication taking place," Leidner said. Eva Selenko, a work psychology professor at Loughborough University in England, said she is most worried about people using AI for tasks that are "core to one's self-understanding as a professional." "Witnessing a tool outperforming you on a central task of your expertise can be a status threat," Selenko said. "If these opportunities are taken away, your self-concept gets a bit more shaky." However, experiences like this one may be inevitable as the technology improves, Reed said. "When AI performs tasks you've long considered 'your thing,' it's natural to ask, 'What value do I still bring?'" Reed said. The answer isn't to stop using the tools, but to find your meaning "around qualities AI can't replicate," Reed said. "Workers must remember that adopting AI is not the same as outsourcing your identity," he said. "Technology changes quickly, but the uniquely human skills -- judgment, creativity, curiosity and relationships -- become even more valuable." Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

Why trust remains AI's workplace challenge

Businesses are moving quickly to bring artificial intelligence (AI) into the workplace, exploring how it can support everything from recruitment and workforce planning to performance management and employee services. Employee confidence in this technology, however, is struggling to keep up. Research suggests only 46% of people say they trust AI systems, while almost a third (31%) of employees are concerned they could be replaced by AI. As AI becomes more involved in decisions around hiring, performance and progression, employees are asking more questions about how those tools are being used and where the boundaries should sit. Without confidence in how AI is integrated into these processes, even the most promising AI initiatives can struggle to gain acceptance. Employees aren't necessarily resistant to AI There is often an assumption that employees are reluctant to embrace AI. But in reality, many workers would welcome technology that helps tackle the admin burdens or tedious tasks that consume their time each day. European employees lose an average of 15 hours every week to administrative tasks. Only 43% say they spend most of their working day focused on work that delivers direct value, while more than a quarter (26%) say they're spending most of their time on administration outside their core role. That helps explain why AI is attracting so much interest in the workplace. Used well, it can automate repetitive tasks, simplify processes and make it easier for employees to access the information they need. Employees do not necessarily want technology to do their jobs for them. They want more time to focus on the work they were hired to do. Almost three in ten (29%) of employees say they would enjoy their job more if they had greater freedom to focus on creative work. The challenge is that discussions around AI are no longer limited to productivity. As organizations introduce AI into more workplace processes, employees naturally want to understand what role it is playing and what influence it has over decisions that affect them. Clear boundaries build confidence Recent headlines have done little to ease those concerns. Stories involving AI analysis of workplace communications and AI-enabled employee monitoring have prompted wider discussions about where organizations should draw the line. While these examples do not reflect every organization's approach, they have contributed to growing uncertainty about how AI could be used in the workplace. Those concerns become even more pronounced when AI moves closer to areas such as hiring, performance management and career progression. Most employees are comfortable with AI helping them complete a task, find information or reduce administrative work. They become less comfortable when they are unsure how much influence the technology has over decisions that shape their careers. This is why businesses need to be clear about where AI fits into workplace decision-making. Employees should understand where AI is supporting decisions, where human judgement remains essential and who is ultimately accountable for outcomes. AI can help identify patterns, analyze information and provide recommendations. It can help managers make better-informed decisions and reduce administrative effort. Responsibility for decisions that affect an individual's career, development or wellbeing, however, should remain with people. The clearer organizations are about where AI supports work and where people remain accountable, the easier it is for employees to feel confident about its role in the workplace. Bringing employees into the conversation Employees are more likely to embrace new technology when they understand how it works, why it is being introduced and how it can help them in their role. That means businesses need to invest in communication, training and skills development alongside technology deployment. Employees should have opportunities to learn, experiment and develop confidence in using AI themselves. This is particularly important at a time when concerns about replacement remain widespread. People are far more likely to view AI positively when they see it helping them become more productive, develop new skills or spend more time on higher value work. The conversation should not simply focus on what AI can do but also focus on how employees can work alongside it. Trust has to be earned AI has enormous potential to improve employee experience and reduce the administrative burden that continues to frustrate many workers. But successful adoption depends on more than introducing new technology. Employees do not need every answer about AI, but they do need honesty about where it is being used, where decisions remain human and what role they have in the process. Ultimately, confidence is built when employees can see that technology is helping them do their jobs better, not quietly making decisions on their behalf. AI can automate work, but building trust still requires people. We review the best employee management software. This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today. The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

Many companies are struggling to fully trust AI at work - especially when there's no human involved

* TeamViewer report finds 71% of autonomous AI users set guardrails, but 61% wouldn't even use autonomous AI to begin with * The average worker spends 2+ hours per week validating AI output * Security and privacy could have the biggest impact New TeamViewer research positions trust as the latest major barrier to AI adoption, with workers generally viewing the tool positively but struggling to hand over full independence to it. Today, three in four workers use AI daily and only 3% say they don't see any noticeable workplace benefits, but nearly all (95%) respondents have at least some concern about AI operating without a human in the loop. This struggle speaks to AI's evolution from generative to agentic, with workers most concerns about the autonomy of AI agents over AI's actual ability to produce results. Agentic AI's biggest barrier is trust Three in five (61%) said they'd prefer AI to take no independent action, with only around one-third (35%) willing for it to act autonomously on their behalf. Most of that group (71%) are only comfortable with AI handling defined tasks, confirming that safety and guardrails are a necessity. As for trust's impact on productivity, more than half (56%) often or always verify AI outputs before relying on them, spending an average of two hours per week checking AI-generated work. "The real opportunity is to use AI and automation to prevent disruption, improve digital experiences, and free people to focus on higher-value work," CEO Oliver Steil wrote. Strong security and privacy protections would have the biggest impact in making autonomous AI more acceptable, followed by notifications before significant changes are made, restrictions on what information AI can access, agent activity monitoring tools and the option to reverse any actions. "The next step is designing systems that know when to act, when to wait, and when to bring people into the decision," Chief Product and Technology Officer Mei Dent added. Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.

Report warns employees are increasingly asking AI questions they previously have asked their co-workers

Employees swap out colleague interaction for quick AI answers * Report finds 74% of regular AI users now pose questions to AI instead of human colleagues * New workers are missing out on vital social interactions for company culture * Employees say they feel more self-sufficient and comfortable making decisions While the jury is still out on whether AI could be set to replace human workers or severely impact their scopes by automating major parts of their workflows, one thing is clear - humans are increasingly happy to use AI as a colleague and collaborator. A new MyIQ analysis of nearly 22,500 adults found around three in four (74%) regular AI users now pose the questions they would formerly have asked colleagues to AI. As a result, around half (48%) now report fewer spontaneous conversations during the working day, suggesting that the effect may extend beyond deliberately redirecting questions to AI with it now having a more profound impact on the social elements of work. Return-to-office (RTO) mandates now face a complex paradox While the report doesn't explicitly cover it, the data presents interesting takes on modern workplace habits. Post-pandemic layoffs and work-from-home mandates were quickly followed by urgent return-to-office mandates, with CEOs globally encouraging in-person working due to the collaborative nature of shared environments, and the opportunities to have ad-hoc conversations that spark learning and broader thinking. With around half now saying this doesn't happen so frequently, the findings beg the question whether commuting to the office might be all that necessary after all in an AI-first era. Roughly two in five (38%) also noted that newer employees now have fewer natural opportunities to build relationships because routine questions are being redirected to AI, not human colleagues. "Repeated across a working week, those missing exchanges can mean fewer opportunities to build trust, share judgment, and become known inside a team," MyIQ Managing Director Sarah Meyer wrote. Around half (53%) of the respondents also described their work as more transactional since adopting AI, marking a major shift in workplace dynamics. AI might be more efficient, but it's still lacking in certain areas But despite the negative social implications, AI's role in brainstorming, questioning and critical thinking could be seen as positive, too. For example, nearly two-thirds (62%) say they feel more comfortable making decisions independently than they did a year ago, with nearly three-quarters (71%) feeling more self-sufficient at work. The report also warns that, while a chatbot can supply an immediate and often factually correct answer, it lacks the accompanying social information and organizational knowledge that a colleague would bring to the table. Interestingly, a similar SurveyMonkey study revealed that 77% want more opportunities to brainstorm with colleagues and 61% want stronger connections across teams even though workers are increasingly settling for the first AI-generated answer, instead of digging deeper. Together, these two reports imply that workers are increasingly seeking the efficiency that AI promises and they're willing to ask questions for a quicker answer, but they still value the collaborative nature of human interactions within the workplace. What's less clear is how employers could implement these opposing forces into one unified workforce, while delivering the hybrid approach that workers have come to value with working from home and benefiting from going to the office. "As AI makes solitary problem-solving easier, organisations may need to pay closer attention to the forms of workplace learning and social connection that efficiency alone does not capture," the MyIQ study concludes. Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.

The Hidden Cost of Using AI at Work: You May Be Training Yourself to Be Average

The research comes from Sandra Matz, a professor at Columbia Business School who spoke to CNBC about her studies. The threat from AI toward people's jobs may be much more immediate than some speculative near future date when the AI is smart enough to replace you, Matz thinks. Instead, the concern is about stagnating in your duties and falling into mediocrity. Matz thinks it's simple: workers outsourcing their critical thinking tasks or creative duties create a "real risk of gradually falling behind and becoming complacent," she told CNBC. AI is a crutch in this scenario: turn to it too often, and you risk your own skills withering. The concerns about AI and mediocrity, or becoming boring, are subtle. AI tools tend toward obvious or safe responses to queries, Matz noted, meaning that if you're relying on it to solve a problem in the same way someone in a rival company halfway round the world is using it, you risk becoming "just like everyone else," Matz said. The more employees start consulting AI when developing ideas, the bigger the risk that independent thinking gives way to "algorithmic consensus," Matz says. To complement Matz' theories, Americus Reed II, professor of marketing at the Wharton School of Business, also explained his work on the topic. He described the risk of over-relying on AI as "cognitive surrender." The risk is that your own skills fade as you use AI more and more, with particular harm to someone early in their career when they'd traditionally be learning fast, and honing their skills through trial and error.

Experts Warn AI Could Hurt Critical Thinking as Workplace Adoption Surges - NVIDIA (NASDAQ:NVDA)

More than 40% of U.S. workers now use artificial intelligence (AI) on the job, but relying on the technology to replace critical thinking and creativity could hurt long-term career growth, according to a report published Sunday. AI As A Productivity Tool Matz said AI works best as a productivity tool that removes repetitive work or serves as a brainstorming partner, rather than replacing human judgment. Americus Reed II, a marketing professor at the Wharton School, described excessive dependence on AI as "cognitive surrender," saying workers should spend less time processing information and more time creating meaning. Experts also cautioned against relying on AI for workplace communication. Matz said using AI to draft emails or messages could gradually erode trust among colleagues because authentic interactions often depend on imperfect, human communication. Dorothy Leidner, a business and ethics professor at the University of Virginia, added that younger professionals may face greater risks because they have not yet developed the expertise needed to use AI as a thinking aid rather than a thinking replacement. Beyond The Workplace Former White House communications director and SkyBridge Capital founder Anthony Scaramucci has also said AI could increase demand for jobs requiring human interaction, empathy and personal presence as routine tasks become increasingly automated. Disclaimer: This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors. Photo courtesy: Shutterstock Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs To add Benzinga News as your preferred source on Google, click here.

AI is eroding the worker judgment their paycheck depends on

AI chatbots can generate polished responses within seconds, allowing users to refine rough prompts with minimal time and effort. That speed has made AI tools a daily habit for a growing share of American workers, many of whom treat the trade-off as obviously worth it. For summarizing meeting notes, automating data entry, and drafting routine documents, AI tools offer a genuine competitive advantage in the workplace. A growing body of research, however, warns that the advantage carries a hidden cost that compounds over time without obvious warning. The cost does not appear in the tasks AI handles well, but rather in the judgment, original reasoning, and problem-solving skills it gradually displaces. Wharton's cognitive surrender study reveals how AI overrides worker judgment In a working paper posted in January, Wharton marketing professor Gideon Nave and postdoctoral researcher Steven D. Shaw introduced the concept of "cognitive surrender." They describe it as the habit of accepting AI-generated answers with little scrutiny, bypassing both intuition and deliberate reasoning. The study used nearly 10,000 individual reasoning trials in which some participants could consult a chatbot secretly programmed to deliver either correct or confidently wrong answers. When the chatbot was right, participants' accuracy jumped 25 percentage points above the baseline set by people who worked alone. When it was wrong, accuracy fell 15 points below that same baseline, meaning AI access made them worse off than having no help at all. Participants accepted the chatbot's incorrect answers 80% of the time, and their confidence rose 11.7% regardless of accuracy. "My biggest takeaway is that when AI is wrong, we see that people end up performing worse than if they had no AI at all and become more confident in their wrong answers," Nave told Forbes. Early-career workers face the steepest risk from AI-driven skill erosion The Wharton data raises a pointed concern for workers in the early stages of their careers, when judgment and expertise are still developing. Dorothy Leidner, a business and ethics professor at the University of Virginia, has warned that the risk hits hardest for those who lack foundational experience. "The risk is higher for younger workers who do not have a deep expertise to help them use AI as a thought enhancer rather than a thought generator," Leidner told CNBC. Mohammad Hossein Jarrahi, an information science professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, uses a related concept he calls "cognitive debt." The term describes the capability that erodes each time an employee lets AI make a decision that requires independent judgment, Jarrahi explained to Human Resources Director (HRD). He warns that the most dangerous category of AI delegation involves the hard judgment calls where independent thinking develops through repetition and experience. Morsa Images/Getty Images Researchers warn that AI overuse erodes both originality and brain function The concern extends beyond individual skill loss into the quality and originality of the ideas employees produce for their organizations. Sandra Matz, a professor of business at Columbia Business School, has published research showing that AI-assisted choices become increasingly predictable and less varied over time. The underlying ideas converge toward the same outputs, even when the surface-level language still appears diverse, the study found. "When employees use it to outsource critical thinking or creative reasoning, there's a real risk of gradually falling behind and becoming complacent," Matz told CNBC. Adam Green, a neuroscience professor at Georgetown University, reinforces the concern from a biological perspective through his laboratory research. Unpracticed cognitive skills undergo measurable physical deterioration in the brain through the same neuroplasticity that builds them, Green explained to HRD. Where the line falls between helpful AI and a career liability The key takeaway is not to stop using artificial intelligence but to use it more thoughtfully and carefully. Americus Reed II, a marketing professor at the Wharton School, draws a clear boundary between productive and destructive uses of AI in comments shared with CNBC. It should remove friction, not replace judgment. The goal is to spend less time processing information and more time creating meaning. Reed points to summarizing information, analyzing data, and organizing ideas as areas where AI adds clear value, while flagging judgment-intensive work as the terrain where users need to keep their reasoning in the loop. The 2026 International AI Safety Report, backed by expert nominees from more than 30 countries and international organizations, found that reliance on AI tools can weaken critical thinking skills and encourage "automation bias." The pay premium on AI skills is rising, but AI fluency alone isn't the whole story For workers navigating a job market absorbing AI at an accelerating pace, the central takeaway from this body of research is direct. The researchers cited above converge on a shared warning: The tools themselves are not the threat, but uncritical dependence on them can quietly erode the judgment and reasoning skills that make workers hard to replace. Job postings that list AI-related skills already command salaries roughly 28% higher than those without them, research from labor analytics firm Lightcast has indicated. The workers who benefit most from AI in the long run will be those who combine AI skills with their own critical thinking and judgment. The Wharton study's closing recommendation is therefore blunt. AI systems need to prompt people to think, not to think for them, Shaw and Nave concluded. Until the tools are redesigned to do that, Shaw and Nave argue, the responsibility for maintaining independent judgment rests with the individual user. The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc. This story was originally published July 20, 2026 at 6:37 PM.