I think therefore AI am

I think therefore AI am!

There's a question I like to ask that has nothing to do with technology.

"If there were no budget constraints and you could have a personal assistant to help you with your job, what would they do?"

Every time I ask it, the same thing happens. People light up and start listing everything they find tedious, repetitive or time-consuming, the reports nobody reads but everyone has to write, the first drafts, the research that takes an afternoon and produces three sentences worth keeping. The list is always long and the energy is always positive, because what people are really describing is a version of their job where they get to do more of what they're actually good at.

Then I ask a different question. "How do you feel about bringing AI into your department?"

The room changes, arms fold, people who were just enthusiastically describing their perfect assistant are now cautious, hedging, or quietly resistant. And here's the thing: I'm describing exactly the same capability. The assistant they just designed and the AI I just mentioned are functionally identical. The only thing that changed was the word I used.

This isn't a quirk. It's a window into something important. When you ask someone to imagine an assistant, you give them agency. When you tell them AI is coming, you take it away. Same outcome, completely different response.

If you're leading an organisation through AI adoption, try the assistant question first. Ask it in team meetings, ask it in your one-to-one catch-ups, ask it of your most sceptical people first because they'll give you the most honest answers. Build the list. Then show people how the tools you're introducing map to exactly what they described.

You're not bringing in AI. You're building the assistant they already told you they wanted.

Frequently asked questions

Why do employees react differently to personal assistants compared to AI?

The difference comes down to agency. When employees imagine a personal assistant, they feel in control and enthusiastically list tedious, repetitive tasks they want help with. However, when AI is introduced, they feel agency is taken away, leading to caution and resistance, even though both concepts offer identical capabilities.

What is the best way for leaders to introduce AI to their teams?

Leaders should ask employees what they would delegate to a personal assistant if budget were not an issue. By building a list of tedious tasks during meetings and catch-ups, leaders can then show how AI tools map directly to these requests, framing AI as the assistant workers already wanted.

Who should leaders speak to first when planning AI adoption?

Leaders should ask their most sceptical team members first. Sceptical employees are likely to give the most honest answers about the tedious, time-consuming tasks they dislike. This helps leaders gather accurate insights into which tasks can be mapped to AI tools to support the team effectively.

What kinds of tasks do people usually want to delegate to an assistant?

When asked what an assistant could do, people highlight tedious, repetitive, or time-consuming tasks. These typically include writing unread reports, drafting initial documents, and conducting hours of research that only yield a few useful sentences. Offloading these tasks allows employees to focus on what they do best.

How does framing AI as an assistant help with workplace adoption?

Framing AI as an assistant gives employees agency rather than making them feel controlled. Because the capabilities of an AI tool and a personal assistant are functionally identical, showing workers how AI addresses their self-identified tedious tasks transforms resistance into positive engagement with the new technology.