My take is that the friction is the point, and I'd much rather have a colleague communicate poorly to me than have them give the LLM response. The reason being I view my relationships at work as investments, and working together (communicating) helps build that investment through learning and feedback.
If someone says "x broken" and that's a bad response it becomes a learning opportunitity, something I can invest in. When I communicate poorly, I hope my colleagues help me understand why and give me pointers to improve.
Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but I've had the best growth with co-workers when actually engaging at a meta level and trying to help (and be helped) communicate better.
Using AI shifts that burden and entirely demoralizes any investment motivation I have. It's a view that communication is transactional rather than collaborative (we're all on the same team).
I want my team to work better, and be better, and if people offload their comms to an external system to generate I've lost that opportunity for growth.
If someone says "x broken" and that's a bad response it becomes a learning opportunitity, something I can invest in. When I communicate poorly, I hope my colleagues help me understand why and give me pointers to improve.
Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but I've had the best growth with co-workers when actually engaging at a meta level and trying to help (and be helped) communicate better.
Using AI shifts that burden and entirely demoralizes any investment motivation I have. It's a view that communication is transactional rather than collaborative (we're all on the same team).
I want my team to work better, and be better, and if people offload their comms to an external system to generate I've lost that opportunity for growth.