Facepalm: In the ever-evolving landscape of workplace technology, a new player has entered the scene: AI-powered notetaking tools. Tech giants like Microsoft and Google, along with numerous startups, have been rolling out these digital assistants that listen in on meetings, transcribe conversations, and summarize key points – much to the chagrin of many.
While touted as a leap forward in efficiency, these AI notetakers are raising eyebrows and sparking debates about etiquette, privacy, and the very nature of workplace communication.
There are also legitimate concerns. Gokul Rajaram, co-founder of Marathon Management Partners in San Francisco, told Bloomberg that AI notetakers are now present in 80 percent of his meetings, sometimes with multiple bots simultaneously transcribing and summarizing.
“For people who have not attended the meeting, it’s a great way to understand what went on,” he said. “Even for those who are in the meeting, it now saves you from taking notes.”
But Rajaram worries about potential AI hallucinations – instances where the AI might generate inaccurate quotes or extrapolate beyond what was actually said. Moreover, he points out a crucial consideration: ‘It’s not just taking notes. It’s recording your voice.”
This observation strikes at the heart of the ethical dilemma posed by AI notetakers. The technology blurs the line between note-taking and recording, raising questions about consent and data privacy. Margaret Mitchell, chief ethics scientist at AI company Hugging Face, emphasizes this point: “Some of the etiquette around recording applies.”
She advises that anyone using an AI notetaker should inform other meeting participants and allow them to opt out if desired.
Mitchell also highlights the broader implications of this technology: “As we seek to have more automation in traditionally human tasks, we cede our control, power and privacy to AI systems and the companies that own them,” she explains.
Additionally, she points out a critical limitation of AI notetakers – their inability to interpret non-verbal cues, such as sarcasm or jokes. Unlike human note-takers, these AI systems lack the nuanced understanding of human interaction, which could lead to a minefield of misinterpretations and misunderstandings.
Moreover, most AI notetakers focus primarily on audio input, meaning they cannot detect visual cues such as facial expressions, gestures, or body posture. They also struggle with accents, colloquialisms, and other speech nuances that humans easily interpret. However, this may change as advanced systems begin to provide sentiment analysis based on speech patterns and word choice.
AI note-taking is still new enough that it hasn’t been widely accepted in business circles. Andrew Brodsky, assistant professor of management at the University of Texas at Austin’s McCombs School of Business, notes that the introduction of AI notetakers to meetings can be perceived differently by colleagues. Some might view it as a tool for better focus and record-keeping, while others could interpret it as laziness or an inability to remember important details.
For the companies developing these AI tools, there are many benefits beyond market share and revenue. They capitalize on our tendency to quickly adopt and become reliant on new technologies. Moreover, these tools provide a valuable source of training data for AI systems, which is becoming increasingly scarce due to legal challenges and content restrictions.
Finally, there’s a risk that AI notetakers could undermine the human elements of meetings – the small talk and spontaneous interactions that often spark creativity and build relationships. Additionally, if employees become overly cautious about their words being recorded and analyzed by AI, it could stifle open communication and idea generation – functions that note-taking is supposed to facilitate.
