Your AI strategy may be training employees to stop thinking

For all its potential, generative AI, on the whole, churns out a lot of junk.

Yet employees are becoming ever more reliant on this “workslop” masquerading as high-quality material, says a recent Harvard Business Review blog. They become lazy and less productive, quality control goes off the rails, and integrity and trust begin to erode.

Experts urge enterprises to act now, before they lose control entirely.

“When slopification happens at scale and in sequence across a business’s processes, those processes themselves — and their outputs — start to deteriorate,” Matthias Holweg, professor at the University of Oxford’s Saïd Business School, and analyst Thomas H. Davenport argue in the post. “Eventually, people start to lose trust in the processes that they rely on to do their jobs.”

They call this organization-level phenomenon “knowledge decay.”

Three key challenges

Holweg and Davenport identify three key challenges to address when it comes to AI-generated content in the workplace, to ensure knowledge decay isn’t occurring: verification, validation, and entropy.

Verification requires “disentangling” authentic human content from AI-generated content that could contain glaring errors, they note.

This can be time-intensive and involve critical thinking and additional research, and in many cases the effort negates the gains gleaned from AI use. In the case of hiring, for example, in addition to using AI to write their resumes and CVs, tailoring their prompts to the AI ranking algorithms to ensure they rise to the top of the queue, some candidates are getting crafty, using AI clandestinely to generate responses to interview questions in near-real time.

All this taken together can result in candidates who are subpar or simply not a good fit for an organization. As a result, recruiters may then have to spend more time doing on-site interviews where AI access isn’t available, Holweg and Davenport contend.

Another issue is knowledge validation: confirming how and where humans have provided real value when AI is used in a workflow. For instance, a consulting firm can easily use AI to create standard written reports and PowerPoint slides, while their clients are paying for expert human insights.

“Human experts now have to justify not only the quality of the output submitted, but also that actual human intellectual work has produced it,” Holweg and Davenport emphasize.

Finally, knowledge entropy is like a “risky AI-based game of telephone”: As knowledge is passed through an AI again and again in an iterative process, it moves further away from the original “ground truth” data that was used to create it in the first place, they point out.

“The greater the number of iterations of content through an LLM, the more it will depart from the original,” Holweg and Davenport note. LLMs are probabilistic, “context-agnostic” statistical models that provide next-word-prediction outputs. They have “no conception of fact or truth and simply predict the most likely outputs,” they write.

And when, in some cases, large language models (LLMs) are trained on synthetic data created by other models, the authors write, bigger problems emerge. When this manufactured data subsequently repeatedly goes through the model, it can affect the its accuracy and variability. This is known as “generative inbreeding” or model collapse.

Steps enterprises can take to prevent AI slop

The two experts, therefore, argue for a “fundamental step change” in the ways models are architected, as well as in establishing explicit rules around how they are used.

Naturally, one of the first, and potentially the hardest, steps is restricting employee AI use: It should only be applied to scenarios where it truly adds value, the authors advise.

For instance, when employees or job candidates are allowed to freely design their CVs, they’ll likely use generative AI to “optimize” their work. To prevent knowledge decay, recruiters should rely on structured documents that require factual responses that an AI can’t generate, for example, asking a candidate about a specific role, projects completed, team members involved, suppliers served, and budgets managed.

When generative AI use is allowed or unpreventable, organizations should define what value is being added and establish clarity around the implications, Holweg and Davenport emphasize. “Content does not need to be entirely human-created, but if AI is being used, be clear why and how,” they write.

In one beneficial scenario, AI such as Copilot or Gemini embedded in standard office software makes it “virtually pointless” to manually create more versions of the content of reports and PowerPoint slides, Holweg and Davenport write.

In another example, in performance evaluations, managers can gather specific, detailed information from team members and customers, then use AI to synthesize that material, rather than generating a “tick-box report” of generic bullet points.

Enterprises should also consider how individual AI use impacts an overall process. For instance, in an interorganizational flow like a revenue cycle, everyone involved should know about and agree on how AI would be used and at what steps in the process. It’s not a question of whether AI is better at a given task, as it increasingly is in some scenarios, but whether it is taking over a task to make things more efficient, Holweg and Davenport write.

Ultimately, however, they posit, public LLMs add “little to no real value,” because they are generic and often contain mistakes. On the other hand, small language models (SLMs) and proprietary models trained on company-specific data can augment human work.

From an architectural perspective, enterprises should track the history of both structured and unstructured data and understand “ground truth” information. Materials like customer interviews provide critical facts, emotions, and context; if AI is used to alter or summarize these, enterprises must identify and record the underlying ground truth data and point back to verifiable, authentic content.

In the end, Holweg and Davenport emphasize, enterprises should establish pragmatic practices now, lest they repeat the mistakes of the past.

“If we fail to address the uncontrolled proliferation of generative AI in our business processes, we are likely to see a rerun of the ‘productivity paradox’ observed with the growth of corporate computing half a century ago,” they write.

Blending ‘human capital’ and ‘token capital’

Other experts also agree on the importance of blending the best of humans with the best of AI.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella describes this model as the incorporation of “human capital’ with “token capital.” The former is the human “knowledge, judgment, relationships, ingenuity, and pattern recognition,” while the latter is in built and owned AI capabilities. The opportunity is in melding the two in a learning loop.

In this loop, humans will guide AI systems, set goals, and identify patterns, so AI isn’t “running in circles,” Nadella wrote in an X post. Internal evaluations can determine whether AI is improving when measured against company-specified benchmarks, thus creating institutional memory that is “query-able,” using fewer tokens and saving enterprises money.

Nadella noted: “Every improved workflow generates a better training signal, which accelerates the accumulation of tacit knowledge unique to the firm.”

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.