404: Human Not Found

Reporting from the front lines of AI integration.

Some of you may have received a thank-you email from LOC this week addressed to a manager at Aidin, a referral management software company.

Unfortunately, only one of you hired us.

The other 8,000 of you got a behind-the-scenes look at how we thank our clients.

I'll take the blame. Okay, maybe 98% of it. The other 2% belongs to AI, and to my human assumption that AI had this task under control.

Harvard Business School would be delighted this happened because it perfectly illustrates one of their recent conclusions: AI works best when it complements human teams, not when it replaces them.

Trying to stay current, or at least conversational, I started to use AI to help generate client thank-you emails. I upload a few meaningful photos, give it a prompt, and away it goes.

Until it doesn't.

One setting gets changed. A human assumes everything is working as expected. Neither she, nor any other human, double-checks.

BLAMMO!

Eight thousand people receive heartfelt gratitude for work they had nothing to do with.

Honestly, it could have been much worse. 'Nuf said there.

By now we all know someone whose face tightens the moment AI is mentioned. Usually writers. Artists. Creative people. It's a survival reflex. Watching chatbots produce essays, campaigns, images, and even comedy can feel less like innovation and more like a pink slip.

The response has a Shakespearean, "Something is rotten Denmark," feeling. We all sense something is off, even if we can't quite name it. Maybe it's the tech. Maybe it's the speed of it showing up in every area of our lives. Or maybe it's the very obvious fear that we're trading away pieces of our humanity and afraid the marketplace will figure out it’s not worth much anyway.

I get it.

I don't want robots generating all the ideas. I don't want people replaced by software. I certainly don't want to wake up inside a science fiction movie where the technology we created winds up in charge of our lives. If you think that's impossible, read the recent *New York Times* piece, *We're Only Starting to Grasp the Pitfalls of Using A.I. at Work*.

I don't trust overlords of any kind, especially ones made with computer chips.

But refusing to engage with AI because we hope it will somehow disappear feels equally unrealistic. AI isn't going away. You don’t need a Harvard MBA to recognize we have to learn to engage with it.

Because of the work I care about, I couldn’t help but post this question:

Can AI ever replace human connection? The irony was not lost on me that I was asking a chatbot this question. I’m giving myself a pass because it led me to two fascinating pieces of research.

There’s the HBS study I referenced earlier which came to a practical conclusion, particularly for their titans of the world audience: organizations perform best when AI amplifies people instead of replacing them.

Then I found a study from George Mason University called *AI, Loneliness, and the Value of Human Connection.*

They had me at loneliness.

Loneliness is already one of the greatest health threats facing older adults, and eventually, every one of us.

One finding stood out:

"AI companions can feel appealing, especially to those with smaller human networks, but new studies show they are no substitute for human presence, and in some cases may even worsen loneliness."

Even better was the conclusion:

"Screens aren't going away, and AI isn't un-inventable. But we must recognize that companionship from machines is not the same as belonging with people."

That sentence landed for me.

AI may help us write faster, organize better, summarize meetings, or answer questions, trivia and otherwise. By expediting all of this, it can absolutely make us more productive.

But the fact is, it can't replace the feeling of being seen by another living, breathing human. We know that some people have already fallen for the idea that it can. And when they inevitably run up against its limitations, they end up feeling even worse.

Recently, a former Senior Vice President of Marketing told me about 360 Reviews, where managers evaluate employees and employees evaluate managers. It came up after reading the reporting in the NY Times piece about companies experimenting with AI managers.

We wondered what an AI-led performance review might sound like.

"You've given me valuable feedback."

"You're right. I can be impatient."

"I appreciate your perspective."

"I will continue improving."

Exactly like a sycophantic robot would. Because it is one. This is also a solid premise for a sketch.

Would anyone walk away from this feeling genuinely heard? No they would not.

Because…efficiency isn't the same as empathy.

Productivity isn't the same as being present.

And connection, the thing we crave, is and always will be, the sacred domain of humans. And dogs. And some cats.

As for AI managers? They'd probably ace a 360 Review. They'd validate every concern, thank us for our feedback, and promise to improve.

But I'm not convinced they'd know when someone needs a laugh more than a solution.

Which makes me wonder whether we're heading toward a new version of *Wall Street*. Gordon Gekko famously declared, "Greed is good." Are we starting to fall in step with this tech tidal wave? "AI is good!" without asking the key follow up question: Good for what?

For speed? Yes.

For efficiency? Often.

For belonging, creativity, trust, and human connection?

That’s a no for me.