What area would you NEVER trust to Ai, in your inbox?
by•
I mainly follow the principle of "reversibility".
EG. An archived newsletter or a starred investor email can be always reversed.
If ai is right -> makes my life easier
If ai is wrong -> doesn't hurt me
Meanwhile, I would NEVER let ai auto-send things (especially to other humans) for me.
Because no matter how accurate its tonality is to me,
no matter how well it understands my context,
I just don't... Maybe there's some kinda humanity in pressing "send" yourself!?
What about you? Where would you draw the line? Or just raw-dog it and trust the ai?
152 views
Replies
Reversibility is the right frame. I'd add: anything where the AI's "explanation" for what it did matters as much as the action. I've been deep in EU AI Act stuff lately and the line that stuck with me is explainability isn't optional once money or a person's record is involved, even if the action itself is reversible.
I would use reversibility as the first rule too. Drafting, summarizing, prioritizing, and reminding are all reasonable. Sending, deleting, changing commitments, or replying to sensitive customer/investor conversations should require human approval.
The highest-risk area for me is tone plus authority. An AI can write something that sounds confident but subtly changes the relationship or commitment. For inbox AI, I would want a clear explanation of why it drafted the reply, what context it used, and whether the action is reversible before it touches anything customer-facing.
id draw the line anywhere a bad action creates cleanup work with another person. drafting and ranking are fine, but sending, scheduling, billing, and access changes need explicit approval