The email is long, monotonous and oddly impersonal. Your co-worker didn’t write that, you decide. A chatbot did. Tessa West, a psychology professor at New York University, has news for the detective in you: you’re probably guessing. In a Journal Report essay, she argues generative AI is eroding trust between co-workers. A big reason is that most organizations have no clear rules for how employees should use it.
A coin-flip hunch
The suspicion isn’t crazy. In one study of 30,000 employees, about 40% used AI at work even when they weren’t supposed to. KPMG found that about 57% of 48,000 employees admitted trying to present AI content as their own.
Spotting it is another matter. On average, people identify AI content correctly just 50% to 54% of the time, which is chance, more or less. They lean on misleading cues, like how long or impersonal an email is. When a hypothetical worker named Sara sizes up her colleague Scott, she is relying on “a coin flip, and one she doesn’t know she’s made.”
The penalty for being suspected is steep. We see AI users as lazier and less competent and their emails as less genuine, all while hiding our own use. Since nobody enjoys a confrontation, the hunch often just simmers into resentment.
Your name is an asset
The fixes she proposes are aimed at employers. Form groups of people from different backgrounds to discuss how AI is really used. Survey workers anonymously. Publish a guidebook that marks the black, white and gray areas, including what people are expected to disclose. Then report on AI use in regular company updates, so nobody has to guess.
Our take, for anyone in the late innings of a career: don’t play detective. Your reputation is an asset built over decades, and a wrong accusation can dent it faster than any shortcut a colleague takes. Learn the rules where you work, follow the disclosure norms yourself, and let the policy settle the rest.
Nobody shops for an umbrella once it’s already pouring. If your last working years are part of the retirement math, bring a recent statement and give us fifteen minutes to look it over.