Scholarlink

<p>In ‘The Illusion of “AI-First”: Organizational Rationality and the Performative Translation of AI Hype’, Francesco Branda offers pertinent observations about how AI tools are implemented in organisations. Branda points out that AI systems are not always implemented through formal processes by managers. Instead, employees turn to AI informally. This observation points to a blind spot of our recent article, ‘The Potential and Limitations of Artificial Colleagues’. In discussing whether artificial agents can replace human colleagues at the workplace, our article assumes that artificial colleagues are developed and implemented through formal channels. We do not discuss scenarios in which employees create and use artificial colleagues through informal practices without managerial oversight or involvement. The question, then, arises whether our conclusions still hold in such scenarios. We argue that our argument holds, for the most part, even when employees themselves create the artificial colleagues. Regardless of who creates them, artificial colleagues cannot realise the goods of collegial relationships; however, where artificial colleagues are created by workers rather than management, the concern about their effect on human collegial relationships becomes less pressing.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Does It Matter Who Creates and Uses Artificial Colleagues? Response to Branda

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月29日

查看全文
  • Friedemann Bieber,
  • Charlotte Franziska Unruh

摘要

In ‘The Illusion of “AI-First”: Organizational Rationality and the Performative Translation of AI Hype’, Francesco Branda offers pertinent observations about how AI tools are implemented in organisations. Branda points out that AI systems are not always implemented through formal processes by managers. Instead, employees turn to AI informally. This observation points to a blind spot of our recent article, ‘The Potential and Limitations of Artificial Colleagues’. In discussing whether artificial agents can replace human colleagues at the workplace, our article assumes that artificial colleagues are developed and implemented through formal channels. We do not discuss scenarios in which employees create and use artificial colleagues through informal practices without managerial oversight or involvement. The question, then, arises whether our conclusions still hold in such scenarios. We argue that our argument holds, for the most part, even when employees themselves create the artificial colleagues. Regardless of who creates them, artificial colleagues cannot realise the goods of collegial relationships; however, where artificial colleagues are created by workers rather than management, the concern about their effect on human collegial relationships becomes less pressing.