Sometimes, I read something that just makes me angry. I’m trying hard to be more equanimous, but I’m failing dismally. The most recent example was last week when someone sent me an article from one of our more respected business-centric publications.
First, some context to this piece. Given current economic conditions, every boardrooms and executive suites that I’m involved with is actively seeking ways to be more efficient. Unsurprising, then that the use of AI-powered transcription and notetaking tools has grown steadily. Yet, reading the recent piece, you’d think we were on the verge of replacing CEOs and directors with chatbots. It’s a strange mixture of cautionary advice and speculative alarmism – a tone that does more to stoke fear than clarify the actual risks or realities. It actually feels like a case of a lawyer seeking to drum up business for over-anxious boards and management teams.
Let’s start with the most glaringly improbable idea raised: the notion that an executive or director would send an AI tool “in their place” to a board meeting. This isn’t just unlikely – it’s bordering on absurd. The suggestion, which floats in the middle of the article, conjures an image of a board chair opening a Zoom window only to be greeted by a virtual assistant with a blinking cursor. No one is seriously proposing this, and no responsible executive would consider it. AI tools, however capable, don’t make decisions, hold fiduciary responsibilities, or offer judgment. They transcribe and summarize. That’s it.
The article hints at a creeping dystopia where multiple AI notetakers generate conflicting transcripts, leading to legal confusion in future litigation. But here’s the thing – there is no widespread evidence of this happening. I’ve yet to encounter a single situation where multiple competing AI notetakers are deployed in a single meeting, each churning out contradictory minutes like dueling court stenographers. It’s a hypothetical stacked on top of another hypothetical, framed as a current concern.
In reality, the process for recording and approving minutes – whether drafted by a human or generated by an AI – is robust and well established. AI tools may provide a draft, but those minutes don’t simply go into the record unexamined. They’re typically reviewed by the chair, often revised, and then circulated for approval by the full board or committee before they’re adopted. That’s the safeguard. It’s not the tool that guarantees accuracy – it’s the process of verification and human oversight.
This article misses an opportunity to distinguish between caution and catastrophizing. Of course, there are legitimate issues to consider: privacy policies, data security, and the need for clear consent when recording meetings. These concerns are real, and companies should address them with appropriate AI use policies. But conflating these operational concerns with outlandish hypotheticals only muddies the conversation.
Ironically, the article itself briefly touches on one of the most valuable features of AI notetakers – reducing human bias in meeting summaries. A machine doesn’t defer to the loudest voice or unconsciously elevate the comments of senior figures over junior ones. A transcript captures what was said, not who said it more confidently. That’s not just a convenience; it’s a potential step toward more equitable meeting documentation.
Unfortunately, instead of exploring how these tools might enhance transparency or streamline operations when used responsibly, the article leans heavily into the fear that AI will somehow undercut governance. It paints a picture of directors relying blindly on transcripts they haven’t reviewed, or companies discovering – too late – that a third-party app has shared confidential data.
Let’s be clear: no one is suggesting that AI minutes should replace human judgment. These tools are supplements, not substitutes. Used properly, they save time, improve consistency, and help professionals focus on strategic thinking rather than frantic note-scribbling. The real-world solution isn’t to sound the alarm – it’s to set up policies that ensure these tools are used wisely.
That includes requiring human review of AI-generated notes, securing proper consent for recordings, choosing vendors with strong privacy protections, and ensuring data retention policies are enforced. These are management issues, not existential threats.
What’s most troubling is how this article positions AI notetaking as a kind of corporate boogeyman – a shadowy presence that might someday be “sent” in your place. That kind of fearmongering doesn’t help boards or executive teams make informed decisions. It stalls progress and sows mistrust at a moment when organizations need to embrace tools that can make them more agile and effective.
Yes, AI is changing how we work. And yes, it demands thoughtful governance. But let’s keep our critiques grounded in reality. The real risk isn’t that someone might try to send an AI to a board meeting – the risk is that we’ll waste so much time worrying about it that we miss out on the practical benefits these tools can offer when implemented with care.
Let’s not let hype – negative or positive – steer the conversation. What we need is sober, informed dialogue about how to integrate AI tools into responsible corporate governance. And that starts by putting the robots back in their rightful place: not in the boardroom, but in the background, helping us work smarter – not replacing us altogether.
