Your AI drafts an email.
My AI drafts the response.
Your AI finds holes in my argument. My AI finds holes in yours.
A few exchanges later, we have two very polished positions, and we've almost forgotten what we were trying to resolve.
At times, it feels like an arms race.
Each response gets longer. Each argument gets stronger. Each side addresses another possible objection.
But are we getting closer to an agreement?
I love this technology. At Aqueity, we help businesses implement AI, and I'm enthusiastic about what it can do.
Still, I think we need to pay attention to what happens when AI becomes part of both sides of a business exchange.
It's easy to ask, "Help me write a stronger response."
How often do we ask, "Help me find a reasonable way to resolve this?"
Those instructions can take the same conversation in very different directions.
Contracts are a good example.
One side uses AI to flag risks and suggest changes. The other uses AI to challenge those changes and identify concerns of its own.
Some of that scrutiny is valuable. But after enough revisions, the original business objectives can get buried beneath increasingly detailed attempts to protect each side.
Eventually, someone needs to ask: What are we trying to accomplish? Which risks matter enough to negotiate? Where can we reasonably compromise?
The same thing happens in email.
A straightforward question becomes a carefully constructed argument. The response introduces three more points. The next email addresses those and adds two more.
Now we're debating issues that weren't even part of the original conversation.
AI makes it easier to keep going. That doesn't mean we should.
Maybe it's time for a few new ground rules:
Keep the original issue visible. Before responding, restate what needs to be decided. Has the conversation drifted?
Use AI to explore agreements. Ask it to identify common ground, explain the other sides' concern, and suggest a practical compromise.
Own what you send. You should understand and stand behind every argument or proposed change, regardless of who or what drafted it.
Recognize when the exchange has stalled. If another email only strengthens your position without moving things forward, pick up the phone.
Let people make judgment calls. Tools can help us examine the details. People still need to weigh properties, accept tradeoffs, and decide when an agreement works.
I don't want to go back to doing everything the old way. But I do want to preserve direct conversations that help us understand one another and make decisions.
Before sending the next AI-assisted response, it's worth asking:
Am I helping resolve the original issue, or adding another round to the arms race?
Have you felt this in your own email exchanges or contract discussions? What helped bring the conversation back to the point?
Interested in Aqueity's services? Click here to learn more.