Two Thirds Used AI Anyway
Two thirds of office professionals have used AI at work believing it was against the rules. That is a policy problem, not a discipline problem.
The short answer
Two thirds of office professionals have used AI at work believing it was against the rules. That is not a fringe. That is most of the room.
But read that sentence carefully, because it is easy to misread. It measures what people believed. It says nothing about what their employer had actually written down.
Where the number comes from
PagerDuty surveyed 1,250 office professionals at companies with revenue above 500 million dollars, in roles that have nothing to do with IT, across Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Sixty six percent of them said they had used AI tools at work despite believing it was not permitted under company policy. More than half received informal guidance to stop, so this gets noticed more often than people assume.
Believing it is banned is not the same as it being banned
This is the part that matters, and it is the part most write-ups get wrong. A survey about belief cannot tell you whether a policy exists, what it permits, or how strict it is. It only tells you what was in people's heads while they typed.
So there are really three different people inside that two thirds. Some had read a policy that said no and did it anyway. Some worked somewhere with no written policy at all and assumed the worst. And some had a policy that would have permitted exactly what they were doing, and never looked.
Those three are not in the same trouble, and they do not need the same advice. The only thing they share is that none of them checked.
So check. It takes five minutes
Open your employee handbook or your intranet and search it for AI. Then search it for the name of the tool you actually use. You will land in one of four situations, and the answer is genuinely different in each one.
If you find nothing written down, that is an answer too, and it is the one worth acting on, because there is no document to point at later. Ask your manager in writing and keep the reply.
But you still carry the risk
Understanding why a rule is out of date does not protect you from it. If something goes wrong, the policy is what everyone points at, and the person who typed is the person holding it.
That is the whole reason to spend the five minutes. Not permission. Evidence.
Check yourself
Two thirds of whom, exactly?
Of the 1,250 office professionals surveyed, not of AI users specifically, and not of everyone.
What does the survey actually measure?
What people believed the rules were. It does not measure what any policy actually said.
Why is "there is no policy" the riskiest situation?
Because nothing was written down, so there is nothing to point at afterwards and the judgement was yours alone.
Does knowing the rule is outdated protect you?
No. If something goes wrong, the policy is what everyone points at.
What is the five minute version?
Search your handbook for AI and for the tool you use. If nothing comes up, ask in writing and keep the reply.
Words used here
What she says
Two thirds of office professionals have used AI at work when they believed it was against the rules. Twelve hundred and fifty people, across four countries, asked this year. That is not a few rule breakers. That is most of the room.
They read a policy that said no, or they found no policy at all, and used it anyway. A rule that two thirds of people break is a policy problem, not a discipline problem. But if it goes wrong, the policy is what everyone points at, and you are the one who typed.
Subscribe. No permission required.
Comments
No comments yet. Ask what did not make sense.