🔍 AI Is Exposing How Much Work We Never Defined

AI is often described as disruptive because it is new. In reality, it feels disruptive because it refuses to operate inside ambiguity we have quietly relied on for years. When AI struggles, it is rarely because the task is too complex. It is because the work was never clearly defined in the first place.

------------- Context -------------

Most organizations run on a mix of formal processes and informal understanding. Some work is documented, standardized, and repeatable. Much more work lives in habits, conversations, and “the way we usually do things.”

Humans are remarkably good at navigating this ambiguity. We fill in gaps without noticing. We infer intent. We compensate for missing steps. We rely on experience and social cues to keep things moving.

AI does none of that naturally. It needs clarity. Inputs, rules, definitions, boundaries. When those are missing, AI does not quietly adapt. It fails visibly.

That failure is uncomfortable, but it is also diagnostic. AI is showing us where work has always depended on tribal knowledge rather than shared understanding.

------------- The Hidden Dependence on Tacit Knowledge -------------

Tacit knowledge is what people know but rarely write down.

It includes how to prioritize when everything is urgent. Which requests can wait. Who really needs to be looped in. What “good enough” means in different contexts. These judgments are learned over time, often through mistakes.

Because tacit knowledge works, it feels efficient. Writing it down feels unnecessary. Until someone new joins. Or until work scales. Or until we ask AI to help.

When AI enters the picture, tacit knowledge becomes a bottleneck. The system asks questions humans never had to articulate. What counts as complete? Which exception matters? When do we escalate?

AI exposes how much of our work relies on shared assumptions rather than shared definitions.

------------- Why Informality Has Been Carrying More Weight Than We Admit -------------

Informal work has always absorbed complexity.

Humans smooth rough edges. They correct for broken processes. They adapt to inconsistent inputs. This adaptability is a strength, but it also hides structural problems.

Over time, organizations start to depend on that flexibility. Processes remain vague because people compensate. Documentation lags because experience fills the gap.

AI removes that buffer. It does not compensate. It asks for precision.

This is why AI adoption often feels harder than expected. It is not that the work is new. It is that the informality that made the work survivable is no longer invisible.

------------- AI as a Diagnostic Tool, Not Just an Automation Tool -------------

When AI fails, the instinct is to blame the model, the prompt, or the data. Sometimes that is fair. Often, it misses the deeper signal.

Failure points reveal where decisions were never agreed on. Where criteria were fuzzy. Where roles were implicit. Where exceptions ruled.

Seen this way, AI becomes a diagnostic tool. It highlights ambiguity hotspots. It shows where alignment is assumed but not real. It reveals which parts of work are fragile.

Organizations that treat AI failures as feedback learn faster. Organizations that treat them as defects get stuck.

The question shifts from “Why can’t the AI do this?” to “Why was this never clearly defined?”

------------- The Emotional Cost of Making Work Explicit -------------

Clarifying work sounds logical. In practice, it can be emotionally charged.

Defining rules removes discretion. Naming decisions surfaces disagreement. Writing things down makes them debatable. What was once flexible becomes visible.

This can feel like loss. Loss of autonomy. Loss of status. Loss of the quiet power that comes from being the person who “just knows.”

AI forces these conversations. Not because it wants control, but because it cannot operate without clarity. The discomfort is not a side effect. It is part of the transition.

Avoiding that discomfort keeps work dependent on individuals. Facing it turns work into a shared asset.

------------- From Tribal Knowledge to Shared Reality -------------

The long-term value of AI is not that it automates tasks. It is that it pushes organizations to externalize knowledge.

When rules are written down, they can be improved. When decisions are explicit, they can be questioned. When workflows are clear, they can be scaled.

This does not eliminate human judgment. It elevates it. Humans move from compensating for ambiguity to shaping better systems.

AI does not replace understanding. It demands it.

------------- Practical Strategies: Using AI to Clarify Work -------------

Treat AI failures as signals. Document where the system gets confused and ask what was unclear to begin with.
Map decisions, not just steps. Focus on where judgment is applied, not only on task sequences.
Externalize tacit rules. Capture “how we decide” alongside “what we do.”
Start with narrow workflows. Clarify one slice of work deeply before scaling.
Involve practitioners in definition. The people doing the work know where ambiguity lives.

------------- Reflection -------------

AI is not exposing weakness in our people. It is exposing invisibility in our systems.

For years, humans have been absorbing complexity quietly. AI simply refuses to do the same. That refusal feels disruptive because it asks us to see our work clearly, sometimes for the first time.

If we accept that invitation, AI becomes more than a tool. It becomes a catalyst for shared understanding, better design, and work that no longer depends on what only a few people carry in their heads.

What knowledge would we need to externalize before AI could truly help?

3 comments