TOKYO - As AI use becomes increasingly common in the workplace, a recent academic study has sparked discussion over the potential downsides of disclosing its use. The study, which has drawn widespread attention, suggests that employees who use AI may feel guilty or be perceived as lazy, leading to lower performance evaluations from their superiors.
Is using AI considered cheating? One man who has experimented with AI around a dozen times said, "I don’t think it’s unfair. In fact, I admire those who can use it well." He also noted that many colleagues are still unfamiliar with the technology and need support to get started.
Another man in his 50s said he does not see AI use as dishonest, but fears it may eventually replace his job. "AI has benefits, like reducing labor costs, but if it becomes too dominant, people like me might become expendable."
When asked whether using AI to write résumés or complete school assignments feels dishonest, one student replied, "It does feel a little like cheating, but if it helps improve the result, then it’s okay." Others compared it to using a calculator—just another tool, as long as rules are in place.
Despite varied views, many still feel uneasy about openly admitting to using AI. Some worry they’ll be seen as unmotivated or replaceable, while others simply avoid mentioning it to colleagues or bosses. A chart discussed in the program visualized this trend: people who fear being judged for using AI are also less likely to disclose it.
Commentators noted that this hesitation is rooted in traditional workplace norms in Japan, where long hours and visible effort are often equated with dedication. "There’s still this idea that the person who works longest is the most committed," said one guest, adding that people who rely on AI might be viewed as cutting corners.
Yet many see AI as a means of increasing productivity and reclaiming personal time. One panelist said, "If AI can handle routine tasks, then we should use the time saved to enjoy life. That’s the smart way to work."
The challenge, however, lies in corporate implementation. Some large companies hesitate due to concerns over information security and potential data leaks. They must invest in secure systems, and the initial cost—potentially in the millions of yen—can deter adoption unless productivity gains are clear.
Even when companies are ready to adopt AI, employees may resist. A consultant interviewed on the program said, "Many firms want to use AI, but their workers don’t. They think their output can’t be replaced or fear losing their unique value." This gap in mindset between management and workers can slow AI integration.
There’s also the problem of fairness: companies often struggle to properly evaluate employees who excel at using AI tools. If evaluation systems lag behind, it could lead to growing inequalities within teams. Those who can effectively use AI may produce significantly more output, widening the gap with those who can’t.
Still, on the ground, most workers don’t view AI use as unfair but rather as a way to work more efficiently. Supervisors often initiate training out of fear of being left behind, presenting it as a benefit for the whole team while trying to stay competitive themselves.
The key, according to panelists, is for managers to take the lead in adopting AI and sharing their success stories. "It’s essential for both managers and staff to start small and experience the benefits directly," one expert said, suggesting email writing as a good entry point. "Once you realize how much easier it is, you’ll never want to go back."
Historical examples were also cited: when calculators, the internet, and smartphones were first introduced, skeptics feared a decline in human ability. But these technologies are now indispensable. AI, the panel concluded, represents the next phase in that evolution—not a threat to intelligence, but an extension of it.
That said, concerns remain about overreliance and misinformation. Current AI tools are not perfect and can produce errors. Human judgment, backed by experience, is still essential to verify output. This makes AI especially valuable for older generations with rich professional experience, as they are better equipped to oversee and refine AI-generated content.
Ultimately, the panel agreed, the future of AI hinges on education and passion. They called for a shift in the educational system to nurture curiosity and emotional engagement, instead of rote memorization. "In the end, what humans can offer that machines can’t is passion," one guest concluded. "That’s what we need to cultivate in the next generation—and in ourselves."
Source: ABEMA
