AI has taken the world by storm, with generative AI (GenAI) in particular offering professionals across industries a new and enhanced way to work. Yet, despite its growing prevalence, GenAI is often treated like a dirty little secret.
Because of this, some professionals like lawyers use it in ethically dubious ways, as the recent high court judgment in Northbound Processing v SADPMR shows.
There is no doubt that GenAI adds significant value. It can improve efficiency, enhance creativity and assist with everything from drafting documents to analysing data. However, many professionals continue to use these tools quietly, presenting their work without acknowledging that GenAI played a part. This reluctance often stems from a fear that using AI could be seen as a sign of weakness, a shortcut, or even a threat to professional expertise.
This perception needs to change. GenAI is not something to hide. It is a powerful tool, which, when used responsibly and transparently, can complement human ability rather than replace it. Just as calculators, spellcheckers and search engines became accepted tools of the trade, GenAI should also be viewed as an essential part of the modern professional’s toolkit.
One reason for this hesitation is the lack of clear regulation or guidance around the use of GenAI in the workplace. Without direction, professionals are often uncertain about when and how to disclose their use of AI, and whether doing so might undermine their credibility or value.
To address this, organisations need to take proactive steps. First, they should develop internal acceptable use policies that clearly set out how GenAI tools can and should be used. These policies should cover key considerations such as data protection, intellectual property (IP), confidentiality and the limitations of AI outputs. Professional regulators also need to develop ethical rules around the use of AI, and provide guidance on the professional risks, including risks to the public.
Second, organisations must provide practical training for their staff. Many of the risks associated with GenAI arise from a lack of understanding of how these systems work. For instance, GenAI tools can hallucinate, generating convincing but entirely false information. For lawyers, GenAI too can generate false citations to legal authorities, or misleading statements of the law. They can also embed and amplify bias in their outputs, reflecting the biases present in their training data. Without proper training, users may take outputs at face value, exposing their organisations to reputational, legal or operational risks.
One of the most overlooked risks is the handling of sensitive data. When users input confidential or proprietary information into public GenAI platforms, that data may be stored, processed or even used to further train the model. This creates data protection and IP concerns. Users of GenAI need to understand the importance of not inputting sensitive data into public tools unless their organisation has approved and assessed the risks of that tool.
Most importantly, no matter how powerful or sophisticated GenAI tools become they cannot replace human judgment. AI lacks context, nuance, ethical reasoning and an understanding of organisational or contextual priorities. This is where the true value of human professionals lies. Human oversight is not optional; it is essential. Professionals must apply their minds to the outputs of GenAI, critically evaluate the information provided and shape it using their expertise, insight and understanding of context.
Rather than fearing that GenAI diminishes professional value, individuals should recognise that their role is evolving. The skill is not in avoiding AI but in knowing how to use it effectively and responsibly. Those who can blend AI tools with their own judgment, creativity and ethical compass will not only remain relevant but will thrive.
It is time to stop treating GenAI as something to hide. With the right policies, training and mindset, organisations and professionals can harness its potential while safeguarding against its risks. Transparency, responsibility and human oversight must remain at the heart of this new way of working.
• Pinto is an attorney specialising in AI, data protection and information technology law.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.