The culture of effort, deeply rooted in our societies for centuries, comes into conflict with Artificial Intelligence and its exponentially easier, more productive responses
Artificial intelligence is expanding in offices, banks, creative studios and even home desks. The curious thing is that it does so almost clandestinely. Recent surveys show that the vast majority of workers already use these tools to some extent, but rarely admit it out loud. Rather than being celebrated as a sign of modernization, the use of AI still arouses modesty.
That feeling has deep cultural roots. In a context where merit is still measured in hours of effort and individual skill, relying on an algorithm may sound like a trap. International research, such as the Slack Workforce Index, indicates that up to half of workers fear being perceived as lazy or less capable if they confess that they used AI to complete their tasks. In Latin America, the phenomenon is repeated: a regional study by Thomson Reuters revealed that 85% of professionals want to integrate AI into their work, but only 18% of organizations have clear policies and most lack formal training. Enthusiasm exists, but it coexists with uncertainty and, many times, with silence.
In Chile, the picture is no less contradictory. A study by Laborum reveals that 55% of workers already use artificial intelligence in their workday, which is an increase of 19 points compared to the previous year. However, when asked about more consistent use, the figure drops dramatically: only 15% admit to using it regularly, according to Randstad. And, at the same time, almost four out of ten workers admit that AI already has a significant impact on their tasks. The gap is evident: it is incorporated more than is openly recognized, in a scenario in which experimentation, the lack of clear guidelines and uncertainty about its future scope coexist.
The problem is not in the technology, but in the cultural climate. When an organization does not define what is allowed or how AI contributions should be accredited, it creates fertile ground for insecurity. That lack of definition pushes employees into what experts call shadow AI: silent use, without guidelines or supervision, which exposes errors and erodes internal trust.
As Julián Colombo, CEO of N5, warns, “cultural resistance weighs more than the learning curve. Artificial intelligence does not generate fear so much because of what it does, but because of what we think it says about us when we use it.”
Concrete examples show that, well designed, AI should not generate shame but pride. Tools such as Alfred and Pep, the co-pilots of N5, were created precisely to enhance productivity and learning in the financial industry. Its purpose is not to replace, but to assist: an intelligent counselor who helps make faster, more informed decisions and a didactic companion who simplifies training and democratizes access to knowledge. Admitting that you use assistants like these doesn’t detract from that: on the contrary, it speaks to leveraging the best available technologies to focus on what really matters.
The risks of keeping adoption in the shadows are clear: opportunities for collective training are lost, the quality of processes is weakened, and a climate of suspicion is nurtured. The way out is to naturalize the use and accompany it with simple rules: define which tasks can be supported by AI, clarify how the results should be presented and ensure that there is always a human review before a job is concluded.
Ultimately, the modesty in the face of AI is a mirror of our beliefs about the value of work. More than a technical revolution, what lies ahead is a cultural transition. If we manage to cross it with transparency, we will stop feeling ashamed when using these tools and we will be able to transform them into a true shared capital.
El pudor de utilizar IA en el ámbito laboral | Diario Sur Noticias
