The AI Tax: 6 Core Ways Artificial Intelligence Creates More Work
AI was supposed to help. In many ways, it does. But in just as many ways—and often more—it generates new layers of complexity. The visual “How AI Creates New Work and Wastes Time” captures six operational stress points that consistently appear in AI rollouts. They aren’t theoretical. They reflect the real work happening under the radar.
Each of these categories is not just a single pain point—they are proxies for deeper, compounding issues.
1. Juggling with AI: Multi-Tasking, Switching, Sprawl
“Multi-tasking” undersells what’s really happening. People are toggling between tools, between models, and between metaphors of interaction. One AI tool for scheduling, another for summarizing, a third embedded in email, a fourth in a line-of-business app. The term for this is toolchain sprawl—and it’s becoming one of the most visible symptoms of disorganized AI adoption.
That sprawl creates hidden costs. Each new AI product adds another learning curve, another disconnected knowledge silo. The sum is less efficiency, not more. Operational continuity breaks down. Work becomes an exercise in digital juggling, where focus is sacrificed on the altar of automation.
2. Vetting: Oversight, Trust, and the Hallucination Problem
AI doesn’t get a free pass. Every output it creates must be checked, confirmed and edited. Vetting isn’t just a QA step—it’s a daily practice. Prompting isn’t the end of the process; it’s the beginning of a new one―a potentially slower one, depending on the length and complexity of the content.
Because AI tends to hallucinate, confidence in its output demands full reviews. That means time, labor, and knowledge that must come from somewhere—usually from people who already have too little of all three. Vetting also becomes a form of shadow labor. Unmeasured. Underreported. But real.
3. Data Science: Readiness, Cleanliness, and Hidden Work
The diagram’s nod to “Data Science” hides a more pervasive issue: data readiness. Most organizations aren’t ready. Their data is old, misaligned, mislabeled, and scattered. AI exposes this immediately—garbage in, garbage out has never been more true.
Much of the AI work, especially in large enterprises, involves preparation: reconciling formats, cleaning inputs, resolving duplicates, and tagging content. This is expensive, ongoing, and largely invisible to executives expecting fast transformation. It’s not “AI work” in a narrow sense—it’s the work AI demands before it becomes useful.
4. Relevance and Safety: Governance, Compliance, and Trust
“Relevance and Safety” masks some of the hardest problems in AI. Tools aren’t just inaccurate—they’re often inappropriate. They produce biased outputs. They violate tone. They ignore nuance. When those outputs are made available through public or client-facing channels, the fallout is real.
Add in compliance. Most AI deployments don’t begin with a solid understanding of regulatory frameworks like GDPR or HIPAA. Training data gets reused without clear lineage. Inference models spit out things they never should have seen. And governance teams are left trying to build fences around tools already in the field.
This is more than a legal risk. It’s an operational drag. Every step forward requires a step sideways to ensure it doesn’t undo progress elsewhere.
5. Participating in Failed Projects: The Cycle of Abandonment
AI hype drives rapid experimentation. But many of those experiments lack grounding. They don’t connect to actual workflows. They don’t solve meaningful problems or, worse, mischaracterize and under-describe real problems. And when they fail, they leave behind technical debt, confused users, and wasted time.
New bots, pilots, copilots—each pitched as transformational, many abandoned months later. The people participating in these projects don’t get the benefit of the doubt. They get the burden of cleanup.
And because no one wants to miss the next wave, they sign up again, hoping this one will be different. It rarely is.
6. Learning and Relearning: Training Gaps and Shifting Interfaces
Every new model, every product update, every tweak to the prompt engine introduces friction. The AI doesn’t stay still long enough for the organization to catch up. Staff training becomes obsolete quickly. Executive expectations outpace implementation capabilities. The result: fragmentation and burnout. And that doesn’t account for the Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) driven by colleagues sharing their stories about AI triumphs and cool new tools, which can drive additional distraction in search of novelty and productivity.
Using multiple tools to support the same function turns people into reconciliation engines. Consider a basic scenario: a Microsoft Word document augmented by Copilot, Grammarly, and Word’s native Editor. Copilot generates a draft. Grammarly flags passive voice. Word Editor rewrites the sentence. None of them knows the others exist. They don’t share a personal, professional, or brand voice profile. They operate in parallel but without coordination, producing conflicting inputs and tasking the human with resolving them.
And that’s the easy version. Now imagine Salesforce, Google Workspace, and Microsoft agents offering competing recommendations for a customer proposal. AI ethics discussions often demand “humans-in-the-loop,” but too many AI voices can increase the friction, making the loop feel like a spiral.
Underneath all of this lies the tension between what AI promises and what it delivers. Many employees feel stuck—learning, relearning, adapting—without ever getting to fluency. Meanwhile, execs are reading vendor decks about exponential efficiency. That disconnect can be demoralizing. It can also slow down actual adoption.
When AI Works—What Happens to Free Time?
Most AI conversations fixate on two poles: burnout from increased complexity or fears of full automation. But in the middle lies a more subtle, under-discussed outcome: time freed up by AI.
When automation does work—when tasks are actually completed faster when workflows are simplified—what do we do with the time saved?
That’s not a rhetorical question. It’s a policy and leadership challenge. Without intentional planning, that freed-up time often disappears into unproductive busywork, vague “strategic” tasks, or simply gets reabsorbed as slack. Worse, some leaders view time savings not as an opportunity but as justification to reduce headcount or pile on more responsibilities.
There’s a risk here: if AI-generated free time is always translated into cost savings or increased output, the human side of work loses meaning. People become throughput machines rather than thinkers, collaborators, or learners.
Instead, organizations should build frameworks that:
- Encourage reinvestment of saved time into creative or exploratory projects
- Support downtime as legitimate and valuable
- Offer training or mentoring opportunities built into accountabilities rather than expected as an extra investment by the worker
- Redesign roles to allow for deeper, not just faster, engagement
Free time should be treated as a strategic asset—not a side effect.
If AI is going to reshape work, we need to consider not just what it does, but what we do when it does deliver on its promise. That’s not a software engineering problem. That’s a human experience opportunity.
The Hidden Layer: Cost, Fragmentation, and Risk
Underneath every category above lies a thread of unaccounted-for expense—licensing fees, unplanned integration efforts, redundant contracts, and endless experimentation cycles. These aren’t traditional capital or operational expenses. They’re ambient. Diffuse. Hard to measure. But very real.
And then there’s the data. Fragmented, ungoverned, and duplicated across tools that don’t talk to each other. Each AI solution captures value—and often traps it—leaving the enterprise with partial views of performance, risk, and opportunity. Agents promise to combat this, but they also introduce a new level of tool that is even more inaccessible to end users than LLMs, with their own issues of duplication, version control, and orchestration.
All of this contributes to the AI tax. Not an intentional levy but an accumulated burden.
📌 How to Offset the AI Tax
- Create continuous learning paths. Offer modular training and update tracks tailored to roles—technical, operational, and executive.
- Standardize your AI stack. Consolidate tools and platforms to reduce toolchain sprawl, ease training, and streamline integration.
- Build vetting into workflows. Designate roles and checkpoints for review, and create libraries of verified, reusable AI-generated content.
- Invest in data infrastructure. Prioritize data cleansing, tagging, and architecture upgrades before scaling AI deployments.
- Establish AI governance early. Create clear guidelines for relevance, compliance, ethical use, and safety to minimize downstream rework.
- Run time-bound pilots. Limit experimentation to structured phases with defined KPIs. Archive learnings to avoid repeating failed approaches.
This list will seem restrictive to AI advocates—and it is. AI opens sprawling possibilities. Experimentation and innovation matter. But line workers, managers, and operational teams aren’t rewarded for possibility. They’re judged on outcomes.
There’s a reason IT evolved into a separate discipline: not everyone could—or should—be a computer expert. Yet, we continue to ask more of employees when it comes to devices, apps, and virtual environments. The fact that video calls still generate friction should remind us how persistent the gap is between tool design and actual use.
AI brings a paradox: it presents as simple and conversational, but it operates as transformational and opaque. It’s orders of magnitude more complex than video conferencing in both capability and consequence.
Organizations need to offer more support and set lower expectations. Just because Microsoft and Google have embedded AI everywhere doesn’t mean employees need to use it for everything. Taking the AI-as-colleague metaphor seriously requires acknowledging that onboarding takes time—and that trust doesn’t form instantly.
And let’s be honest: if a human colleague changed as often as AI, added new skills daily, and invented facts under pressure, they wouldn’t be hailed as a genius. They’d likely be placed on a 72-hour psychological hold for erratic behavior and delusional confidence.
Bottom Line
AI adds value—but it also adds work. The sooner organizations acknowledge that value and complexity scale together, the better off they’ll be. Strategic success won’t come from automating faster. It will come from recognizing where AI is shifting effort and deciding—intentionally—if that shift is worth the trade.
If AI is going to be a teammate, we need to stop treating it like a shortcut and start treating it like a colleague. That means building systems around it that account for training, feedback, integration, measurement—and yes, its many quirks.
Otherwise, we’ll keep juggling, vetting, prepping, correcting, rebuilding, and relearning—while wondering (or knowing) why things don’t feel easier.
For more serious insights on AI, click here. For more serious insights on KM, click here.
Did you enjoy this post on the AI Tax? If so, like it, subscribe, leave a comment or just share it!
Leave a Reply