For decades, private correspondence (letters, internal reports or confidential documents) has been considered practically inviolable in both professional and personal spheres. Who would dare open letters addressed to another person! Accessing someone else's communication without authorization was not only perceived as a serious lack of ethics, but also as a clear violation of the law. This culture of confidentiality was not an accessory: it was part of the core of business trust.
Today, however, we are immersed in a profound change in behavior. The accelerated adoption of artificial intelligence tools has introduced new dynamics into the daily lives of professionals, whether in SMEs or large organizations. It is increasingly common to use these technologies to summarize emails, write responses, generate reports or even record and transcribe meetings. What is surprising is not so much the use itself, but the naturalness with which information is shared that, until recently, would have been considered sensitive.
Are we facing a fad? In part yes, as happens with any disruptive innovation that generates enthusiasm and rapid adoption. But it is also a structural evolution. AI brings real gains in efficiency and productivity, and this makes its integration, in many cases, difficult to reverse. However, it is necessary to assess the risk of the technology due to the use we make of it and, above all, due to the lack of awareness of the implications it entails.
When we enter content into these tools—whether it’s customer data, internal information, or strategic decisions—we may be transferring that content to third parties or subjecting it to processing that we don’t fully control. This can create risks in terms of confidentiality, regulatory compliance, and even corporate reputation. And often, these decisions are made on an individual basis, without a clear framework or defined criteria.
The question, therefore, is not whether it can be done or if it should be stopped, but how it is done. The use of AI can be perfectly compatible with responsible information management, but it requires intentionality. We need to regain a critical perspective that allows us to distinguish between what we can share and what we must protect. This involves knowing the tools well, understanding how they process data and, above all, establishing clear boundaries within the organization.
In this context, it becomes essential to promote an internal culture based on prudence and responsibility. It is not enough to rely on technology; it is necessary to train teams, define protocols and ensure that decisions are made with discretion. Convenience cannot replace diligence.
We have moved, almost without realizing it, from a model in which information was protected by default to one in which it is easily shared to save time. Restoring balance is an urgent challenge.
