Thinking on this more, I've realized there's an additional problem with Koomen's vision that might be even more significant than what I initially described.
It's actually potentially harmful that current AI email assistants try to impersonate their users. When these systems are designed to write as though they're you - using your voice, your style, your signature - they create a kind of social deception that undermines genuine human connection.
Consider what happens when you meet someone after your AI has "written as you" in an email exchange. They might reference specifics from "your" message that you have no actual knowledge of. You're supposedly continuing a conversation you never actually had. This creates an awkward disconnect that erodes the authenticity of human interaction.
In our rush to make AI communications feel natural by mimicking human writing styles, we risk something more valuable: genuine connection. The problem isn't just that current AI systems don't sound enough like us (Koomen's concern), it's that they're pretending to be us at all.
A more honest and ultimately more useful approach would be for AI agents to have their own distinct identities: "Sent on behalf of Mason" or "Read on behalf of Sarah." This transparency preserves both the utility value of efficient communication and the personal value of authentic human interaction.
For AI-mediated communication to truly succeed long-term, we need to separate:
1. Utility communications (scheduling, information sharing, routine updates)
2. Personal communications (relationship building, creative collaboration, emotional connection)
When we blur these lines by having AI impersonate us for utility communications, we risk devaluing the currency of genuine person-to-person exchanges. After all, part of what makes a personal message meaningful is knowing that another human took time specifically for you.
So while I still believe agent-to-agent negotiation is the future of routine communications, I think transparency about AI involvement is equally (if not more) important. The end state isn't AI that perfectly mimics our writing styles; it's a communication ecosystem where AI handles routine exchanges transparently, while preserving the special value of genuine human connection.
It's actually potentially harmful that current AI email assistants try to impersonate their users. When these systems are designed to write as though they're you - using your voice, your style, your signature - they create a kind of social deception that undermines genuine human connection.
Consider what happens when you meet someone after your AI has "written as you" in an email exchange. They might reference specifics from "your" message that you have no actual knowledge of. You're supposedly continuing a conversation you never actually had. This creates an awkward disconnect that erodes the authenticity of human interaction.
In our rush to make AI communications feel natural by mimicking human writing styles, we risk something more valuable: genuine connection. The problem isn't just that current AI systems don't sound enough like us (Koomen's concern), it's that they're pretending to be us at all.
A more honest and ultimately more useful approach would be for AI agents to have their own distinct identities: "Sent on behalf of Mason" or "Read on behalf of Sarah." This transparency preserves both the utility value of efficient communication and the personal value of authentic human interaction.
For AI-mediated communication to truly succeed long-term, we need to separate:
1. Utility communications (scheduling, information sharing, routine updates)
2. Personal communications (relationship building, creative collaboration, emotional connection)
When we blur these lines by having AI impersonate us for utility communications, we risk devaluing the currency of genuine person-to-person exchanges. After all, part of what makes a personal message meaningful is knowing that another human took time specifically for you.
So while I still believe agent-to-agent negotiation is the future of routine communications, I think transparency about AI involvement is equally (if not more) important. The end state isn't AI that perfectly mimics our writing styles; it's a communication ecosystem where AI handles routine exchanges transparently, while preserving the special value of genuine human connection.