The pressure to use generative AI to save time at work keeps growing. More and more professionals are turning to AI agents — whether ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini — to help them write emails. And sometimes, it shows.
Nathalie Norman, a communications manager, was bold enough to raise the question on the Info IA Québec page:
“Do you face judgment at work because of your use of ChatGPT, Copilot, or similar tools?”
Nathalie admits to using AI to handle email replies: she explains to ChatGPT what she wants to say, adjusts if needed, then copies and pastes without thinking twice. She’s not alone. According to a study published last September by ZeroBounce, 24% of professionals use a generative AI app to draft or revise emails. But clearly, not everyone is on board:
“Some people sometimes respond with heavy judgment, pointing out that my replies sound robotic, or that they’ve figured out I’m using AI — and they react as if I’ve cheated or responded too quickly to their request. Am I lazy? Is this just me, or does it happen to others too?”
The topic is admittedly a sensitive one. Some professionals use AI for everything with unbridled enthusiasm, while others reject it outright, eager to preserve more “human” relationships — or out of concern over the political, social, and environmental risks tied to the technology.
Divided opinions
In the Info IA Québec group, some users validated the mild irritation that can come with receiving an AI-generated email.
“I hate it when people systematically reply to me using an LLM,” admits Ricky Notaro. “I’m a power user of AI myself, but it’s just unpleasant when you take the time to write something and the person replies with an LLM — and on top of that, the response sometimes doesn’t even quite fit the actual context.”
Alexandre, a web developer, echoes that sentiment:
“What bothers me is wasting my time reading a page of AI-generated text when a line or two would have been just as clear. And it’s so impersonal. If the subject is sensitive, I either skip the AI altogether or rework the output until it sounds like me.”
At the other end of the spectrum, Natasha Tatta, the administrator of Info IA Québec, doesn’t understand why anyone would take offense.
“The geniuses who feel the need to call out AI use are simply the new ‘grammar police’ — and that’s not a compliment,” she says bluntly. “Focusing on form, hunting for certain words or sentence structures instead of engaging with the actual content of the message, reveals a bias — or even a bit of an inferiority complex — more than any real critical thinking. It’s rather petty.”
Somewhere in between, several contributors offered practical suggestions for using AI without rubbing people the wrong way.
“People don’t feel considered, and that’s understandable,” argues Brigitte Bertrand, founder of the copywriting agency CroustiWitchy Marketing. “I always rework the text heavily and inject personality into it. Sure, it takes two extra minutes — but that’s time well spent to give clients a satisfying experience.”
Ricky Notaro adds some nuance to his earlier position:
“The real problem isn’t the tool. It’s that most people use ChatGPT’s default output without reworking it. And the default style is recognizable from a mile away: long sentences, a ‘corporate’ tone, bullet points everywhere, ‘I hope this message finds you well.’ No wonder it raises red flags.”
He offers concrete tips: give the AI context about your own style. Rather than simply asking it to “reply to this email,” add guidance on the tone you want — short, direct, casual, and so on.
“Let’s stop apologizing,” he insists. “No one judges someone for using spell-check, an email template, or an assistant who drafts on their behalf. AI is the same thing, just more powerful. The result is what matters. Not the method. People who judge are usually doing one of two things: either they haven’t tried it themselves, or they’re using it in secret.”
The debate is far from over.
training.isarta.com 
