IORDANIS PASSAS GRAPHIC & TYPE DESIGN

The Efficiency Gap: The Rise of Shadow AI and the Non-Technical Workforce

1. Introduction: The Silent Industrial Revolution

The contemporary enterprise is currently navigating a profound and largely invisible transformation, one that is not being orchestrated by Chief Information Officers or centralized strategy committees, but rather by the distributed, autonomous actions of the non-technical workforce. This phenomenon is characterized by a widening chasm known as the Efficiency Gap—a structural disparity in output capacity between workers who have successfully, and often covertly, integrated generative artificial intelligence (AI) into their daily workflows, and those who rely on traditional, manual processes.

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of this shift, exploring the mechanics of the “Secret Cyborg” phenomenon, the rise of “Shadow AI” (or “Bring Your Own AI”), and the systemic risks associated with unauthorized automation. The analysis draws upon extensive data from 2024 and 2025, revealing a landscape where the productivity benefits are exponential—ranging from 10x capacity increases in recruitment to the democratization of complex coding—but the risks of “Automation Debt,” legal liability, and data exfiltration are equally potent.

The narrative that follows dissects the anatomy of this gap, the specific tools and workflows weaponized by employees, and the strategic imperatives for organizations attempting to govern a workforce that has effectively outpaced its own management in technological adoption.

2. The Anatomy of the Efficiency Gap

2.1 Defining the Divide

The Efficiency Gap is no longer merely a metric of incremental speed; it represents a fundamental divergence in operational capacity. In the pre-AI era, the difference between a high-performing employee and an average one might have been measured in percentage points—perhaps 20% or 30% greater output. In the era of the AI-augmented worker, this differential has shifted to orders of magnitude.

2.1.1 The Quantitative Scale

The most striking evidence of this gap is found in high-volume, text-heavy domains such as talent acquisition. Traditional human recruiters, constrained by cognitive load and working hours, typically process between 50 and 100 resumes per day. This “human speed limit” acts as a bottleneck in the hiring process. In stark contrast, AI-augmented systems and recruiters leveraging automated agents can process, parse, and rank over 1,000 resumes daily.1

This disparity is compounded by the temporal availability of the workforce. The unaugmented human worker is limited to approximately 40 productive hours per week. The AI-augmented workflow, or the “AI recruiter,” operates on a 24/7 basis (168 hours per week), creating a relentless operational cadence that manual processes cannot match. The advantage is not just in volume but in the “time arbitrage” it creates; the AI-equipped organization or individual is effectively productive while the competition sleeps.1

2.1.2 The Qualitative Shift: Judgement vs. Drudgery

Critically, this gap does not imply the total replacement of human labor, but rather a reconfiguration of it. Research from MIT suggests that the most successful implementations of AI in these sectors do not remove humans but amplify their judgment. The “Efficiency Gap,” therefore, is the distance between a worker who spends 90% of their time filtering low-quality candidates and one who spends 90% of their time engaging with pre-qualified, high-potential talent.1 The AI handles the routine sorting—the “drudgery”—allowing the human to ascend the value chain.

2.2 The “Acceleration Trap”

However, the introduction of AI is not a universal panacea. For many organizations, the attempt to close the Efficiency Gap paradoxically widens it, a phenomenon known as the Acceleration Trap.

The prevailing myth in the corporate world is that AI acts as a “great equalizer,” a technological shortcut that allows laggards to leapfrog industry leaders. The data suggests the opposite: AI acts as a magnifier of existing capacity.2

  • The Rocket Booster Effect: When applied to a streamlined, agile organization with clean data governance and efficient processes, AI acts as a rocket booster, propelling the company further ahead.

  • The Chaos Multiplier: When applied to a company burdened by silos, bureaucratic drag, and poor data hygiene, AI amplifies those weaknesses. It generates erroneous conclusions at scale—”Garbage In, Garbage Out” at industrial velocity.

Inefficient organizations often find themselves hitting a “data wall.” While they spend months attempting to clean and reconcile fragmented data trapped in legacy systems (“organizing the filing cabinet”), their efficient competitors—whose data is already structured and accessible—are deploying predictive models to read the files and forecast the future.2 Thus, the Efficiency Gap becomes an unbridgeable chasm, where the laggard is stuck in remediation while the leader accelerates away.

Table 1: The Acceleration Trap Dynamics

Organizational State Impact of AI Adoption Outcome
Efficient / Agile Magnifies efficiency; automates streamlined workflows. Rocket Booster: Exponential gains in speed and insight.
Inefficient / Siloed Magnifies chaos; automates broken processes. Chaos Multiplier: Faster generation of errors; widening of the competitive gap.

3. The Rise of the “Secret Cyborg” and Shadow AI

3.1 The Shadow AI Ecosystem

“Shadow AI,” often referred to as “Bring Your Own AI” (BYOAI), has emerged as the dominant mode of technological adoption in the 2024-2025 workplace. This parallels the “Shadow IT” and “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD) trends of previous decades but operates with significantly higher stakes due to the generative and autonomous nature of the tools involved.

3.1.1 Prevalence and Adoption Rates

The scale of this unauthorized adoption is staggering. In Canada, for instance, 79% of office workers report using AI tools, yet only 1 in 4 utilize enterprise-grade solutions provided by their employer.3 This discrepancy—a 50+ percentage point gap—highlights a massive failure in corporate IT provisioning. Employees are not waiting for permission; they are actively circumventing IT procurement processes to access the tools they believe they need to survive.

Globally, the trend holds. Reports indicate that nearly 80% of employees admit to using AI tools that were not approved by their employer.4 In the cybersecurity sector, a domain theoretically hyper-aware of risk, nearly 90% of security professionals engage in unapproved AI use.5 This suggests that the utility of these tools is so compelling that it overrides even professional security training.

3.1.2 The “Stealth” User Demographic

The adoption is driven heavily by younger cohorts. Gen Z employees are identified as the “biggest stealth AI users,” followed closely by the tech industry workforce.6 A significant portion of these workers (29%) are paying for these tools out of their own pockets, effectively subsidizing their employer’s operations to maintain their own competitive edge.7

This secrecy creates a “shadow economy of productivity gains”.6 Managers may see output improve, reports generated faster, and code written more cleanly, attributing it to human skill improvement rather than the silent, unmonitored assistance of an LLM.

3.2 The Psychology of the Secret Cyborg

The term “Secret Cyborg” describes employees who covertly integrate AI to augment their capabilities.8 This behavior is driven by a complex psychological interplay of fear, ambition, and trust.

3.2.1 The Productivity Paradox

Despite the widespread belief that AI improves productivity (agreed upon by 97% of workers), there is a significant “Productivity Paradox.” Nearly 60% of employees admit that figuring out how to use a specific AI tool often takes longer than completing the task manually.4 Yet, they persist. This persistence is driven by the anticipation of future gains—the investment in learning the tool today is expected to pay off in exponential time savings tomorrow.

3.2.2 The Trust Shift

Perhaps the most alarming trend for organizational leadership is the shift in the locus of trust. Data from UpGuard reveals that roughly one-quarter of workers now consider their AI tools to be “their most trusted source of information,” ranking them higher than colleagues or even internal search engines.5

This “Trust Shift” is particularly pronounced in high-stakes industries like finance and healthcare. When an employee trusts an external AI model more than their manager or internal documentation, they are more likely to bypass safety protocols to consult the AI, increasing the risk of “Shadow AI” adoption and data leakage.5

3.2.3 Motivation: Relief vs. Replacement

The primary motivation for “Secret Cyborgs” is often benign: the elimination of drudgery. Employees use AI to clear their task lists by 3:00 PM, creating a buffer for strategic work or simply relief from burnout.11 However, there is a darker undertone: the fear of replacement. High earners are more than twice as likely to fear AI replacing them compared to lower earners.7 This anxiety drives them to master the tool before the tool masters them, leading to a “covert arms race” within the office.

4. The Shadow Arsenal: Tools and Workflows

The non-technical workforce is not merely “chatting” with bots; they are constructing complex, automated architectures using a suite of accessible, low-code tools. These tools form the “Shadow Stack” of the modern enterprise.

4.1 The Communication Automation Layer: Zapier and Make.com

The inbox is the primary bottleneck of modern work, and thus the primary target for shadow automation. Platforms like Zapier and Make.com (formerly Integromat) have democratized API integration, allowing non-developers to build sophisticated data pipelines.

4.1.1 Zapier: The Gateway to Automation

Zapier is widely used for linear, “if-this-then-that” workflows. It has integrated OpenAI directly into its “AI by Zapier” feature, allowing users to create “Zaps” that process email content intelligently.12

  • Workflow Mechanism: A user can set up a workflow where every incoming email is automatically forwarded to an OpenAI model. The user defines a prompt (e.g., “Extract the client name, project budget, and deadline”) and the AI parses the unstructured text into structured data. This data is then automatically routed to a CRM (like Salesforce) or a project board (like Trello).13

  • The “Deals McDealface” Example: Venture capital firms and sales teams use these workflows to automate deal entry. Instead of manually reading pitch decks or emails, the AI extracts the relevant metrics and populates the database, saving hours of manual data entry.13

4.1.2 Make.com: The Rise of “Fuzzy Logic”

For more advanced users, Make.com offers visual workflow automation that supports complex logic.

  • Beyond Rules: Traditional automation requires rigid rules (e.g., “If subject contains ‘Invoice’, send to Accounting”). Make.com allows users to implement “Fuzzy Logic” via LLMs. An AI agent can analyze an email and determine its intent (e.g., “The customer is angry about a delay”) and route it accordingly, even if specific keywords are missing.14

  • The AI Agent Workflow: Users can build “AI Agents” within platforms like MindStudio and connect them to Make.com via API. This creates a loop where the email triggers the scenario, the AI analyzes the content based on a “system message” (persona), and the result (e.g., a drafted reply or a labeled ticket) is pushed back to the user’s workspace.14

4.2 Meeting Intelligence: Transcription vs. Action

The “Efficiency Gap” is vividly illustrated in meeting management. The market has bifurcated into tools that record and tools that act.

4.2.1 Otter.ai: The Intelligent Stenographer

Otter.ai is favored for its transcription accuracy and utility in journalism and academia. It creates searchable, editable transcripts and basic summaries.15

  • Workflow: It joins meetings as a “participant,” records the audio, and generates a text record. Users can export action items to Notion or other databases, often using Zapier as a bridge.17 However, its primary value is retrospective—referencing what was said.

4.2.2 Fireflies.ai: The Workflow Automator

Fireflies.ai positions itself as a proactive agent. It integrates deeply with project management tools like Asana, Monday.com, and Jira.19

  • Automated Action Items: Unlike a passive recorder, Fireflies uses “Conversation Intelligence” to identify tasks. If a user says, “I will send the contract by Friday,” Fireflies can automatically create a task in Asana assigned to that user with a due date of Friday.20

  • The Efficiency Dividend: This automation removes the administrative burden of post-meeting follow-up. A team using Fireflies immediately has a populated task board; a team using manual notes has a backlog of administrative work. This creates a tangible efficiency gap in execution speed.22

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Meeting Intelligence Tools

Feature Otter.ai Fireflies.ai
Primary Focus Transcription & Note-taking Workflow Automation & Intelligence
Best For Individuals, Students, Journalists Sales Teams, Project Managers, Agile Squads
Integration Depth Moderate (Notion, Google Drive) Deep (Asana, Salesforce, Slack, HubSpot)
Automation Capability Passive (Exports data) Active (Creates tasks/records automatically)
Key Differentiator Clean interface, high accuracy “Topic Tracker” & Sentiment Analysis

4.3 The Democratization of Data Science: Excel and VBA

Perhaps the most significant leveling of the playing field is occurring in data analysis. The barrier to entry for complex spreadsheet manipulation—previously the domain of “Excel Wizards”—has collapsed.

4.3.1 Formula Generation via ChatGPT

Non-technical staff now routinely use ChatGPT to generate complex Excel formulas.

  • The Prompt: A user might ask, “Write an Excel formula to look up a value in Sheet 2, Column A, and return the value from Column B. If not found, return ‘Pending’.”

  • The Output: The AI generates a precise XLOOKUP or INDEX/MATCH formula, complete with error handling. This allows a novice to perform advanced data reconciliation that would previously require a specialist.23

4.3.2 Macro Automation and “Promptware”

More profoundly, users are generating VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) code to automate repetitive tasks.

  • The Scenario: A user needs to consolidate 50 worksheets into a single “Master” sheet.

  • The Solution: Instead of manually copying and pasting, they prompt ChatGPT: “Write a VBA macro to loop through all sheets and copy row 2 onwards to a Master sheet.” The AI provides the code, which the user pastes into the Excel Developer console.25

  • “Promptware”: This represents a shift to “Natural Language Programming” (NLP). The software is defined by the prompt, not by the user’s knowledge of syntax. The user becomes a supervisor of code rather than a writer of code.27

5. The New Literacy: Prompt Engineering

To bridge the Efficiency Gap, the non-technical workforce is adopting Prompt Engineering as a core professional competency. This is the new “literacy” of the AI age.

5.1 Chain of Thought (CoT) Prompting

For complex business analysis, simple queries often yield generic or shallow results. To overcome this, workers are adopting Chain of Thought (CoT) prompting.

  • The Mechanism: CoT forces the AI to break down a complex problem into intermediate logical steps before arriving at a conclusion. It mimics human reasoning.

  • Business Application: Instead of asking, “Prioritize these projects,” a project manager uses a CoT prompt: “You are a Project Manager. Analyze these three projects. Step 1: Assess the resource requirements for each. Step 2: Evaluate the potential ROI. Step 3: Identify critical risks. Step 4: Based on the previous steps, create a prioritized list”.29

  • Impact: This technique significantly reduces “hallucinations” and logic errors, transforming the AI from a text generator into a reasoning engine.31

5.2 Persona-Based Prompting

Assigning a persona to the AI frames the output, dictating the tone, format, and depth of the response.

  • The “Act As…” Tactic: Prompts often begin with “Act as a Senior Data Analyst” or “Act as a Marketing Executive.”

  • Nuance: Research indicates that simply assigning a role is less effective than providing specific domain context. The most effective prompts combine persona assignment with Few-Shot Learning (providing examples) and CoT reasoning. For instance, “Act as a Lawyer” is dangerous without specific constraints, but “Act as a Legal Editor reviewing for grammar and clarity” is a safer, more effective use case.33

6. The Risks of Unsanctioned Innovation

While the efficiency gains are substantial, the widespread use of Shadow AI introduces systemic risks that are often invisible to leadership until a catastrophic failure occurs.

6.1 Data Security and IP Leakage

The most immediate and tangible threat is the exfiltration of proprietary data. The barrier between “internal” and “external” data has become porous.

6.1.1 The “Samsung Moment”

The incident involving Samsung engineers in 2023 serves as the archetype of this risk. Engineers accidentally uploaded proprietary source code to ChatGPT to optimize it. This data effectively left the company’s secure perimeter and entered the training corpus of a public model. This prompted a global ban at Samsung, but the genie was already out of the bottle.35

6.1.2 Shadow AI in the Browser

A more insidious vector is the web browser. Employees engage “Shadow AI in the browser” via extensions that offer to summarize webpages, write emails, or analyze text. These extensions often have broad permissions to read all data displayed in the browser, including sensitive internal SaaS applications (e.g., Salesforce records, Google Docs, internal wikis). Neither Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASBs) nor traditional Data Loss Prevention (DLP) tools typically have visibility into the runtime environment of these browser extensions.36

6.1.3 Regulatory Non-Compliance

The upload of customer data (PII) to public LLMs constitutes a breach of data sovereignty laws such as GDPR and CCPA. When an employee uploads a spreadsheet of client addresses to ChatGPT to “format it,” they are transferring regulated data to a third-party processor without a Data Processing Agreement (DPA). The financial implications are severe; data breaches involving AI are estimated to cost $670,000 more on average than traditional breaches due to the complexity of the exposure.37

6.2 The Legal Quagmire: “Act as a Lawyer”

The non-technical workforce frequently uses AI to draft or review legal documents, creating a minefield of liability.

6.2.1 The Hallucination Hazard

AI models are statistical predictors, not legal scholars. They are prone to “hallucinating” case law, statutes, and citations. There are documented instances of lawyers and non-lawyers submitting court filings containing entirely fictitious cases generated by ChatGPT.39

  • The Consequence: Contracts drafted by AI may rely on non-existent legal precedents, rendering them unenforceable. Furthermore, AI tools lack the professional ethics and fiduciary duties of a human attorney. They cannot perform conflict checks or privilege assessments.41

6.2.2 The “Market Standard” Gap

AI-generated contracts often fail to reflect “market” terms—the nuances of what is standard and acceptable in a specific industry or jurisdiction. A contract might be grammatically perfect but legally disastrous because it omits standard indemnity clauses or misinterprets local labor laws.41

  • Liability: The use of AI in hiring (e.g., resume screening algorithms) has already triggered lawsuits alleging discrimination. The class-action suit against Workday highlights the risk: when “secret cyborgs” use unvetted AI to filter candidates, they expose their employers to claims of algorithmic bias.43

6.3 Automation Debt: The Maintenance Nightmare

A subtle but corrosive risk is Automation Debt. This concept parallels “Technical Debt” but applies to business processes constructed by non-technical users.

6.3.1 Fragility and the “Bus Factor”

Workflows built on platforms like Zapier or Make by “Citizen Developers” are often fragile. They may rely on a specific email subject line format or a specific UI element in a web page. If the vendor updates their interface, the automation fails silently.

  • The “Bus Factor”: These automations are often built and maintained by a single employee (the “Shadow IT” lead). If that employee leaves the organization, the “institutional knowledge” of how the billing process or the lead routing system works leaves with them. The organization is left with a critical process that no one understands and no one can fix.44

6.3.2 The “Citizen Developer” Trap

While the low-code movement promises empowerment, it often results in “spaghetti automation.” Without the rigorous version control, testing, and documentation standards of professional software engineering, these user-built tools become a tangle of undocumented dependencies. This “process fossilization” can lock an organization into a bad process simply because it has been automated, making it harder to improve or untangle later.2

Table 3: The Automation Debt Risk Matrix

Risk Category Description Business Impact
Logic Brittleness Automations based on rigid “if/then” rules or specific UI elements break with minor system updates. Silent failure of critical tasks (e.g., invoices not sent, leads lost).
Credential Dependency Workflows tied to personal accounts/emails rather than service accounts. Process collapse upon employee turnover or password reset.
Data Siloing Data processed in shadow tools (e.g., Airtable, Notion) is not synced to the central ERP/CRM. Fragmented source of truth; reporting inaccuracies.
Invisible Cost Monthly subscription fees for disparate tools hidden in expense reports. “Death by a thousand cuts” affecting OpEx efficiency; lack of bulk licensing discounts.

7. Strategic Recommendations: From Prohibition to Governance

The Efficiency Gap cannot be closed by banning AI; the “secret cyborgs” are already too entrenched, and the productivity gains are too significant to ignore. Organizations must transition from a posture of prohibition to one of Governance and Superagency.

7.1 From Shadow to Sanctioned: The Governance Framework

  • Audit and Amnesty: IT departments must conduct “amnesty” audits to identify existing shadow automations. The goal should be to catalog, not punish. Critical workflows identified during this process should be migrated to enterprise-grade platforms (e.g., Microsoft Power Automate) where they can be managed, secured, and documented.44

  • Enterprise Licensing: Organizations must provide secure, private instances of AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT Enterprise, Microsoft Copilot) to replace the consumer-grade versions employees are paying for themselves. If the internal tool is inferior to the shadow tool, the shadow tool will prevail.

  • Service Accounts: Mandate the use of non-personal service accounts for any automation that touches business-critical data. This mitigates the “Bus Factor” risk by ensuring access is not tied to a single individual’s identity.

7.2 The “Superagency” Model

Leaders must steer the organization toward “Superagency,” a state where AI is used to amplify human agency rather than replace it.

  • Policy Innovation: Implement policies that explicitly encourage innovation while mandating transparency. Employees should be rewarded for finding AI-driven efficiencies, provided they document the process and adhere to security guidelines.46

  • Inclusive Upskilling: Training must move beyond basic “digital literacy” to “AI Literacy.” This includes specific training on Prompt Engineering, the risks of hallucination, and data privacy. Employees must be equipped with the skills to use AI confidently and responsibly, bridging the gap between the “stealth users” and the unaugmented workforce.3

7.3 Skill Simulation and Validation

The ability of AI to simulate skills (e.g., writing code, drafting legal text) creates a “competence mirage.” An employee may appear to be a proficient coder because they can generate code, but they may lack the ability to debug it.

  • Validation Mechanisms: Organizations should implement Skill Simulation assessments. Tools that simulate real-world scenarios can verify that an employee understands the logic of the work they are automating. This ensures that the human remains “in the loop” and capable of intervening when the AI fails.47

8. Conclusion

The Efficiency Gap is the defining workforce challenge of the AI era. It is not merely a technological divide but a cultural and operational one. On one side are the “Secret Cyborgs,” leveraging Shadow AI to achieve unprecedented speed, often at the cost of security and stability. On the other are traditionalists and organizations paralyzed by the “productivity paradox” and the “Acceleration Trap.”

The future belongs to organizations that can harness the energy of the “Bring Your Own AI” movement while mitigating the risks of Automation Debt and data leakage. This requires a fundamental reimagining of IT governance—not as a gatekeeper, but as a curator of safe, effective tools that empower the non-technical workforce to code, design, and strategize at the speed of AI. The era of the “Secret Cyborg” must end, replaced by the era of the Sanctioned Super-Agent.

Sources

  1. Will AI Replace Recruiters? The Definitive Answer – shortlistd.io

  2. The Acceleration Trap: Why AI Pushes Inefficient Companies Even Further Behind – Medium

  3. IBM Study: Shadow AI Use Surges as Canadian Workers Outpace Employers in AI Adoption – canada.newsroom.ibm.com

  4. New WalkMe Survey Shows Shadow AI Is Rampant; Training Gaps Undermine AI ROI – news.sap.com

  5. Shadow AI is widespread — and executives use it the most – Cybersecurity Dive

  6. This Generation Is Secretly Using AI at Work Every Day—And Not Telling Their Bosses – Investopedia

  7. The Hidden AI Workforce: 29% of Employees Pay for Their Own AI Tools – Exploding Topics

  8. ‘Secret cyborgs’: How AI is quietly transforming white-collar work – IMD Business School

  9. Secret Cyborgs and Their AI Shadows: Navigating the Copilot+ PCs Frontier – techpolicy.press

  10. Secret Cyborg: A Look Into How Ai is Shaping Efficiency in the Workplace – Medium

  11. The Rise of Secret Cyborgs: Why Employees Hide Their AI use? – Kieran Gilmurray

  12. AI by Zapier: Easily add AI steps to your workflows – Zapier

  13. How to use AI to automatically extract data from emails – Zapier

  14. Categorize, Tag, And Prioritize Emails – Make.com

  15. Fireflies.ai vs. Otter AI: An Honest Review After 30+ Meetings – skywork.ai

  16. Otter.ai – otter.ai

  17. How To Integrate Notion With Otter – otter.ai

  18. How To Integrate Zapier With Otter – otter.ai

  19. Project Management Integrations – Fireflies.ai

  20. Fireflies.ai + Asana – asana.com

  21. 7 Must-Have Asana Integrations for 2024 – Fireflies.ai

  22. Fireflies.ai vs. Otter.ai: Which Meets Your Needs Better? – Fireflies.ai

  23. How to Build a Vlookup Formula in Excel using ChatGPT – thebricks.com

  24. Powerful 50+ ChatGPT Prompts for Excel – learnprompt.org

  25. How to Consolidate Sheets in Excel Using ChatGPT – thebricks.com

  26. ChatGPT Prompt of the Day: “The MS Excel Expert” – Reddit

  27. From Code to Commands – Human-Computer Interaction Institute

  28. Promptware Engineering: Software Engineering for LLM Prompt Development – arXiv

  29. The 3 AI Prompt Tricks That Actually Work – Reddit

  30. Chain-of-Thought (CoT) Prompting Guide for Business Users – vktr.com

  31. What is chain of thought (CoT) prompting? – IBM

  32. Chain-of-Thought (CoT) Prompting in AI-Powered Financial Analysis – corporatefinanceinstitute.com

  33. The Art and Discipline of Prompt Engineering – Communications of the ACM

  34. [Guide] Stop using “Act as a…”. A 5-part framework for “Expert Personas” – Reddit

  35. How leaders can govern Shadow AI – SoSafe

  36. Shadow AI in the Browser: The Next Enterprise Blind Spot – The Hacker News

  37. The Rise of Shadow AI: Auditing Unauthorized AI Tools in the Enterprise – ISACA

  38. How Shadow AI Costs Companies $670K Extra: IBM’s 2025 Breach Report – Kiteworks

  39. CAUTION AGAINST USING AI TO PREPARE CONTRACTS – PSBP Law

  40. How to Prime and Prompt ChatGPT for More Reliable Contract Drafting Support – contractnerds.com

  41. 5 Risks of Relying on Artificial Intelligence Instead of Attorney Insight – FBFK Law

  42. Potential Issues and Liabilities of Using Generative AI for Legal Document Drafting – Milgrom Law

  43. AI may discriminate against you at work. Some states are making it illegal. – Washington Post

  44. Enterprise Workflow Automation: The 2025 Blueprint for Success – ezee.ai

  45. 7 Signs of Automation Debt + 8 Steps to Pay It Down – Medium

  46. AI in the workplace: A report for 2025 – McKinsey

  47. Best Skill Simulation Software of 2025 – SourceForge

  48. EON TVET/CTE: Advancing Education with VR & AI – eonreality.com

See Also