{
  "id": 16000963,
  "title": "AI took perfect notes. Then it ruined the deck",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/22/ai-took-perfect-notes-then-it-ruined-the-deck",
  "topic": "ai",
  "section": "AI",
  "published": "2026-10-22T04:00:58.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "e27",
    "slug": "e27",
    "url": "https://e27.co/ai-took-perfect-notes-then-it-ruined-the-deck-20261018/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "During a strategy workshop for senior stakeholders, an AI tool successfully captured the notes. The presentation of the notes was clean, with confident headings and icons beside every bullet point. However, upon receiving the deck, it became apparent that something was amiss. The deck lacked context, had misconstrued inputs, lacked a narrative, and utilized decorative design.\n\nThe AI captured almost every comment, and the notes were more complete than a human note-taker would have produced. The deck, however, fell apart in four ways. Firstly, several inputs that were spent a lot of time on never reached a slide, despite being transcribed. Secondly, the deck had misconstrued inputs, which was a cause for concern. A missing idea was perhaps due to a missed captured, but the classification of info under the wrong category was a human oversight failing to validate AI’s outputs. Thirdly, the deck was a tidy inventory of topics with no argument, no sequence of \"therefore,\" and no answer to \"so what?\". Lastly, the visuals were there to look polished, not to say anything, and a chart with no point and a framework graphic that framed nothing only added to the issue.\n\nThis is not a vendor story. The problem is not that the partner used AI badly. Research backs up what many of us have experienced, with a Stanford and BetterUp Labs study giving this phenomenon a name: \"workslop\", AI-generated output that looks like finished work but pushes the effort of fixing it onto the person who receives it. The partner saved time, and the team inherited the cost. In the future, the reporter runs a traceability check before anything AI-assisted leaves their hands, ensuring every input from the session maps to a slide. They also ask a question of every slide, asking what the audience should believe after seeing it. If they can't answer in a sentence, the slide is decoration and gets removed or rebuilt. Ultimately, the person responsible for the output decides whether the AI-generated content is good enough without reading it as the audience would.",
  "summary": "I knew within the first two minutes of glancing through the deck. A strategy workshop for our senior stakeholders had just wrapped. The session itself was good: the partner facilitating it followed our brief, the debate was sharp, and an AI tool captured the notes. When the deck arrived, I opened it and felt that […] The post AI took perfect notes. Then it ruined the deck appeared first on e27 .",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}