Choosing AI instead of colleagues for help is changing how some employees get answers, prepare drafts, and solve everyday problems. Research documents this behavior, but the claim that 83% of all workers are doing it could not be verified in the sources reviewed for this article.
The evidence supports a narrower story: some AI users are redirecting questions away from coworkers, while separate research finds that some tasks once delegated to people now go to software. For employees and managers, the practical question is which exchanges can be automated without losing useful judgment or connection.
What the research actually says
A MyIQ survey announcement published July 13, 2026, reported that 74% of regular AI users ask chatbots questions they previously directed to colleagues. It described a survey of 22,481 adults across multiple markets, including the United States and United Kingdom.
That finding concerns regular users, not all workers. The announcement does not provide fieldwork dates, detailed recruitment methods, weighting, or the size of the subgroup behind the percentage. It also cautions that the results do not establish that AI directly weakens workplace relationships.
Those limitations matter when interpreting claims about AI instead of colleagues for help. A large overall sample cannot, by itself, establish that a result represents every employee or either country's workforce.
Separate evidence comes from Epoch AI. Its August 6, 2026, report found that 20% of employed US adults surveyed said AI now handles at least one task previously delegated to a coworker or contractor.
The survey ran July 10–19, 2026, through Ipsos KnowledgePanel. It included 1,106 employed adults, with three invalid responses excluded from analysis, and weighted estimates to represent employed US adults. This measured task delegation, rather than simply asking questions, and does not establish that entire jobs disappeared.
Why employees reach for a chatbot
For routine requests, using AI instead of colleagues for help can feel convenient: there is no need to coordinate calendars before requesting an explanation or revising a draft.
Earlier research helps identify the tasks involved. Pew Research Center reported in February 2025 that, among workers who had used AI chatbots at work, 57% had used them for research, 52% for editing, and 47% for drafting written content. These historical findings describe uses among chatbot users, not current adoption across the workforce.
Generative artificial intelligence produces content, such as text or images, in response to prompts. For employees using AI at work, that makes it a possible starting point for an outline, a plain-language explanation, or alternative wording.
However, choosing AI instead of colleagues for help does not automatically produce a faster or better result. In Epoch AI's survey, roughly one in six AI-assisted tasks reportedly took more time than before. The researchers note that several explanations are possible, including workers spending longer to improve the output.
AI vs human colleagues: match the help to the task
When considering AI instead of colleagues for help, a useful decision rule is to consider context and consequences. The following is an editorial framework, not a research-tested scoring system.
| Situation | Sensible starting point | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|
| Explaining a general concept | An approved AI tool | Check an authoritative source |
| Drafting a routine message | AI using permitted information | Review facts, tone, and commitments |
| Understanding an internal exception | The responsible colleague | Confirm the applicable policy |
| Resolving disagreement | The people involved | Discuss assumptions and responsibilities |
| Making a consequential decision | An accountable human reviewer | Use AI only within an agreed process |
Using AI instead of colleagues for help makes more sense when the question is general and the answer is easy to check. It becomes less suitable when the missing information is a client's history, an undocumented exception, or another person's intentions.
Consider a hypothetical new employee drafting a customer response. A chatbot can suggest polite wording, but a teammate may know that the customer was promised a special arrangement yesterday. A polished answer can still be wrong for that situation.
What happens to workplace collaboration?
The potential cost is losing opportunities to exchange knowledge, not simply sending fewer messages.
In the MyIQ announcement, 59% of respondents said they requested second opinions from colleagues less often, while 48% reported fewer spontaneous workplace conversations. These are self-reported changes, not independently observed proof of damage.
If a team routinely chooses AI instead of colleagues for help, managers should examine which conversations are disappearing. Repeated requests for a document location may be easy to replace. A discussion that exposes a flawed assumption has a different value.
This distinction offers a practical way to assess how AI affects workplace collaboration: look at whether people still share uncertainties, explain decisions, and know whom to consult.
For readers interested in maintaining personal connections beyond immediate tasks, Daily US Wire's guide to making friends as an adult explores ways to make repeated contact more manageable.
How workers can keep human judgment involved
Before turning to AI instead of colleagues for help, use three checks:
- Permission: Is this tool approved, and may the information be entered into it?
- Verification: Can the answer be checked against a reliable document, calculation, or knowledgeable person?
- Consequence: Would an error affect someone else's work, a customer, or a commitment?
Treat the output as material to evaluate. When asking a colleague to review it, explain what you checked and identify the unresolved question. That makes the exchange more useful than forwarding an unchecked answer.
AI tools for workplace support can also help prepare a better human conversation. For example, ask for possible questions about a proposal, then discuss the relevant ones with its owner.
What managers should measure
Workplace AI adoption deserves evaluation beyond logins or prompt counts. A practical review can track completion time alongside correction time, repeat mistakes, and access to experienced colleagues.
When employees choose AI instead of colleagues for help, ask whether they gained independence or simply stopped feeling comfortable asking questions. Those situations call for different responses.
Teams can schedule short case discussions, give new hires a named contact, and document recurring exceptions. These are practical suggestions, not guarantees that a particular management approach will work.
The aim is to use AI instead of colleagues for help where it supports the task, while preserving conversations that supply context, accountability, and shared learning. A useful answer should help the team understand the work, as well as finish it.
