Section 4: Drafts vs Decisions
Purpose of This Section
This section explains the critical distinction between AI-generated drafts and human-owned decisions, and why ethical responsibility lives at the moment a decision is made.
- AI outputs can appear complete and authoritative
- Treating drafts as decisions removes accountability
- Ethics requires conscious human ownership
Ethics lives where responsibility is claimed.
The Core Idea
AI produces drafts. Humans make decisions.
- Drafts are exploratory and provisional
- Decisions carry consequences and accountability
- Confusing the two creates ethical risk
Polish does not equal permission.
Why This Distinction Matters
AI-generated outputs often look finished.
- language is confident and fluent
- structure appears complete
- conclusions sound decisive
This can cause people to skip review and assume inevitability.
Appearance can mask responsibility.
How Harm Occurs
Harm occurs when:
- AI outputs are treated as final actions
- decisions are framed as “what the system said”
- no human explicitly approves or rejects outcomes
- accountability becomes unclear or diffuse
When no one decides, the decision still happens.
Drafts vs Decisions in Practice
AI outputs should be treated as:
- inputs for consideration
- options to review
- starting points for discussion
- material requiring human judgment
They should not be treated as:
- automatic approvals
- final determinations
- enforced outcomes
- responsibility-free actions
The pause is the ethical act.
When the Line Is Most Important
The draft-versus-decision line is critical when outputs affect:
- people’s access to opportunities
- risk or compliance outcomes
- hiring, promotion, or termination
- customer or client treatment
- any situation with lasting impact
Higher stakes demand clearer ownership.
The Role of Human Judgment
Ethical use requires a moment of conscious decision.
- a human reviews the output
- a human assesses consequences
- a human says yes or no
- a human accepts responsibility
Accountability does not transfer to automation.
Common Failure Mode
Common mistakes include:
- treating polished outputs as approved actions
- assuming responsibility lies with the tool
- skipping explicit decision points
- confusing efficiency with authorization
Speed without ownership creates harm.
The Conjugo Rule
AI drafts.
Humans decide.
- AI accelerates thinking
- Humans own outcomes
Ethics requires a decision-maker.
Section Takeaway
- AI outputs are drafts, not decisions
- polish can obscure accountability
- decisions require explicit human approval
- ownership must be clear
- pauses protect against harm
- responsibility remains human
End of Module 11
You have completed Module 11: AI Ethics in the Workplace.
This module covered:
- how bias emerges and scales
- why equity requires intention
- where human authority must live
- why drafts are not decisions
The next module, Module 12: AI and the Future of Work, explores how roles, skills, and expectations are changing—and how humans can prepare for augmentation rather than replacement.
This concludes Module 11.