What area would you NEVER trust to Ai, in your inbox?
by•
I mainly follow the principle of "reversibility".
EG. An archived newsletter or a starred investor email can be always reversed.
If ai is right -> makes my life easier
If ai is wrong -> doesn't hurt me
Meanwhile, I would NEVER let ai auto-send things (especially to other humans) for me.
Because no matter how accurate its tonality is to me,
no matter how well it understands my context,
I just don't... Maybe there's some kinda humanity in pressing "send" yourself!?
What about you? Where would you draw the line? Or just raw-dog it and trust the ai?
137 views
Replies
The send button still feels like a human responsibility.
Dirac
@alistair_james1 For me as well. Dirac's send button is manually pressed.
@peterz_shu I would rather miss an optimization than send the wrong message.
Dirac
@caleb_jonathan I 100% agree with that.
I draw the line at anything that speaks for me.
Dirac
@ethan_marshall So, anything that other people can see?
Anything irreversible deserves a human review.
AI can craft, but I want the final say.
Dirac
@brielle_marie And that's the Dirac morning brief for ya!
I agree on your point but more than that i would'nt even want ai to look at my banking mails.
Dirac
@nischay_kashyap You can manage areas of your inbox and choose what to shut/privatize in Dirac
I like the reversibility principle. I would add one more layer: does the AI action change someone else's reality, or only organize your own view?
For me:
- safe: summarize, classify, draft, highlight risk, suggest a next step
- caution: archive, label, prioritize, change CRM/status fields
- human-only: send, commit money, approve, reject, delete, or make a promise on my behalf
That distinction keeps coming up across products. With ReplyFlow, the safest workflow is test-mode or draft replies before connecting a live customer channel. With PayWise, AI can suggest which payment or debt needs attention, but the user should still make the actual money decision. With RaiseReady, AI can expose missing assumptions in a funding plan, but it should not pretend the business is ready before the owner verifies the numbers.
So yes, reversible actions are a good first filter. External consequences are the second filter.
Dirac
@estreamedia Yeah that is another great point!
You're onto something here...
And this is not just applicable for email alone. But most ai-related apps out there should follow this.
Dirac
Some great comments We Got ------->
The reversibility principle is sharp. I might steal it, honestly. It's the cleanest rule I've seen for where to hand off vs hold on.
I draw the same line in ads, and it maps almost exactly. I'll let AI watch the data, flag problems, draft 15 variations, recommend the budget move. All reversible or pre-send. But the actual "spend more money" call and anything going out under my name to a human stays mine.
Same instinct as your send button: the irreversible stuff and the relationship stuff stay manual. Money and trust, basically. Those are the two I won't auto-pilot.
The part you said that I keep chewing on is the "humanity in pressing send yourself." I don't think it's sentimental. When you press send, you re-read it as you. The AI optimized for tone, but you're the only one accountable for what it means. That last human pass is where the judgment lives.
So yeah, not raw-dogging it. AI does the reps, I keep the calls that can't be undone.
Dirac
@nipuntaneja Yeah, most Ai-agents related things should follow this. EG. ai shouldn't just start an ad campaign and post on meta ads. You always want to be the one checking to make sure that there are no errors.
Thanks for your POV :)
memi
I would trust AI to sort, summarize, and prepare. I would not trust it to send anything where tone changes the relationship. The cost of one wrong "sure, sounds good" is weirdly high.
Dirac
@sarveshsea So even if you see that it follows your tone,, you still wouldn't trust ai with tone?
Intersting, thanks for sharing!