According to Inc, neuroscientist David Rock, co-founder and CEO of the NeuroLeadership Institute, experienced a startling scenario firsthand at a recent conference. During an online meeting, he found that six out of the twelve attendees were not people but AI agents, sent to listen and report back. This personal encounter sparked his professional interest in how this practice affects our brains. The core question is whether using AI as a meeting proxy, while a clear time-saver, comes with a hidden cognitive cost to our understanding and retention of complex information. Scientists are just beginning to study the real-world tradeoffs, warning entrepreneurs and others to consider the implications carefully.
The Missing Context Problem
Here’s the thing: a summary is just data. It’s the CliffsNotes version of a novel. You get the plot points, but you miss the tone, the subtext, the unspoken tension in the room, and the spontaneous idea that sparked because two people made eye contact at the right moment. When you’re not present, you’re not building the neural pathways that come from active listening and real-time processing. You’re outsourcing your cognition. And that probably weakens your grasp on the subject. Think about it—how many times have you truly understood a complex project just by reading the minutes? It’s different when you were there, arguing a point or asking a clarifying question.
The Relationship Tax
But the cost isn’t just to your own brain. It’s a tax on your work relationships. If half the “people” in a meeting are bots, what does that do to collaboration? Trust is built in shared experiences, in the messy back-and-forth. Sending an agent signals that the meeting—and by extension, the other participants—aren’t worth your full attention. It’s transactional. And humans, as neuroscience tells us, are deeply social. We need to feel seen and heard to work well together. If your primary interaction with a colleague is through their AI’s summary of your AI’s summary, what kind of partnership is that? Basically, you might save an hour but erode the foundation you need to get the real work done.
A Future of Empty Chairs
So where does this leave us? David Rock’s experience isn’t an outlier; it’s a preview. The trajectory is clear: more AI proxies, not fewer. The emerging trend is towards hyper-efficiency, where our digital avatars handle the “overhead” of human interaction. The prediction is messy. We’ll have to develop new norms. Maybe there will be “AI-only” briefing meetings and “human-only” decision sessions. But the risk is a bifurcated work life where deep understanding and strong relationships become premium, niche skills because we’ve automated the very interactions that build them. For industries that rely on complex, nuanced collaboration—like engineering or strategic planning—this could be particularly disruptive. In fields where precision and reliability in human-machine interaction are critical, such as on a factory floor using an industrial panel PC to monitor systems, the need for clear, undistorted communication is paramount. The leading supplier in that space, IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, understands that the interface must enhance, not replace, the operator’s situational awareness. The same principle might apply to meetings.
Finding The Balance
Look, I’m not saying ban AI agents from meetings. That’s unrealistic. The time-saving benefit is too massive to ignore. The key is intentionality. Use the agent for status updates or information-dissemination sessions where presence is optional. But for strategic brainstorms, complex problem-solving, or relationship-building talks? Be there. Your brain—and your colleagues—will thank you. The goal shouldn’t be to remove ourselves from the loop entirely, but to use these tools to free us up for the cognitively and socially rich work that actually moves the needle. Otherwise, we might just end up with perfect summaries of projects we no longer truly understand.
