AI, Process Debt, and the Myth of Rosie the Robot
- Chris Terrell
- 17 hours ago
- 3 min read
Lately, when people talk about AI, I think they believe they are buying Rosie.
But we are not building Rosie. Not yet. And chasing Rosie too early is how you quietly pile up a whole new layer of process debt.
AI is not doing your dishes
In the real world, the direction of AI right now is information, not activity.
It can summarize meetings, draft emails, write status updates, brainstorm project plans. It can churn through data at a scale that used to require an army of analysts and too much coffee.
What it does not do is clean your kitchen, fold your laundry, or run your quarterly close.
Even on the robotics side, the impressive stuff you see is mostly mobility and control. Parkour robots, warehouse pickers, fancy arms on factory lines. Cool. Expensive. Still narrowly useful. They solve very specific problems where the utility is obvious and the economics work.
That “utility test” is where most business AI ideas quietly fall apart.
Shiny tractors and family farms
I read a book a while back on how to run a small family farm. One of the best lines was basically: most farmers do not need another tractor, they just want one.
The author’s test for any new piece of equipment was simple. Does this actually save you meaningful time and energy on a job you have to do often, or are you buying it because it looks cool and makes you feel like a “real farmer”?
Swap “tractor” with “AI tool” and you have most enterprise software roadmaps.
Leaders say, “We need AI.” What they often mean is, “We want the new shiny thing,” not “We know exactly which repetitive, painful, clearly defined task we want to eliminate.”
Meanwhile, the most valuable, boring technology in the building is usually integration. Moving data cleanly from System A to System B. Eliminating rekeying. Getting rid of swivel-chair copy and paste. That is not glamorous, but it is pure utility.
The Jetsons, the Amish, and judgment
One of the reasons I would love to hear an Amish perspective on AI is that they have a very explicit filter: does this technology support or erode our community?
They are not anti-tech. They are anti-tech that quietly rewires their relationships.
Most companies do not have that kind of intentional filter. LinkedIn, inboxes, Slack, and AI tools are all tuned to keep our eyeballs on the screen. Their utility is mostly to the platform, not to us.
So you get flooded with AI-generated content, auto-transcribed meetings, and endless “smart” notifications. The machines are busy. You are buried. That is process debt in real time. The system is humming, your actual work is not getting easier.
Knowledge work needs more craftspeople, not more noise
Here is the piece I keep coming back to:
As knowledge workers, we already live pretty far away from physical exhaustion. Very few of us are digging ditches all day.
Our version of “overwork” is mental fragmentation. Constant context switching. Too many inputs. Not enough deep, meaningful output.
AI can absolutely write your status report. If you record all your calls and route your tasks through one platform, it can probably assemble a pretty decent weekly summary.
But sitting down to write that status report yourself forces you to ask:
What actually mattered this week
What is worth telling my stakeholders
What is truly on deck next week
That thinking is the craft. The tool can help, but it should not replace your judgment.
If you want less process debt, the goal is not full automation at any cost. It is to behave more like a craftsperson:
Automate the repetitive, clearly defined chores
Integrate systems to kill duplicate work
Leave space for the parts of the work where human judgment, pacing, and pride actually matter
Use AI like a good tool in the shop, not like a magic robot butler.
Process Debt Truth: You do not get Rosie the Robot by buying more AI. You get Rosie by ruthlessly automating the right 10 percent of your work so you can show up as a craftsperson for the other 90.
Comments