When AI Is the Right Tool...and When It Isn’t
I’ve been seeing a lot of people and projects trying to use AI for everything, even if it’s not really needed, even for “Generate a random password”. Sure it can do it, I guess, but is it really the right use case for it? Sometimes people are going overboard in their use of AI just so they can say “it’s AI enabled!”.
Drawing the line between a good use of AI and when another tool, simple function, or a different approach is better can be difficult since it has such broad capabilities. I’ve started to try to come up with some general rules to follow. When you need something that is very predictable, i.e. business rules, validation, record keeping, etc., generally AI isn’t going to be the best fit. On the other hand, AI is great for when you need to deal with messy inputs from an email, PDF, image, handwriting, slightly varying formats, etc.
That is not a limitation of AI. It is what makes a good implementation work. The goal is not to turn every step into an AI decision. It is to give AI the part of the problem where ambiguity is real and use other tools where the organization needs a repeatable answer.
A couple of recent projects we’ve had can highlight this distinction.
Check processing: use AI to read the check, not run the process
Consider a check-processing application that accepts uploaded images and prepares records for an accounting or fundraising platform.
Checks are a good use case for AI. They come in different formats, handwriting can be hard to read, and important information may be in different places depending on the check. AI can identify a likely payer or donor, pull out the amount and check number, read a memo line, and return structured candidate data.
That removes a lot of manual entry. It turns a document into a useful starting point.
But recognizing the document is not the same thing as deciding what should happen next. The application still needs deterministic software to validate required fields and expected formats, check whether the check was already processed, match the payer against known records, apply account or fund mappings, and determine whether the item needs review.
Only after those checks pass should the workflow submit a record to the downstream platform. It should retain the original image, the extracted values, any corrections, and a record of what was submitted.
In this case, AI is the right tool for interpretation. A rules-based workflow is the right tool for deciding whether the interpretation is ready to become a trusted record.
Purchase-order intake: use AI to handle variation, not enforce the contract
Purchase orders have the same shape. They often arrive by email or as PDFs, and every customer has their own template. Line items, pricing, shipping details, purchase-order numbers, and customer information may all be presented differently.
AI can turn those inconsistent documents into a draft order. It can identify the likely customer, extract line items, quantities, and prices, and point out fields where it is uncertain.
That is exactly the type of variation AI is useful for. It saves someone from manually typing information from a PDF into an ERP or order-management system.
But the AI should not be responsible for enforcing the rules around the order. Deterministic software should validate that the customer exists, the SKUs are real, quantities are valid, and the price matches the customer’s contract or approved price list. It can verify that the purchase-order number has not already been used, make sure required shipping and billing information is present, and route exceptions to the right person.
Once those rules pass, the application can create the order in the ERP. If they do not pass, the system should say why it stopped and what needs to happen next.
AI helps make the document usable. The rest of the application makes the order trustworthy.
Choosing the boundary is part of the implementation
The mistake isn’t using AI, it is treating AI as the whole application because it can produce an answer that looks structured.
A good implementation gives each tool a job it is suited for:
- AI interprets ambiguity. It reads documents, extracts likely data, classifies inputs, and identifies uncertainty.
- Deterministic software verifies facts. It checks business rules, required fields, duplicates, permissions, mappings, and known reference data.
- Workflow software coordinates action. It routes exceptions, requests approvals, submits to the correct downstream system, and keeps an audit trail.
That division makes the system easier to operate too. AI output can change when a model, prompt, or document format changes. Business rules may change, but they should be explicit, testable, and owned by the people responsible for the process.
When an extracted amount is wrong, someone should be able to tell whether the problem came from the document, the AI output, a validation rule, or a mapping. When a downstream system receives a record, someone should be able to explain why it was submitted.
Those details are not exciting demo features, but they are what make a workflow usable in a real organization.
Start with the problem, not the model
When evaluating an AI workflow, start by asking where the uncertainty is.
If the problem is understanding an email, PDF, image, or conversation, AI may be the right tool. If the problem is enforcing a policy, validating a known fact, selecting a system of record, or creating an auditable action, conventional software is often the better tool.
The best AI implementations are not built around the idea that the model should do everything. They are built around the idea that a workflow can use many tools well. AI handles the ambiguous part. The rest of the application provides the boundaries that make its output useful.
Long story short, choose the right tool for the part of the problem you are trying to solve versus treating everything like a nail that you hammer on with AI.