Zoho CEO Sridhar Vembu: AI as Debating Partner, Not Content Creator
Nearly three years after ChatGPT ignited the generative AI boom, many organizations and individuals are still navigating how to effectively integrate this powerful technology into their daily operations. Even as top executives mandate AI adoption for efficiency and competitiveness, they too grapple with its practical application. Amidst this evolving landscape, Sridhar Vembu, co-founder and chief scientist of Zoho Corporation, recently offered insights into how his multinational enterprise software company leverages AI internally.
Vembu champions AI as an exceptional “debating partner,” a tool to deepen understanding and refine ideas. He explained his personal method: taking the output from one AI model and prompting another to critique it, a process he finds invaluable for fostering deeper comprehension. A self-described moderate to heavy AI user, Vembu engages with AI chat tools multiple times daily, employing the top five applications available on his phone to explore their capabilities.
The Zoho chief highlighted AI’s transformative potential in accelerating learning and streamlining workflows. He noted a significant shift in his own information-seeking habits, with traditional web searches plummeting by 80 percent since he began relying on AI for faster learning. This mirrors a broader trend where users increasingly turn to AI chatbots over conventional search engines for information retrieval. Vembu also pointed to how AI, exemplified by xAI’s Grok chatbot and its integration on X, can profoundly enhance product experiences.
However, Vembu’s advocacy for AI comes with a crucial caveat: he cautions against over-reliance or misuse, warning that such practices can negate anticipated productivity gains. He strongly advises against using AI tools like ChatGPT or Gemini for generating new content, particularly in sensitive areas such as customer support. While AI can undoubtedly empower human agents to work more efficiently, Vembu stressed that allowing AI to replace human interaction or having agents present AI-generated text as their own is ill-advised.
The discussion also extended to “vibe-coding,” or code generated by AI tools. Vembu underscored that such code necessitates a comprehensive review for compliance, privacy, and security – tasks that are neither simple nor enjoyable for humans. He asserted that any programmer submitting AI-generated code without this meticulous oversight is failing in their professional duty. Moreover, he cautioned that the extensive effort required for these reviews could potentially erode much of the perceived “productivity gains” from AI code generation, and in some scenarios, AI might even impede progress. Vembu’s perspective thus paints a nuanced picture of AI: a powerful augmentative tool when wielded thoughtfully, but one that demands critical human oversight to prevent the reversal of its promised benefits.