Disadvantages of AI for Minute-Taking

AI minute taking is being readily adopted as a quick fix for faster documentation, less admin, and streamlined workflows, especially in fast-paced meeting environments. Tools like Otter.ai and Fireflies promise to automate the production of meeting minutes. Transcribing, summarising, and even distributing action items without human input. But when it comes to governance meeting notes, efficiency isn't the only metric that matters. 

In this blog, we explore the legal risks of AI-generated minutes and how how to mitigate those risks with a professional minute taking service.

AI Minute Takers: Convenience or Compliance Risk?

For formal board settings, where board meeting minutes accuracy is not just preferred but required by law, AI minute takers raise more questions than they answer. From missing context to confidentiality concerns, relying too heavily on automated meeting assistants could introduce serious compliance risks, particularly in regulated industries or when dealing with sensitive boardroom discussions.

So while AI meeting software may work for casual or internal meetings, its limitations become far more apparent when it comes to corporate record keeping. 

The Ethical Dilemma of Letting AI Write Your Minutes

At first glance, using AI to record and summarise your meetings might seem like a neutral choice. But delegating minute taking responsibilities to a machine comes with a set of ethical concerns that should not be overlooked, especially in the boardroom where governance best practices always apply.

One of the central issues is the loss of human judgment. A professional meeting minute taker doesn’t simply record what is said. They interpret tone, apply context, and exercise discretion. Some comments are made “off the record” or are part of sensitive discussions that don’t belong in the official record. An AI can’t make that distinction.

There’s also the risk of permanent documentation. While human-led governance best practices allow for discretion and summarisation, AI minute takers record everything. This creates discoverable records, potentially exposing sensitive discussions to future legal or regulatory scrutiny. It's not just about what AI can do, it's about what it can't not do.

And then there’s the broader question of transparency. AI-generated summaries can distort meaning or misrepresent decisions, raising concerns about accuracy, authorship, and the integrity of the governance process. These are core ethical concerns with AI tools, and they matter in a corporate environment built on trust and accountability.

Data Security Risks in AI-Driven Note Taking

Beyond the ethical implications, there are real and growing concerns about data security in minute taking. AI minute takers capture, process, and store sensitive meeting content, often using cloud-based platforms owned by third-party vendors.

This presents a number of vulnerabilities:

• Data storage and transfer risks: Meeting data is often stored off-site, sometimes in jurisdictions with different data protection laws.

• Vendor access: Some AI tools retain the right to use captured data to train their models, potentially exposing confidential company information to external systems.

• Cybersecurity threats: AI meeting software platforms are increasingly targeted by attackers looking to exploit valuable, unencrypted corporate data.

In regulated sectors or public bodies, these risks are even more significant. Meeting notes might include personal, legally privileged, or commercially sensitive content. The presence of an always-on AI recorder increases the risk of unintended disclosure or breach, and may even compromise legal privilege.

Effective corporate record keeping depends not only on accuracy but also on control, something that AI minute taking, at least in its current form, does not reliably provide.

When Human Touch Outperforms AI in Governance

A professional minute taking service brings more than just transcription skills to the table. When dealing with high-stakes conversations, the human ability to apply discretion, summarise appropriately, and capture nuance is indispensable.

In governance meetings, participants often have extensive background knowledge and refer to materials not available to AI systems. Without access to board packs, prior decisions, or strategic documents, AI cannot meaningfully contextualise the discussion. Even advanced tools struggle with shorthand references, technical language, or shifting dynamics between speakers.

An experienced company secretary or professional meeting minute taker, on the other hand, brings institutional knowledge, awareness of tone, and the ability to capture intent. This ensures the minutes reflect what was actually decided, not just what was said.

Moreover, translating raw AI meeting minutes into legally suitable documentation is not as efficient as it seems. Many company secretaries report that it takes longer to clean up and reformat AI outputs than to write minutes from scratch. Until tools integrate directly into secure board portals with access to historic records, human oversight will continue to be essential.

This is where AI simply cannot compete: context, credibility, and compliance.

How AI Can Undermine Board Transparency

Ironically, one of the biggest risks of using AI for governance meeting notes is its impact on transparency. While marketed as a tool that improves visibility and alignment, AI minute taking can create the opposite effect, introducing ambiguity and eroding trust.

For one, team members often censor themselves when meetings are recorded. The psychological impact of the “red recording light” can shift a discussion from candid problem-solving to guarded, performance-driven contributions. Authentic dialogue becomes less likely when participants are aware that every word may be transcribed, analysed, or archived.

Second, overreliance on AI meeting summaries undermines a critical governance practice: collective agreement on the record. When humans collaborate on minutes, they clarify misunderstandings, correct discrepancies, and ensure shared understanding. Automated meeting assistants bypass this step, creating the risk that individuals walk away with conflicting interpretations of what was discussed and agreed.

In short, AI meeting minutes can replace meaningful consensus with questionable convenience. The result is confusion, misalignment, and a weaker governance process overall.

Best Practice: When to Avoid AI for Meeting Notes

AI minute taking has its place. For informal internal catch-ups, workshops, or personal dictation, it can help capture ideas and support documentation. But when it comes to regulatory compliance, sensitive content, or formal decision-making, it’s best to rely on professional human-led services.

Here are some clear scenarios where using an AI minute taker is inadvisable:

• Board and committee meetings involving strategic decisions or legally binding resolutions

• Discussions involving legal privilege or sensitive commercial negotiations

• Meetings where context is drawn from prior governance documents not available to the AI

• Sessions requiring discretion in what is or isn’t recorded

• Situations involving evolving or ambiguous terminology that require interpretation

In these cases, minute taking responsibilities should rest with trained professionals who understand board meeting governance, compliance expectations, and the legal implications of every word recorded.

While AI tools may improve over time, particularly if integrated into secure board platforms with historic data access, they remain a supplement, not a substitute, for the professional judgment of a human writer.

Final Thoughts: Don’t Let the Tech Outpace the Governance

The rise of AI minute taking reflects a broader trend toward automation in the workplace. But in governance, where precision, discretion, and legal defensibility matter, not every task is suitable for outsourcing to machines.

AI meeting software may speed up the easy parts, but it can't replicate the human insight required for board meeting minutes accuracy, nor can it manage the regulatory compliance, data security, or ethical considerations involved in formal governance processes.

If your organisation needs support capturing board decisions accurately and appropriately, a professional minute taking service remains the best way to protect directors, satisfy regulators, and maintain trust in your governance process.

Sage Governance offers professional, confidential, and compliant meeting documentation services tailored to your board’s needs. Get in touch to learn more about how we can support your governance responsibilities with accuracy and integrity.