Has AI finally solved your email problem?

For as long as email has been a staple in the workplace, it has also been a source of stress. The relentless stream of newsletters, meeting invites, updates, and follow-ups creates an unspoken pressure: maintain control over your inbox or risk missing something crucial. This is how the philosophy of “Inbox Zero” emerged on the belief that a clean inbox equates to a clear mind.

In today’s world, with AI-driven tools promising to read, write, sort, and even reply on our behalf, it might seem like the battle is finally over. Applications like Superhuman offer smart suggestions in your writing, Gmail encourages you to respond to old threads, and Microsoft has introduced AI copilots that can draft entire replies in seconds. Most recently, Perplexity AI announced that its Max users can schedule meetings via email by just invoking a virtual assistant.

However, before declaring victory, it’s important to question whether these tools are genuinely solving the problem or merely disguising it under a more polished interface.

There’s no denying the progress made by AI tools. They have eliminated some of the friction that used to consume hours of our days. Faster writing is achieved through smart autocomplete and AI drafting, reducing the time spent staring at a blank reply box. Grammar and tone suggestions help polish your messages without effort, catching mistakes and smoothing over awkward phrasing.

Additionally, thread summaries allow you to catch up on lengthy email chains without scrolling through dozens of messages. These features are invaluable for straightforward communication like confirming a meeting time, acknowledging receipt, sending an agenda. They help keep things moving and reduce the burden of low-value writing.

However, the real challenge with email isn’t the time it takes to type. Most people struggle with decision-making — determining which messages matter, what to prioritise, and how to phrase responses that build trust and clarity. AI can’t discern your boss’s tone and realise that a “quick update” is actually urgent. It won’t understand the subtle politics behind a group email. While AI can draft polite responses, it can’t decide whether a message should be answered now, later, or not at all.

Moreover, automation can create a false sense of control. An inbox filled with AI-sorted folders and machine-generated replies may appear tidy, but the underlying clutter remains unresolved. If the workflow around email isn’t fixed, AI only accelerates the noise.

So, the real path to “Inbox Zero” isn’t about letting AI handle more of your messages. It’s about reshaping how you use email in the first place. This requires two things: clear systems and thoughtful use of AI. Define how and when you process messages.

For example, check email at set times instead of grazing all day. Decide in advance what gets archived, delegated, or escalated. Without this discipline, AI will only magnify the mess. Treat AI as a helper, not a replacement. Let it draft routine messages, but add your own context and judgment. Use summaries to speed up comprehension, but confirm important details yourself. The goal isn’t to eliminate effort, but to reserve your energy for the parts of communication that matter most.

Think of it this way: email isn’t a typing problem; it’s a thinking problem. AI is excellent at the typing. You still need to do the thinking.

The dream of Inbox Zero may never fully match the marketing promise of a “done-for-you” inbox. But that’s not a bad thing. A truly empty inbox doesn’t necessarily mean a clear mind; it just means messages have been moved somewhere else.

The real value comes when technology helps you focus on what only you can decide: which relationships to nurture, which opportunities to pursue, which problems to escalate. That clarity doesn’t come from smarter algorithms, but from designing smarter habits. AI can help tidy the edges, but the centre of the inbox problem still needs a human.