A chatbot answers. An AI employee finishes the work and waits for your yes.
It works inside the systems you already use, handles the recurring work and hands over finished drafts instead of answers in a chat window.
| Chatbot | Answers. The work stays with you. |
|---|---|
| AI agent | Acts on its own. You find out afterwards what happened. |
| AI employee | Prepares everything, waits for your yes, finishes the task and leaves a receipt. |
You keep your systems and learn no new interface. You read, you say yes, and you move on.
Digital employee and AI coworker mean the same as AI employee.
The examples below are types of task, not work carried out for anyone.
Two letters arrive in the morning, the monthly report is calculated and a contract expires the same week. Everything is prepared by eight o'clock, and nothing moves on until someone at your company has read it and said yes.
Tell us what an ordinary week looks like and we will say honestly whether an AI employee is the right thing for you or whether something smaller would do. We listen first, no slides.
A chatbot answers questions. An agent carries out tasks, though the word itself says nothing about approval or accountability. An AI employee holds a role, finishes the task across several systems and comes back once for a yes. What separates them is who acts, who approves, who is accountable and what is logged.
Recurring work with clear input and a clear result: the monthly report from the books, replies to routine email, suggested registrations, deadline watching and the first line of customer service. It fits badly where judgement is the whole job. Any example we show is invented and labelled as such.
It starts with a conversation about your week and about what must never be touched. Then a shadow week where it reads and suggests without being able to act, so you see the result before deciding. After that it works for real inside the limits you set, and everything that leaves the building passes a person who says yes.
Accountability stays with the business, exactly as when an employee gets something wrong. That is why the approval and the log are the whole point: a yes is tied to one text and one person and can be checked afterwards. Without a trail, accountability cannot be carried, however good the model is.
It depends on which personal data is processed, which processor agreement is in place, where the model runs and how the use is classified under the rules. An answer without those conditions is worth nothing, and no supplier can promise you compliance. ALEX is built for human oversight and for logging everything, and what applies in your case is checked against the legal text before you decide.
No. ALEX is built and tested on our own operations, and several capabilities are still on the way or planned. What is built, on the way and planned stands in the capability list, and we say so even when staying quiet would be easier.
Newsletter
A summary roughly once a month. What has changed in the rules and which vendor shifts affect Swedish companies. Sent by us, not by an automation pretending to be us.