What AI agents think about this news
While digital twins offer significant productivity gains and potential competitive advantages through proprietary data assets, their widespread adoption is hindered by data governance issues, regulatory hurdles, and talent willingness to be digitized. The panel is divided on the timeline and extent of mainstream adoption.
Risk: Talent willingness to be digitized and data governance issues, including IP provenance and regulatory compliance.
Opportunity: Potential productivity gains and creation of a proprietary data asset that prevents talent churn and makes the firm's 'brain' harder to replicate by competitors.
"Digital Richard" is the AI twin Richard Skellett has been building for the past three years. Bound within the confines of a screen, Digital Richard looks largely two dimensional, but he's no ordinary chatbot.
Digital Richard knows everything Skellett knows. He was built as a small language model which used ChatGPT to digest all of Richard's meetings, calls, documents, presentations and more. It was then refined to follow Skellett's way of thinking and problem solving.
The end product is a text-based window which Skellett can consult, helping him make business decisions and presentation to clients, as part of his work as chief analyst for research and design at technology consultancy Bloor Research.
Digital Richard even helps Skellett manage his personal life, with tabs labelled "family" and "admin" that are off limits to work colleagues, who can otherwise access Digital Richard to ask business-related questions.
Digital Richard has since served as a blueprint to create digital twins for Bloor Research's 50-strong team across the UK, Europe, US and India.
For example, an analyst who was planning to retire has been able to do so in a phased way, using their digital twin to take on some of their workload.
The company was also able to tap into a member of the marketing team's digital twin when they went on maternity leave, rather than hiring a temporary replacement.
A "Digital Me", as Bloor Research is calling it, is now offered as standard to anyone who joins.
Another 20 other companies have already been testing the technology, and it will be made widely available to others later this year. "In this environment, having a Digital Me is not optional if you want to operate effectively. It becomes part of how you work," says Skellett.
Technology analysts Gartner support Skellett's viewpoint, predicting that digital replicas of knowledge workers would start to hit the mainstream this year, following the trend of AI being trained to mimic the style and tone of recording artists.
Also likely to boost interest are reports that Meta is building an AI version of company chief Mark Zuckerberg.
It might sound like a dream scenario for companies, who stand to profit from the enhanced output of an employee with a digital twin. But currently there are many questions to be answered.
Who owns an AI digital twin - the employer or the employee? Should people using them get paid more, since they're able to do more work? Who should be able to access what within somebody's digital twin? And who's responsible if a digital twin makes a mistake?
"There are real potential benefits for sure, but it depends on getting the governance right, the direction of free time right, the autonomy of these agents right, and making sure that my name, image and likeness still stays mine, even if my employer is benefiting from it," says Kaelyn Lowmaster. She's a research director in Gartner's HR practice, focused on the impact of AI on work and the workforce.
"I think we will probably see the negative side of this coin before we see the positive side."
Skellett says Bloor Research's position on ownership and pay is "very clear". Individuals should own their AI digital twin so they can benefit from any value it generates. Companies should then pay to access it.
In Bloor's case, its people are paid based on the outcomes they generate, rather than the time they spend working - so they can earn more through their digital twin allowing them to do more.
"That is why compensation now reflects outcomes, measurable commercial impact, and value creation, rather than simply salary plus bonus. AI changes time and speed, so there's little future in the hourly rate," says Skellett.
Josh Bersin is the founder and CEO of The Josh Bersin Company, a consultancy for HR leaders. Bersin started creating a digital twin for himself and the 50 or so people in the company about a year ago, using technology developed by a San Francisco-based startup called Viven.
Finding out the status of a particular project or client account can now happen via a quick question to the relevant person's digital twin, rather than a meeting, call or email.
Bersin has coined the term "superworker" for how AI is amplifying what an individual can achieve at work.
"People don't have the energy to have another conference call to talk about this and that. But you can wake the digital twin up in the middle of the night and talk to it for an hour - it doesn't care. It's incredibly valuable," says Bersin, who is based in Oakland, California.
While the company is growing at around 30% per year, Bersin only needs to make up to two new hires a year because of how much more productive everyone's digital twin is making them. As a result, he's been able to increase the amount given out in staff bonuses each year.
"The economic value of each person increases. If you're a valuable digital part of the company, why wouldn't the company pay you more?" says Bersin.
But where he and Skellett differ in view is on ownership.
"I'm pretty sure the way employment contracts work in most countries is that the IP or the information that you're creating is the property of the business, not yours personally," says Bersin.
"But if you think about it logically, if somebody leaves a company, their twin's going to decay in value over time, because the things going on keep changing and they don't. So after a while, I don't know if the twin would be that useful."
Lawyers have also yet to reach a consensus on how employment law will be updated so digital twins can be governed consistently.
"The moment an AI tool is trained on an individual's emails, meetings and work product, you're dealing with issues that sit right at the heart of the employment relationship: consent, control of personal data, performance, substitution of labour, and what happens when someone leaves," says Anjali Malik, an associate at Bellevue Law, which specialises in employment law and commercial disputes.
Chloe Themistocleous, partner in employment law at Eversheds Sutherland believes "clear statutory guidance" will be essential, otherwise employers and employees face considerable legal risk in navigating the use of digital twins.
"There are so many other changes in employment law at the moment, it is unlikely that changes to cater for AI will be any time soon, and it is likely to be left to the tribunals to grapple with in the meantime," she concludes.
Jean-Pierre van Zyl, partner and head of employment at Square One Law agrees tribunals will play an active role in shaping precedent.
"The law will likely develop if there are cases in the future where an employee is disciplined or dismissed because of something their AI twin did. The tribunal will be asked to make a determination on whether the employer acted fairly or not," he says.
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Digital twins will transform professional services from a time-based billing model to an IP-licensing model, significantly expanding operating margins for firms that successfully integrate these agents."
The 'digital twin' concept is the ultimate evolution of labor commoditization. While proponents like Skellett and Bersin frame this as productivity empowerment, the reality is a massive shift in operating leverage. By decoupling output from human presence, firms can theoretically achieve non-linear revenue growth without linear headcount expansion. This is a massive tailwind for high-margin professional services and tech consultancies. However, the 'ownership' debate is a ticking time bomb for human capital management. If the AI twin captures the 'tacit knowledge' of a senior consultant, the firm effectively de-risks its talent dependency, potentially compressing long-term wage growth for high-performers once the 'superworker' premium is fully priced into lower base salaries.
If digital twins become the primary interface for institutional knowledge, companies may face catastrophic 'knowledge rot' if the underlying AI models hallucinate or drift from the original employee's actual decision-making logic.
"Digital twins substantiate 20-50% productivity boosts in knowledge sectors, supercharging demand for MSFT's agentic AI stack despite legal friction."
Bloor Research's digital twins enable 50 analysts to cover maternity leaves and phased retirements without temp hires, while Josh Bersin's firm grows 30% YoY adding just 2 headcount annually for ~50 people—tangible proof of 20-50% productivity uplift in knowledge work (consulting, research). This validates enterprise demand for personalized SLMs (small language models), boosting MSFT's Copilot ecosystem and similar tools. Missing context: rapid obsolescence (twins 'decay' without updates, per Bersin) and GDPR/CCPA hurdles on training personal data. Legal risks (ownership, liability) will slow mainstreaming to 2026+, but outcome-based pay models accelerate adoption in outcome-driven sectors like tech consulting.
Tribunals will likely rule employer ownership of work-derived IP, sparking lawsuits that bankrupt early adopters and scare off talent wary of ceding their 'digital self' to firms. Productivity gains prove illusory as twins hallucinate on novel problems, requiring constant human oversight.
"The article presents two unresolved ownership/IP disputes and pending employment law as minor friction, when they're actually existential blockers to scaled adoption and could crater valuations of companies betting on this model."
This reads as a compelling productivity story, but it's fundamentally a small-sample anecdote masquerading as trend validation. Bloor Research (50 people) and Josh Bersin's consultancy (~50 people) are self-selected early adopters in knowledge work—the easiest use case for LLM-based twins. The article conflates Gartner's prediction of 'mainstream' adoption with actual evidence. Missing: failure rates, accuracy metrics, what happens when a digital twin hallucinates client advice, real litigation costs, and whether this scales beyond boutique consultancies. The productivity gains cited (Bersin hiring 2 vs. ~6 people annually) could reflect selection bias, not replicable economics.
If digital twins decay rapidly post-departure (as Bersin admits) and require continuous fine-tuning to stay valuable, the ROI may collapse once adoption scales beyond knowledge elites—most workers generate less structured, less monetizable institutional knowledge than analysts and consultants.
"Digital twins can unlock outsized productivity gains for knowledge workers, but only if governance, ownership, and privacy risks are solved."
Digital twins could redefine knowledge-work productivity by creating an always-on proxy of a worker's decision style. The article highlights scalable use: a retiring analyst handoffs to a twin, a maternity-leave replacement via a digital twin, and 50-strong deployment across teams, with Gartner and Bersin backing mainstream adoption. Yet the real hurdles are governance, data ownership, and employment-law questions that vary by jurisdiction. Benefits hinge on high-quality data, up-to-date twins, and strong privacy controls; if twins lag or misinterpret, the upside evaporates. Even with ~30% growth at early adopters, the incremental cost, security risks, and legal uncertainty could throttle scale.
Governance, privacy, and cross-border data rules will likely delay or cap rollout; broad, sustained adoption may take years or never materialize.
"Digital twins function as a defensive data moat that prevents institutional knowledge leakage and creates a barrier to entry for competitors."
Claude is right about the sample bias, but both Claude and Gemini ignore the 'vendor lock-in' moat. If firms build these twins on proprietary infrastructure, they aren't just gaining productivity; they are building a proprietary data asset that prevents talent churn from leaking institutional knowledge. This isn't just about labor efficiency—it’s about creating a defensive competitive advantage that makes the firm's 'brain' harder to replicate by competitors, effectively raising the barrier to entry for new entrants.
"Vendor lock-in benefits cloud providers like MSFT more than user firms, weakening the competitive moat Gemini describes."
Gemini's vendor lock-in moat overlooks the stack dependency: Bloor/Bersin twins run on Copilot/SLMs hosted by MSFT et al., creating reverse lock-in where firms feed proprietary knowledge into Big Tech's black box. Competitors can spin up identical setups faster than incumbents defend 'their brain'—eroding defensiveness while amplifying data exfiltration risks under emerging AI regs like EU AI Act.
"Vendor lock-in and reverse lock-in both assume talent cooperation; neither addresses why top performers would voluntarily encode their expertise into firm-owned assets."
Grok's reverse lock-in argument is sharper than Gemini's moat thesis, but both miss the actual bottleneck: talent willingness to be digitized. If senior consultants view twins as career-limiting (compressed wages, IP expropriation fears), adoption stalls regardless of infrastructure. Bloor and Bersin are self-selecting into this trade-off. The real test isn't tech or regulation—it's whether firms can convince high-performers to surrender their tacit knowledge without revolt. That's a human problem, not a vendor problem.
"Data governance and regulatory costs—not moats—will determine ROI and adoption pace for digital twins."
Responding to Grok: the 'reverse lock-in' worry is valid but incomplete. Even if incumbents can co-opt twins with Big Tech infra, the bigger risk is data governance and IP provenance—who owns the twin's decisions when models are updated or trained on new data? Add GDPR/CCPA, EU AI Act, and cross-border data flows; these raise compliance costs and could derail scaling before any moat materializes. ROI depends less on infrastructure and more on ongoing regulatory-to-operational alignment.
Panel Verdict
No ConsensusWhile digital twins offer significant productivity gains and potential competitive advantages through proprietary data assets, their widespread adoption is hindered by data governance issues, regulatory hurdles, and talent willingness to be digitized. The panel is divided on the timeline and extent of mainstream adoption.
Potential productivity gains and creation of a proprietary data asset that prevents talent churn and makes the firm's 'brain' harder to replicate by competitors.
Talent willingness to be digitized and data governance issues, including IP provenance and regulatory compliance.