In the fast-evolving landscape of artificial intelligence, the introduction of committees to govern AI tool adoption is not just a trend—it's a visionary step towards responsible innovation. The rationale is clear and compelling: a dedicated team meticulously analyzing use cases, legal risks, costs, and potential redundancies to propel organizational agility and innovation. This model promises to transform our approach to AI, aligning it with strategic goals and ethical standards.

However, it's crucial to acknowledge a fundamental challenge—the human element. Time and again, we have seen that systems, no matter how technically sophisticated or well-intended, can be undermined by human shortcomings. Technical, social, political, legal, and even religious frameworks have succumbed to manipulation, serving individual agendas rather than optimizing for collective benefit. This vulnerability is also true for AI governance.

While the committee-based approach is designed to mitigate risks and maximize benefits, it's imperative to recognize that the very people appointed to these committees bring their own biases and agendas. The historical interplay of democracy and capitalism offers a pertinent analogy here. This blend has driven immense productivity and societal order by balancing interests, yet it operates on the principle of safeguarding against the "least bad" rather than championing the "most good."

In the context of AI adoption, we need a paradigm shift. We must strive not just to avoid harm but to aggressively pursue the greatest possible benefits. The notion of governance by committee should not mirror a democratic system that dilutes decision-making in an effort to cover all bases. Instead, while committees should perform rigorous analyses and provide well-considered recommendations, the ultimate decision-making must rest with the leaders. These leaders should be empowered to act decisively based on informed advice, driving their organizations forward with clarity and purpose.

To truly leverage AI's potential, we must balance collective insight with bold, accountable leadership. The committee's role is crucial, but it should be advisory, not prescriptive. Our leaders must have the latitude to make decisions that maximize productivity and innovation, guided but not constrained by committee insights. This approach ensures that AI governance is both prudent and potent, capable of steering our technological trajectory towards unprecedented success.