Rapid advances in artificial intelligence have enabled the rise of AI-enabled advisory tools. While these tools benefit decision-makers, they also introduce new competitive pressures for human advisors whose expertise they may complement or replace. Prior research shows that advisors react negatively when clients approach other advisors, feeling offended and becoming less willing to maintain the relationship. Yet little is known about how advisors respond when the other advisor is an AI system rather than a human. Across four studies, we examine how professionals perceive and react to clients who consult AI-enabled (vs. other human) advisors. We find that learning a client has also sought AI (vs. other human) advice decreases focal advisors’ motivation to work with that client. This effect persists even when clients use AI only for background information or as a complementary resource. We propose that advisors view AI as substantially inferior to themselves; thus, being placed in the same category as an AI system feels insulting and signals disrespect, undermining advisors’ willingness to engage. We also show that consulting AI may change perceptions of the client, making them appear less competent and warm. Our work contributes to emerging research on the advisor perspective and extends the literature on human responses to AI by shifting attention from AI users to service providers. Practically, the findings suggest that clients’ seemingly innocuous use of AI tools may unintentionally erode their relationships with human advisors. • Seeking second opinion from AI erodes advisors’ motivation to work with the client. • The effect persists when AI is consulted for initial or complementary information. • Feeling offended, due to being equated with AI, mediates the effect. • Clients who consult AI may be seen as less competent and warm.