Writing copy used to require a brain, a pencil, and paper. But the allure of technological advancement is hard to resist. Creatives everywhere adapt and adopt new tools. AI can edit, assist, or write the damn thing for you. The user determines the depth and breadth of the collaboration.
I vs AI
AI has outpaced me, but it won’t replace me (not for a while). Instead of resisting, I do what organisms do in the struggle for survival: evolve.
The calculator didn’t replace the accountant; it phased out the abacus and created more efficient accountants.
I don’t compete with AI in the same way I don’t compete with my phone—using it as a tool to enhance my ability and leaving more time to focus on what current AI can’t replace—finding purpose, acting irrationally, and coming up with new ideas.
“AI Will Not Replace You. But the Person Using AI Will.”
I and AI
For the past two years, I’ve been developing rich content by fusing human originality with AI’s efficiency, utilizing the best of what LLMs offer while capturing the human elements that AI can’t (yet?) understand or recreate.
From transcribing with Fathom and researching with Perplexity to creating customer personas with Claude and editing with Grammarly, I use different AI tools at different stages of the writing process.
Research and Optimization
Note-takers allow me to focus on listening instead of writing. Searching and distilling information—used to take days—can be done in hours, and the breadth of insights expands proportionally to the scope of the prompt (better questions result in better answers).
Ideation
When brainstorming with AI, I act like a teacher and creative director. First, I train the model (prime), then I tell it what to do (prompt), choose what works from an endless stream of options, and iterate to refine the result (polish).
The Kicker
“Talking to AI” clarifies my thinking and makes me a better writer. Communicating with a highly efficient assistant that has a five-year-old’s IQ forces me to consider first principles, break everything down to elemental building blocks, and engineer prompts that can’t be misinterpreted.
“A Problem Well Stated is Half Solved” — Charles Kettering, American inventor
I or AI: We All Do It
If you have a device and internet access, you’ve probably used AI (even if ot’s without knowing it). The spectrum of AI collaboration ranges from autocorrect and fact-checking to generative AI that completes entire tasks. The line between “written with AI” and “written by AI” gets blurrier every day.
Resistance is futile. Luddites only delay the inevitable. There’s no way back unless someone unplugs something somewhere. Prohibiting AI won’t work for long. Trying to “catch” AI involvement is a waste of time. There’s already a tool to make AI writing sound “more human,” and the arms race will continue ad infinitum until we accept the inevitable. Asking people not to use AI is like asking a builder not to use a hammer.
The prudency police need to give up their fight. People who use AI to make things better shouldn’t be penalized—they should be celebrated. Instead of launching an AI generation and detection arms race, we could enable AI to replace the redundant and complement the competent.
I + AI: The Hybrid Future
In five years, we won’t be asking whether AI was used in writing in the same way we don’t ask people if they used a keyboard to send an email. It won’t be about using AI as much as how much AI was used and in what way.
If written content achieves its intended goal, does it matter what happens in the kitchen? What counts is the merit, not the method.
I’m proudly AI-enhanced. By expediting research, automating repetitive tasks, and streamlining processes, I can focus on ideation, meaning, and nuance—delivering more and wider-ranging value.
I^AI