The irony of platforms penalizing the surface of text while ignoring the human judgment and editorial standards behind it proves we need transparent disclosure models far more than quiet algorithm suppression.
“Scrutiny in the open improves the thing being scrutinised. Scrutiny in the dark teaches people to hide.” That line made stop and think.
I use AI for research, idea generation, and learning how to use it for structure. It’s an efficiency thing. The editing is still the creative part and the voice is still mine. AI is best used as just another tool, not a replacement.
Your workflow is the middle ground the platforms handle worst. Research, ideation and structure from the machine, with the editing and voice still yours, is what AI-assisted should actually mean. The trouble is that a scan would file you in the same band as someone who pasted a prompt straight to publish and that flattening is exactly what the essay was getting at.
All quality writing is collaborative, and always has been. The detection craze is artificial intelligence applied to gauge artificial judgement. Quality should be the only gauge.
Great post Melanie. Transparency is always the best way to approach anything.
On this part you said about LinkedIn, "posts that appear machine-generated and carry no clear point of view".
It's the second part about writing content that has no clear point of view that I wanted to comment on.
There's already a lot of things that people hide in their writing besides AI.
People don't discuss politics because I don't want to alienate half there audience.
People rarely truly disclose what their expertise or experience is and make claims that are embellishments at best.
Someone who uses sourced content as the basis of the article that they're writing don't always give any attribution to whatever they read that influence them.
And many of them write to try and please everyone or at least as many people as possible. They want to provide information that appeals to a wider audience.
You know the old saying. If you write for everyone, you write for no one.
That's where that last part comes in "and carry no clear point of view".
We live in an age where search is AI powered. Just writing to provide information without a clear opinion or point of view means that your content is going to get copied and regurgitated by AI without sending you any traffic and maybe even without giving you any attribution.
And people absorb information but they don't always remember where they got the information.
They do remember when you have a strong opinion about something and you don't mind sharing that opinion. They can agree or disagree but it's much more engaging when you actually say what you think.
Everybody keeps trying to "polish" their writing because they want it to look "professional". But in many cases that also means dry, informative, unopinionated.
AI can already do that. What I like to ask writers is *What is it about your content that someone can't read almost anywhere on the web or have AI generate?*
One of the first things is your opinion, your point of view, how you arrived at that point of view, the story behind it, how you experienced it personally, how you used that information to deliver an outcome.
I think it's ironic that it's machines that are going to end up forcing humans to write like humans.
The irony in your closing line is the whole story really. Detection can only read the surface of writing, which is exactly why a stated point of view has become the most valuable thing you can publish. It cannot be scraped in any meaningful way, because the opinion is the author. Your question for writers is one I might borrow, with credit. What can someone read here that exists nowhere else on the web? If the honest answer is nothing, no detection setting will save the post/article!
Of course you always have permission. It's just something that I've been corporated into my workflow now. I do it section by section. If this one section of the article can be produced by AI just as easily or it can be found anywhere then I have to ask if that section really needs to be in the article.
I really have to start checking autocorrect and stuff when I'm doing voice to text. Maybe I should add that to my workflow. That was supposed to be incorporated into my workflow.
Chris, your point about attribution is where Substack has the edge on LinkedIn. LinkedIn trains us not to link to outside sources on pain of algodeath.
Absolutely they did. To the point for a while there everybody was putting their outbound links into the first comment instead of the post.
Elon Musk pretty much did the same thing on Twitter. And yes it's still Twitter regardless of the corporate layer they put over the top of it.
I'm not sure about other platforms but trying to contain people in your own ecosystem is an old strategy all the way back to AOL where you had to push a button to go on the actual web.
IMO...If you're using AI to synthesize ideas, speed up drafting, or catch blind spots, but still applying your own critical judgment and real-world experience, the percentage on a screen doesn't really matter.
I wrote as you write - and often use multiple promps to hone the structure and content
When there is an plausible first draft I try and rewrite each paragraph in My own words, although often I am pleased with the suggested sentences from AI
And often a prompt will send the entire piece in an entirely new direction
Intimately it’s about eliciting emotion and attracting attention
Ten hours and ten iterations for 700 words tells its own story, Martin. That's the part critics of AI writing rarely see, since the tool doesn't remove the effort, it redirects it into sharper thinking. I do still spend hours crafting my posts, even if they have begun with AI research and drafting - so shoot me! Stress testing arguments is exactly where I find it earns its keep too, as it will happily tell me when my logic has a hole in it, which polite human readers often won't.
Lucky for me, my posts on LinkedIn already don't get reach.
The irony of platforms penalizing the surface of text while ignoring the human judgment and editorial standards behind it proves we need transparent disclosure models far more than quiet algorithm suppression.
Good read.
“Scrutiny in the open improves the thing being scrutinised. Scrutiny in the dark teaches people to hide.” That line made stop and think.
I use AI for research, idea generation, and learning how to use it for structure. It’s an efficiency thing. The editing is still the creative part and the voice is still mine. AI is best used as just another tool, not a replacement.
Your workflow is the middle ground the platforms handle worst. Research, ideation and structure from the machine, with the editing and voice still yours, is what AI-assisted should actually mean. The trouble is that a scan would file you in the same band as someone who pasted a prompt straight to publish and that flattening is exactly what the essay was getting at.
This was helpful and insightful, thank you.
All quality writing is collaborative, and always has been. The detection craze is artificial intelligence applied to gauge artificial judgement. Quality should be the only gauge.
Did not know that was happening with LinkedIn!
Great post Melanie. Transparency is always the best way to approach anything.
On this part you said about LinkedIn, "posts that appear machine-generated and carry no clear point of view".
It's the second part about writing content that has no clear point of view that I wanted to comment on.
There's already a lot of things that people hide in their writing besides AI.
People don't discuss politics because I don't want to alienate half there audience.
People rarely truly disclose what their expertise or experience is and make claims that are embellishments at best.
Someone who uses sourced content as the basis of the article that they're writing don't always give any attribution to whatever they read that influence them.
And many of them write to try and please everyone or at least as many people as possible. They want to provide information that appeals to a wider audience.
You know the old saying. If you write for everyone, you write for no one.
That's where that last part comes in "and carry no clear point of view".
We live in an age where search is AI powered. Just writing to provide information without a clear opinion or point of view means that your content is going to get copied and regurgitated by AI without sending you any traffic and maybe even without giving you any attribution.
And people absorb information but they don't always remember where they got the information.
They do remember when you have a strong opinion about something and you don't mind sharing that opinion. They can agree or disagree but it's much more engaging when you actually say what you think.
Everybody keeps trying to "polish" their writing because they want it to look "professional". But in many cases that also means dry, informative, unopinionated.
AI can already do that. What I like to ask writers is *What is it about your content that someone can't read almost anywhere on the web or have AI generate?*
One of the first things is your opinion, your point of view, how you arrived at that point of view, the story behind it, how you experienced it personally, how you used that information to deliver an outcome.
I think it's ironic that it's machines that are going to end up forcing humans to write like humans.
The irony in your closing line is the whole story really. Detection can only read the surface of writing, which is exactly why a stated point of view has become the most valuable thing you can publish. It cannot be scraped in any meaningful way, because the opinion is the author. Your question for writers is one I might borrow, with credit. What can someone read here that exists nowhere else on the web? If the honest answer is nothing, no detection setting will save the post/article!
Of course you always have permission. It's just something that I've been corporated into my workflow now. I do it section by section. If this one section of the article can be produced by AI just as easily or it can be found anywhere then I have to ask if that section really needs to be in the article.
I really have to start checking autocorrect and stuff when I'm doing voice to text. Maybe I should add that to my workflow. That was supposed to be incorporated into my workflow.
But at least you know for sure that my comment was generated by me and not an AI. 🤣
Chris, your point about attribution is where Substack has the edge on LinkedIn. LinkedIn trains us not to link to outside sources on pain of algodeath.
Absolutely they did. To the point for a while there everybody was putting their outbound links into the first comment instead of the post.
Elon Musk pretty much did the same thing on Twitter. And yes it's still Twitter regardless of the corporate layer they put over the top of it.
I'm not sure about other platforms but trying to contain people in your own ecosystem is an old strategy all the way back to AOL where you had to push a button to go on the actual web.
IMO...If you're using AI to synthesize ideas, speed up drafting, or catch blind spots, but still applying your own critical judgment and real-world experience, the percentage on a screen doesn't really matter.
A very interesting read. Thank you.
Glad you thought so - feel free to DM me any questions
Melanie,
Last week I wrote a 700-word post with the help of AI. In total, it took me about 10 hours and involved about 10 iterations
Like you, I use AI to build a logical structure, stress test my arguments and point out inconsistencies.
I don't use it to write slop at scale. I use it to push myself to write better articles.
I wrote as you write - and often use multiple promps to hone the structure and content
When there is an plausible first draft I try and rewrite each paragraph in My own words, although often I am pleased with the suggested sentences from AI
And often a prompt will send the entire piece in an entirely new direction
Intimately it’s about eliciting emotion and attracting attention
Ten hours and ten iterations for 700 words tells its own story, Martin. That's the part critics of AI writing rarely see, since the tool doesn't remove the effort, it redirects it into sharper thinking. I do still spend hours crafting my posts, even if they have begun with AI research and drafting - so shoot me! Stress testing arguments is exactly where I find it earns its keep too, as it will happily tell me when my logic has a hole in it, which polite human readers often won't.