Policy on gen ai and LLM use

I don’t use it.

But I guess you probably want me to say more. Alright then.

The human brain is a remarkable organ. It grows. It changes. It’s adapted to thousands of years of stimuli and experiences. And through all that time, we’ve told stories to explain everything. Why would we shop that out to a computer? Why would we take the thing that makes us human and say, nah, too much work? That’s what we’re doing every time we get gen ai to write something for us.

I’m not against technology. I use computers and electric coffee makers and rotary telephones like everyone else. I kid. We still use a stovetop percolator.

Seriously, I do use ai—and write it lowercase. I use it to transcribe my interviews because it saves time and money (I still follow along afterward to make sure everything is right). I have no problem with automating things that don’t require my attention. But you know what does require my attention? Your work.

I’m hired for my ideas and my writing. I’m hired, really, to make you money. (Or draw attention to a cause, get donations, etc.) I’m hired to get inside your customers’ heads and help them take the next step in whatever it is you’re trying to achieve. And generative ai doesn’t help me with that.

I don’t use it to come up with ideas, because that’s half the fun of writing. I don’t use it to summarize anything, because I might miss something important. I don’t use it to draft because sloppy rough drafts are necessary for good writing—although I once wrote a poem that was perfect the first time. Still proud of that. And I don’t use gen ai to edit, because no one should.

In fact, I’ve used Grammarly exactly once. I looked at its suggestions, laughed, and closed the tab. And that was that.

I use ai to make my life easier. But I didn’t spend 20+ years honing my writing so that I could outsource it to the average output of the internet. Have you seen the internet? There’s a lot of dumb stuff.

And you don’t want dumb stuff in your comms. Unless it’s intentional. And funny. But I’ve never laughed with ai, only at it. And I’m sure most people are the same.

Also, if I’m writing any sort of journalism or content that requires accurate information (which is all journalism and content), then I’m certainly not going to use a known plagiarism machine with a well-documented history of “hallucinations,” ie, making shit up, which would require me to fact check every single thing it writes.

If I’m writing it myself, then I know the research I’ve done is sound, and am confident in citing my sources. I stand by my work. Taking time to fact check nonsense, only to have to delete it and then still write it myself, sounds like a ton of extra work. And I’d rather not do that. After all, an argument for gen ai is always efficiency. So I choose to be efficient by not using it.

So there you go. You want good work. And that good work comes from hard thinking time. It’s the only way.

And if you want human stuff, you can always talk with me or sign up for my email list at the bottom of the page.