I would be interested in your thoughts on an approach that I have been using. I have an AI interview with me on a topic. Once I provide a topic for exploration, I will share my views, unique angle, counterintuitive insight, etc., for that area of focus. I also provide AI with a framework for how I view the world, so it has my unique lens for observation and insight (this is a formal document I have created). Prior to the AI interview, I provided AI with hundreds of articles, as well as two books I have authored, so it could hear/see my voice. I then provide my voice through the AI interview, which it can compare to my more polished articles and books, and it can then provide some drafts for me to review, edit, and improve. What are your thoughts on this process?
Chris, this is sophisticated and I love seeing someone who's actually thought it through.
A few observations:
The "unique lens" document is smart. Most people skip this and wonder why AI outputs generic slop. You're giving it the why behind your thinking, not just the what. That's the part almost everyone misses.
The interview approach is interesting. Raw voice compared against polished work gives AI two reference points: how you think versus how you edit. That's useful data.
One thing I'd watch: make sure the drafts it produces are starting points, not endpoints. The danger zone is when the output is "good enough" that you stop interrogating it. That's where voice drift sneaks in. The 85% accurate draft is more dangerous than the 50% accurate one because you stop paying attention.
What does your review/edit phase look like? That's where this either stays yours or slowly stops being yours.
I go through multiple iterations and pasty if my process is making sure I have adequate facts and data to support my positions. I tend to provide most of this information and then ask AI to augment this where needed. I am still learning.
Slow down bro, oh wait, this gee is named Nick Quick! I catch myself using those corporate "AI words" even when I’m just texting. But in seriousness, I think slowing down is a part of realizing our voice.
I've been fighting my goofy name my entire life. It's a losing battle.
But yeah, catching those corporate AI words in your texts is the real horror movie. That's when you know it's in the walls. "Per my last message" to your group chat. "Just circling back" to your mom. The infection spreads.
You're onto something with the slowing down thing. Voice doesn't survive speed. It needs room to breathe.
Openings and closings were always my worst. I'd start with random thoughts all out of sync and then a majority of my "writing" was putting my thoughts in an order that made sense. The opening was usually the last thing I'd write.
Sapna, the opening being last is exactly right. You can't introduce something you haven't met yet.
The random-thoughts-out-of-sync phase isn't the problem. It's the thinking. The organizing is just cleanup. Most writers skip the messy part and wonder why their work feels hollow.
You're doing it in the right order. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.
I would be interested in your thoughts on an approach that I have been using. I have an AI interview with me on a topic. Once I provide a topic for exploration, I will share my views, unique angle, counterintuitive insight, etc., for that area of focus. I also provide AI with a framework for how I view the world, so it has my unique lens for observation and insight (this is a formal document I have created). Prior to the AI interview, I provided AI with hundreds of articles, as well as two books I have authored, so it could hear/see my voice. I then provide my voice through the AI interview, which it can compare to my more polished articles and books, and it can then provide some drafts for me to review, edit, and improve. What are your thoughts on this process?
Chris, this is sophisticated and I love seeing someone who's actually thought it through.
A few observations:
The "unique lens" document is smart. Most people skip this and wonder why AI outputs generic slop. You're giving it the why behind your thinking, not just the what. That's the part almost everyone misses.
The interview approach is interesting. Raw voice compared against polished work gives AI two reference points: how you think versus how you edit. That's useful data.
One thing I'd watch: make sure the drafts it produces are starting points, not endpoints. The danger zone is when the output is "good enough" that you stop interrogating it. That's where voice drift sneaks in. The 85% accurate draft is more dangerous than the 50% accurate one because you stop paying attention.
What does your review/edit phase look like? That's where this either stays yours or slowly stops being yours.
That’s a cool idea!
I go through multiple iterations and pasty if my process is making sure I have adequate facts and data to support my positions. I tend to provide most of this information and then ask AI to augment this where needed. I am still learning.
You're on the right path.
Most just find a prompt on Reddit to copy/paste with a broad topic idea.
Doing the prelim legwork is crucial.
Slow down bro, oh wait, this gee is named Nick Quick! I catch myself using those corporate "AI words" even when I’m just texting. But in seriousness, I think slowing down is a part of realizing our voice.
I've been fighting my goofy name my entire life. It's a losing battle.
But yeah, catching those corporate AI words in your texts is the real horror movie. That's when you know it's in the walls. "Per my last message" to your group chat. "Just circling back" to your mom. The infection spreads.
You're onto something with the slowing down thing. Voice doesn't survive speed. It needs room to breathe.
Openings and closings were always my worst. I'd start with random thoughts all out of sync and then a majority of my "writing" was putting my thoughts in an order that made sense. The opening was usually the last thing I'd write.
Sapna, the opening being last is exactly right. You can't introduce something you haven't met yet.
The random-thoughts-out-of-sync phase isn't the problem. It's the thinking. The organizing is just cleanup. Most writers skip the messy part and wonder why their work feels hollow.
You're doing it in the right order. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.