James, I agree with you with the caveat "it depends." By that, I mean it depends on what you're writing. In my case, I write highly technical content based on interviews with SMEs, often with heavy dialects. Much of what's said, I don't understand. (Please don't take that as a criticism... I'm sure my southern accent is difficult to understand as well.)
Because of that, I rely on Fathom (for the transcript), ChatGPT (or outlines), and Perplexity (for research). Without those assistants, I'd be lost.
I realize that my case is the exception rather than the rule. If you're telling a story containing character, conflict, and resolution, AI can still help, but it cannot replace the human voice (yet). And if you're a writer like Neela (she writes here on Substack), who shares personal stories, AI can never replace her voice.
Like I said, I agree with your premise. But I am convinced there will come a day when human-generated content and AI-generated content will, in many cases, be essentially indistinguishable.
I'd love to hear yours and others' thoughts. Feel free to push back on mine.
Abslutely, Paul. I don’t consider what you do “shallow writing” at all. In fact, it’s a very well-considered application of AI in writing — a best practice, all things considered.
You prompt and use AI heavily, yes, but so do I. What I’m tackling more in this article are people who rely on “one prompt” solutions, people who think that learning rudimentary prompting skills is enough to turn them into a “writer.”
Writing and prompting are two different skills. Learn them both, and you’ll be golden.
But rely on prompting alone, and you’ll atrophy your creative/writing skills, and you will be no good to yourself, your audience, and the wider internet.
This nailed it — especially the part about motion vs. progress. Prompting can’t replace taste, and no amount of clever AI workarounds will make up for a hollow voice. It’s a tool, not a shortcut to soul. Loved the reminder that writing is thinking — not just output.
Totally. It is actually a lot more profound than you think. In a philosophical and if I am not mistaken, even in a scientific sense, all life is just motion.
"Writing isn’t just output. It’s a thinking process, a spiritual discipline. For thousands of years, people have cut themselves to the quick and bled on the page, pursuing knowledge, love, or glory." — James, 2025
My favorite line of this newsletter 🌟 I totally agree for what you said in here. Every kind of art—writing, painting, music, etc.—can be created in a second by AI nowadays with just giving a prompt without the thinking process. But, where is the soul of it? Where is the dynamic in a story created by AI? Or where is the uniqueness of a writer if the article doesn't represent writer'a personality, tone, etc?
I have tried creating a story by giving my best prompt. Try to infuse what kind of emotion I want this story brought, what kind of dialogue style I want to create. Then, I read the story again without infusing my own style. The result? It becomes so boring, no emotion at all, blank..😅 the narrative is so repetitive, just repeating the same meaning of previous part with different sentences🤣 maybe you have the same experience like mine before?🙈
I agree that strong writing skills can enhance the final product, even when using AI. However, I have to disagree with the idea that people won’t read surface-level content. In reality, a lot of people are drawn to writing that’s easy to digest and doesn’t go too deep. It can get massive engagement.
I’ve seen it happen. That said, I do wonder how this shift will affect younger generations who won’t be pushed to develop writing skills the old-fashioned way. It makes me question what long-term impact this will have on critical thinking and communication.
One test I’ve started using is if I read an AI draft and can’t tell which colleague prompted it, we’ve failed. I "work" with AI tools. Product building that is. Voice isn’t a parameter you tune.
It’s the fingerprint you bring.
That said, where do you see the line between 'helpful AI shortcut' and 'crutch'? For me, it’s when the tool stops assisting and starts deciding (e.g., suggesting takes I’d never endorse)
James, I agree with you with the caveat "it depends." By that, I mean it depends on what you're writing. In my case, I write highly technical content based on interviews with SMEs, often with heavy dialects. Much of what's said, I don't understand. (Please don't take that as a criticism... I'm sure my southern accent is difficult to understand as well.)
Because of that, I rely on Fathom (for the transcript), ChatGPT (or outlines), and Perplexity (for research). Without those assistants, I'd be lost.
I realize that my case is the exception rather than the rule. If you're telling a story containing character, conflict, and resolution, AI can still help, but it cannot replace the human voice (yet). And if you're a writer like Neela (she writes here on Substack), who shares personal stories, AI can never replace her voice.
Like I said, I agree with your premise. But I am convinced there will come a day when human-generated content and AI-generated content will, in many cases, be essentially indistinguishable.
I'd love to hear yours and others' thoughts. Feel free to push back on mine.
Abslutely, Paul. I don’t consider what you do “shallow writing” at all. In fact, it’s a very well-considered application of AI in writing — a best practice, all things considered.
You prompt and use AI heavily, yes, but so do I. What I’m tackling more in this article are people who rely on “one prompt” solutions, people who think that learning rudimentary prompting skills is enough to turn them into a “writer.”
Writing and prompting are two different skills. Learn them both, and you’ll be golden.
But rely on prompting alone, and you’ll atrophy your creative/writing skills, and you will be no good to yourself, your audience, and the wider internet.
Sophisticated Prompting Is Creativity
This nailed it — especially the part about motion vs. progress. Prompting can’t replace taste, and no amount of clever AI workarounds will make up for a hollow voice. It’s a tool, not a shortcut to soul. Loved the reminder that writing is thinking — not just output.
Thank you, Gino! I truly believe that as well. AI is a tool that we should learn how to use, but it must never use us.
“It feels like progress but it is just motion”, now that is brilliantly worded James.
Thank you, Zeina! I should turn that into a quote. 😂
Totally. It is actually a lot more profound than you think. In a philosophical and if I am not mistaken, even in a scientific sense, all life is just motion.
"Writing isn’t just output. It’s a thinking process, a spiritual discipline. For thousands of years, people have cut themselves to the quick and bled on the page, pursuing knowledge, love, or glory." — James, 2025
My favorite line of this newsletter 🌟 I totally agree for what you said in here. Every kind of art—writing, painting, music, etc.—can be created in a second by AI nowadays with just giving a prompt without the thinking process. But, where is the soul of it? Where is the dynamic in a story created by AI? Or where is the uniqueness of a writer if the article doesn't represent writer'a personality, tone, etc?
I have tried creating a story by giving my best prompt. Try to infuse what kind of emotion I want this story brought, what kind of dialogue style I want to create. Then, I read the story again without infusing my own style. The result? It becomes so boring, no emotion at all, blank..😅 the narrative is so repetitive, just repeating the same meaning of previous part with different sentences🤣 maybe you have the same experience like mine before?🙈
Nailed it: "Writing and prompting are complementary — learn both" 🤗
Thank you! That’s the reason I write :D
I agree that strong writing skills can enhance the final product, even when using AI. However, I have to disagree with the idea that people won’t read surface-level content. In reality, a lot of people are drawn to writing that’s easy to digest and doesn’t go too deep. It can get massive engagement.
I’ve seen it happen. That said, I do wonder how this shift will affect younger generations who won’t be pushed to develop writing skills the old-fashioned way. It makes me question what long-term impact this will have on critical thinking and communication.
Nice one, James.
One test I’ve started using is if I read an AI draft and can’t tell which colleague prompted it, we’ve failed. I "work" with AI tools. Product building that is. Voice isn’t a parameter you tune.
It’s the fingerprint you bring.
That said, where do you see the line between 'helpful AI shortcut' and 'crutch'? For me, it’s when the tool stops assisting and starts deciding (e.g., suggesting takes I’d never endorse)
Like in the case of Grammarly.