Yes, I Use AI. No, It’s Not Slop.

The line between authorship and automation - and why transparency matters.

Every time someone asks if I use AI to help write my posts, I brace for a subtle shaming. It’s the kind of question that arrives dressed as curiosity but carries a subtext: “So... how much of this did you actually write?”

The short answer is: Yes. Obviously. Of course I use AI.

The long answer is: I am chronically online. I sign up for every paid plan of every generative tool before they finish announcing it on stage. I invest in AI for a living and write about it everyday. If I weren’t using these tools to do my work, that would make me... what? Philosophically opposed? Suspiciously analog? Dangerously inefficient?

But the thing is, I don’t think I use it the way people imagine when they ask that question.

There’s a default assumption that if AI touched it, the work must be diluted. Ghostwritten. Synthetic. Like I pressed a button on a content vending machine, and the machine spat out a fully-formed post while I scrolled Twitter.

I don’t use AI to write for me. I use it to help me think better.

For the sake of transparency, here is a non-exhaustive inventory of the ways I use AI in writing

• To test my assumptions, surface counterpoints, pull earnings metrics, or unjam a clunky sentence.

• To speed up research. What would’ve taken me 3 open tabs and 15 minutes, now takes 1 prompt.

• To stress-test takes. If a bot can poke obvious holes in my idea, it’s not ready.

It’s not doing the thinking, it’s helping me clarify mine.

Very early on, I realized that if I ask it for a first draft, it limits my thinking.
AI tends to anchor you to the average of what’s already out there. And the whole point of writing is to figure out what you think. If you skip that part, you end up with content that’s structurally correct but intellectually hollow.

The ‘AI slop’ problem

A Reddit user recently nailed the definition:

There’s a reason people flinch at AI-generated content. We’re all drowning in unthoughtful, SEO-optimized, engagement-bait content that adds nothing of value to the world. You probably scrolled past some today already.

And this is forming a strange shame cycle. Thoughtful creators are using AI in nuanced, productive ways but won’t admit it, because they don’t want to be confused with the flood of low-effort LinkedIn sludge.

The fear is that once you admit to using AI, you’re lumped in with the ‘slopstream’. Because the current discourse doesn’t give them a way to say: “Yes, I used AI. No, it didn’t think for me.” Which is a problem, because it lets the worst examples define the narrative. The people using AI well are now the ones most hesitant to admit it.

My friend John, suggested a fix: we need a kind of shorthand - a tag, a wink, a signal that indicates that something is AI-assisted but not AI-generated. Something like ELI5, TL;DR, or NSFW. A quick, low-key marker that says AI was used here, but with care, intention, and authorship.

So I’m starting to use one: FMAI. Formed Mindfully with AI.
Not ghostwritten. Not slop. Created with clarity, sharpened with help.

If this resonates, feel free to use it too - not because we need another acronym, but because we need a simple, honest way to acknowledge when AI plays a role without discrediting the work or the person behind it.

Thoughtful, transparent use of AI should be the norm, not the exception. But for that to happen, we need better language. A way to separate signal from noise-
And to drop the weird shame around using great tools well.

The future of great content isn’t human vs. AI. It’s human + AI, used mindfully. Don’t hide it. Just define it. Hence: FMAI.