I’ve long argued that clear writing is the surest sign of clear thinking. Putting words to paper or screen forces choices, imposes structure, and strips away clutter. Writing creates clarity.
AI hasn’t changed that. It has simply added the illusion that anyone can be the next Stephen King. But there’s only one Stephen King. Two, if you count Richard Bachman. Okay, three if you count that Joe Hill fella. But the idea that a prompt can turn anyone into a seasoned writer is a load of crap.
When AI-assisted writing works, it works because the thinking behind it was clear in the first place (something Oxide’s Bryan Cantrill echoes in this public RFD). Someone came to the tool with context, intent, and a point of view. The AI helped with execution. The hard brainwork was already in motion. When the thinking isn’t there, AI fails fast. It spits out surface-level sludge that puts pretty nouns and verbs neatly together and unravels the second you break the surface and ask it to mean something. The author didn’t outsource writing; they outsourced thinking. And that’s, how shall I say it…bad.
Clear writing still reveals clear thinking. AI doesn’t change that; it just makes it obvious who’s actually thinking before they hit the prompt.
The Domain of Experience
Ironically, AI has become the domain of the “olds”.
Veterans who know what good thinking looks like, who bring years of pattern recognition and judgment, and can use AI to sharpen their output. They have the experience to spot logical gaps, recognize weak arguments, and know when something sounds good to their ears but feels wrong in their gut.
Getting great content out of AIs is difficult. It takes a lot of work and rework. Just imagine walking up to a smart person on the street and saying “make me an adventure” and expecting it to be anywhere near good. In the hands of experts, though, I think you could get great content. And, you could probably get more content. — Cote, The AI Apprentice’s Adventures
Newer writers often stop at the first prompt because the output looks clean and convincing. The challenge is that polish isn’t the same as insight or depth. Without the judgment that comes from wrestling with ideas and words over time, it’s harder to see when the model is basically just winging it.
This reality is the defining rule of the AI age. Computing has always relied on its shorthand maxims, starting with the 1960s classic: Garbage in, garbage out. AI has simply added its own corollary: Wisdom in, resonance out.
AI doesn’t invent wisdom; it mirrors the quality of the mind engaging with it. Thin prompts yield thin answers. But when you bring experience, nuance, and constraint, the system reflects that back with greater fidelity. In the end, the limiting factor isn’t the model. It’s the judgment of the person using it.
AI as Sparring Partner
The real promise of AI is not as a replacement for thinking, but as its most rigorous catalyst yet. Used well, it forces you to test your thinking instead of skating past it. You have to question what it gives you, push on the weak spots, and decide what actually holds. The tool widens your field of view, but the judgment is still yours.
Use it as a sparring partner and the ideas get sharper. Most people don’t push that far, and that’s where the trouble starts.
Those who get the most out of AI aren’t offloading the thinking. They’re pushing it further. The risk is the urge to take the shortcut.
Garbage thinking still produces garbage writing. AI just hides it better.
Leave a comment