Disclosure on my use of ai

I owe it to you, the reader, to be honest about what I use generative artificial intelligence (ai) tools for, what I do not, and my rationale. This disclosure was last updated on October 4, 2026. I believe this is important so that you have the information you need to assess the intrinsic value, veracity, and trustworthiness of what I create.

DISCLOSURE

I do not and will not use ai to generate drafts, in full or in part, of a blog post or other document. This is the vast majority of the types of information on this website. I do not use ai to generate significant sections or paragraphs of content during rewrites.

I do use ai for proofreading and for suggesting the top ways to improve my posts. I do use ai to render images from creative briefs that I define. I use ai to generate ideas for titles, image concepts, or summary descriptions of posts I write.

I use ai for some things because I'm not good at them (like titles) or can't produce them myself (images). They aren't what I actually care about creating.

I occasionally use ai to help me understand how my ideas compare to other work, or to understand previous work done on a subject area I am writing about.

RATIONALE

I tried using ai more significantly for drafting, experimentally, in late 2025 and early 2026. But no longer. Here is why:

1. I didn't like it. No matter how much I tried, my voice and style were lost. The words I chose and the turns of phrase that provide nuance were washed away. My work was no longer authentic and it wasn't fun for me to publish something that didn't feel like my voice or my ideas.

2. I had to decide what I wanted to be and I decided I wanted to be an artist. I don't publish for commercial purposes. I don't do this for volume. I don't do this for the clicks or to sell ads. I do this because I have a point of view to share. I have something to say. I cannot be an artist if I concede the primary creative act to ai, or any other person for that matter.

3. There are deeper questions and beliefs at play too. Ai copies from the works of authors I have not paid, and that I cannot even cite. There's also the question of blurring truth and responsibility. I can't regulate the nuance of what I say or own up to it, if I let ai write it. And first and foremost, I believe the world needs novel ideas, that are brave and also strange. Ai cannot do that, because it does not have lived experience. It does not feel. It does not suffer. It does not desire anything. It does not imagine and it does not die. It does not seek free will nor can it be granted it.

4. And there of course is the ontological discomfort. Should we be conceding the act of creation to something that cannot suffer and that we cannot control? Why would I willingly give something so sacred and divine up? The act of creation is a humanizing act - it makes us more fully alive. Similar to love, joy, sex and reproduction, friendship, learning, experiencing the natural world or our faith in God. I want to give ai the parts of my life that are dehumanizing, not the ones that are most humanizing. To give up what makes us human is dangerous and has far-reaching consequences - some that are obvious to predict (a plummeting of meaning) and others that are not.

I am of the belief, after much reflection, that anyone - especially artists and any person or organization that serves people - should disclose how they use ai - so the audience and the customer can judge for themselves, decide whether they want to engage, and determine if the use of ai is humanizing or dehumanizing.

That is why I disclose this to you.

With love from Detroit,
Neil