The AI Content Debate... · The HuRU Crew

Brennan Thompson

🔥

17h • 💬 Let's Chat About It

The AI Content Debate...

(Note): Normally, I wouldn't post the same message in multiple communities, but today, I am breaking my own rule.

Two reasons: 1) I believe this matters; and 2) I was inspired by something that my friend

@Bear Gonzales

said in another community about an accusation that one of his recent stories was written by AI.

I personally, enjoy reading Bear's stories and shared wisdom whenever he posts them here in The HuRU Crew, in RECREATE or in some of the other communities that we are both in, and whether or not he uses ai to assist his thought process or writing... doesn't matter to me in the least (just my opinion). I love his messages.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For the past year (or longer), there’s been a lot of debate online about AI vs. human writing.

People argue about whether they can detect it.

They analyze sentence patterns.

They try to prove something was written by AI.

But I think we might be asking the wrong question.

The real question isn’t “Was this written by AI?”

The real question is “What is the writer trying to communicate?”

Here’s something worth remembering.

As a person deeply engaged in persuasive writing, speaking and storytelling, for decades — this much I can say with confidence:

Persuasive writing didn’t start with AI.

The patterns seen so often now, that cause many people to scream "THAT'S AI" were created by humans and used to teach the Large Language Models used by AI platforms.

Public speakers, advertisers, leaders, and storytellers have been refining language for centuries. The speeches we admire weren’t always written alone in a quiet room. Many were shaped by editors, collaborators, and speechwriters. Even iconic leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., Ronald Regan and Barack Obama, worked with teams to polish their words.

Did that make their messages less authentic?

Of course not.

Because authenticity doesn’t live in the typing process.

Authenticity lives in the idea behind the message.

AI is simply the newest tool in a long line of “polishers.”

Writers have always used help to refine their thinking—

editors, ghostwriters, coaches, collaborators.

AI just makes that kind of assistance available to everyone.

Even when AI helps generate or refine a piece of writing, the seed still comes from somewhere:

A thought.

A question.

A struggle.

An insight.

A lived experience.

The prompt still comes from a human.

So instead of spending energy trying to prove whether something was written by AI or not, maybe we should ask better questions:

Is the idea honest?

Is the experience real?

Does the message create value?

Take a moment: when you share something next, ask yourself—is this idea genuinely mine, and does it matter to others?

TL;DR:

(because I know a lot of people won't read a long post)

Authenticity isn’t about whether AI helped write something.

It's about whether the idea behind it is real.

In a world where most people are already borrowing ideas and language from what they see online every day, maybe it’s time to give this new tool a little grace.

AI isn’t replacing human thought.

It’s helping people express it.

And if someone uses it to communicate their ideas more clearly, more powerfully, or more confidently...

maybe that’s not something to fear or to belittle.

Maybe it’s just the next evolution of how we share ideas with each other.

So I’m curious...

What matters more to you:

How a message was written — or what the message is trying to say?

BTW: If you want to take a deeper dive into how to use AI effectively to become a master at content creation, let me know in the comments.

How a message is written (AI v Human)

What the message is trying to say

5 votes