This Was Written With ChatGPT
I’ve noticed a strange kind of skepticism lately. If people find out something was written with ChatGPT, they often discount it immediately, as if using AI somehow diminishes the thought behind the words.
Imagine dismissing someone’s argument simply because they found their facts through a Google search. Today, that sounds absurd. We don’t judge ideas based on whether someone used Google. We judge them based on whether the person understood what they found and used it meaningfully.
The same logic applies here.
On a recent episode of Dan Shipper’s AI & I podcast, he expressed this well:
“If I get an internal report that looks like it’s written by ChatGPT, and I did this actually last week because everyone internally is using these tools all the time, it’s not that I care that the voice sounds like ChatGPT. It’s that it’s not clear to me that the person has thought through the thing that’s being presented. And I don’t want to spend time reading something unless I know that a commensurate amount of time has been spent thinking about it first.”
That distinction matters. The issue isn’t the use of AI; it’s whether people have genuinely engaged with their ideas.
Much AI-generated content misses the mark because it’s superficial: a vague prompt, a quick response, copied without reflection. The result often feels hollow, not because of the tool, but because the user hasn’t put in the necessary effort.
Yet these tools can be used thoughtfully. They can shape rough concepts into clearer insights, suggest alternatives, raise counterpoints, and highlight overlooked assumptions. This isn’t a shortcut. It’s a more reflective way to develop complex ideas.
Another important aspect is how these tools invite people to engage who might otherwise struggle to articulate their ideas clearly. Accessibility means more than ease of use; it means enabling people who aren’t professional writers or deeply technical to communicate more effectively. The simplicity of asking a tool to guide your thinking can encourage deeper exploration and clearer communication.
When people dismiss AI-assisted writing, they’re often judging its weakest examples. It’s more meaningful to evaluate how carefully the content was developed, not merely how it was composed. The presence of an AI tool doesn’t diminish the quality of thought. It reflects the intentions and effort of the writer.
Ultimately, what matters isn’t whether someone used ChatGPT. It’s whether they’ve done the thinking. Good writing still requires clarity, intention, and thoughtful reflection. These tools don’t absolve you of that responsibility; they help you carry it forward. In many cases, they push you to engage more deeply by forcing you to confront gaps, test assumptions, and clarify your thinking from multiple angles.
Personally, I use these tools regularly and openly. They have sharpened my writing, deepened my thinking, and encouraged me to explore ideas and paths I might never have considered otherwise. I’m not embarrassed to acknowledge that. In fact, I’m proud of it. Writing with these tools hasn’t just changed how I write; it’s expanded how I think.