AI & how this site is written

The thinking here is mine. The arguments, the positions, the evidence, and the judgements about what is true and what is worth saying always come from me.

I also use AI tools in my writing. I use LLMs to help me draft, edit, restructure, and pressure-test my thinking. Sometimes, this is a first draft to react against, a second opinion on an argument, or an editor who never gets tired of having one more look. This site’s copy, including this statement, was made in this way, shaped in conversation with an AI assistant, then revised and approved by me.

What does not come from AI is the substance. I don’t outsource my views, and I don’t publish claims I haven’t checked. Where facts, figures, or attributions appear, they are mine and verified. Where I don’t know something, I find it out rather than let a tool fill the gap. The voice is mine because the thinking and arguments that built the draft are mine, and so are the revisions, as I keep only what sounds like me and says what I mean.

Writing succeeds when it achieves what the writer set out to do. The purpose of the writing on this site is that you can use it to learn something, to reflect, to take an idea into your own practice, or to pick up a resource and adapt it. That is the standard I hold this work to. My criteria are: ‘Does this writing achieve its goal? Are ideas communicated clearly, accurately, and ethically? The tools I use give me more time to spend on the judgement that matters.

I work this way openly because I write about AI and equity, and I hold myself to the standard I argue for: that using these tools well is a matter of judgement and disclosure, not concealment. Access to them isn’t evenly distributed, and pretending they played no part would misrepresent both the work and the moment we’re in. Where AI’s role in a particular piece goes beyond the drafting and editing described here, I say so in that piece.