In early November, I ruffled some feathers. I made a couple of posts about. AI and how it should and should not be used. The first one was me saying that telling AI to act like a doctor makes it as much a doctor. As selling George Clooney. To act like a doctor. But the second post. The second post. Really got under a lot of people's skin. Where I said, using AI to write your book. Is like using a car. To run a marathon. Now I'll admit that maybe that's not a perfect analogy.
But one of the people who I got in the spirited debate with was my good friend, Alistair McDermott over at the recognized authority. And he suggested we act like true podcasters in gentlemen. And get on an episode. And have a debate. And so we recorded it on his channel over on his live stream. And he provided me with the audio. So in this very special bonus episode of how I built it, I'm going to give you the debate that Allister and I had, I think it's really good.
Uh, I don't want to spoil anything, but there are points where we fully agree and points where we agree to disagree as we continue. To hash out and fully bake our thoughts on this very new landscape. For business owners and creators. So I hope you enjoy this episode. This bonus episode, this debate. Between me and Allister McDermott. Let's get into the intro. And then the debate. Hey everybody, and welcome to How I Built It, the podcast where you get free coaching calls from successful creators.
Each week you get actionable advice on how you can build a better creator business to increase revenue and establish yourself as an authority in your field. I'm your host, Joe Casabona. Now let's get to it.
Hello and welcome to the recognized authority. I'm Alistair McDermott and my guest is Joe Casabona. Today, we are going to discuss can and should we use AI to write for us? Welcome, Joe.
Thanks for having me, Alistair. I'm excited to
talk about this. Joe, you are somebody who's been on the show before you were on, I think it was episode 36. Yeah. Episode 36 back in October of 2021. So two years later, uh, we're here again chatting. And so you have ruffled some feathers with what you've been saying about AI on LinkedIn and people are blocking you and stuff like that because you're, uh, you're really poking poking folks. So can you tell me a little bit about what you said about AI and let's get into it.
Yeah. So this was, so the impetus for this chat was actually, uh, the second apparently inflammatory post I've made about AI. Uh, the first one. Was, um, telling AI to act like a doctor with 20 years experience makes it a doctor as much as telling George Clooney to act like a doctor makes him a doctor. People got real mad at that. Um, and so I decided to follow it up with, I saw a post somewhere in some community. about how this person was writing 25, 000 words a month using AI.
And I'm like, well, that means you're not writing 25, 000 words a month. AI is writing some of those words. And so I posted across social media saying I used AI to write my book or I use AI to write a blog post a day is like saying. I used my car to run a marathon, and a lot of people, uh, got mad that you and I had a spirited debate on that post.
We certainly did. I think that the analogy is not perfect, like all analogies, but there is some truth to what you're saying as well. So that's why I wanted to get you on the show and to just chat about it, rather than just blocking you, you know?
Yeah, absolutely. Right. Reason. I'm all about reasonable discourse. And so when someone is being unreasonable, I, I no longer go for it. So the, the, in, in one case, this person just liked to hear themselves talk. And so I would say something and then they would say something and then I would respond and then they would respond with a non sequitur. And I'm like, well, you're not worth arguing with. Because you are not, we're not arguing, right? Or we're not debating, whatever you want to say.
Uh, but yeah, you and I point counterpoint, right? Reasonable discourse.
Well, of course, as podcasters, you know, we, we do like to talk a little bit as well.
Yes. I won't, I won't deny that. I like hearing myself talk, but usually I like hearing myself talk about whatever is relevant in the conversation.
So let's talk about this then. Um, all right. So let's talk about the first one, right? I'm using AI to write my book. Or I'm using AI to write a blog post a day. Yeah. And you're saying that's like I'm using my car to write a marathon, to run a marathon. But, so the issue for me is, well, you can be using AI to help write something and it not be like getting in your car at the start of a marathon and just driving to the end line, right? You can actually use it in a way.
And so when you dig into the nuance, you, you, you really do need to dig in to figure out how they're actually using it because it's possible to write something. I mean, you can't like, you can just give chat GPT a bunch of prompts and have it spit back out. An extremely mediocre, almost by definition, mediocre, because it's kind of the average of all of the information that it's learned is what it's outputting. So, but yeah, and I think that most people who are using it to create content.
I would like to say aren't using it that way or definitely shouldn't use it that way,
right? Yeah, so this is where I think we're in agreement. And yes, my so this makes my post ambiguous, right? Because, um, I envision, I've like the example I told you where someone was right. I'm writing 25, 000 words a day, a week or a month, whatever with with AI. I've also talked to people who are like, Oh, yeah, I've used AI to write full chapters of my book. And I'm like, you didn't write the book then, like you didn't write that chapter. If those are not your words, you didn't write it.
And so like, if you use your car to drive to where the marathon is happening, and then you run the 26 miles, no argue, no bones about that, right? Absolutely. Definitely use your car. Uh, unless you're like a maniac who like runs to the marathon and then runs the marathon. I know people like that, but let's say most of us are normal human beings. You're going to drive yourself to the starting line, right?
Just like use AI for research, ideation, outlining, maybe, maybe giving you a jump off point. Those are fine, right? Because then you're going to take that raw material. And turn it into your words and your book and I don't have a problem. I do that. I do that. So I don't have a problem with that per se,
right? So the issue for me is if, if, if somebody is saying that they're refusing to use AI to help with the process of content creation. I think that as a content creator, that is like an accountant saying, Oh, I don't use spreadsheets or calculators. You know, I think you're absolutely nuts not to use AI, uh, because of how much that it can help and support us. And the way that I feel about it is it can make somebody who is good at producing good content.
It can make them much more effective and efficient. at creating good content and maybe even raise the quality of that good content up a notch because it's able to do things much faster. Like some of the stuff that some of us might see as BS, like spelling and grammar and things like that, they need to be done right. But, you know, we don't like to be, you know, going around fixing that kind of stuff when we could be writing a new chapter or coming up with new ideas.
So that's where it is for me is like, I think you're nuts if you're not using it for that.
Yeah, agree wholeheartedly, right? I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. In fact, um, I have a course on LinkedIn Learning called Generative AI for Podcasters. And I talk about everything that you can use generative AI for. One of those things is creating a listener avatar for your show. And let me tell you, I did this for my show to see what it would come up with. And if I didn't know AI generated it, I would have thought they were describing a real person.
Uh, and so that gives me clarity for who I'm talking to, especially in the beginning, right? If I don't have an audience, I need somebody to talk to until I build that audience. And so, I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. I used AI this morning to write a press release.
'cause I don't think I can write press releases and they, I don't know, maybe they're just more factual than blog posts and then like, I'm having a friend punch it up for me to make it not sound like ai, but I don't, I wouldn't say I wrote that press release. Right. I would say I used AI to write a press release.
You see, now we're getting into semantics and Yeah. The, the that's, that's, I I, I hate when these arguments get into semantic. Now, I think when I see AI creating stuff like, and I'm going to read something that AI wrote. So are you ready to unlock the clandestine power of AI and delve into a realm of endless possibilities in the modern digital landscape, staying ahead as the new normal, unlock the secrets of, I think that that is such BS. That is just crap content.
And I hope you didn't get any of that in your shoes. I mean, you can use AI to write good content that doesn't sound like that. And, and that's where, like, that's where I, I, I worry. Cause I see a lot of people using it and creating rubbish content. And then I see people saying things that sound like, don't use AI. And that's, that's my concern is like, well, yeah, do use it, but use it in the right way.
Use it judiciously. I think, I think we both, and we kind of came to this conclusion ahead of time, right? I think we both are closer. In our beliefs than we initially thought, right? Uh, there was another person who commented saying, like, If my audience can't tell the difference between what I write and what AI wrote, Why am I going to waste my time? And I, very bluntly said, That's a problem with you, not your audience.
Like, if you can't, If you can't write in your own voice, Or a voice that's differentiated from whatever you just read there about clandestine something somethings. Right? That means that you're a bad writer. And if I'm a bad runner, and I want to get better at running, I'm not going to drive everywhere. I'm going to run more. If I don't care about writing, fine. But I'm also not going to call myself a writer.
I think that one thing that is super important to me is using AI to get faster and more efficient. And be more productive. And I, I, a friend of mine challenged me to go and quantify, because there's, there's a great book. I think it's called how to measure anything, but he said, can you quantify how much AI is, how much more effective it's making a more efficient. And it was making me about 40 percent more efficient at writing content, creating content.
See, now, now we got to get specific about the words that we use here. Yeah. Um, but I'm still writing that content and the ideas are still coming from me. Even though it's applying a lot of the grunt work, and this is where, you know, um, like, I, I think of, like, if this was okay, I just made some, I just made some lamb kebabs in the kitchen, right? I was talking to you. I was down. I went downstairs cooking and I left the marinating. So when I was, when I went down to cook those.
I chopped some onions in a, uh, a spinning, uh, chopping, uh, device. I don't know what you'd call it, but it basically shredded the onions down super quick in like five seconds. Boom. Done. I wouldn't have made it back in time for this call if I had done it manually. So, uh, so is that to say that I didn't cook that meal? You know? So no, it's just, I used a tool that made me more effective. That's, that's the point. Like, I still decided what I was going to make, you know?
Yeah, but, so, but I think, right, where we are, we are, we are different, differing in our analogy is, my analogy was more like you going to a restaurant, buying lamb kebabs. And then saying, I made these, right? Yeah.
Okay. Right. That's my road. Yeah. The other issue that comes into this, when it comes into like writing and creating content is there is a learning process that occurs in your brain when you write. Because you have to formulate the thoughts and put those thoughts together.
And this is where I could see it potentially being dangerous for people who are not experts in the field, because if they're using AI to generate and to write for them, they're not going through that learning process where they're actually putting the ideas together in their head. And, um, I think another friend of mine said something like. Editing is learning or editing is thinking, I can't remember something, something like that.
It could be, could be Jonathan Stark or something like that, but the idea that, so the idea is, you know, if you already have great ideas and you've thought a lot about your topic and you've maybe written about it, then using AI can really speed up what you're doing. But if you're not at that stage, then it may be.
Potentially going to damage the journey that's that's a real concern for me for somebody who's trying to become an expert on an authority in their field, which is something that I think a lot about. How do you think about that?
Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly, right? And like I have. So I have three small kids, right? There are 63 and two, um, my three year old. Can do, can do thing, more things at three than my oldest could do at three. And it's not about aptitude and it's not about skill. It's that my wife and I did more for our oldest because we didn't think she could do it. So we just did it for her instead of telling her to do it herself or try it herself.
Whereas, we learned, and with our son, he tries to, he tries to do something first. We make him try to do it first. And so he developed the skill faster. So when you're talking about, you know, using AI to do things. Instead of doing it yourself, that's exactly what I thought of. If I'm tying my shoes for my daughter, she's never going to learn how to tie her shoes.
So then the question becomes, well, what if we have a society, and we'll take that analogy, where we have machines that will just tie our shoes for us? And it's super simple and very quick. Do we ever need to learn how to tie our shoes?
Yeah, that's a good question. Right. Or maybe we just all wear Crocs like in the movie Idiocracy. Right. Um, which Crocs was not known when that movie was made. I don't know if you know this. Here's a quick tangent. Uh, Uh, the wardrobe designer for Idiocracy was looking for just kind of generic futuristic looking shoes and they found this little known company, um, and it was Crocs. And they're like, these, nobody will wear these ever, like they're so hideous.
And now they're probably the most common shoe. Um, everybody in my house has
them. Yeah, the product
placement that did it. No, it wasn't, it like wasn't even product placement. She just sourced the shoes for the movie. Crazy, right? Um, so I mean maybe the movie helped it get big, but it was not known, and the wardrobe designer didn't think. Anybody would be wearing them. That's why they went with those shoes. Um, point being, right. Uh, my father in law thinks a lot about that with maps, right? He like knows how to read a real map and I don't.
Um, and you know, he's like, if an EMP ever goes off. Most of the world is screwed. Unlike me, wholeheartedly. Like, if computers didn't exist, I'd be dead. Basically. Um, And so, I think a lot about that, right? Like, are we moving towards some futuristic, like, WALL E esque world where we're all in, like, these movable chairs and we're all fat and just watching TV because we don't need to do anything because machines do it all for us. Like, do we lose humanity at that point?
Like, do we lose our humanity at that point?
Yeah. And, uh, you know, I mean, maybe that's just beyond the scope of what we're talking about because it's just, that's like,
that's so far. Yeah. That's a real heavy, to get that heavy.
Um, but I mean, like, I'm sure that people said the same thing when the calculator was created, you know? Oh, people aren't going to do maths in their head anymore. And that's, you know, that's.
Uh, I even heard somebody talking about, I think it was Erasmus, the philosopher, uh, and mathematician, uh, complained when the printing press was invented that there was going to be too much content created and that the quality of content was go, was going to, uh, be mediocre and that, that it would be harder for good quality content to surface. And that was, you know, when was that? The 1600s. So, um, I'm showing my, my terrible history here with not knowing the date of that. No, that's
accurate
though. Uh, I'm sorry. No, it was the 1400s. The printing press was invented like the same year Leonardo da Vinci was born. And I only know that cause I just started reading Walter Isaacson's book on Leonardo da Vinci.
Yes. Right. And he's a fascinating character. And, and, uh, I've been in his house that he had in, um, in France. Uh, he, he lived beside the French King in, um, in the lower valley. Oh yeah. Fascinating place to visit. Um, but now that's a tangent. So the, so whenever this new technology has come along, people, people are saying, okay, the, you know, the, the end is nigh, but let's talk about the practicalities.
Yes. The, the situation where somebody wants to use AI to write when, when is it a good idea to use it? When is it not a good idea to use it?
Yeah, I think, I think like with any technology we are learning. We're learning, right? It's a new technology. And so, uh, just like when phones first came out, it didn't have all of the screen time, focus, filters, parental controls that we have now. So we're definitely in like the, call it the AI renaissance. Maybe we're all trying to, maybe it's pre Renaissance, right? Cause Renaissance is like the really good age, right? But so we're like pre Renaissance, we're just trying stuff now.
Um, and so I'm taking a very hard line skepticism of people who say, Oh yeah, you can literally use AI for anything. Because I think that what we can't use AI for is, is anything that requires the human element. telling stories, writing, right? If I just want, here's an example, right? I tried this, right? Cause I'm not just like someone who says, don't do it. And I'm not going to try it. I'm going to try it. So I wrote a primer for AI. So I prompted.
Chat GPT for, and I said, write me a 700 word blog post, basically explaining AI and large language models. And like, obviously it got the facts right. I knew the facts already because I had done my own research. Um, I had done my own reading on the topic. Uh, but it was just like a flat telling of what AI is. And so I had to punch it up. I talked about Star Wars and I added my own personal anecdotes. And what I kept from that blog post.
Was basically like two bulleted lists, uh, of like what large language models are and, and some ideas that you, that you could use for them. Did I, did I write that blog post? I wrote, I don't know, 90 percent of it. Um, and so would people read it if I just took what ChatGPT gave me and, and published it? I don't think so, because there's no hook. There's nothing that grabbed me.
So what if you asked it to add a hook?
It still wouldn't be my hook, right? Like it would be like,
Then you can say, you know, I don't like that hook. Give me three other options. What about using the hook that does something else and suggest one?
It's still not me writing it. Right. It's still not my voice. Right. And so
you see that that's. That's the question. I mean, you can, like the way that I use it, I use it in a very iterative way. So I'll get feet, I'll, I'll get output and I'll say, um, I don't like that call to action. I don't like that opening hook. I suggest me another hook or use this as a hook. And, and am I not then writing
it? No, I don't think you are. You're telling someone else to write it. The chat GPT is basically your ghost writer.
Yeah. So, I mean, that's the question. And like, I think they're like, there becomes, there becomes a line. And I think that this is a spectrum where. If you iterate on something enough times and ask for enough changes, that it becomes your words. I mean, it has to,
but they're not your words,
right? Well, I don't know about that. I mean, it's someone else's
words. That you extracted from the large language model.
Yeah, so, I mean, the, I mean, I guess this is where we disagree, because I think that at some point, like, it's a question of what are you feeding in? Like what are the instructions and how detailed are those instructions you're feeding in, in terms of asking you to generate something, because some people will feed in a one line prompt, some people will feed in a 10 line prompt, some people will will feed in a five line prompt, and you know, 3000 words that they've already written.
Generated somehow, for example, both of us, uh, probably generate a lot of words through, uh, through podcast transcripts. So we could take the transcript of this conversation and I could say, just pull out Alistair's side of this conversation. Now go through Alistair's, uh, what Alistair said and summarize that. Give me a detailed summary of that. Now write that as a blog post, right? Are you saying that's, that's me writing that or not writing
that? Okay. No, I wouldn't say you're writing it. I would say it's your words being used, right?
You see, that to me sounds like semantics because...
But it's the difference between like a biography and an autobiography, right?
Um, yeah, I guess maybe we're not going to agree on this because I think that... Having a biography, I guess it's kind of like maybe it's an authorized biography where the, where the person is standing over the shoulder of the writer and saying, Hey, yes, I do. Or I don't, you know? Right.
Yeah. I, yeah. Right. Isaacson interviewed, uh, he didn't interview Steve jobs early in our da Vinci, obviously, but he interviewed a bunch of people who knew him and then has footage and all this and put something together for the Steve jobs book. We'll say. I wouldn't, even though a lot of those words are probably Steve Jobs and it's his life, I wouldn't say Steve Jobs wrote that. Yeah.
So, so, okay. Apart from the fact that we, we maybe, uh, are in disagreement over that, where I think it's important is, is like right now, this is not that important. I think because The words that it's generating without any editing are just not good enough to pass for human. Yeah, we, we, we wholly agree on that. Yes. But at some point they will, at some point it's going to get good enough for us to, to not be able to tell, or for, you know, 99 percent of us not to be able to tell. Right.
I think you're probably right about that.
And then we have other things that come along like custom GPTs. I did a live stream about this last week where I made a custom uploaded four of my books to it. So I now have a custom chat GPT bot that knows what I've said about a topic and knows my writing style. So if I then say, you know, um, give me a, you know, give me a blog post about this topic based on what I wrote in that book. It's able to create a new blog post that kind of synthesizes the ideas from that.
And it's, and it's going to be in a fairly close, it's still not going to be perfect, but it's going to be fairly close to what I said.
It's going to be, yeah, it's going to be fairly close to what you said, but it's not going to be what, it might not be what Alistair in 2023 would write. Because since you wrote those books, I know one, you just wrote around this time last year, but those previous books will say. You were a different person, right? Some people say that we change every two years, right? Like yeah, you look back at yourself two years ago, and you feel like you're a different person.
So That's where AI and chat GPT will always fail, right? It could have all the words I've ever written But when I'm 40 years old, two years from now, I'm gonna have an A preteen and two and two other small children and I might be living in a different house and I'll have a bunch of different life experiences that I will use to relate my ideas to other people.
And so I think I wanna, I wanna say this thought before I lose it, because when you were talking about prompting and iterating, it's the, I think that's the difference between like being a visionary. And being the actual worker, right? Steve again. Well, I'll just use Steve Jobs again. I guess Steve Jobs was a visionary for the iPhone, but no one would ever say he physically made the iPhone, right? Because he, he got it. He tested it.
A bunch of people provided feedback and the iPhone that came out was from innovations from engineers. And it was really the first thing of its kind to take this example one step further. You saw a lot of copycats after that, right? That weren't as good as the iPhone or whatever. Pick your favorite phone, I guess. Um, weren't as good as the iPhone, uh, but were imitations based on what they knew about the iPhone. So I, I, I'm.
Maybe pulling together an analogy here, um, that's not, that's kind of half baked, but, you know, I think it's kind of the difference between, like, the visionary doing the work, and then, like, copying the original work.
Yeah, so, I guess, I'm, like, I'm trying to, I'm still trying to figure this out, because, for example, I, when I drive, I sometimes narrate and record or dictate, and quite often I will do that into the otter app on my phone.
So I use audio pen. Yeah.
Yeah. And so what I'll do is I'll, I'll record some stuff in there and I'll like, that might be an idea for a blog post or it could be for a podcast episode or just something about my to do for, for the day. But quite often I'll take that text and run it through chat GPT and I'll say, clean this up, uh, give it to me in bullet points or give it to me in the form of a table. Um, you know, I asked her for that today.
I was, I was looking at updating a product and I said, I want, I want you to give me the, you know, the new pricing and the new, uh, product features in the, in the form of a table. So that, that kind of thing, like where I'm dictating in, like I feel, well, that's me writing. You know, um, even if it does some significant cleanup, those ideas are still coming from me and not only that, but when it's doing the cleanup, the cleanup that it's doing is based on my suggestions.
It's not like it's coming up with, if I say, you know what I want you to, uh, you know, that's too wordy. Like the one I like, I always say, make it more concise, more directly written and remove filler and fluff. Right. And when it does that, lo and behold, it starts to sound a lot more like I write. And I don't know if that's because of like, I write more, more tersely because of an engineering background or whatever, but I tend not to write in, in, in that kind of way where it's quite wordy.
So, but, but I feel like I am writing when I, when I, when I give it those instructions, because what's coming out is my ideas in my voice, sounding like me. Uh, and, and has been edited by me, maybe through an, an iterative editing process where I talk to the AI. And by the way, quite literally, I mean, uh, I use chat GPT on my phone where I use the voice dictation input feature. So quite often I'm actually having a conversation literally where I'm speaking to it.
Uh, and, and yet I feel like I'm writing that and, and I think that maybe this is a semantics thing, but, uh, you know, do you, do you disagree with me?
I, well, they're definitely your ideas. Right. I would, when I do this with audio patent, right, and maybe I'm not using the right tool. Right. Um, I never feel like what it comes up with is suitably me. Right. It takes what I say, and it turns it into some language. And if it's just like a social post, like, maybe I don't care. Maybe I'll just throw that up.
But I have very rarely felt like what I got back from an AI Was something that I felt I couldn't have done a better job writing or editing, right? And so, um, this is probably, this is obviously very subjective. Um, I think that, I think that if you are dictating the words, Right? This could be semantics, right? If you listen to a bunch of books on Audible, are you reading those books? Right? Or like you're cheating a little bit, right?
Because like you can listen to it at 1x and you're hearing it faster than, than you're reading it and maybe, but maybe you're not comprehending it as well either, right? So, um, Like, I think that we need to consider what we're losing with the shortcut. And so if you're dictating and iterating and you eventually get something that's good, what have you given up to get to that point? I think that's probably, and that's gonna be
different for everybody. So, right, to take the argument that you made an argument, which is effectively The output that I've seen so far isn't good enough. Now, my counterpoint to that is, that's irrelevant because at some point soon it will be good enough. Whether that's chat GPT 5 or GPT 4. 1 or whatever.
At some point that output is probably going to be good enough for, you know, 99 percent of Of uses now, I think that, you know, there's always going to be that last, the last 1 percent that it's, it's never going to going to, um, that it's never going to get to in terms of quality of output. Now, what I'm talking about here, by the way, is in writing style. Uh, I think that in terms of actually formulating and having new ideas, And synthesizing new ideas from nothing.
I think that that's like, that's not generative AI. That's not, you know, chat GPT and those models, there might be some other type of, of AI that comes along and can do that, but, but that's not really what we're talking about here. Right.
Right. Yeah. And in this moment, right, the thing I'm running with now is, is you talking at an AI and coming up with some writing and then you iterating over that. Right. I think you're probably right. Right. Especially with these GP, like these custom GPTs, I could feed. One, I've been writing on the internet for 20 years, right? Now, the way I wrote in 20, in 2003, was very bad. Uh, so maybe I give it the last five years of me writing. It's probably gonna do a pretty good job.
A pretty decent facsimile. Of how I would write something right and I still wouldn't say I wrote it because I didn't write it right. It's I covered the 26 miles, but I didn't run it. So I shouldn't be celebrated for it. I think that's the big thing,
right? Yeah. And so for me, if I, if I dictate for an hour. As I'm driving on a topic, right? And let's say I dictate an hour is about, um, like 000 words, something like that. Maybe, maybe not, not that many, but in a somewhere around that, right. And if I dictate for an hour about a topic and I, and I come up, but let's say it's 8, 000 words. Yeah. And then I put that through generative AI, it mightn't go through chat, GPT might be too much for that.
Um, but I boil that down and I clean that up and I use it to reformat it and put in the nice headings and things like that. My argument is I wrote that. Those ideas came from me. The, the, the order that things came in came from me, the ideas. And the fact that I had an editor come around afterwards, humans have been doing that forever, where we've been giving content to editors and getting them to clean up after us. We're still saying we wrote it. This
is the most, this is your most compelling argument, right? Because you've put in an hour's worth of work. And like, yeah, my book, my last book, right. Uh, uh, HTML and CSS, a visual quick start guide. I wrote, I say, I wrote that book. I'm the only author on that book, but my editor reworded large swaths of that book. And this was actually something I wrestled with. I was like, can I even say I wrote this? Like he rewrote this basically. Can I say I wrote it?
Um, but ultimately we both like, that's the job he's in. Right. We both agreed. That I wrote it because I put together the outline, I ordered everything, I wrote the code, I put the ideas down, and then he restructured it in the format of that book
series. And the other argument there is, if you hadn't done your part, then your editor could not have done their part. You're right,
he would not have been able to do his part. And,
and, and, and so the issue right now is, is I think that what we are creating with AI for the most part, if you're an expert in your field, what you are going to create with AI is going to be vastly different than somebody who is not an expert in the field because they're not going to know when it gives you some sort of mediocre, bland output that that isn't good enough. Right.
Whereas an expert will look at the output and say, actually, it's missing something really fundamental or something that I feel is fundamental to my distinct point of view on this topic. And once you add that, then I think you've got something valuable. And then it, it, it, it then goes to the kind of like the value pricing versus hourly pricing discussion where, um, and, and just to summarize that really quickly, the, um, the, that argument is you shouldn't bill people.
Hourly because it shouldn't matter how long something takes. It should matter how valuable the output is to to your client. And in fact, like, for example, if I'm editing a video for somebody, let's say it takes me two hours and I'm able to find a tool that lets me do it in one hour. Should I continue to do it the slow way and charge them twice as much? And that's where the ethics of hourly billing come in. And that's why Jonathan Stark talks about that on his show, Ditching Hourly.
Um, but so, so in the same way, like, You know, should we avoid using these tools that help us to do these things much quicker? I mean, and, and, um, I think that there's a connection between those concepts. So I haven't articulated that very well, but I think that, you know, that the like, we shouldn't necessarily have to do things the slow way in order to claim the value of the work. It should be about the value of the output. And is this good? I put not.
Did you write this or did you run the marathon manually? Like if it depends on the goal, right? If the goal is to run the marathon in order for to have the achievement of the health and the fitness, then that's one thing. If the goal is to get 26. 12 miles, yeah, 26. 1. Yeah. If the goal is to just travel a, to be 26. 1 miles, then yeah, if we can, you know, if we, if we can use a jet pack to get there, um, we, we've got there in the end. So that's all that matters.
You know, that's, that, that's my argument on that is like, it's what's the value of the
26.
2. Okay. I should, I should know this. I volunteered at Dublin Marathon two weeks ago. Um, anyway, uh, So, so yeah, so, so for me, it's, it's like, what's the value of the output and, and is the output. And then I guess the argument is who's, who are we talking about the value to, are we talking about the value to the consumer of the, of the output or to the creator of the output? Because then it brings back in the issue of learning from the writing process. Right.
And that wraps back around to what we talked about at the start learning from writing.
Yes. And I, I, I think you're right. Right. Again, like if, if your goal is just to cover the distance, do whatever you need to do to cover the distance. Right. But I don't think just covering the distance. Should be celebrated. I think this is really where I'm at, right? If someone's gonna wear the badge of honor for doing a marathon, for running a marathon, then they need to run it. Just like if somebody is wearing the badge of, I authored this book, right?
Then they need to Let's take your dictated example, right? I will, I will cede this point to you. They need to get all of the ideas down there. The book needs to be fully their ideas. They can't say chat GPT. I'm writing a book about podcasting. Chapter one is how to start a podcast. Right that chapter and then slap their name on it. This is I am I am Unmoving in that opinion.
Okay. So what about they say chapter one is going to be you know How to write a pot how to create a podcast here are The five sections I'm going to have in this chapter, can you think of anything I might have missed?
That's ideation and I think it's, I think chat, GBT is, or AI in general is great for
that. Mm-Hmm. Yeah. And, and so what we're talking about then, like, see there's a lot of nuance to this really. There's a lot there.
This argument there is just like, I, I mean like nothing's black and white, right? Mm-Hmm. like, um, but there is, right? Am I, am I cheating by wearing running shoes? In a marathon? No. It'd be crazy to run barefoot.
Do you know that there are running shoes that have these kind of composed blades of carbon that actually make you run faster? That costs lots and lots of money, but that Oh, no, I didn't know that. Yeah, they've helped them break the two hour mark on the marathon. Yeah. So, um, so there you go. I don't know. I don't know how long a marathon is, but I know that you can get shoes that, that will actually make you faster. Right. Yeah.
Well, it's just like, you know, in baseball, right. Is, is taking performance enhancing drugs, cheating. Like can you, can you say you hit those, you still have the mechanics. I don't know. Yeah.
Yeah. And, and yeah, okay. That, that's a whole, a whole thing. Are we using performance enhancing
AI? You know? Yeah. Yeah, exactly. So, yeah. But I would say for your example, like I use, I use chat GPT for. Ideation all the time because I'm just me and that's what it's great for, right? Because it has all of this information at your fingertips. So I think that that example is great. You're essentially in training mode at that point, right? If we're going to beat this analogy to death.
Then the next step there is, so we're using it for, we're using it for ideas and then are we. Are we using it to, uh, what's the word? Um, so, so if, if we're using it, like we're saying, Hey, oh, I forgot that. Please, please add that to the list and write a section on it. And at that point, you're saying it's moving out of ideation into writing it for you.
Right. Right. Because now it's thought of it and is doing the work for you. Right. If it's just like, Oh, I forgot that like, Oh, live shows is a way to make money with podcasts. Yeah. But, and then I say, write a section on live, that's not like, that's not me
anymore. If, if you know that, if you know, live shows inside out and you get it to write that and they say, Oh, you know, and this is, this is actually my point is ultimately it should be about the human doing the QA, the quality assurance on the products.
On the output and if we have the human doing the quality assurance, the key way on everything that it outputs and that human being signs off and says, yes, I, you know, I put my stamp of approval by by publishing this or doing whatever I do then.
Like, surely that's, you've written it because you, you, you have brought most of the ideas to the table, you've edited it using whatever tool you used, be it, you know, a text editor or a magnet to use the ones and zeros manually, if you really want to do that, you know, but you've, you've edited it in some way and then you've, uh, you've, you've QA'd it by going over it and then you've published it. So, but, but I think, where's the,
where's the line there? I, so I think at that point, right? Cause are, so let me ask you, are, are your books all self published?
Uh, I have, uh, I have one book that is hybrid. One book is commercially published and the rest are self published.
Okay, cool. So, so, you know, the commercial publishing process, which is author writes the book, send it to copy editor. Or let's say prime editor one. If it's a technical book, then it goes to the technical editor. Then it goes back to prime editor and back to you. Then it goes to a second copy editor. The process you just described, in my mind, removes the author completely. ChatGPT wrote it. We're sending it to an editor. We're sending it to a tech editor. And then we
have a book. Yeah, I, I, I didn't remove it in, in my head. I didn't remove it because the person writing it was the person who gave those initial ideas. Just like in your example where. You, you wrote it and your editor fixed it.
But, but like if, I mean, if I just say chat GPT, write a chapter and then I give it a quick once over and send it to my editor.
So what if it's not a quick once over? What if, what if you then say, uh, okay, section. 8 should be removed. We don't need those. Um, you missed out on this topic entirely. Please add that into the list. And then I don't agree with what you said on, on section 1. 4. So please update it to say this. And by the way, that's a very realistic sounding example of what I've done with. That kind of I put,
I think at that point you might as well just write it yourself.
Well, you see, my argument is no, you shouldn't because then like that, that's, that's like going to the farmer and saying, Hey, get out of that tractor and here's a spade and do your entire field manually. It's so much quicker not to do that.
I think it's, I think, I think that's a different knowledge. This is the hard part of what we're doing with our real world analogies, right? Knowledge work. Is very different from manual labor with knowledge work. It's, it is our knowledge that is the work. And so like by saying, chat, GBT, write something. Oh, I don't like these things. Change that. I still don't think the human did writing. They just kind of said, do, do that, right? It's the difference between the
visionary and the worker. It's it's my argument is maybe the human didn't write it, but they might as well have, because the output, the quality of the output is going to be the same. And, and I
don't think the, I don't feel like the quality of the output is the same, right? Because you can't tell chat GPT, Hey, um, to drive home my point here. I want to tell a story about how, um, I refuse to record a podcast with somebody who wasn't wearing headphones. Tell that story, like I would tell it. Chat GPT could never do that. Right?
So I think, like, Unless you give it the details of the story. Unless
you write the story for it.
Well, you tell it the story, right? Sure.
You write it and then Joe,
this is gonna be super long if we don't agree to disagree.
We're gonna, yeah, we, we Respectfully agree to disagree
here. Yeah. I'm going to bring up a comment. Uh, we have a comment on a LinkedIn. Brian, I use chat GPT to research the fundamentals of my profession, which is management consulting. In my experience, most managers have never mastered the fundamentals. Much like many people, I include myself who never measured the fundamentals of golf. Um, yeah, so, uh, Researching fundamentals and researching and learning.
So learning and ideation are, are, are something that we, we certainly can agree on that we should be using it for that. Absolutely. Absolutely. I think, I think where, where we differ is the level. And I like the term assistive AI, uh, because that's the way I think that we should be using, we should be using it to the heavy lifting, like in, in the terrible analogies. And just like all analogies, no, no analogy is perfect. But I think that, uh, you know, some analogies are better than others.
And it's hard to find analogies for this just because of what it is. But, you know, um, yeah. The way that I see it, we should be using it to assist us and not replace us. And I think that it's going to be a very long time before the ideas that chat GPT can come up with.
Or whatever AI any generative AI comes up with on its own from it's it's learning data set, whatever it's trained on are going to match what an expert will come up with what it will do is help us to reformat and read and edit and tweak and, um, take a blog post and, Hey, I wrote a, I wrote a blog post on this and I want to fit it into the middle of this book. Can you tell me how to, uh, You know, like, what do I need to add? What do I need to remove?
So that this blog post can, can then become a chapter of this book. Here's the rest of the book, something like that. I feel again, I feel, well, you wrote the blog, the blog post, you wrote the book. All you're doing is you're using it as a very smart editor. I think in that scenario that, that, that it's absolutely fine to say you wrote that. That's, that, that's my perspective on
that. Yeah, I think, I think we agree on use it for a very smart editor where we disagree is. It's how hands on either the editor is or how hands on we are. Um, yeah, I, I really think that's where we differ. And for me, it's, it's really about if you're, if you're looking for me, it's really about the, the, the personal connections and experiences, right?
I, we can, I'm very confident that we'll never be able to tell AI unless there's a little, unless the humane pin is becomes a little brain chip. Right? Um, Which I just scared myself, um, we'll never be able to say, Hey, here's all of my personal experience. Now tell a story the way I, I think that it's still, that's still something that is uniquely human.
Yeah. And, and like, we shouldn't want to
do that. Right. Yeah, absolutely. Right. That's. Yeah, that goes back to our, when do we lose our humanity? Right. So
who got, this has been a, has been a fun one and it's a bit deep. Um, Joe, we're recording this. We're live streaming. We're recording this for my podcast, the recognized authority and for your podcast, how I built this. How I built it. Um, can you, can you tell listeners and viewers where to find you?
Yeah. So you can find all of my writing over at casabona. org. And of course my podcast is called how I built it. Um, and you can find that wherever podcasts are
found. Awesome. And you can find me at the recognized authority. com. Thanks for tuning in.
Thanks so much, everybody. Thanks Alistair.
Thanks Joe.
All right. I really hope you enjoyed that ad free bonus episode. Of how I built it. Slash the recognized authority. Uh, you can find allister@therecognizedauthority.com. I'll put that in the description for this episode, and I'd love to hear what you think. Let me know your thoughts on AI in writing what you thought about my arguments and Alistair's arguments. You can find me on most social media at J Casabona, or you can email me joe@casabona.org, but that's it for this episode.
Thanks so much for listening. And until next time. I get out there and build something.