Why Original Thinking Trumps AI Writing Tools

I have grown utterly frustrated with AI-generated writing. It permeates Substack publications, appears in LinkedIn comments, and seems to infiltrate every corner of online content. This trend feels like a creeping illness undermining our collective appreciation for authentic prose. Surprisingly, even skilled writers whom I respect are producing such material. Take, for instance, a well-known figure in the financial advisory industry who recently shared this statement:

Your dollar has forfeited 53% of its buying power in the last three decades. This isn’t some freak occurrence. It’s the inherent design of the system. Inflation goes beyond mere statistics—it’s a stealthy robber eroding your wealth.

The content itself holds merit—I concur with the sentiment—but the phrasing screams artificial intelligence authorship. That repetitive “It’s not this, it’s that” pattern stands out as a hallmark of AI involvement, particularly when deployed consecutively. The text practically announces, “It’s not crafted by a person, it’s machine-made.”

What’s even more astonishing is that those decrying AI’s influence often employ it themselves. I recently encountered an essay by a history instructor lamenting his students’ dependence on AI for assignments. He described receiving:

Approximately 400 iterations of identical essays, featuring nearly indistinguishable phrasing, organization, segues, voice, and concluding remarks.

Yet, immediately following this observation, the professor wrote:

This phenomenon extends beyond isolated instances of dishonesty. It’s the disintegration of a foundational teaching framework. The large-scale lecture format, the at-home assignment, the uniform grading criteria—all tailored to an outdated reality. AI hasn’t merely simplified plagiarism; it has rendered my whole evaluation method irrelevant.

Observe the telltale “It’s not X, it’s Y” structure, paired with a trio of elements introduced by an em-dash—a frequent AI flourish—culminating in yet another variation of the motif. Pardon my bluntness, but what on earth is happening here?

If educators critiquing AI reliance are secretly relying on it for their own output, we’re in serious trouble. When top-tier professionals in wealth management—or their support teams—lean on AI for public posts, the outlook dims further.

To clarify, the “It’s not X, it’s Y” construction doesn’t invariably signal AI assistance. However, its overuse within a single piece makes the origin unmistakable. Why do individuals share such content? Do they believe it goes undetected?

I’m not targeting specific individuals here—that’s why I’ve omitted direct references to those examples. Still, I’m disheartened by AI’s pervasive creep into professional writing circles.

This scenario echoes the plight of natural bodybuilders upon the arrival of anabolic steroids. AI functions as a potent enhancer for average writers, much like those substances, and it betrays itself through glaring indicators of use.

Yet, the true problem lies not in AI’s existence, but in its application. At its heart, the issue stems from a widespread reluctance to engage in genuine thought. People prefer delegating their mental processes to algorithms. Once that habit takes root, breaking free proves challenging.

I speak from experience. Back in early 2023, I experimented with AI to generate content on diverse subjects aimed at boosting search visibility. The results were impressive: my organic traffic surged sixfold compared to the start of the year.

However, after mere months, I abandoned the practice. As I openly confessed in a previous piece, producing content optimized solely for algorithms drained my creative spirit. I had shifted from expressing my own voice to pandering to a machine. Regaining my enthusiasm required recommitting to independent ideation.

I understand the allure of letting AI compose full articles. Authorship demands intense mental effort, and simply inputting a prompt to generate polished text offers a seductive shortcut. Resist this impulse, though. Crossing that threshold suffocates your unique style—and erodes your inner drive in tandem.

The stakes extend beyond personal fulfillment. Original thinking represents your final competitive advantage. As greater numbers surrender their reasoning to AI, envision the consequences. Will mass adoption elevate collective intelligence? Will it deepen universal understanding?

Quite the contrary. Evidence of decline already mounts. A controversy erupted at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) when disclosures showed that students entering with math proficiency below middle-school standards had ballooned nearly thirty times, now comprising about one-eighth of incoming classes. Astonishingly, a quarter of enrollees in UCSD’s foundational math program failed this basic task:

Complete the equation: 7 + 2 = ☐ + 6

The solution is 3—no tricks involved. Both sides equal 9.

If such deficiencies appear at a prestigious institution like UCSD, consider the state at less selective campuses.

No speculation needed; statistics confirm the trend. Recent coverage from the New York Times highlighted that twelfth-graders posted their lowest reading proficiency since 1992 and weakest math performance since 2005. Analysts cite various contributing factors, yet unchecked AI dependence exacerbates the crisis.

Higher education learners exhibit particularly heavy AI engagement. This graph from Sherwood News depicts ChatGPT activity waning as students depart for summer break around early June, then rebounding upon their autumn return in late August:

Elevated ChatGPT utilization alone isn’t inherently problematic. But coupled with widespread reports from instructors on plummeting critical faculties among undergraduates, it raises alarms.

My intent isn’t to fault younger generations. Rather, this serves as a cautionary signal for all of us. Excessive dependence on AI for intellectual labor risks widespread cognitive deterioration.

Thinking Remains Irreplaceable

No technology can supplant human thought—a principle enduring for years to come. AI may advance in mimicking specific skills, but total reliance leaves individuals exposed. Echoing American columnist Sydney J. Harris:

The true peril isn’t machines adopting human reasoning, but humans adopting mechanical reasoning.

This underscores why cultivating thought offers unparalleled leverage. While others delegate email composition, programming, and life planning to AI, those retaining portions of cognitive effort will prevail.

As the adage reminds us, “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man reigns supreme.”