The presence of the tool isn’t the story

I recently saw a post claiming LinkedIn may start downgrading content it detects as AI-generated. I don’t know whether this is true, but the claim raises an interesting question: Why should LinkedIn care whether AI helped create a post?

If the goal is to promote original thinking, then reward original thinking. If the goal is to promote expertise, then reward expertise. But neither of those things is determined by who—or what—helped create the first draft.

Would LinkedIn also downgrade content written by a ghostwriter? What about a freelance writer? An editor? A communications team? A marketing agency?

Most executives, founders, and public figures don’t write every word they publish. Many collaborate with editors, researchers, content marketers, and communications professionals. We generally don’t consider that deceptive. We consider it part of the process, so what makes AI different?

The more I think about it, the more it reminds me of the conversations people have about cosmetic enhancements.

“Did she get lip filler?”

“Did he use AI?”

Both questions seem to assume we’ve uncovered something important, something deceptive, but have we? If someone uses a tool because they believe it improves the outcome, why should that fact alone diminish the result?

The Tool Versus the Thinking

To me, the interesting question isn’t whether AI was used, but rather how it was used. Like cosmetic products and procedures, some people use it poorly, some people use too much. Some people use it skillfully to enhance what is already there, and some people use it intentionally to create something that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise.

That’s true of AI. It’s true of photography, design, and countless other creative tools. The presence of the tool isn’t the story, but the thinking behind it is.

I’ve been using AI much the same way I’ve used editors, researchers, freelance writers, and designers throughout my career. It helps me organize ideas, challenge assumptions, improve clarity, and accelerate execution. What it doesn’t do is replace judgment.

I still decide what is worth saying, which ideas are right, wrong, interesting, or incomplete. I still decide what reflects my experience and what doesn’t. The value was never in typing the words, but the thinking behind them.

When the Process Matters

At the same time, I don’t think all writing is the same. There are forms of writing where the writing itself is the art.

I love the poetry of Andrea Gibson but when I read it, I’m not simply consuming information. The voice, rhythm, perspective, and word choice are the work. If I learned a machine had generated those poems, it would fundamentally change my experience of them.

The same can be true of novels, essays, songs, and other forms of creative expression. In those cases, authorship matters because the creator’s voice is inseparable from the work itself.

Business writing, on the other hand, is different. Most marketing content isn’t trying to be art, it’s trying to communicate. A marketing email exists to drive action, a presentation exists to persuade, a product description exists to explain, and a sales deck exists to help someone make a decision.

In those situations, I care far less about who typed the first draft. I do care whether the ideas are useful, the argument is sound, and the communication is effective.

The Real Competitive Advantage

As AI becomes more accessible, I suspect the people who benefit most won’t be the people who refuse to use it or the people who blindly accept whatever it produces.

The advantage will belong to people with judgment, people who know what questions to ask, who can identify what is missing, and know when the output is mediocre. Someone who can recognize a good idea, improve a weak one, and discard a bad one, will continue to create better content.

Those are deeply human skills, and they are the same skills that have always separated great writers, marketers, leaders, designers, and creators from everyone else. The future isn’t about whether AI touched the content. It’s about whether a human still owns the thinking, because the presence of the tool isn’t the story. The thinking behind it is.

By the way, I wrote this in partnership with AI. We went back and forth on several versions. I didn’t love all of the copy it wrote, and it didn’t like all of my suggestions, but I think it ultimately helped me get my ideas into the world more quickly and succinctly than I could have on my own.

The tool helped shape the message. The thinking behind it is still the story.