I'm probably going to get some heat for this, but the AI writing space is a mess. I've been in it for 9 years, and it's time for some real talk.
I’m Sahin Boydas. You might know me as the guy who built and sold a couple of companies, RemoteTeam to Gusto and MovieLaLa to Gfycat. Or maybe as the angel investor who wrote checks to companies like Anthropic, OpenAI, Scale AI, and Hugging Face. I’ve been around the block, and I’ve seen a lot. Especially in the AI space.
Nine years ago, I started playing with the earliest forms of AI writing assistants. They were clunky, frustrating, and barely usable. Today, we have models that can write poetry, code, and entire articles. The progress is staggering. But with that progress has come a tidal wave of noise, misinformation, and frankly, bad advice. This article is my attempt to cut through it all and share what I’ve learned.
The Mess We're In
Let's be honest. The internet is drowning in a sea of bland, soulless, AI-generated content. It all sounds the same. The same robotic tone, the same predictable structure, the same empty platitudes. It’s a race to the bottom, and everyone is losing.
Part of the problem is the obsession with “prompt engineering.” People are selling courses and e-books promising to teach you the magic words that will unlock the AI’s full potential. It’s a sham. There’s no secret handshake. The tools are powerful, but they are not magic. They are only as good as the person using them.
Then there's the illusion of full automation. The idea that you can just press a button and have a perfect, ready-to-publish article is a fantasy. I’ve seen people try. I’ve tried. It doesn’t work. The result is always generic, and it always lacks a soul. It lacks a human touch.
And don't even get me started on the AI-detection tools. They're a joke. They create fear and uncertainty, and they're often wrong. I've seen human-written text flagged as AI-generated, and AI-generated text pass as human. It's a distraction from what really matters: the quality of the writing.
The Truth: My 4 Principles for AI-Assisted Writing
After nine years of experimenting, investing, and writing, I’ve distilled my approach down to four core principles. These are the rules I live by. They are the difference between creating content that sinks and content that swims.
Principle 1: It's a Collaboration, Not a Replacement
Think of AI as a co-pilot. It can handle the routine tasks, the heavy lifting, but you are still the pilot. You are in command. You set the destination, you make the critical decisions, and you land the plane.
My workflow reflects this. I use AI for brainstorming, for creating outlines, for generating first drafts. But the final product, the words that you are reading right now, are mine. I spend hours refining, editing, and injecting my own voice and my own stories into the text. The AI gives me the clay, but I am the one who shapes it into a sculpture.
I learned this the hard way. A few years ago, I tried to automate my entire content pipeline for one of my startups. I thought I could just set up a system that would churn out blog posts and social media updates without any human intervention. It was a disaster. The content was bland, it didn't resonate with our audience, and our engagement plummeted. I had to scrap the whole thing and start over. It was a painful lesson, but a valuable one.
I saw this again recently with a portfolio company. They hired a marketing team that was obsessed with AI. They were churning out dozens of articles a week, all of them written almost entirely by AI. Their traffic went up, but their conversions went down. Why? Because the content was generic. It didn't build trust. It didn't connect with their audience. They were so focused on the quantity of their content that they forgot about the quality. They had to learn the hard way that AI is a tool, not a strategy.
Principle 2: Garbage In, Garbage Out
This is a fundamental principle in computer science, and it applies perfectly to AI writing. The quality of your output is directly proportional to the quality of your input. If you feed the AI generic prompts, you will get generic results. If you give it shallow ideas, you will get shallow content.
This is why I am so meticulous about my inputs. I have a personal knowledge base, a digital garden of my ideas, my research, my notes, and my experiences. It’s not just a folder of documents. It’s a system. I use a tool called Obsidian to create a network of interconnected notes. Each note is a single idea, a single concept. And each note is linked to other related notes. This creates a rich, dense web of knowledge that I can draw from whenever I need it.
When I want to write about something, I start by exploring my digital garden. I follow the links, I uncover new connections, and I gather my raw materials. I don’t just ask the AI to write an article about “AI for creators.” I give it my specific take on the topic, my personal stories, and my data points. I feed it the best of what I have. That’s how I get content that is uniquely mine.
For example, when I was writing my book, “Becoming Top 1%,” I didn’t just ask an AI to write a chapter on networking. I fed it my personal stories about how I built my network in Silicon Valley. I gave it the exact emails I sent, the exact conversations I had. I even included my failures, the times I reached out to someone and got no response. The AI helped me structure the narrative, but the substance, the heart of the story, was all mine.
Principle 3: The Human Element is Your Moat
In a world flooded with AI content, your personal voice, your unique perspective, and your real-life stories are your only competitive advantage. They are your moat. They are what will make your content stand out.
This is something I’ve learned from my 200+ angel investments. The most successful founders are not the ones with the most brilliant ideas. They are the ones who can tell the most compelling story. They are the ones who can connect with their audience on a human level.
So, how do you inject the human element into your writing? Here are a few things I do:
- Tell stories. Don’t just state facts, tell stories. People remember stories. They connect with stories. I’ve already told you a few stories in this article. They are what make it relatable. They are what make it human.
- Have an opinion. Don’t be afraid to take a stand. Don’t hedge. Don’t try to please everyone. The most interesting writers are the ones with a strong point of view. I’m not afraid to say that the AI writing space is a mess. It’s my opinion, and I stand by it. A few years ago, I wrote a blog post arguing that the traditional 9-to-5 workday was dead. I got a lot of pushback, but it also started a conversation. It got people thinking. And it helped me build a loyal audience of people who appreciated my willingness to challenge the status quo.
- Be vulnerable. Don’t be afraid to admit your mistakes. Don’t be afraid to show your human side. I told you about my failed attempt to automate my content pipeline. It was an embarrassing failure, but it taught me a valuable lesson. And I hope that by sharing it, I can help you avoid the same mistake. Being vulnerable is not a sign of weakness. It’s a sign of strength. It shows that you are a real person, not a faceless corporation.
Principle 4: The Real Work Starts After the First Draft
This is the most important principle of all. The first draft is just the beginning. The real work, the work that separates the amateurs from the pros, is in the editing. It’s in the rewriting. It’s in the polishing.
I spend at least 80% of my writing time on editing. I read my articles out loud. I check the flow, the rhythm, the pacing. I cut out every unnecessary word. I rewrite every clunky sentence. I obsess over every detail.
I have a multi-step editing process. First, I do a macro edit. I look at the overall structure of the article. Is the argument clear? Is the flow logical? Is the story compelling? Then, I do a micro edit. I go through the article line by line, word by word. I check for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. I use tools like Grammarly and Hemingway to help me, but I don’t rely on them. They are good at catching technical mistakes, but they can’t tell you if your writing is clear, concise, and compelling. That’s where my human judgment comes in.
Finally, I let the article sit for a day or two. I come back to it with fresh eyes. This is when I catch the most mistakes. This is when I have the best ideas for how to improve the article. It’s a slow, tedious process. But it’s worth it. It’s the difference between good and great.
When I was writing this article, the first draft from the AI was about 1,000 words. It was a good starting point, but it was far from perfect. It was generic. It lacked my voice. I’ve spent the last two days rewriting it, adding my own stories, my own opinions, and my own style. The article you are reading now is over 2,000 words, and every single word is there for a reason.
The Future is Human-in-the-Loop
So, what’s the truth about AI-assisted writing? It’s not a magic bullet. It’s not a replacement for human creativity. It’s a tool. A powerful tool, but a tool nonetheless.
The future of writing is not AI. It’s not human. It’s a partnership. It’s a collaboration. It’s a human-in-the-loop system where the AI does the heavy lifting, and the human provides the creativity, the soul, and the final touch.
I’ve spent nine years mastering this craft. I’ve made a lot of mistakes along the way. But I’ve also learned a lot. And I’m still learning. The technology is constantly evolving, and so am I.
My advice to you is this: don’t be afraid of AI. Embrace it. Experiment with it. But never forget that you are the writer. You are the one with the story to tell. You are the one with the voice that matters.
Now go write something human.
Frequently Asked Questions
How can I apply this thinking to my own situation?
Start by identifying the core principle behind the opinion, not the specific example. Then ask yourself: does this principle apply to my context? If yes, test it in a small, low-risk way before going all in.
How has this view evolved over time?
My thinking on most topics has changed significantly over the years. Early in my career, I held many conventional views that experience proved wrong. I try to update my beliefs when the evidence changes.
Do all experts agree with this view?
No, and that's fine. The best ideas in business are often contrarian. I share my perspective based on my experience and data, but I encourage you to seek out opposing viewpoints and form your own conclusions.
What's the most common pushback you get on this?
People often push back by citing exceptions or edge cases. And they're usually right that exceptions exist. But building a strategy around exceptions rather than patterns is a losing game for most founders.