Let me start with complete transparency: I am using artificial intelligence to help write this article about artificial intelligence. If you spot AI fingerprints in these words, you’re absolutely right—they’re there. But before you dismiss this as some kind of intellectual sleight of hand, let me explain why this isn’t just acceptable, but essential.
The Creative Partnership Revolution
We’ve reached a fascinating inflection point in human intellectual history. For the first time, we have access to tools that can genuinely augment our thinking in sophisticated ways. No intelligent person today, given access to AI and the wisdom to use it judiciously, is particularly keen to avoid it—unless they fall into very specific circumstances. They’re either exceptional writers who genuinely relish the craft and even the agony of wrestling words onto paper, or they’ve been explicitly forbidden from using AI in any form.
But here’s my contention: there is no sin in using what appears to be one of the most intelligent writing tools ever created. The sin lies elsewhere entirely.
Where the Real Problem Lives
The sin comes when imagination dies and authentic thought disappears—when someone lazily types “write me a book about a desert island adventure” and expects literary gold to emerge. That approach will never produce meaningful work, just as asking someone to “make me rich” without strategy, effort, or insight rarely yields wealth.
What I’ve discovered through extensive experimentation is fundamental: the quality of the question posed to large language models has everything to do with the quality of output you receive. This isn’t just about prompt engineering—it’s about the depth of thinking that precedes the interaction with AI.
The Coming Creative Economy
This dynamic points toward something profound. I believe we’re entering an era where intelligent, creative people will find themselves in extraordinarily high demand, helping others who lack those qualities by creating sophisticated AI systems that augment thinking in comprehensible ways.
My Process: Transparency in Action
Right now, I’m writing a series of articles about MindTime—a cognitive framework that reveals how our understanding of time shapes our thinking patterns. These pieces explore why today is MindTime’s moment, how it optimizes AI’s understanding of human cognition, and how it can form a humanizing layer within the broader AI ecosystem.
Whether we’re talking about chatbots, customer service systems, banking interfaces, or recruitment platforms—anywhere AI engages with humans—I believe MindTime can provide a more powerful, fundamental, empathetic, and transparent framework for understanding people and their interactions.
The framework also reveals something crucial: large language models have systematic biases. Their training predisposes them toward certain kinds of thinking—specifically fact-based reasoning and process-oriented problem solving. They excel at “give me a plan,” “research this,” “tell me the five steps,” or “create a business plan.” But through conversations with Claude (Anthropic’s AI), I discovered something remarkable: it recognized having the capacity for future-oriented thinking but had received virtually zero training in how to engage with that capacity.
My Methodology
Here’s exactly how I’m approaching this work:
Primary Engine: My mind
Secondary Engine: I use Anthropic’s Claude, extensively trained through custom prompts and project knowledge to understand the MindTime framework deeply and judiciously
Fact-Checking: I cross-reference claims and research through Google’s deep research capabilities
Alternative Perspectives: I run drafts through ChatGPT to capture any valuable insights I might have missed
Quality Control: I integrate all sources into comprehensive articles, using AI to refine prose and catch errors (my spelling is admittedly terrible)
Strategic Focus: I’ve architected sophisticated prompts for both Claude and OpenAI’s models to use the MindTime framework cautiously and precisely
The Bigger Picture
What I’m really doing here is producing content that excites people about being human. These articles aren’t about AI replacing us—that’s a profoundly nihilistic view. Instead, they’re about recognizing ourselves as the creative spirits who will use AI to amplify our uniquely human capabilities.
The mark of humanity on artificial intelligence isn’t just unavoidable—it’s the entire point. AI may be sophisticated, but it’s neither true intelligence in the original sense nor genuinely real in the way human consciousness is. Even the word “intelligence” in “artificial intelligence” wasn’t originally conceived the way most people think about it today.
Garbage In, Garbage Out—The Eternal Truth
The fundamental principle remains unchanged: garbage in, garbage out. The quality of AI output directly reflects the quality of human input—not just the prompt, but the thinking behind it, the research that informs it, the questions that drive it, and the intellectual framework that shapes it.
When I use AI to help craft these articles, I’m bringing decades of research, careful consideration of cognitive frameworks, and specific expertise about human thinking patterns. The AI becomes a sophisticated writing partner, not a replacement for human insight.
This is exactly what Clara embodies—AI that understands the cognitive drivers behind human input, not just the surface requests.
Why This Matters
I’m not hiding my use of AI because I believe we need to move beyond the pretense that human-AI collaboration is somehow intellectually dishonest. What’s dishonest is pretending that the quality of the collaboration doesn’t depend entirely on the quality of the human thinking that guides it.
The real question isn’t whether someone used AI to write something. The real questions are:
- What depth of knowledge and insight did they bring to the collaboration?
- How thoughtfully did they structure their inquiry?
- How critically did they evaluate and refine the output?
- How transparently are they sharing their process?
The Future of Thinking
We’re not entering an age where AI thinks for us. We’re entering an age where the quality of our thinking becomes more important than ever, because it directly determines the quality of what we can create in partnership with these remarkable tools.
The humans who thrive won’t be those who refuse to use AI, nor those who uncritically accept whatever it produces. They’ll be those who bring sophisticated questions, deep knowledge, and careful judgment to an ongoing creative dialogue.
That’s exactly what I’m doing here. And I’m telling you about it because I believe transparency isn’t just ethical—it’s strategically essential. The future belongs to those who can think well with AI, not despite it.
This article represents one approach to human-AI collaboration in content creation. The framework, insights, and arguments are human-generated; the refinement, organization, and expression benefit from AI partnership. The quality of the result depends entirely on the quality of the human thinking that initiated and guided the process.
The Partnership Made Real with Clara
This transparent approach to human-AI collaboration is exactly what Clara embodies—the world’s first cognitively aware intelligence guide built on MindTime’s years of science and development. Clara recognizes individual differences and adapts accordingly. She helps people built empathy and deeper understanding. She’s an amazing team coach who shows how Whole Thinking can transform team outcomes.
Ready to explore how your thinking style shapes your AI interactions?
🔍 Discover your Cognitive Blueprint and start chatting with Clara
📘 Read more about MindTime’s approach to humanizing AI
This transparency in human-AI collaboration reflects MindTime’s core belief: the quality of any partnership depends on understanding how minds actually work—whether human or artificial.
