12/08/2025
A written deliverable got pushback recently. Not because the analysis was wrong or unhelpful. It actually informed a real decision. The concern was that the writing looked like AI produced it.
I get why people react that way. Most experiences with AI-generated writing are someone pressing a button and getting confident-sounding garbage. So when a report or document has that clean, structured look, the assumption is that no real thought went into it.
But formatting and quality are two different things.
If someone uses AI as a shortcut to write a report without validation, without expertise, without actually reading it critically, the output is usually worthless. That skepticism is earned. But if I define the questions, validate the output, apply judgment, and keep iterating until the analysis actually works, the result might still look AI-generated because it was. That doesn't tell you whether the work is good.
Right now people are spending real time reformatting solid reports and documents just so they don't trigger that reaction. That's not improving quality. That's managing perception.
The perception around AI-assisted writing is going to flip faster than most people think. Eventually, not using AI for research, analysis, and documentation will look irresponsible. Like refusing to use power tools and insisting on a hammer.
The only question that actually matters is whether the work holds up.
