The midlife brain is a fascinating phenomenon.
On some days, I feel like my brain is somewhere in the dumps or down the drain. There's this layer of fog, and while I know what I want to say, finding the right words and putting everything into coherent sentences can feel unnecessarily difficult.
That's when ChatGPT comes in handy. I have the thoughts and ideas, but I need help organising them into something that actually makes sense.
On other days, my mind is incredibly clear. In fact, sometimes it's racing so fast that I have multiple lines of thought running simultaneously, and they all seem to get tangled up into one giant ball.
Again, ChatGPT comes in handy. This time, not because I can't think clearly, but because I have so many thoughts that I need help untangling them, connecting the dots and making sense of everything.
I'm still the same person, who functions with the same brain, but on different days, I'm facing different challenges. Welcome to (peri)menopause.
And this brings me to...
What I notice on LinkedIn lately.
I've come across some posts where people declare that their writing is entirely AI-free. Some even question those who use generative AI to produce beautifully written postings.
This makes me wonder. Since when did NOT using AI become a measure of intellectual superiority?
Don't get me wrong. If you enjoy writing everything yourself, that's wonderful.
What I find questionable is the implied notion that people who use AI are somehow less authentic, less capable or less intellectually competent.
Here's what I think the discussion should be.
There are different ways of using AI.
1. Outsourcing thinking: Asking AI to generate opinions or arguments you barely understand, then publishing them without questioning or evaluating the output.
2. Augmenting thinking: Using AI to challenge your assumptions, explore different perspectives, identify weaknesses in your arguments or help untangle complicated thoughts.
3. Supporting communication: Having your own ideas but using AI to improve the clarity, structure, grammar or flow of how you express them.
The above describes how I think about the different ways people use AI. You may have a different opinion; that's fine.
Personally, I find myself moving between augmenting thinking and supporting communication, depending on what my brain decides to do that day.
At the same time, of course I don't dismiss that AI-generated content comes with legitimate concerns about accuracy, originality and accountability.
But what I'm referring to in this case is about ordinary, day-to-day social media posts, not academic publications or research papers.
Stop the intellectual judgement.
A post written entirely without AI can still be generic, poorly reasoned or completely devoid of substance.
To be fair, a beautifully written AI-assisted post doesn't automatically mean the person behind it has nothing original to contribute.
I don't think using AI makes someone intellectually inferior, just as refusing to use AI doesn't make someone intellectually superior.
In my opinion, what matters is whether you can think critically, articulate your position and take ownership of what you publish.
At the end of the day, I still can defend the thoughts and opinions as mine, and I remain responsible for whatever I choose to put out there.
ChatGPT helps me find the words when my brain is foggy on certain days or untangle the 101 thoughts running through my head on other days. And occasionally, it challenges me enough to make me reconsider what I thought I knew.
Does that make me intellectually inferior to someone who doesn't use AI?
I certainly don't think so.
We should stop judging people's intellectual capabilities based on the tools they use and start paying more attention to the substance of what they're actually saying.












