I use AI in my work. I use it to help me think, write, explain ideas, and sometimes present them visually. And I know that raises a question for some people: if AI helped make it, is it really me?
I think that's a fair question. But I don't think the answer is simply yes or no because a machine was involved.
The better question is whether what you're seeing truthfully represents the person, the message, and the facts.
I teach by doing. That's how I've built New Tech Advertising, worked on Talking About Jesus, and developed my writing. I bring the ideas and the experience. I talk them through, look at what AI gives back, correct what isn't right, and approve what actually represents what I mean. I don't have to pretend I typed every word without assistance to take responsibility for the message.
But that responsibility goes further than saying, “I approved it.”
Three parts of trust
I think about trust in three parts.
Intention: What was I trying to communicate?
Expression: What did I actually put in front of people?
Perception: What will a reasonable person think they are seeing or hearing?
Those three things don't always line up.
Suppose I create an illustrated character to explain an idea. If the audience understands it is a character, that can be an honest way to teach. But if I create a person who appears to be a real customer and have that person describe a wonderful experience that never happened, I am manufacturing evidence. Even if I like the message, that is deceptive.
Or suppose I use AI to help turn my own spoken thoughts into an article. I can read it and make sure the meaning is mine. That is very different from inventing a quote from a customer or attributing a statement to someone who never made it.
The question is not just whether AI touched the content. It is what claim the finished content makes.
A review process is necessary, but not magic
At NTA, I want a person involved before something consequential goes out. AI can propose a draft. A person needs to ask whether it is accurate, fair, and appropriate to share.
I look for words that changed my meaning. I look for details that sound plausible but that I never supplied. I look at the image or video and ask what it seems to prove. I look at whether I have permission to use a person's name, face, voice, or story.
Then I ask one more question: even if I intended to be honest, could a customer reasonably misunderstand this?
If so, I may need to change the piece, explain that it is an illustration, identify that it was AI-generated, or decide not to use it. Disclosure is useful when it corrects a misleading impression, but a label does not make a false claim acceptable.
This is how I think about human approval: it is a checkpoint for judgment, not a certificate that everything must be true.
Show me before you sell me
I have spent a lifetime in business and advertising. I know how easy it is to make a promise sound good. I would rather show someone real work they can examine.
That's one reason I share examples of what I'm building. The process itself can be the lesson. You can see what I asked for, what was produced, what I corrected, and what I chose to keep. You don't have to take my word for everything.
For a business owner, that might mean showing a draft page before calling it a finished website, labeling a concept video as a concept, or using an actual customer review only with permission and without changing its meaning.
If something is an example, call it an example. If it is a proposal, call it a proposal. If it is real customer evidence, make sure it is real.
The point is not to make everything less creative. It is to make the creativity trustworthy.
A simple review before publishing
Before I approve an AI-assisted piece, I want to ask:
- Is the central message genuinely ours, and is it accurate?
- Did AI add a fact, testimonial, quote, image detail, or claim we cannot support?
- Could someone reasonably mistake an illustration for a real event or endorsement?
- Do we have permission to use the people, voices, and materials involved?
- Have we made the nature of the piece clear where clarity matters?
- Would I be comfortable explaining how this was made to the person who sees it?
Those questions are not a legal compliance checklist, and different platforms or situations can have their own disclosure rules. They are a practical starting point for doing honest work.
The thought to take with you
AI can help us say something more clearly. It can also help someone make a false story look convincing. That is why the technology alone doesn't settle the question.
The people using it still have to choose what they will represent and what they will stand behind.
I want to say what I mean, do what I say, and show what I have actually done. That is how I want to use AI, and that is how I want to teach others to use it.
A question to consider: If a customer asked you, “Is this real?”, could you give them a clear and honest answer?
NTA Point of View: Trust before technology. Teach before selling. Show the work.