I Taught AI to Write Like Me
But It Still Can’t Think, Feel, or Bleed Like I Do
**Note: This piece draws from my original ideas, research, hooks, and metaphors. For editing and some wording, I’ve used AI tools trained on my own books and style, always blending technology with my hands-on curation and oversight. Thank you for being here—Jade
A few years ago, writing an article took me an hour. Sometimes two. I’d sit there chasing commas and correcting typos, knowing the ideas were powerful but the output was slow.
Then AI entered the scene. Not as a savior... but as a mirror.
And like most creators, I had to ask the question everyone secretly asks themselves now:
If I use AI, does that make my work less mine?
For me, the answer is no!
The Big Idea
The short answer: no. The long answer: it depends on who’s in charge.
Like many of you I am allergic to the idea that someone could use AI without thinking or knowing. Someone prompts “Write me an article on quantum physics" and out pops a stale moldy cookie of content with no soul and no backbone.
For me the soul and backbone of what I write comes from my 35 years mastering my craft and the 25 years of deep clinical work.
I don’t use AI to think for me. I teach it to think like me.
The distinction is everything.
Most of my work—roughly 70%—comes from direct clinical and personal experience. The other 25% comes from research I read and synthesize myself. Only about 5% ever comes from other creators or books.
It’s been my greatest strength and weakness I think. I dont read a lot of other people’s ideas so my stuff has original language and depth. But I also often find the path to my ideas could have been faster, and better (due to refinements only others ideas can provide), if I was more aware.
That’s been true across all ten of my books, none of which touched AI. They were written the old way… bleeding through the keyboard. But now, with decades of data, stories, and frameworks behind me, AI helps me translate my body of knowledge more efficiently and elegantly.
It’s not replacing me. It’s reflecting and amplifying me. That’s the way I see it.
The Breakdown
Here’s how I actually use it.
I have a private AI “workspace.” Its like a living library that contains my books, frameworks, and the exact language of the Next Level Human philosophy. Inside it live my tone rules, my models like my HEL(L)P framework. That stands for Hook, Emotional story, Lesson, Leverage, Plan/Promise… and my preferred cadence for storytelling.
If you look at this article… from the headers to the line breaks to the “…” that often breaks up my thoughts, all of this is instruction I have given AI.
When I sit down to write, I feed my raw ideas, notes, and metaphors into that workspace and defined structure.
The AI then helps me with:
Grammar, formatting, flow—the stuff I suck at and don’t care to master.
Clarity and rhythm—helping me tighten language without losing edge.
Consistency and structure—so I can publish regularly while staying true to my voice.
Every article still starts as mine: my idea, my story, my analogy, my experience.
AI refines the scaffolding. I still finish it by hand… because if I don’t touch the soul of it, it won’t feel right... to me.
And yes, I disclose this now. I think that is critical. I want you to know how I am using AI because you may not want to engage with AI content. I respect that.
Some hate it. I feel differently and I am going to use it. But I like you knowing so you can embrace or avoid my work with full clarity.
I don’t think transparency is optional anymore. To me it is the new credibility… especially in the age of AI.
The Evidence
This isn’t just personal preference… it’s aligned with what’s actually happening.
Recent creator surveys show that 86% of Substack writers now use AI tools in some form… for research synthesis, idea development, and editing. That stat blew me away!
It also seems that most readers are completely fine with that as long as the content feels authentic, original, emotionally intelligent ad is genuinely useful for them.
The research seems clear: readers don’t care whether AI was used... they care whether the voice still feels human. This also surprised me. I honestly thought most people would be more resistant to consuming AI based content.
And that’s the paradox. I don’t think AI can replace authenticity and real human ingenuity—it can only amplify it when used with integrity. That is what I feel I am doing in my work and I see other creators who use it the same way.
Practical Takeaway
Here’s my stance:
I’m not a writer. I’m an author. I am not in love with the words that define my ideas, I am in love with the idea.
A writer is in love with the craft of language itself. The words are sacred. If that’s your path, AI might feel like sacrilege. No shade… do your thing.
But for me, the idea is what is sacred and what I feel ownership over. The writing is just the instrument of expression. If AI helps me do that more efficiently than I am beyond happy to use it.
AI acts as my editor, not my oracle (by the way my AI came up with that phrasing and I liked it so I keep it). It is my assistant, not my authority (this is my wording). My amplifier, not my author (this is also my wording).
I’ll keep using it because it lets me deliver my ideas with more clarity, depth, and reach… without sacrificing truth.
Closing Thought
I don’t feel AI makes my work less human. It actually helps express my genuine human ideas more efficiently.
Every time I use it, I do filter it through these thoughts:
Am I leading... or following? Is this a genuine idea from Jade Teta?
Am I thinking... or outsourcing my thought? Is this the way my brain is thinking about this idea or is it AI think?
In my work I am leading and I am doing the thinking… I would have no interest writing otherwise.
Used consciously, AI becomes an instrument of extension for me. It helps me be more me.
But like any good instrument, it only works when the musician actually picks up and holds the instrument and then plays with their own soul.
Appreciate you @Dr. Bronce Rice
Thank you @Tom Kane