We consider AI to be one utility of many. In fashioning tools and especially in the age of computing, we have always had AI/automation/programming on hand, in some way, shape, or form — recommendation engines, auto-tagging, spellcheck, mastering assistance. What's changed recently is the scale and visibility of it, not whether it exists.
Rather than "AI good" or "AI bad": we accept AI as a reality in all verticals of life. :) Every dispatch on the site carries a source tag:
None of these is treated as more legitimate than the others by default — they're just different, and worth knowing apart. A good AI-assisted note and a good human note are both good notes. A bad one of either kind is still bad. Labeling doesn't rank them; it just tells you what you're looking at.
A lot of companies are putting out AI statements right now, and most of them land as either "we don't use it" (often not fully true) or "we use it responsibly" (often not specific about how). We'd rather just show the actual mechanism — the tags are right there on every dispatch, not explained once on this page and then never checked again.
If something's mislabeled, or you think a tag should say something different, tell us — we're happy to help.
Distributors, video platforms, and social apps have gotten increasingly aggressive about labeling content as AI-made — and increasingly imprecise about it. We've experienced this directly: a photo we made by hand gets marked by a distributor's AI filter as AI-generated. A video posted to Instagram gets called "AI" by viewers when it wasn't. Use AI at any single stage — editing, color correction, captioning, scheduling — and the whole piece tends to get filed under "AI-made," regardless of how much of it was human work. There's currently no clean, reliable way to signal "made by a person, AI used to refine it" to these systems. That may well change as detection improves — this reflects where things stand right now, not a permanent state of affairs.
Our position: we individually author, design, draft, edit, and launch our own work. Every person on this team has real coding and editorial experience that predates the current AI wave. We're AI-affirming — we use AI tools to refine our process and sharpen our output — but authorship is ours. AI involvement at a given stage doesn't change who made something; it changes how efficiently they made it.
To be specific about how we actually use it: AI's role here is primarily editorial — helping refine, research, and sharpen work a person already wrote or made, not composing something from a blank page in our place. That distinction matters given the detection landscape described above, where any AI involvement at all tends to get flattened into "the whole thing is AI-made." That flattening isn't accurate, and it isn't our practice. If you're ever concerned about a specific piece of content on this site — whether something reads as AI-generated in full, or anything else about how a piece was made — reach out to our editorial team directly. We'd rather answer a real question than leave anyone guessing.