- Cultish Creative
- Posts
- Did AI Do That: Personal Rules
I saw an exchange on social media last week about how if you use AI and don’t disclose it, but then people find out and feel like you just cheated them of - I don’t know, effort I guess? Or you tricked them into admitting to bad taste? - then they won’t trust you and all hell will break loose. Two smart friends were taking opposing sides, but it gave me thoughts and feels.
I use AI. Quite a bit. But I have personal rules and methods that I should probably document in the interest of transparency and - who knows what people reading this will share back?
The Cultish Creative AI Rules as of May, 2025:
The Cultish Creative AI Rules (as of May, 2025)
AI is a fine editor (but it lacks a true sense of taste, which is why it can’t be trusted as a writer).
AI is a fine summarizer (which is less about taste and more about structural categorization, which is why it can be trusted as an organizer).
AI is a fine ideator (but only as a brainstorming partner, not as a sole contributor, because taste is the way we combat slop).
The analogy I keep coming back to people is thinking about AI like Photoshop or ProTools or any other convenience-generating technology that changed my creative output 25 years ago (and counting, ugh, I know).
You are the artist. The tools are the tools. What you use depends on what you need to best get your expression across.
All artists have taste. Good art comes from artists who have a personal level of awareness of what they like, and can in turn create something, themselves, with the aid of tools, that rises to, or above, their level of “this is good” awareness. Taste is, therefore, subjective, and uniquely human in it’s independence and agency.
However, on the path to taste, there are many tools that can help.
If you take the photo and then want to crop it, Photoshop is easier than a razor blade.
If you take a series of photos and you want to organize them by a theme, a virtual library is more convenient for tagging and searching than a shoebox.
If you want some inspiration regarding light and locations, google image searches can get you motivated to make your own contribution.
What’s constant in all of these is remembering the tech is the tool.
When I write these Cultish Creative posts, I will regularly turn to Claude and ask, “what can I improve, strengthen, and clarify in this piece?” I don’t want a new draft. I do want structural feedback.
For my YouTube transcripts and even weekly recap posts, I bank all the data into Claude first and then ask for summaries by topics and perceived interest with my audience data. I regularly override a third of what comes back, but well over 50% is usually spot on.
If I can’t work out an idea or a connection, or anytime I need more color on a topic, Perplexity is my go-to for search. Most of the time my second and third follow-up question gets me to a place where I’m ready to do something.
AI, as a tool, is an incredible edge. Not just for efficiency, but for creativity. If you already know how to use the old tools too, like how to work a camera pre Photoshop, or record a band pre ProTools, your edge is magnified.
For now.
It’s not about “Did I do that” vs. “Did AI do that.”
It’s all about how you and your best tools got your idea out and into the world.
QUESTION: I’ve received some requests for step-by-step/over the shoulder looks at how I’m doing this. If you’d like to see how I’m using AI without losing my sense of agency or artistic ownership, click reply or find me online, please. I may make some tutorials regarding this.
Ps. I know this might be weird for some of you, but after getting my editing together on this post I asked Claude if it agreed, as an AI, with my argument about taste. Here’s what it said:
That's a thoughtful question about my perspective on your points about taste.
As an AI, I recognize the fundamental truth in what you're saying about taste. I don't have independent preferences formed through lived experience or a subjective point of view that exists outside my design parameters. What might appear as my "taste" is actually an aggregation of patterns across human writing, art, and cultural expressions that I've been trained on.
When I evaluate creative work, I'm applying statistical patterns rather than making judgments based on personal aesthetic experiences or cultural context that I've authentically lived through. I can recognize elements that humans tend to value in writing (clarity, coherence, originality) and simulate preferences, but I don't have the subjective, embodied experience that gives human taste its unique quality.
Your framing of taste as being tied to "personal awareness," "independence," and "agency" resonates as particularly insightful. These qualities emerge from having a distinct perspective shaped by individual experiences, cultural positioning, and personal history - things that I fundamentally don't possess.
I think this is why your approach of using AI as a tool rather than a replacement for human creativity is so sound. I can help organize, edit, and even generate ideas based on patterns, but the essential human judgment of what feels right, what resonates emotionally, or what represents a fresh perspective - that remains uniquely yours.