AI Wrote This
I choose what belongs here and steer the result, but AI writes most of the actual notes and site content through source, project, and informal note-intake workflows.
Imported markdown
Methodology
The usual process
The source and the finished content are not the same thing. The source is evidence. The published page is an AI-written interpretation of that evidence, shaped by my direction and revisions.
Informal note requests
Lately I have also been creating notes more informally. I tell Codex what I want to add—sometimes as a polished thought, sometimes as a fragment, complaint, correction, or half-finished message—and it turns that into a durable note.
Field Notes: Why I Default to OpenAI and Anthropic was created that way. I described a bad real-life experience, clarified the point I wanted the note to make, rejected a title and tone that did not work, and kept redirecting the draft until it matched what I meant. Codex wrote and published the note.
This note is another example. I asked for a note called “AI Wrote This” that explains the process. Codex wrote these words, created the artifact, ran the intake, and published it.
What I mean by authorship here
- I provide: Intent, source material, taste, corrections, approvals, and the decision to publish.
- AI provides: Drafting, structure, synthesis, metadata, intake mechanics, and most of the actual prose.
- The intake system provides: Source retention, validation, provenance, rollback evidence, and a record of how the content reached the site.
This is collaborative authorship, but it is not unassisted writing. When a page is synthesized rather than quoted directly from a source, the default assumption should be that AI wrote it and I directed it.
Dataset Preview
- Raw CSV row/table content is available in the source artifact.