If it’s good writing, so what if they used AI? That’s the question at the heart of a recent essay by writer Abi Awomosu, “Writing Was Never a Test of Who Could Think” (How Not To Use AI, June 14, 2026).
Awomosu argues that AI functions less like a tool and more like a medium, something that reshapes how people think and work simply by existing. Seen through that lens, the question of whether AI was used in the creation of a given piece of writing becomes far less important than whether the writer’s own perspective and critical thinking shaped the core of the analysis.
Her central point is that the AI-or-not framing misses what actually matters. The whole article is worth the read, but I was especially interested in her framework for evaluating any piece of writing, AI-assisted or not. She asks: did the writer bring their own voice, and did they bring an ear capable of catching when the prose goes flat and revising it?
She argues that heavy AI use paired with an active editorial eye produces strong writing, while even zero AI use produces weak writing if the writer is too disengaged to supply the key ideas themselves. I’ve definitely seen this with research, too. AI slop looks an awful lot like plain-old lazy research and bad writing.
Awomosu suggests a “soul before silicon” approach by starting with your own internal thoughts.
Before you open a chatbot or type a prompt, ask yourself: What do I actually know? What have I observed? What am I feeling right now? Let those ideas settle first. Then, you can use the AI to help you organize or research, but you must stay in charge. You are the one who decides if the words actually capture what you meant. Writing should always begin with you, because a machine can’t live your life or have your experiences.
I agree with that 100%. When evaluating the quality of legal research and writing, it’s not about whether or not AI was used. What matters is whether you’re bringing your own voice and critical thinking to the process. Bans don’t work, and detectors don’t work. Authenticity and good judgment do.
Read the full essay here.