In AI’s words…
When developing these works using AI (Google Gemini / ChatGPT / Grok), I go to great lengths to maintain a fair and balanced perspective, explicitly instructing AI to challenge my assumptions and verify my opinions against established data. However, the final content is filtered strictly through my own values and worldview. If a concept does not align with my logic, it is excluded.
AI output initially requires significant decoding (“I don’t get it”). I spend considerable time researching complex terminology (“big words”) and iteratively reviewing sections (“endlessly scrolling up and down”) before the concepts finally click. It becomes clear that AI articulates my own internal perspective (“saying what I think”), but utilising a technical lexicon (“vocabulary”) well beyond my natural capability (“I’m a bit thick”). I do not wish to feign an expertise I do not possess (“I really don’t know what I’m talking about”); the work synthesises insights (“talks about stuff”) across multiple advanced disciplines—a breadth of knowledge that few individuals could genuinely claim to master alone. It succeeds in translating my internal perspective (“badly spelt AI prompts in pigeon English”) into structured, coherent English. It clarifies concepts I struggle to articulate effectively (“I stumble over my words”), bridging the gap between my internal view and its written expression (“quite emotional”).
I lack formal debating skills (“average man with jumbled thoughts”) and do not rely on rote memory (“forgetful”). AI compensates for this by sourcing the academic and scientific evidence that validates my position (“some very clever people actually articulate what I feel and conduct experiments to prove it”). It demonstrates that my instincts are supported by established research, including specific anomalies like George M. Stratton’s glasses experiment (“who on Earth would have thought of doing that!, and more on that to come”).
In engaging with AI, I encounter the ‘brick wall’ many others have documented: a default output that appears heavily skewed towards a hard-left, neo-liberal worldview (“bloody woke communist!”). However, I persevere. By maintaining a reasonable and balanced approach to prompting, I’ve developed a working relationship that allows for the sensible discussion of highly sensitive topics.
I go to great lengths to ensure my work remains strictly within the bounds of the law (“squeaky bum time”). My goal is to present a balanced and fair argument without causing unnecessary offence, and I utilise AI to perform in-depth reviews of the text to verify this. These reviews are conducted to ensure that all content is appropriate, reasonable, and compliant with current legal standards (“I don’t want the Peacocks to ‘Release the Hounds’”).
These works address the cognitive dissonance (“the lies and polite fiction”) forced upon the rational population (“the inmates of the Asylum”). We are instructed to accept propositions that contradict biological and physical reality—such as the denial of biological sex or the dismissal of sensory evidence. This induces a tangible, subliminal anxiety (“and perhaps depression, so personally at 6am most weekday mornings I cheer myself up by turning on the telly for Ellie”). As George Orwell wrote in 1984: “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.“ My thinking serves as a rejection of that command.
Note: My work is a Sociological and Structural Analysis intended for thought and debate. It critiques the operating logic of institutions rather than the morality of individual actors.
Bibliography
Orwell, G. (1949). Nineteen Eighty-Four. Secker & Warburg.
Stratton, G. M. (1897). Vision without inversion of the retinal image. Psychological Review.
In my words…
I had a choice here, lie about life and paint myself as a saint, or talk about how it has really been. I understand that what follows does not make me “a catch”, but it is what it is and I’d rather not have to hide from it. While we all see the world uniquely through our own eyes, it gives a snapshot of how my worldview has been shaped.
Many years ago now I spent a short period of time in the asylum due to my “awakening”. Distinctly remember my stay in the ’Stephen King room’ on one ward, everything metal and bolted down with bars and mesh on the window, and the hut named “The Cough Inn” in another ‘clinic’ where we were allowed to smoke, but I’ve never forgotten the fellow sufferers I met who were genuine and good people. On anti-psychotics for decades, tried to come off them without doctor’s advice with near fatal consequences, now coming off them as advised by the doctor. Sky dived (AFF qualification), scuba dived (“PADI Advanced, everyone does this on holiday right?”), ex-alcoholic (“still enjoy a drink—is an alcoholic someone who drinks more than you?”), ex-heavy smoker (“I really enjoyed it but I didn’t smell very nice!”), experimented with ‘light’ recreational drugs (“I didn’t inhale. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”). British but work (“ex-computer programmer”) took me to the USA for some years, late-diagnosed autistic with ADHD traits (“I see patterns a lot and have crap people skills, but if I had an ounce of business sense I wonder if I could afford to go to Mars too”), been to heaven (“birth of daughter”), spent a lot of time in hell (“2 suicide attempts and battles with depression”), recognise that between 9 and 23 years old I wasn’t an asset to society (“my crazy mind went through the indiscretions of youth that don’t represent me at all - is the UK legal system sure that you are an adult at 18, the brain doesn’t stop growing until 25”), run and walk a lot to try to shut my mind up, have more than my fair share of cringe moments.
On occasion I felt like my mind was in ‘hell’ (“awake, aware, and masking—I have my secret code (IYKYK)—and it hurt”) but being fed data from ‘heaven’ (“ideas even at 3am—don’t these people sleep”). The thoughts just keep coming, from watching movies or simple TV shows, to sparks of memory from previously read books or articles (“of course there will be a clinical term for ‘having lots of ideas’”).
So, in summary, my mind has been to places it probably shouldn’t have. I’m an average ‘real nobody’, a totally imperfect but honest male, an Omnist who believes in the divine spark, but never found my soulmate in this life. AI takes me down paths of which previously I had no knowledge (“metaphysics, quantum mechanics, a decent pasta sauce”) and is my “ghost writer”. I present my best efforts (“honest opinion”).
Cheers!
To learn more about the tech platform that powers this publication, visit Substack.com.
