Every day, your LinkedIn feed is filled with words written by machines. Can you tell which ones?
AI has made it easier than ever to post, as we know, easier doesn’t always mean better.
The real question isn’t whether AI can write your posts. It’s whether using it makes your voice stronger… or just adds to the noise.
As I run Intero Advisory while caregiving for my husband with Parkinson's, time is my most precious resource. AI helps me reclaim some of it, allowing for more time to take client calls, work on deliverables, and think about where our business is headed. Isn't that AI’s promise? To give you more time back. Not more noise. Not adding more work to our plate. Not the illusion of productivity.
Over the years, I occasionally delegated writing tasks to my team. Some of that writing has been phenomenal. They learned my style, my word idiosyncrasies; active language, no widows, confident, encouraging tone, etc.
How is that different from AI? I would say it isn't much different. I can provide that insight to Claude, Gemini, or ChatGPT. In fact, I don’t really even have to. They can tell me about my tone and style more clearly than I can articulate.
Same patterns, similar topics. I have read and edited every post. I contribute to the drafting, ideation, or final writing on all of them. That's not disingenuous. It's being efficient with a small team. And, if you have ever run a small business or served as a caregiver, you can understand. If you have done both at the same time, you definitely understand.
I have posted blogs and other content that are mostly AI-generated. Some I'm like, "That was spot on." Others could have been forgettable. Even when built on years of our best practices, they didn’t quite land. You may have read them without even noticing.
So it begs the question: Does most AI-generated content really hurt your credibility?
It does in some ways. People don't want to read AI-generated work if they know it's AI-generated. We can make the case that most people don't truly read content anyway. We see how long someone spends with our newsletter. Maybe we’ve become skimmers, not readers, our attention so fragmented that skimming is all we can expect unless they are really interested, compelled, or learning.
What really matters isn’t how long someone spent crafting a post or message. It’s about whether they value you. When connection requests or posts are automated, you stop being a person in their eyes and you become just a number in a spreadsheet: an open, a response, a lead.
Or when commenting, we don't care enough to actually read and be thoughtful, so a poorly created AI bot summarizes the post, validates it, asks a question, and posts a rocket ship emoji. It is because they assume they get value from commenting on your posts. It gives them more visibility.
Every day, someone asks: "How do I get more LinkedIn attention? The algorithm changed, my views dropped."
Valid question. However, I think the better question is "How can I better serve my network and community by sharing my real experience, expertise, and humanity?"
Frame it this way, and you stop devaluing people. There's no joy in chatting with, learning from, or buying from a bot. Forgetting that might be AI's scariest risk.
So, should you write your posts with AI? It depends.
If you're new to posting or have always struggled with creating topics, putting your thoughts together, and writing well, AI will be able to support you.
Start with AI as a collaborator. Put in some of the work before trying to automate everything. How can you do that and still use AI? Use it to brainstorm, critique, and refine but let your voice and expertise lead. Ask it to ask you questions to help generate some ideas that would be interesting to your audience. Then write the draft and ask it for honest feedback on where you could improve.
You might think, won’t that take more time? Yes, initially, but I believe you'll be better for it. Your audience might not thank you for it, but the results will.
For this newsletter, the idea, the first draft, and the final draft were written 100% by a human. The feedback, trimming of some of the ideas, and the second draft were done by Claude Sonnet 4. Effective and efficient, and the best part is that I get time back.
