I Was Afraid to Publish Because I Use AI

I just decided to start writing on Vocal Media earlier this week, and I have been procrastinating hard for different reasons. One of which is because my capacity is pretty low most days as a single parent with ADHD, parenting children one of whom with ADHD, building a business with zero experience, participating in a year-long weight loss study for African American women, and caregiving for my mom with aggressive breast cancer. I allowed uncertainty to sideline me, which is easier, I'm sure, when capacity is low.

My biggest question about Vocal Media was about their submission process and whether they accepted AI-assisted or generated work. I read some articles by other writers, and there were some strong feelings that I imagined aimed at me because I heavily use AI. I love the heck out of it! So, I was scared to publish anything. That is why my first article is mostly AI-generated; underneath my fear is a whole lot of curiosity, and I choose to lead with that today.

That mix of personal bandwidth limits and public debate made me hesitate, not because I didn’t have something to say, but because the act of saying it in this climate felt like one more loop I might not have the capacity to close. That hesitation is exactly why I wanted to look deeper, not just at the rules of Vocal Media, but at the bigger conversation happening around AI in creative work.

Writing from a PGQ Teacher perspective, I’ll examine global research on AI stigma, highlight tensions within creative communities, and share the personal rules I’m setting for ethical, capacity-friendly AI use. Along the way, I’ll acknowledge valid concerns about transparency and authenticity, and show why, when used with care, AI-assisted writing can enhance rather than diminish human creativity.

The Current Reality: AI Stigma Is Real and Growing

Research reveals a troubling trend: Americans’ descriptions of AI are becoming increasingly negative, with terms like “fake” up 50% and “controversial” rising from 23% to 34% of respondents (Ipsos, 2025). This stigma affects content creators directly, approximately two in five U.S. adults hold negative opinions of brands using AI in advertising, and 52% of workers are reluctant to admit using AI for important tasks (CivicScience, 2025).

The phenomenon has even been formally documented as “AI shaming,” criticizing individuals for using AI to generate content. Writers post TikToks of their original drafts to “prove” they didn’t use AI, and organizations like National Novel Writing Month have seen board resignations over AI-supportive stances (Authors Guild, 2025).

The Flawed Foundation: Misunderstanding What AI Actually Does

Much of this stigma stems from fundamental misunderstandings about modern AI writing tools. The sensational myth of endlessly preserved McDonald’s burgers parallels AI misconceptions, viral yet scientifically unfounded claims (McDonald’s Corporation, 2025).

Here’s what research actually shows about AI-assisted writing:

• AI Enhances Human Creativity (When Used Properly)

Studies demonstrate that AI–human collaboration outperforms working alone in creative tasks. For example, creative writing novelty improved by 8% when authors used AI for ideation, and less-experienced writers saw the greatest gains, narrowing performance gaps (MIT Sloan, 2024). Human–AI teams excel at combining human insight with AI’s processing power (M2Now, 2024).

• The Key: Proper Integration, Not Replacement

Oregon State University found that AI significantly boosts student creativity only when instructors guide its integration; without guidance, AI flattens the performance of highly creative students (Oregon State University, 2025). Thus, AI augments human capability when thoughtfully applied but becomes problematic if it replaces core creative effort.

The Legal and Copyright Reality: AI-Assisted Is Protected

U.S. copyright law distinguishes AI-assisted from AI-generated works: AI-assisted content retains full human authorship and protection when human creators supply original frameworks and significant creative input (U.S. Copyright Office, 2025; Jones Day, 2025).

My Personal Rules for Using AI (For Now)

I wouldn’t call this a finished framework, yet. These are the boundaries I’m setting so I can keep writing honestly, protect my energy, and create real value for readers. If I’m going to keep writing, especially with my ADHD brain, low-capacity days, and multiple competing roles, I need a way to use AI that honors both efficiency and authenticity.

Managing eight active identities (Self, Founder, Parent, Health Seeker, Caretaker, PGQ Teacher, Friend/Family Member, Household Manager), these rules are my starting point. Over time, they may evolve into a complete PGQ-based framework, but for now, they’re the guardrails that keep me creating instead of stalling.

The Four Pillars of Ethical AI Integration

1. Leading with Human Frameworks: I generate original insights—my PGQ system, loop-tracking identity maps, and reality layers—before any AI involvement.
2. Transparent Process Documentation: I log each AI contribution step, via the "AI Contributions" section at the bottom: ideation, research acceleration, structural suggestions, and final human synthesis.
3. Capacity-Aware Implementation: I adjust AI use based on my energy and capacity assessments: minimal AI on high-capacity days, more assistance when capacity is moderate or low.
4. Value-Add Verification: Every AI-generated element must enhance my unique perspective and pass a “value-add test."
5. Manifesto Alignment: I ensure my articles reflect the core beliefs and commitments of my PGQ Manifesto.

The Benefits: Why AI-Assisted Creation Serves Readers Better

• Enhanced Research Quality

AI enables rapid processing of 50–80 sources for complex topics, resulting in more comprehensive, evidence-based insights (Contently, 2024).

• Improved Accessibility

AI editing tools help non-native English speakers produce clear, readable content, crucial for creators with ADHD and multiple roles (Highland, 2024).

• Faster Iteration and Improvement

AI allows rapid testing of structural variations, leading to more effective communication of complex frameworks.

• Addressing Valid Concerns: Where Critics Are Right

Criticism is warranted when AI becomes the primary creator, transparency is lacking, or original insights are missing, leading to generic, “information pollution” rather than genuine value (RoughNotes, 2024; SEO Boost, 2024).

The Path Forward: Embracing Ethical AI Integration

For content creators:

1. Lead with human insight (Contently, 2024).
2. Use AI to amplify, not replace, original contributions (UX Tigers, 2024).
3. Maintain transparency about AI’s role (UX Tigers, 2024).
4. Verify and validate AI outputs (UX Tigers, 2024).

For readers and critics:

1. Judge content by its value, not creation process (Merriam & Hansen, 2025).
2. Recognize capacity realities for creators with complex lives (M2Now, 2024).
3. Demand transparency over unattainable “AI-free” claims (UX Tigers, 2024).

Conclusion: The Future Is Collaborative, Not Competitive

Human-AI collaboration outperforms either alone (MIT Sloan, 2024). My PGQ-integrated approach shows that ethical, transparent AI use enhances creativity and preserves authenticity. The question isn’t whether AI should be part of content creation, it already is, but whether we’ll harness it responsibly to amplify human creativity for the benefit of all.

Honestly, I don't know if this article is AI-assisted or AI-generated, but here it is. So, if you are reading this, it was accepted.

AI Contributions:

• Pulled research sources
• Proposed overall structure and flow based on my Infinite Content framework
• Generated the initial content based on my creative prompt and trained on my frameworks

References

Authors Guild. (2025). AI best practices for authors. https://authorsguild.org/resource/ai-best-practices-for-authors/

CivicScience. (2025). Consumers are becoming increasingly negative toward the use of AI in advertising. https://civicscience.com/consumers-are-becoming-increasingly-negative-toward-the-use-of-ai-in-advertising/

Contently. (2024, July 3). Guidelines for responsible content creation with generative AI. https://contently.com/2024/07/03/guidelines-for-responsible-content-creation-with-generative-ai/

Highland, A. (2024). Bridging the intention–behavior gap to achieve your goals. Harbor Mental Health. https://harbormentalhealth.com/2024/09/29/bridging-the-intention-behavior-gap-to-achieve-your-goals/

Ipsos. (2025). Americans’ descriptions of AI are getting more negative. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/americans-descriptions-ai-are-getting-more-negative

Jones Day. (2025). Copyrightability of AI outputs: U.S. Copyright Office analyses. https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2025/02/copyrightability-of-ai-outputs-us-copyright-office-analyzes-human-authorship-requirement

McDonald’s Corporation. (2025). Burger myths busted. https://corporate.mcdonalds.com/corpmcd/our-stories/article/burger-myths-busted.html

MIT Sloan School of Management. (2024). Humans and AI: Do they work better together or alone? https://mitsloan.mit.edu/press/humans-and-ai-do-they-work-better-together-or-alone

M₂Now. (2024). Transforming talk into walk: Tactics to close your intention–action gap. https://m2now.com/transforming-talk-into-walk-tactics-to-close-your-intention-action-gap/

Oregon State University. (2025). AI improves creativity in student writing when supported by instructor guidance. https://news.oregonstate.edu/news/ai-improves-creativity-student-writing-when-supported-instructor-guidance-study-finds

RoughNotes. (2024). Closing the gap between intention and action. https://roughnotes.com/closing-the-gap-between-intention-and-action/

UX Tigers. (2024, July). AI stigma: Why creators fear automation. https://www.uxtigers.com/post/ai-stigma

U.S. Copyright Office. (2025). Copyright and artificial intelligence: Part 2—Copyrightability. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf