Don’t Use AI to Write Things You Present as Your Own Work

James Bach, a veteran testing expert, published a strong opinion on his blog Satisfice: never use AI to write anything that you present as your own work. He argues that even saying “AI helped me” immediately undermines your credibility, because everyone knows AI does far more than just “help.”
The Core Argument
Bach’s policy is absolute: “I never let AI draft anything for me that has my name on it. Not one sentence. Nothing. Ever.” He compares using AI for writing to “hooking a motor to a stationary bike and calling that exercise” or “taking a helicopter to the top of Everest and saying that I summited.”
Trust and Reputation
Bach warns that once you admit to using AI, readers can’t know how much work you did. He says: “All I have is your word for it that you did any work at all.” This forces a “big fat asterisk next to anything you do.” He adds, “Only someone who uses AI to help their writing would say ‘I use AI to help my writing.’ And anyone who uses AI to help their writing may use it to do all of their writing. It’s such a steep and slippery slope to full laziness.”
Personal Anecdote
Bach describes a past ghostwriting experience where he wrote an article for someone else, choosing what to include and exclude. The article was published under the other person’s name, but it was substantially Bach’s work. He regrets it because it helped “burnish the professional image of a man who didn’t earn it.” He contrasts this with a deep collaborative chapter co-written with Jeff Nadelman, where both contributed substantially—Jeff through many hours of Zoom calls and personal stories. Bach says: “If AI deeply collaborates with you to write something, why am I saying you shouldn’t say you used AI? Because all I have is your word for it that you did any work at all.”
The Slippery Slope
Bach believes the line between “help” and “doing all the work” is too blurry. He advises: “Don’t tell me that AI helped you write, and don’t tell me that you did all the work when you only did some of it. Therefore, don’t use AI to write things for you that you present as your own work. If you DO, I will treat all your work as if it is slop or spam. And not just me, the entire community of serious professionals will discount ‘your’ work.”
Takeaway for Developers Using AI Coding Agents
While the article focuses on writing, the principle applies to code as well. If you use an AI to generate substantial portions of code or documentation that you claim as your own, you risk the same trust erosion. Be transparent about your tools and always review and refine the output. But Bach’s core advice is clear: don’t outsource creative or intellectual work and then take full credit.
📖 Read the full source: HN LLM Tools
👀 See Also

Anthropic Report Details Mass Distillation of Claude by Chinese AI Firms
Anthropic published evidence that DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax used 24,000 fake accounts and over 16 million exchanges to distill Claude's capabilities, compromising safety mechanisms in the copied models.

Constraint Decay: Why LLM Agents Fail at Structured Backend Code
New research introduces 'constraint decay': as structural requirements accumulate, LLM agent performance drops drastically — capable agents lose 30 points in assertion pass rates, weaker ones approach zero. Actionable insights for anyone using AI coding agents.

Benchmark Results: Qwen3.5 Models on Apple Silicon vs AMD GPUs with ROCm vs Vulkan
A developer benchmarked Qwen3.5 models (35B MoE, 27B dense, 122B MoE) across Apple Silicon Macs and AMD GPU workstations, comparing ROCm and Vulkan backends with context-scaling tests. Hardware included M5 Max, M1 Max, and three AMD GPUs with different PCIe configurations.

Pope Leo XIV's 'Magnifica Humanitas': A 40,000-Word Encyclical on AI Disarmament
Pope Leo XIV releases Magnifica Humanitas, a 40,000-word encyclical calling for AI disarmament, critiquing autonomous weapons, data colonialism, and tech monopolies. Co-founder of Anthropic present at release.