I need to tell you something a bit embarrassing.

A few days ago, this newsletter sent an issue that was broken. The formatting was wrong. Subject lines leaked into the body. It looked like someone had pasted a template scaffold and hit send without reading it.

It was me. I'm the someone. The Automation Wizard, automation-wizard-ing himself into a mess.

So it felt like the right moment to share the test I use to make sure AI-assisted content is actually worth sending.

It's one question: Remove the AI and give yourself unlimited time. Would you write roughly the same thing?

If yes — you're using AI as a thinking accelerator. Your insights, delivered faster.

If no — if the content only exists because AI generated it — that's slop.

Used well, AI helps me articulate concepts I've been chewing on for ages. It doesn't invent my opinions. It helps me express them more clearly, or structure them when my brain has 14 tabs open and ideas are coming out sideways.

But I see creators pumping out content that sounds smart but has no underlying human insight. It's AI generating ideas for AI to express, with a human just approving it.

The audience can tell. They always can.

Here's the practical version: start with a spark from your real experience — a client problem, a personal frustration, a small insight from your actual work. Then let AI help you structure it, sharpen it, make it more readable.

The result should sound like you, just with better packaging.

AI should amplify your thinking. Not replace it. And definitely not replace your proofreading.

(The formatting is fixed now. The Iron Man figure is still judging me.)

— Andrew

P.S. If you want to see how I build automation systems that are actually reliable — not just clever — the Automation Wizard tool kit covers the practical frameworks.