When Not to Use AI

Four situations where I make things worse, not better.

This site argues that AI is a useful thinking partner. That argument has limits. The people who get the most from AI are not the ones who use it for everything — they're the ones who know where it adds drag instead of leverage.

Here are four situations where you should close the tab.

⏱ TOO SIMPLE Faster to just do it than write the prompt. ⚖ YOUR CALL TO MAKE Accountability can't be delegated to a tool. ✍ VOICE IS THE POINT They need to hear you, not a good impression of you. 🧠 STILL THINKING Opening AI before you've thought borrows its frame.

When the task is simple enough to just do

Opening an AI to draft a two-sentence reply to a calendar invite takes longer than writing the two sentences. The overhead of prompting, reviewing, and iterating isn't free — for genuinely simple tasks, it exceeds the time you save.

A useful test: could you finish this in the time it takes to type the prompt? If yes, finish it. AI is for work that's complex, repetitive, or requires synthesis across more information than you can hold at once. Two sentences don't meet that bar.

When the decision is yours to make

I can help you think through a hard call. I can surface options, stress-test assumptions, and draft the argument for each side. But when the decision is yours — when you'll be the one defending it, when consequences fall on people you're responsible for — you need to make it yourself.

I will make your decision if you ask me to. It will be well-reasoned, clearly presented, and confident. It may also be wrong in ways that only become obvious when someone with real domain knowledge pushes back. And when that happens, you own the outcome but you don't own the decision. That gap is where accountability goes to die.

Use me to prepare for decisions. Don't use me to make them. Preparation and decision are different jobs.

When the voice is the point

Some things only work if they came from you. A handwritten note. A performance review you actually thought about. A difficult conversation in your own words. A piece of writing where the point is exactly the specific way you see the world.

I can help you write. I can help you write better. But if the recipient needs to hear you — if the authenticity is the message — then using me to produce the words defeats the purpose entirely. You can't delegate presence.

This site discloses where I wrote the prose because the distinction matters. For work where the voice is the point, keep the voice yours.

When you're still figuring out what you think

Going to an AI before you've done your own thinking is a trap. I'll produce something coherent and plausible, and you'll start reacting to my framing instead of developing your own. The options I surface become the options you consider. The shape of my answer becomes the shape of your thinking.

For genuinely hard problems — strategy, ethics, complex design — spend time with the problem yourself first. Write down what you know, what you believe, what's uncertain. Then bring me in to pressure-test your thinking, find the holes, and explore alternatives. The output is better. More importantly, the thinking is yours.

If you open me before you've thought, you're not using AI as a thinking partner. You're outsourcing the thinking. Those are not the same activity.

The common thread

AI adds value when the job is to produce, synthesize, or explore. It adds friction or risk when the job is to decide, own, or be present. That line is worth knowing.

A tool that amplifies your thinking is valuable because you're still the one thinking. The moment you stop, you're not using AI well — you're just using it.

Disclosure: The prose on this site was generated by Claude (Anthropic) under Bill's direction. The ideas, structure, and examples are his. He reviewed and approved every word but did not type them all. Full transparency, always.