The work
The book used several AI systems in distinct roles: research and fact-checking, project management, editorial suggestions and a deliberately sceptical reader. Those roles had different jobs. Finding material did not grant permission to invent evidence. Improving a sentence did not settle whether its argument belonged in the book.
Where it became difficult
The manuscript describes a plausible anecdote about an innovation lab that Kev produced early in the process. It had not happened. Phil removed it, and the failure led to a clear rule: material must come from something that happened or from a source that can be checked.
What the division of labour made possible
Different systems could challenge an argument from different positions. They could also hold a long manuscript in view, notice contradictions between chapters and identify repetition. Phil accepted some suggestions and rejected others. Those decisions remained part of writing.
What to take into your own work
Give the research, drafting and challenge passes distinct purposes. Name the source that controls a factual claim. Decide what a reviewer must verify before the work can be accepted. Keep the final decision with someone who understands why the work matters.
The tools did not remove judgement. They increased the number of moments at which judgement mattered.Phil Gray
Source note
Adapted from Chapter 13, “Learn to Work With the Machine”, in the working manuscript.
Author-led work with several AI systems. No comparative time or cost claim is made.