AI Can Only Go As Deep As the Question Behind It

Before blaming AI for shallow content, we should examine the depth of our own questions.

Dear Duniyawaalo (People of the World),

I keep hearing the phrase “AI slop.”

Polished posts.
Big claims.
Very little substance.

It is easy to blame AI.

But I am not convinced the tool is the real problem.

AI can only respond to the depth of the question behind it.

For example.
You could ask:
“Write a LinkedIn post about how AI is improving writing.”

You will likely get something polished.
Probably accurate.
Completely forgettable.

Now ask:
“I have been writing long before AI. Now I use it daily to sharpen my thinking. Some people call that AI slop. Help me examine whether I am using AI to avoid thinking, or to deepen it. Where might I be fooling myself?”

Same topic.
Very different result.

The second question carries context.
History.
Tension.
A real stake.

AI can only go as deep as the human who shows up.
That has been my experience.

Before generative AI, learning meant hours of searching, reading, stitching ideas together, and hoping I found what mattered.

Now I can pressure test my thinking in minutes.

I treat AI like a sharp-thinking partner.

It will hallucinate sometimes.
So I ask for sources.
I challenge it.
I push back.

It does not replace my thinking. It accelerates it.

But here is the part we should not ignore.

AI makes it easier to publish.
And when publishing becomes frictionless, discipline matters more.

Speed can dilute depth.
Confidence can replace struggle.
Efficiency is not the same as insight.

I still sit with ideas on my own before I bring them to AI.
If the tool disappeared tomorrow, my thinking would not.

️ The danger is not using AI. The danger is asking it to think for us.

When the question is abstract, the output stays abstract.

When the question carries lived experience, tension, and accountability, the output deepens.

There is another layer I am genuinely curious about.

Have we started dismissing ideas simply because we suspect AI was involved?

Are we judging the tool before examining the depth of the thinking?

Some content deserves to be dismissed.

But not because AI touched it.

Because there is no real mind behind it.

I do not hide that I use AI.

I see it as leverage.
A way to pressure test ideas faster and think more rigorously.

💬 I would love to hear your perspective.

How are you using AI in your own thinking?

And when you read something online, do you dismiss it if you suspect AI helped shape it?

♥️ Rajneesh