I write with a machine in the room. It talks fast, knows a lot, and in seconds makes connections that used to take me an afternoon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I write with a machine in the room. It talks fast, knows a lot, and in seconds makes connections that used to take me an afternoon. In my writing and development process I use it for three things: information, ideas, and production. I ask for sources and facts. I let it feed me angles for workshops. And I use it to build structures\u2014headings, paragraphs, transitions\u2014where my own sentences can then land.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It works. Until it suddenly works more than I realise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Imperceptibly, I lean more heavily on ChatGPT\u2019s capacities. The machine is no longer a sparring partner, but a silent director. I can still hear my own tone, but I feel less ground. My intuition\u2014that thin channel between experience and language\u2014gets drowned out by a perfectly phrased middle way. The text flows, but it lives less.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Beneath that shift lies a dynamic I also see in organizations: speed seduces; depth costs. We trade the warmth of craft for the coolness of efficiency and call it progress. In strategic questions, teams recognize this pattern: the urge to decide before meaning is clear. In leadership development, the same: action turns into automatism when we don\u2019t inquire into what runs underneath.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Psychodynamically, something simple happens. I project authority onto the machine. It sounds certain, so it must be right. At the same time dependency emerges: if it says so, I have to doubt less. The relational movement is familiar\u2014transference and countertransference, but with silicon empathy. It leads to a productive addiction: more output, less ownership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Systemically, the center shifts. Where is the source of the work? Does meaning come from within\u2014experience, observation, conscience\u2014or from outside\u2014patterns, predictable language, aggregated wisdom? Transformation from within requires that the center stays in me. Not egocentric, but responsible. I may use tools, but I remain the maker.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Concretely, I see three risk points in my own practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One: pace over texture. The machine speeds things up, but it speeds up everything\u2014my assumptions too. If I ask unclearly, I get a polished elaboration of unclarity. The remedy is rhythm: first slow down, then speed up. I therefore begin with a short, handwritten \u201csource letter\u201d to myself: what have I lived, seen, learned? Only then do I invite the machine to think along.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Two: form displaces voice. A perfect structure can obscure my own tone. I notice it when my metaphors flatten and my sentences stop breathing. Then I turn the machine off and rewrite one paragraph from a concrete scene: a conversation with a director, a silence in a team, a moment of friction. Experience reanimates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Three: completeness as disguised anxiety. The machine makes it easy to want to cover everything: all models, all perspectives, all disclaimers. But completeness is often fear of missing something. Instead of \u201ceverything\u201d I choose sharpness: what is the one thought I want to put into the world now? What boundary does this text draw, deliberately?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the same time, I see the immense value. In workshops I use AI as an idea generator for formats\u2014three alternatives in five minutes\u2014while I keep the question open myself. In research I use it as an index: \u201cwhat have I overlooked?\u201d In writing as a mirror: \u201chow does this paragraph read if I cut it in half?\u201d It works as soon as I make the contract clear: you support, I decide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A few working agreements help me stay healthy with ChatGPT:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Intention before interaction. I first formulate my hypothesis or intuitive core. The machine gets a question, not an emptiness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Margin of silence. After generating, I plan a short offline pause. I let content settle before I adopt anything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Own signature. In every text I name at least one personal observation or case that only I can have.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Transparency. In my work log I note which parts were suggested by AI and what I deliberately changed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Accountability. I check facts for provenance; I derive wisdom from experience; I carry the style myself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is not a moral exercise, but an exercise in adulthood. Conscious leaders recognize it: in relationships, in teams, in strategy. We work with powerful tools, and precisely for that reason, boundaries are a form of love\u2014for the craft, for the reader, for the truth of the moment. The machine amplifies what is already there. If I am empty, it amplifies emptiness. If I am moved, it can sharpen my words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Perhaps that is the invitation: writing as a leadership practice. Not to produce the perfect piece, but to exercise the inner compass that is also needed outside the text. The machine may move along. As mirror, as index, as builder. But I choose the direction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I close with five reflection questions I regularly ask myself\u2014and anyone who works with ChatGPT:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What is my real intention right now\u2014gathering information, widening perspective, or seeking confirmation?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What do I bring myself\u2014experience, hypothesis, value\u2014before I ask anything?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Where does speed tempt me to skip depth, and what pause or boundary do I restore?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What in this text or workshop is unmistakably mine: my voice, my scene, my risk?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How do I safeguard ownership\u2014source note, fact-check, moment of silence, or an explicit decision\u2014before I publish?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That way the machine remains a companion, not a compass. And writing can again do what it has always done: make meaning, from inside to outside.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I write with a machine in the room. It talks fast, knows a lot, and in seconds makes connections that used to take me an afternoon.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[81],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2260","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-english"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbvp.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2260","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbvp.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbvp.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbvp.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbvp.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2260"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/dbvp.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2260\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2261,"href":"https:\/\/dbvp.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2260\/revisions\/2261"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbvp.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2260"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbvp.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2260"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbvp.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2260"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}