Common traits of people whose personality doesn't fade even when using AI. Why the number of broken prompts you have becomes your personal asset. #AIWriting #AuthenticWriting #IntellectualAssets

Recently, every time I give instructions to AI, I find myself muttering to the screen, "Say it more like me!"

From the outside, I might look like a slightly dangerous person arguing with a tool of civilization (sweat).

Hello, I am Mental Tsuyoshi. I treat my ADHD tendencies and susceptibility to fatigue not as a lack of effort, but as "prerequisites," and I organize my thinking and systems to keep working without breaking down.

Usually, as a "practitioner" who handles article production and management, including AI writing, I design workflows to run multiple media outlets by myself.

My stance on how I approach "writing" is summarized in detail in this profile article.

"I have things I want to write, but I feel like using AI actually kills my own words." How can we writers, who hold onto that discomfort but still don't want to give up on expression, run alongside AI while protecting our own "voice"?

Today, I will talk about writing design that starts by intentionally "breaking things." By the time you finish reading this article, the way you see your "failed works" should change a little.

The more you start looking for your own style, the further the words can feel

When you are in front of AI and start looking for your "own style," don't you ever feel like the words are drifting further and further away for some reason?

I, too, have rewritten my prompts many times while practicing AI writing, trying to reproduce my own writing style.

The more I specified things like "make it a bit softer" or "don't make definitive statements at the end of sentences,"

what the AI produced was "a student-like piece of writing that sounds plausible but somehow lacks blood and soul."

I give instructions to the AI, look at the resulting text, and feel disappointed, thinking, "Ah, this isn't it." I rewrite the prompt dozens of times, repeating the cycle of creating and breaking.

I have repeated this countless times over the past year or two. But I learned that this is exactly the process of teaching the AI my own voice.

In other words, the fact that I have broken things so many times was not a detour, but "training."

The very process of confronting the "text that doesn't click" produced by the AI with the feeling that "this part is wrong" or "I wouldn't use this expression" is what nurtures our expertise and writing style.

Even if you feel like you aren't getting the writing you aimed for using AI right now,

the trial and error that didn't go well is never a waste.

That serves as valuable material for us to draw the line where we say, 'I wouldn't put it that way.'

The remaining core is not something decided from the start, but something that could not be chipped away.

Ultimately, your own 'voice' is not something that appears as a result of neatly crafting it.
It is not something that appears as a result of neatly crafting it.

No matter how many times you break it, or how much you try to have AI replace it, it is what remains because it simply could not be chipped away.

That becomes the core of 'yourself'.

Just as a sculptor carves a statue out of a rock, it is easy to understand if you think of us shaping our own voices by 'breaking and chipping away' at the block that is AI.

It is not that there is a perfect blueprint from the beginning; the lump of discomfort that could not be chipped away remains as your individuality in the end.

The 'habits' and 'particularities' unique to you that remain no matter what you write.
That is exactly what you yourself are.

AI is the writer, you are the editor

Even when using the same AI, there are cases where 'that person's color' inevitably comes out. The difference is hidden in the 'role design' of how the AI was used.

For example, Taro Kamematsu, who operates the web media 'DANRO,' has published a very interesting workflow (Ashita Media Research Group Report, August 2025).

He uses a method where he has the AI 'interview' him, and then he thoroughly edits and corrects the manuscript that the AI composed and wrote based on those answers himself.

A clear division of roles: 'AI is the writer, I am the editor.'

At first glance, it looks like he is leaving it entirely to the AI, but it is actually the opposite. The process of questioning again and again after receiving the AI's output, and then adding and correcting, is the very place where 'injecting your own personality' reflects your own thoughts and words into the article.

The difference emerges not at the moment you press the output button, but in the 'how you break and fix it' that follows.

It is in the history of adding red ink to the manuscript brought by the AI writer, saying, 'No, that's not what I meant,' that an individuality that others cannot imitate resides.

I realize that the reason I feel 'there is no AI that can produce the same writing as me' lies precisely in this reconstruction process.

Originality resides in how you break things, rather than in talent

Originality is not some innate talent that shines brightly from the start.

If anything, it is the accumulation of choices regarding 'what to discard and what to keep.'

I myself have rebuilt my systems while breaking down many times.

Every time I hit a wall due to my ADHD tendencies or emotional fluctuations, I have redesigned my operations by asking, 'Why did I stop?' and 'How can I keep things running without breaking?'

Originality shows up more in how you 'break' things afterward than in the initial spark.

'I won't compromise on this part of the article.'
'I will rewrite only this one sentence in my own words.'

If you let go of the desire to find the right answer quickly, you will start to see interesting things.

You will likely realize that the 'design' within you becomes stronger when you struggle, go through trial and error, and finally give it shape, rather than when things go perfectly on the first try.

The moment you think you've 'failed' is actually the moment your own unique method is about to be born. (Probably)

The state of 'writing like breathing' does not mean never stopping and continuing to move perfectly like a machine.

It refers to a state where you can always return, no matter how many times you break or get stuck.

Being able to sit back in front of the PC the next day, even while self-deprecatingly saying, 'Ah, today was a total disaster (lol).'

Such a 'system for returning' is the true meaning of mental strength and the core of sustainable design.

I still have days where I rewrite prompts from morning until night and end up not making a single character of progress (true story).

But if you think of that as an important design process for finding your 'own voice,' there is no need to blame yourself.

Using AI as a shield and as training wheels, let us accumulate our own unique words as assets.

Summary of key points

'Individuality' is not something that exists from the beginning; it emerges as a sense of discomfort that you simply couldn't discard during the process of 'breaking and trimming' the text generated by AI.

As in the case of Taro Kamematsu, who says 'AI is the writer, I am the editor,' the process of repeatedly questioning AI's output as a draft is the source of individuality.

Rather than aiming for perfect output, designing a 'rotating form' that allows you to return even after breaking is the key to continuing to write like breathing.

• The more you obsess over a 'personal style,' the further words drift away. Reframe it as a design problem.

• Iterative revision is not a sign of 'lack of ability,' but 'training' that cultivates expertise and writing style (research findings).

• Taro Kamematsu's 'AI as writer, self as editor' model is a practical example of how personality resides in the editing process.

• Originality does not reside in the initial spark, but in the choices of what to discard and what to keep.

• Mental strength is not about never breaking, but about having a 'system' to return to even after falling apart.

Editor's Note

I have actually secretly tried Kamematsu-san's method of 'having AI conduct an interview,' and when the AI digs deep, I sometimes break into a cold sweat thinking, 'Ouch, that hits a sore spot...' (laughs).

But that 'ouch' moment is exactly the sign that you are right on the verge of articulating what you truly wanted to say.

Applying this method, I have also devised a way to use AI to create my own articles based on news and social media posts.

While mastering AI as a writer, I breathe 'body heat' into the final product with my own gritty editing. I would be happy to continue exploring this professional yet human-like way of writing with you.

Thank you for reading this article to the end.

'I love writing so much. I want to make it my job if possible.' 'I want to use AI to write articles with body heat.' 'I want to know the honest opinions of writers regarding practical AI writing.'

If you are in that state, first take a look at my membership to see how I organize my daily thoughts. For 100 yen a month, I share behind-the-scenes stories every day.

→ Click here for membership (100 yen/month)

If you want to experience the 'body heat' of my writing, please try reading from this article.

#AI #GenerativeAI #ChatGPT #AIUtilization #AIWriting #Prompt #Writing #WritingTechniques #WritingStyle #AuthenticWriting #ArticleDesign #Content #ContentCreation #HowToWriteOnNote #NoteOperation #CommunicationPower #InformationDissemination #Editing #Editor #IntellectualAssets #ThoughtOrganization #Articulation #Design #Systematization #Continuity #ContinuitySystem #ADHD #DecisionFatigue #SelfUnderstanding #Freelance #WEBWriter