Here is a prediction I am fairly confident about. Within a year, most of the business content you read online will be written, or heavily assisted, by AI. Blog posts, product descriptions, LinkedIn thought leadership, the lot. And it will almost all sound the same.

I am not a pessimist about this. I use AI writing tools constantly and they are genuinely useful. But the ai writing tools content quality conversation has the economics backwards. The common worry is that AI writes badly. The real shift is the opposite: AI writes competently, cheaply, at infinite scale, and that is exactly what makes competent writing worthless.

When everyone can produce a decent 800-word post in ninety seconds, a decent 800-word post is no longer worth anything. The floor rises and the value of standing on the floor collapses. What becomes rare, and therefore valuable, is the thing AI cannot fake: specific, lived experience.

AI raises the floor and lowers the value of the floor

Think about what AI writing tools are actually good at. They are good at producing text that is grammatical, structured, on-topic, and inoffensive. That used to take a competent human writer real time and skill. Now it takes a prompt.

That is a genuine gain. Nobody should hand-write a generic "5 Tips for Better Customer Service" article ever again. But here is the trap: if you can generate that article in ninety seconds, so can your competitor, and so can ten thousand other businesses. The result is a flood of content that is all technically fine and completely interchangeable.

Value comes from scarcity. When competent, generic content becomes infinitely abundant, its price falls to zero. The floor is now free, and standing on the free floor gets you noticed by no one. This is the part of the debate most people miss: the problem is not that the writing is bad, it is that it is average, and average is now free.

What AI cannot fake

AI has read a great deal, but it has lived nothing. It has never lost a client, misquoted a project, watched a deployment fail at 2 a.m., or negotiated a contract in a language that is not its first. It can describe these things in the abstract because it has read descriptions. It cannot tell you the specific, inconvenient detail that only comes from having been there.

That specific detail is your entire advantage. Consider two versions of the same point:

  • Generic (AI floor): "Downtime can be costly for businesses, affecting both revenue and customer trust."
  • Specific (lived): "A distributor I worked with lost roughly Rp 40 million in a single afternoon because their order system went down during month-end, and worse, three of their biggest customers quietly started keeping a backup supplier the next week."

The first sentence is true and worthless because anyone could write it and everyone will. The second is worth reading because it could only come from someone who was in the room. AI can generate the first all day. It cannot generate the second, because it was not there. That gap is where your credibility lives, and it is the whole basis of the technology strategy point of view I write from.

Use AI for the draft, never for the point of view

So I am not telling you to swear off AI writing tools. That would be foolish and I would be a hypocrite. I am telling you to be precise about which part of the job you hand over.

Here is the division that works:

  1. Let AI handle the scaffolding. Structure, transitions, tightening a clumsy paragraph, generating a first rough draft you will tear apart. This is where it saves real time.
  2. Never let AI supply the point of view. The argument, the specific example, the opinion you would defend in a meeting, the inconvenient truth from your own experience. That has to be yours.

The failure mode is asking AI "write me a blog post about inventory management" and publishing what comes back. What comes back is the floor. It is competent, generic, and identical to what your competitor got from the same prompt. You have added nothing to the world and given no one a reason to trust you.

The better use is: you have a genuine insight from a real project, you explain it to the AI in messy notes, and you use it to organize and sharpen your thinking into something readable. The insight is yours. The polish is the tool's. That is a partnership that produces something only you could have made.

What this means for your business content

If you market your business with content, the strategy that survives the flood is narrow and clear: write from things that actually happened to you.

  • Write about the specific problem a real customer had and how you solved it, with the details that make it real.
  • Write about the mistake you made and what it cost, because nobody's AI will confess your mistakes.
  • Write about the unglamorous, hard-won opinion you hold that others in your field are too cautious to say.

This is harder than generating posts, which is precisely why it works. The barrier that makes it hard for you makes it impossible for the flood. Effort is the moat now, because the easy path is saturated. If a machine could have written your post, a machine did write a thousand versions of it already, and yours drowns among them.

The takeaway

The ai writing tools content quality debate is not really about quality. It is about scarcity. AI makes competent, generic content free, and free content is worth what it costs. What holds value is specific, lived experience that no model can invent because it was not in the room.

Use AI for drafts, structure, and polish. Reserve the point of view for yourself. Write the things only you could write, the ones with the inconvenient specific detail, and you will stand out precisely because standing out just got harder for everyone else.