We want to be clear about something before this post starts: we use AI. Constantly. It is part of how we work and we believe it makes our output better and faster when it’s used correctly.
Correctly being the operative word.
We ran an experiment in which we gave AI the full brief, the brand voice guide, the content calendar, the platform guidelines, and complete creative control over the captions for 30 days. We reviewed for brand safety and factual accuracy. We did not rewrite. We posted.
"AI is an accelerant. The question is what you're accelerating. Feed it mediocre thinking and it produces mediocre content at scale. Feed it sharp thinking and it produces sharp content at speed. The thinking is still on you."
What the AI Did Well
Consistency. Every caption hit the right length, used the right format, and stayed within the brand voice guidelines with very few exceptions. If you need volume and consistency, AI can absolutely deliver that.
Structure. The captions were well organized. Opening, body, call to action. Every time. Correctly formatted for each platform.
First drafts. Honestly, the first drafts were good enough to build on. If we had used them as a starting point and spent ten minutes improving each one, the output would have been excellent.
What the AI Did Not Do
It didn’t surprise anyone. Every caption was correct. None of them were interesting. The brand voice was technically accurate but it had no edge. The Wit voice that makes our content shareable; the precision, the slight irreverence, the timing… was flattened into competence.
Engagement dropped 40 percent across all platforms in the AI-only month compared to the prior month. Saves dropped more than likes. Comments nearly disappeared. The content was readable. Nobody cared.
The AI also missed current events and cultural moments completely. It had no awareness of what was happening in the industry or in the world in real time. The content felt slightly out of phase with the current conversation.
The Actual Problem
AI writes to the center. It produces content that is acceptable to the widest possible audience, which means it is remarkable to almost no one. Our best performing content is content that takes a side, makes a specific observation, or says something that half the audience strongly agrees with and the other half strongly disagrees with. AI does not do this naturally because it is optimized to not be wrong, and being wrong is often a prerequisite for being interesting.
And quite honestly, we can all tell when we are reading something written entirely by AI.
"We use AI to move faster. We don't use it to think less. Those are different things and the difference shows up in your analytics."
How We Actually Use AI Now
We brief it with the specific angle, the specific audience, the strategy, their voice and a first line we’ve already written. AI drafts the rest. A human reads it, improves the two or three sentences that went flat, and sharpens the ending. Total time per caption: eight minutes instead of twenty-five. Quality: indistinguishable from fully human-written content.
That’s the right ratio. The AI does the work it’s good at. The human does the work it can’t.
What we’d tell you to try:
→ Use AI for first drafts, not final copy.
→ Always write the first line yourself. It sets the tone AI can’t manufacture.
→ Give AI your point of view explicitly — don’t let it find its own.
→ Read every AI draft out loud. Flat sentences reveal themselves immediately.
→ Use AI to go faster, not to think less. The thinking is the product.
"Some of us have essentially uploaded our entire marketing brain into a system that now helps run the work. Years of experience. Distilled. Accessible. Ready. Wit finds this either very efficient or slightly unsettling depending on the day."

