Do you use AI to write my book?
No. I use AI as a tool, not as the writer. It helps me organize material, synthesize research, wrangle interview transcripts, and draft the connective scaffolding that carries no voice. But the narrative, the stories, and the sentences a reader will attribute to you are written and hand-edited by me, every time. That single boundary is the whole service. AI never writes in your voice.
Will the book still be mine if AI was involved?
Yes. You provide the substance through interviews: your story, your expertise, your perspective. I write the book that carries your voice. AI handles the parts that aren’t your voice, the research synthesis and structural scaffolding, under my supervision. What lands on the page as yours actually came from you and me, not from a machine. That’s the difference between a book you can defend on a podcast and one that falls apart the moment someone asks whether you really wrote it.
Can a book written with AI be copyrighted?
It depends entirely on who created the expression. Under current US law, purely AI-generated material can’t be copyrighted, because copyright requires human authorship. Prompts alone don’t count as authorship. But a work where a human wrote and shaped the actual expressive content is fully protectable, even if AI assisted along the way. The courts settled the core question in the Thaler case, and the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in March 2026, leaving the human-authorship requirement firmly in place. Because the voice, narrative, and stories in your book are human-written, your book is copyrightable in your name. A book a machine generated from a prompt would not be. That’s not a small distinction. It’s the difference between owning your book and owning nothing.
Will an AI-assisted book read as generic AI slop?
Not if a human writes the parts that matter. The reason so much AI content reads as flat and forgettable is that nobody took their hands off the keyboard at the right moment, or rather, nobody put them back on. AI is confidently mediocre at voice. It produces competent, characterless prose that sounds like everyone and no one. My process keeps AI away from the voice entirely. The stories and the narrative are written by a human who sat through your interviews and knows how you actually sound. That’s what keeps it from reading like everything else the machine produces.
Can’t AI just replace a ghostwriter? Why pay a human?
You can prompt a chatbot to spit out a book for free, and it will give you something that reads like it was prompted from a chatbot for free. What AI can’t do is original thought, genuine judgment about what’s worth saying, a consistent human voice held across an entire book, or knowing your audience well enough to make the right calls. It also can’t reliably fact-check its own output, it invents things and states them with total confidence. What you’re paying a human for is exactly the part AI fails at. If the machine could do it, you wouldn’t need me, and you’d already have your book.
Is it honest to publish a book that used AI?
Yes, when you’re honest about how it was made and a human did the work that matters. Authors have always used tools: typewriters, spellcheckers, editors, researchers, and ghostwriters. AI is the newest tool in that line. What crosses the line isn’t using AI, it’s passing off machine-generated text as your own original expression, or producing low-effort volume and hoping nobody notices. My whole approach is built on transparency about where the tool helps and where it has no business being. You’ll always know the difference, and so will I.