What I think we’re missing in the AI debate

So Substack just rolled out a collaboration with Pangram to detect AI in our content.

Below are my jumbled thoughts as someone who’s been writing on the Internet for nearly two decades:

• My writing has faced scrutiny for its form long before AI became part of the discussion. In academia, I was told my writing was too informal, so I learned to add clauses just to meet a word count. Later, as a brand storyteller and copywriter working in both English (my native language) and Spanish (my second language), I was told the opposite. My paragraphs were too bulky to scan. I adjusted again for the internet's shorter attention spans. Then as an inclusion strategist, I became the person advocating for the people whose voices, faces, and names were judged against systems that weren’t designed with them in mind — and it was then that I learned how language and culture could be used as an invisible measuring stick for who has power in the room (and who didn’t).

• I have been writing and publishing online since 2013, across blogs, podcasts, and video. This means much of what large language models were trained on reflects the writing style of that time, complete with em dashes, which resembles mine. People who have worked with me for years can confirm that my voice existed long before any AI tools I now use.

• One of the first comments I received on Substack did not address my ideas. It was an accusation stating my writing was "obviously written by AI." No one paused to consider that this might simply be my style, my rhythm, my voice. Nobody asked. They just assumed the concise, direct sentences I took over a decade to develop couldn't be mine.

Why I actually use AI

The ideas I write about here now on Edgewalkers Collective, as a counsellor-in-training and independent researcher on long-term life abroad, stem from real complexity.

They come from nearly 40 interviews and a constantly evolving body of research. I need something like a second brain to help me sort and confirm patterns that human error could allow to slip through.

This is not outsourcing thought; it's quality control on ideas I've already developed.

There is a significant difference between using AI to write everything for you and using it to edit and improve your work as an editor would.

My work now reaches people in 49 countries, some of whom read it only after AI translates it into a language they understand better (my Spanish husband included when his brain needs a break after a long day).

I value the ability to express an idea clearly and ensure it is understood, especially since I have often been judged for how I communicate across different rooms, languages, and cultures.

The actual question

Purity tests about whether using AI is "allowed" miss the point entirely.

The important question to me, as someone who lives between cultures and knows what can get lost in translation, should be (1) whether the ideas are mine; (2) whether the research behind them is thorough; and (3) whether the voice on the page reflects what I have spent over a decade building.

For me, all of the above are true.

My Edgewalkers Collective AI statement

Ideas, interviews, and voice are always mine — I use AI tools for peer-reviewed research, critical thought to identify any perspective I might have overlooked or human bias I have, pattern identification across interviews, and light editing support before publication.

Who are we policing?

I’ll end with this: are we really going to use AI — which now pervades how we write and think — as a way to measure belonging and “enoughness”?

Or are we going to have a real, thoughtful discussion on how to use it critically moving forward — to hone our ideas and make them better?

…I know which one I’m choosing.