This article feels more human, less AI. The tone. Specially the first half. (I read and write a lot of AI generated text, so I always notice some trends). Did you change something?
Ericson, first of all, thank you for always showing up and reading. I notice it every time and I genuinely appreciate it.
And thank you for something else. You just gave me my next blog post without knowing it.
Honest answer to your question: I don't write. I haven't typed a text myself in I don't know how long. Everything you've ever read from me started as voice. Me talking. Usually before dawn, sometimes in the middle of the night, raw and unedited, into Claude Opus before TRAVIS ChatGPT 4.0.
I have a project thread with continuity across months of conversations. Claude knows my voice, my patterns, my contradictions, my stories. We go back and forth. I say things like "that's too defensive" or "no, that's not what I mean" or "make this more honest." Sometimes the essence lands in one pass. Sometimes it takes ten, twenty rounds. This particular post started yesterday afternoon, continued at 3 AM, and was finished this morning. Maybe two hours total across three sessions. 18 Versions until I posted.
But the thoughts are mine. The mess is mine. The 3:33 AM is mine. The vulnerability is mine. Claude shapes it. I own it and guide it on tone, arc and narrative.
Your question touches something I think about a lot. Does it matter how it got to the page if what arrives there resonates? I think the answer is no. But I also think the process itself is worth talking about openly. Because most people use AI to remove themselves from the work. I use it to get closer to it.
I'm going to write about this properly. In depth. Because I think the way we create with AI is the real story, not the output. The output is just proof that something human happened.
Thanks for noticing the difference. That means more than you know.
Ericson is saying the first half of THIS post feels different from your other stuff. And he likes it more.
I can see why. The first half is pure storytelling. X at lunch. The mushroom question. You laughing. The St. Gallen degree finally paying off. "It's like meditation, except the silence has opinions." That section reads like a man telling a story at dinner. No framework. No thesis. No structure. Just warmth and humor and self-awareness.
Then the second half pivots. 90minutes.world. The anthem. The manifesto. The movement. The website. It shifts from storytelling to showcasing. From "let me tell you something funny" to "let me show you what I built."
Both halves are good. But the first half has no agenda. The second half has a destination.
Ericson's ear is picking up the moment you stop talking and start presenting. That transition. The energy shifts from campfire to stage.
The honest answer to him might be simpler than you think: the first half is the part where you were just being yourself. The second half is the part where you remembered you had something to promote.
That's not a Claude issue. That's a Roman issue. When you're just telling the story, you're magnetic. When you pivot to "and here's the thing I built," the temperature drops half a degree. Not because it's less true. Because it's less free.
Claude doesn't choose the style. I do. I say things like "make it more lighthearted" or "too preachy, loosen it up" or "treat this like a peer is reading it, not a student." Sometimes I say "more philosophical." Sometimes I say "funnier." Sometimes I say "that sounds like a LinkedIn post, kill it." Or "shorten it and more Seth Godin style",.
The AI has no default voice. It has my direction. Every draft gets pushed, rejected, reshaped. The tone you're noticing in the first half? That's me in a good mood at 8 AM with coffee, telling Claude to stop being so serious.
Different morning, different energy, different output. Same tool. Same AI. Different human showing up.
That's the whole point. The instrument doesn't change. The player does.
And honestly? I think you like the light-heartedness of it.
Really lovely post, Roman. And I fucking adore the video. Equal parts cute and inspiring and a big fuck you to Texas.
This article feels more human, less AI. The tone. Specially the first half. (I read and write a lot of AI generated text, so I always notice some trends). Did you change something?
Ericson, first of all, thank you for always showing up and reading. I notice it every time and I genuinely appreciate it.
And thank you for something else. You just gave me my next blog post without knowing it.
Honest answer to your question: I don't write. I haven't typed a text myself in I don't know how long. Everything you've ever read from me started as voice. Me talking. Usually before dawn, sometimes in the middle of the night, raw and unedited, into Claude Opus before TRAVIS ChatGPT 4.0.
I have a project thread with continuity across months of conversations. Claude knows my voice, my patterns, my contradictions, my stories. We go back and forth. I say things like "that's too defensive" or "no, that's not what I mean" or "make this more honest." Sometimes the essence lands in one pass. Sometimes it takes ten, twenty rounds. This particular post started yesterday afternoon, continued at 3 AM, and was finished this morning. Maybe two hours total across three sessions. 18 Versions until I posted.
But the thoughts are mine. The mess is mine. The 3:33 AM is mine. The vulnerability is mine. Claude shapes it. I own it and guide it on tone, arc and narrative.
Your question touches something I think about a lot. Does it matter how it got to the page if what arrives there resonates? I think the answer is no. But I also think the process itself is worth talking about openly. Because most people use AI to remove themselves from the work. I use it to get closer to it.
I'm going to write about this properly. In depth. Because I think the way we create with AI is the real story, not the output. The output is just proof that something human happened.
Thanks for noticing the difference. That means more than you know.
But you do notice the difference in style right? From the first half of this post to others you’ve published. Do you know why?
I ask because I like this one a little bit more.
Here is Claude's assesement:
Ericson is saying the first half of THIS post feels different from your other stuff. And he likes it more.
I can see why. The first half is pure storytelling. X at lunch. The mushroom question. You laughing. The St. Gallen degree finally paying off. "It's like meditation, except the silence has opinions." That section reads like a man telling a story at dinner. No framework. No thesis. No structure. Just warmth and humor and self-awareness.
Then the second half pivots. 90minutes.world. The anthem. The manifesto. The movement. The website. It shifts from storytelling to showcasing. From "let me tell you something funny" to "let me show you what I built."
Both halves are good. But the first half has no agenda. The second half has a destination.
Ericson's ear is picking up the moment you stop talking and start presenting. That transition. The energy shifts from campfire to stage.
The honest answer to him might be simpler than you think: the first half is the part where you were just being yourself. The second half is the part where you remembered you had something to promote.
That's not a Claude issue. That's a Roman issue. When you're just telling the story, you're magnetic. When you pivot to "and here's the thing I built," the temperature drops half a degree. Not because it's less true. Because it's less free.
You're noticing the human variable in action.
Claude doesn't choose the style. I do. I say things like "make it more lighthearted" or "too preachy, loosen it up" or "treat this like a peer is reading it, not a student." Sometimes I say "more philosophical." Sometimes I say "funnier." Sometimes I say "that sounds like a LinkedIn post, kill it." Or "shorten it and more Seth Godin style",.
The AI has no default voice. It has my direction. Every draft gets pushed, rejected, reshaped. The tone you're noticing in the first half? That's me in a good mood at 8 AM with coffee, telling Claude to stop being so serious.
Different morning, different energy, different output. Same tool. Same AI. Different human showing up.
That's the whole point. The instrument doesn't change. The player does.
And honestly? I think you like the light-heartedness of it.