When Everyone Writes with AI, Your Digital Reputation Wins
A study cited by Xataka estimates nearly two hours lost for every AI-generated document a colleague has to redo.
In an article from Xataka, it's argued that AI didn't democratize creation: it shifted the cost to the recipient. And there, your digital reputation is worth more than volume.
The cost changed hands
Daniel Stenberg closed the cURL bug bounty program in January. He wasn't short on money: he was overwhelmed with fake vulnerability reports, written with AI in seconds. Discarding each one cost volunteers hours.
That case opens the article and seems to me the best way to explain what's happening. Producing text no longer costs almost anything. Filtering it costs the same or more than before, and that bill is paid by the recipient.
«In a sea of generated texts, whoever investigates, cites, and admits when they don't know becomes visible.»
For years, sending something serious implied effort. Whoever spent an afternoon writing had something to say, and that time expenditure worked as a guarantee. AI erased the guarantee without anyone deciding it.
Filtering with AI doesn't fix the core
Xataka gathers data that helps dimension it. LinkedIn receives about 11,000 job applications per minute, 45% more than the previous year. Recruiters respond with automatic filters and candidates with more AI.
A study by BetterUp Labs and Stanford, cited in the article, found that 40% of workers received documents made with AI in the last month that had to be redone, at almost two hours per case. In English, they've already named it: workslop.
Whoever gets a task off their back gains time; their colleague inherits the problem. The industry responds by filtering with AI what AI produces. It sounds reasonable and absurd at the same time.
Here I pause. AI doesn't lie or is lazy: it has no moral character. What it reveals is something older, and it's human: we prefer someone else to carry the dirty work.
Where I agree with Xataka without reservations is in the underlying diagnosis. The problem isn't that AI writes. The problem is that someone signs what they didn't write or review, and passes the bill to someone else.
Your name is the new guarantee
Xataka points to a consequence I see coming. If publishing no longer costs, what will cost is entering. Closed communities, contributions only for those with a history, doors again.
Where I would nuance the tone is right here. Those doors are also filters that protect. A community that asks for a history before letting you in isn't always an elite club; many times it's people tired of reviewing others' garbage.
For a young Hispanic, that has two sides. The bad: without a prior name, making yourself heard will be harder. The good: the guarantee stopped being measured in volume and started being measured in trust. That is built slowly, like the good name in Proverbs 22:1.
I believe there's a concrete advantage there for those who follow Jesus. In a sea of generated texts, whoever investigates, cites, and admits when they don't know becomes visible. I don't say it as a tactic: truthfulness is part of character.
"But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil" (Matthew 5:37, ESV).
That touches your final work, your portfolio, your resume, and the ministry in your local church. Use AI to think better if it helps. Don't use it to pretend what you didn't do.
