Rated: Human AI Detectors, Slop Buttons, and the New Price of Reputation
A reader told me my AI-assisted essay didn't sound like me anymore. That critique kicked off a week where reputation and AI collided in public three times: Substack's new Pangram "human-detection" scan, LinkedIn's AI-slop report button, and the backlash over an influencer's OpenAI brand trip. Each one exposes the terms platforms are quietly setting for anyone with a public body of work. This episode is me working out how to stay visible without giving up my own ground.
Pillars: Trust · Visibility · Identity · Communication
What's covered
A critique that stuck (00:00–03:00) A reader told me my AI-assisted essay had lost my voice — that it sounded more like Claude than like me. I disagreed. But the position got harder to defend once I separated two questions: can I write, and why am I experimenting at all.
Where AI actually fits my work (03:00–04:00) Useful for SEO, AEO, and discoverability. The trainer material — takeaways, reflection questions, anything designed to teach rather than model — is mine to write. That part was never up for experiment.
Substack + Pangram (03:52–05:41) Substack now scans posts and rates them human, AI-assisted, or AI-written. My read: unreliable like every detector, and easy to game, since anything under 100 words, audio, video, or paywalled content can't be scanned at all. So who benefits? Substack gets a PR win. Pangram gets a funding-round talking point. Writers get scanned. My response: I'm moving my experimentation behind the paywall.
LinkedIn's AI-slop button (05:57–07:12) No test, no proof, just crowd-sourced suspicion anyone can act on. Any anonymous reporting system carries the same abuse potential, and we already know where that lands: ageism, misogyny, racism.
Thought leader vs. influencer, and the OpenAI brand trip (07:12–10:54) A creator I follow — she wouldn't call herself an influencer, but she functions as one — took an unpaid OpenAI brand trip and posted about it while running a bath. The comments tore her apart over data-center water use. Her defense was "I didn't know this would be controversial." That's a research failure, and for someone whose credibility rests on thinking things through, it's a costly one.
Trust, reputation, and PR strategy (10:54–12:27) Getting torn apart in the comments isn't the answer either. I think we're capable of civil disagreement on both sides. But if you're a public persona doing brand deals, you need a real strategy: know your stuff, own it, explain it, and make sure the deal's values match yours.
Platform incentives (12:34–15:00) LinkedIn's new multi-collaborator post feature runs on the same engagement logic under a friendlier name. More talking helps the platform at least as much as it helps you. And this goes past creators — if you're an employee, your public presence is also your resume.
Reflection questions
- Is it actually worthwhile to take the risk of experimenting publicly with AI?
- What does a platform gain by having users rate each other as "less than human"? Who does that serve?
- Am I experimenting with this tool because it's genuinely useful, or just because it's there?
- Whose credibility is most at risk when anonymous, crowd-sourced flagging gets abused?
- Where's the line between thought leadership and influence, and does that line change how I'm judged?
- What is it about a voice I don't fully agree with that still works? What can I learn from that discomfort?
- Before taking a partnership or brand deal, have I actually researched who I'd be standing next to?
- Do public missteps deserve public dismantling, or is there a more civil way to hold the same concerns?
- How do I present myself in a way that builds trust and protects my reputation without getting defensive?
- Would I want my name permanently tied to this company or platform, in this form, five years from now?
- Am I transparent about how I'm using AI? Does that use actually serve me, my work, and my relationships?
- What future is this choice building toward, not just what does it do for me right now?
- How do I stay visible in a way that still feels ethical to me?
A note on process: these show notes are pulled from my own transcript, not generated from a prompt. AI did the structuring and compression; the words are mine. Same distinction I draw in the episode: extraction and discoverability work, not voice work.
It's not safe to be experimental for free anymore. I'll still be on LinkedIn, and the longer essays will still land on Substack — but the experiments are moving behind the paywall. If you want to watch the process, that's where it lives now.
00:00:23,878 --> 00:00:25,098
So thank you for joining me.
2
00:00:25,098 --> 00:00:25,868
I'm Nola Simon.
3
00:00:25,887 --> 00:00:28,858
I'm the host of the Ho- the
Hope and Possibilities podcast.
4
00:00:29,798 --> 00:00:34,938
I wanted to talk about something that
somebody I used to work with wrote.
5
00:00:36,407 --> 00:00:40,528
I'm not gonna identify her because it's
not really helpful, but essentially this
6
00:00:40,758 --> 00:00:42,678
c-clip is basically… I'm gonna read it.
7
00:00:42,757 --> 00:00:46,287
"With advancements in video technology
and AI, we have the ability to
8
00:00:46,287 --> 00:00:50,747
capture not just information, but the
conversation, explanation, stories, and
9
00:00:50,747 --> 00:00:52,857
context that make expertise so valuable.
10
00:00:53,327 --> 00:00:56,197
Even more importantly, we can make
that knowledge discoverable when
11
00:00:56,197 --> 00:01:00,208
somebody needs it, instead of relying
on knowing exactly who to ask.
12
00:01:00,237 --> 00:01:03,287
The wisdom of the people who
came before us no longer has
13
00:01:03,287 --> 00:01:04,467
to disappear when they do.
14
00:01:04,887 --> 00:01:09,347
How do we make sure the knowledge today's
experts have spent decades building is
15
00:01:09,347 --> 00:01:11,227
still helping someone for 20 years ago?"
16
00:01:13,565 --> 00:01:17,325
So I have an issue with this
17
00:01:22,173 --> 00:01:28,663
Your conversations, your stories,
your explanation, that's all of
18
00:01:28,853 --> 00:01:37,153
your history, your personality,
your experiences, your expertise.
19
00:01:37,203 --> 00:01:42,373
It's not just knowledge
that's work-related, it's your
20
00:01:42,633 --> 00:01:44,413
perspective and your point of view
21
00:01:46,863 --> 00:01:53,893
And so for one, what consent do you
have to give for a company to have
22
00:01:53,893 --> 00:01:55,913
access to that long after you leave?
23
00:01:57,093 --> 00:02:01,713
And not only that who is held
accountable if that information is
24
00:02:01,713 --> 00:02:04,513
actually used in such a way that
25
00:02:07,015 --> 00:02:07,935
Doesn't work out.
26
00:02:09,445 --> 00:02:13,205
So if your information is something
that you have on file and you leave
27
00:02:13,205 --> 00:02:17,515
the company and five years later they
come across something that you said
28
00:02:17,525 --> 00:02:22,245
or did, but the context has completely
changed, and you have no control or
29
00:02:22,245 --> 00:02:27,185
influence over how the company uses
it, and then it backfires and blows up,
30
00:02:29,215 --> 00:02:31,215
are they gonna try to
hold you accountable?
31
00:02:32,445 --> 00:02:36,465
So I wouldn't think that employment
law would allow it, but the way that
32
00:02:36,465 --> 00:02:41,615
everything has been changing these days,
the questions are really rife here.
33
00:02:41,715 --> 00:02:46,275
It's for one, do they have your consent
to use this past when you leave?
34
00:02:46,335 --> 00:02:50,055
Now, there are organizations…
The organization I used to work
35
00:02:50,056 --> 00:02:52,115
with, it was financial services.
36
00:02:52,326 --> 00:02:56,436
All of our recordings, all of our emails,
anything we wrote, we knew that was
37
00:02:56,436 --> 00:03:00,976
going to be subject to audit, and it was
gonna be kept on record for I think it
38
00:03:00,976 --> 00:03:02,785
was six or seven years at this point.
39
00:03:02,785 --> 00:03:03,895
I can't remember exactly.
40
00:03:05,375 --> 00:03:07,815
But again, this is, are
auditors gonna come in?
41
00:03:07,815 --> 00:03:09,215
Are they looking for documentation?
42
00:03:09,215 --> 00:03:11,865
Did somebody tell ch- tell
you to change an amount of a
43
00:03:11,865 --> 00:03:13,645
withdrawal, and is that documented?
44
00:03:13,645 --> 00:03:16,265
Can they find that,
that email or that call?
45
00:03:17,715 --> 00:03:21,055
But how do you discover
that information, right?
46
00:03:22,355 --> 00:03:24,785
How do we… What did she say here?
47
00:03:26,155 --> 00:03:28,675
"The wisdom of the people who
came before us no longer has
48
00:03:28,675 --> 00:03:30,805
to disappear when they do."
49
00:03:34,119 --> 00:03:37,649
And we can make that knowledge
discoverable when somebody
50
00:03:37,649 --> 00:03:41,119
needs it instead of relying
on knowing exactly who to ask.
51
00:03:41,639 --> 00:03:45,009
So that's the type of system that
needs a whole infrastructure.
52
00:03:45,489 --> 00:03:50,749
So not only are they gonna have access to
everything that you've done in the past,
53
00:03:51,259 --> 00:03:54,939
they're actually going to be building
out ways to make that discoverable.
54
00:03:54,959 --> 00:03:57,349
So that means it's going to be
indexed, it's going to be searched,
55
00:03:57,349 --> 00:04:03,869
it's going to be pattern matched,
it's going to be interpreted in such a
56
00:04:03,869 --> 00:04:06,399
way, and are names gonna be attached?
57
00:04:07,119 --> 00:04:13,679
So if they're publishing something using
you as a source, are they gonna cite you?
58
00:04:15,029 --> 00:04:20,919
And if this is a company that you no
longer want to be associated with, are
59
00:04:20,919 --> 00:04:26,469
there questions in terms of how that
information is being used with integrity
60
00:04:28,539 --> 00:04:32,339
when that might not be a relationship
that you want to maintain
61
00:04:35,101 --> 00:04:39,751
And you're not comfortable with
how that's going to impact your
62
00:04:40,171 --> 00:04:45,901
reputation your digital footprint
and not only that, compensation.
63
00:04:46,081 --> 00:04:52,451
So if you were so valuable that the
information that you gave a company,
64
00:04:52,821 --> 00:04:57,931
your conversations, your stories, the
context, all those explanations are so
65
00:04:57,931 --> 00:05:02,351
valuable three to five years or even 20
years later, which would be rare because
66
00:05:02,361 --> 00:05:05,611
things do change, how are you compensated?
67
00:05:07,181 --> 00:05:13,631
What is the value of access to that
knowledge, and why do the companies get to
68
00:05:13,631 --> 00:05:17,651
own that without compensating the staff?
69
00:05:20,861 --> 00:05:23,551
If you continue to be an
employee, you would continue to
70
00:05:23,551 --> 00:05:25,921
get paid, and that's the deal.
71
00:05:27,321 --> 00:05:31,711
But now it's almost like the employment
contract that, that agreement between
72
00:05:31,711 --> 00:05:36,601
employee and employer has changed because
it's not just the information you give
73
00:05:36,611 --> 00:05:40,771
to somebody while you're employed and
being compensated through payroll.
74
00:05:41,231 --> 00:05:45,291
It's the value of what you performed
and what you did while you were
75
00:05:45,291 --> 00:05:49,651
there long after when you leave
and once that payroll stops.
76
00:05:50,581 --> 00:05:52,521
Does that not deserve to be compensated?
77
00:05:54,987 --> 00:05:57,807
So this question stopped me.
78
00:05:58,017 --> 00:06:01,417
And again, the person who wrote
this, she's a good person.
79
00:06:01,707 --> 00:06:03,317
She's I respected her.
80
00:06:03,317 --> 00:06:04,367
I liked working with her.
81
00:06:05,767 --> 00:06:13,917
I'm flabbergasted by the perspective
that the company owns all of this
82
00:06:13,937 --> 00:06:16,017
without any sort of negotiation.
83
00:06:17,717 --> 00:06:18,467
That floors me.
84
00:06:20,077 --> 00:06:25,297
And what do we have to do
to renegotiate that so that
85
00:06:28,341 --> 00:06:29,601
This is made explicit.
86
00:06:29,881 --> 00:06:31,381
Is it legislation?
87
00:06:31,431 --> 00:06:33,641
Is it individual negotiation?
88
00:06:33,641 --> 00:06:35,131
Is it structural?
89
00:06:35,141 --> 00:06:37,651
Whose information is
deemed to be important?
90
00:06:38,241 --> 00:06:39,951
Is there ageism at play?
91
00:06:39,951 --> 00:06:40,801
Is there racism?
92
00:06:40,801 --> 00:06:41,841
Is there misogyny?
93
00:06:43,801 --> 00:06:46,871
Who's misinterpreting because of bias?
94
00:06:48,761 --> 00:06:50,261
I just-- It floors me.
95
00:06:50,451 --> 00:06:51,561
It really floors me.
96
00:06:51,891 --> 00:06:58,151
And so yes, this topic is technically
about AI, but it's also about trust,
97
00:06:58,171 --> 00:07:06,801
reputation, and consent, and the
value of what it is to be an employee.
98
00:07:07,851 --> 00:07:11,651
And it's not just employees, it's anybody
would have a contract with that employee--
99
00:07:11,921 --> 00:07:13,941
with that employer who gets recorded.
100
00:07:14,161 --> 00:07:20,051
So then it becomes contract employees
freelancers consultants, anybody
101
00:07:20,051 --> 00:07:25,761
who's being recorded and captured by
AI through video, through writing,
102
00:07:25,771 --> 00:07:30,231
through all of the different ways
that you could be monitored by AI now.
103
00:07:31,811 --> 00:07:33,031
And that's not the deal.
104
00:07:33,121 --> 00:07:34,441
That's not in the contracts.
105
00:07:34,921 --> 00:07:36,391
This is something that we have to look at.
106
00:07:37,241 --> 00:07:43,501
And to me, I think it very much
is relevant to the future of
107
00:07:43,801 --> 00:07:48,371
careers, the future of professional
relationships between companies and
108
00:07:48,371 --> 00:07:57,131
organizations, and how we value each
other as coworkers, as collaborators
109
00:08:01,789 --> 00:08:03,039
It, it's a really big question.
110
00:08:03,659 --> 00:08:05,849
Anyways, thank you for listening.
111
00:08:05,909 --> 00:08:08,189
I hope, I'd love to hear
your thoughts if you have any
112
00:08:08,189 --> 00:08:11,199
insights or opinions or stories.
