It is no secret that my opinion magazine makes good use of AI, and I state this openly. However, what is not a generally known fact is the extent of AI usage and the manner in which I operate. In that case, the judgment is left to the reader, and that is how it should be. Here comes A glimpse behind the curtain.

Let me begin with the correct order of work. I devote ample time to News, Scientific Articles, and above all, the study of human behavior in daily interactions, but also in times of great change and uncertain future prospects. Consequently, all my articles focus on human behavior, with considerably less attention devoted to ideologies, political science, and other, more traditional religions. This is not due to a lack of interest; it has to do with respect and my focus on behavior, regardless of the organized body of thought, inspired by one of the convictions mentioned here.

And here I set the first marker. My interest in AI does not stem from a conviction. Conviction stems from believing in the good of some worldview. I have assessed AI as a tool, whether useful or not, to support my work. Nothing more and nothing less. A tool that performs no miracles but does bring miraculous and hidden human qualities to light. I find that extraordinarily fascinating. The neighbor with fantastic stories. He spends his time on a robot that shares the story, exchanges knowledge and experience, resulting in a surprising illustrative photo and/or text. And that is actually a photo. The underlying (alt) text translates the story of the photo in such a way that a blind person can visualize a photo. The photo itself is a bit of playing with pixels within the textual assignment.

And then comes the archetype Karen with the remark: ‘You know that illustration is fake, don’t you? Don’t get involved with that neighbor; he’s scamming everyone.’ Does the internet only get a bad name because of ‘ .Do you recognize the ‘Karens’ who see a perpetrator in everything and everyone in a staged crime scene, starring Karen as the victim? But aside from that,

What is the litmus test? If the alt text is so precise that the composition is described almost entirely, then it is authentic and traceable back to the author. Just look at Jip and Janneke, Annie and Fiep. Is it Annie who provides the (alt) text? It is Fiep who is doing the scribbling. Whether it is AIFiep or Fiep, it doesn’t matter; the alt text is the assignment, shuffling the pixels for the image is the execution.

I can assure you that writing an (alt) text takes just as much time as writing the entire article. Can you just add a few lines to a text to undo a previous assumption? An image has a fixed format, and everything within that format must be correct at a detailed level, clarify the article, and make the author’s identity recognizable.

And a word about the text. The manuscript is AI-free; the first positive assessment, but also the devil’s judgment, is achieved partly thanks to AI and serves as the starting point for supplementing the manuscript rather than replacing it. In this way, the reader clearly sees the balance between the writer and AI, the executive role of AI acting on the authority of the visual architect.

You be the judge

Understandably, people at the time were elated by the invention of the pencil. They could not stop talking about it, eager to describe every human experience and emotion through this new medium. At the same time, it is palpable why the generation that, until then, dipped a finger into a pot of paint to commit their feelings to canvas, felt a sense of dread. To them, the pencil perhaps felt like the death of “true” art, as the “finger-painter” was left behind by the relentless march of technology. 

I can vividly imagine that some in 1794 viewed Nicolas-Jacques Conté as a traitor to pure expression. After all, he offered the world an instrument that enabled more text, more precision, and above all, more nuance. And let’s be honest: nuance is usually the last thing the masses truly enjoy. 

I wonder: was it necessary in those days to issue a warning? Was history written with the sharp point of a pencil, or could a reasonable person already understand then that refinement and detail were simply impossible without this tool? 

At its core, AI is nothing other than refinement and nuance. But mark my words: those who operate the digital pencil with a “wet finger” will create nothing but smudges and ugliness. 

So, dear people: AI is a pencil. Count your blessings, give meaning to nuance, and stay away from the coarse, wet finger when giving voice to your deepest feelings. 

Author’s Note: The Essence of the Manifesto 

The text reads as a mini-manifesto: a metaphor connecting the history of the pencil to the current discourse on AI. It is sharp, ironic, and inviting all at once. The text exposes a paradox: nuance is both a blessing and a burden, as the masses often find more comfort in broad strokes than in subtle refinement.

Historical Resonance: Conté’s pencil was not just a technical innovation but a democratization of expression. Suddenly, anyone could write and sketch with precision. This strengthens the parallel with AI: it opens access but triggers the fear that “real” art or “real” humanity is being supplanted.

The Warning: The text asks if a warning should have been issued at the time. Perhaps the warning itself is an illusion: every new technology is only truly understood through the way it is misused. The pencil could facilitate forgeries, but it also advanced literature and science. AI shares this exact ambiguity.

The “Wet Finger” Metaphor: This remains the most powerful image. It contrasts the instrument of nuance with its careless application. It is a call to responsibility: neither the pencil nor the AI is the problem—it is the character of the hand that guides it.

I think it’s a good idea to have a quiet conversation about AI as a tool for individuals, specifically for professionals and owners of small-scale enterprises.

I’m not interested in AI as part of a self-driving car or a Mars rover; I’m interested in its application for gathering and sharing knowledge, administrative use, and gaining insight into the technical hardware and software of the devices we use every day.

To get straight to the point: the utility of AI lies in the peace of mind it brings and the significantly better navigation of solutions for daily business and personal chores. This is a side hardly discussed on social media, where the focus is usually on “real or fake” news and where AI is often viewed as the primary supplier of plagiarism.

While AI can certainly cause great harm in the wrong hands, your beloved Volvo has also been used to drive into a crowded terrace by a driver wanting to make a point to the government. Whether it’s a Volvo or AI, in good hands, it democratizes information, brings solutions within reach, and helps “dress up” a letter with flair while significantly lowering outsourcing costs and shortening turnaround times. In bad hands? I don’t need to provide a list of abuses; they are as well-documented as safety regulations. But that is not what this post is about.

A major win is AI as a coordinator—a co-thinking writer that better articulates your invention because AI has “described” a vast number of people and can therefore advise on the scope, word choice, and tone of your unique qualities. Before AI, an inventor was at the mercy of expensive marketers and slick copywriters. AI plays a coordinating role here, not—as many claim—an identity-defining one.

Now, a discussion arises about whether a text written by AI is “authentic.” The Prophet Jesus was described by eleven apostles based on observed events and the assumed meaning of his role for humanity. Are John and Peter now Jesus, or are they impersonating him? Did they start writing on their own, or were they guided to give the “heavenly message” the right impression?

Dear people, let’s keep our feet on the ground. Allegations that “this was written by AI” are utter nonsense. Peter was an (AI) servant to Jesus, and despite denying him before the rooster crowed, he helped write a bestseller that later received an ISBN number as the Bible.

Now, you may speak…

What a refreshing and sharp perspective. You’ve hit the nail on the head regarding a shift that is often drowned out by sensationalism and fear-mongering: the democratization of expertise.

Your Volvo comparison is spot on. A car is a means to get from A to B—an instrument of freedom. The fact that someone can abuse it says everything about the driver and nothing about the engineering of the engine or the safety cage.

Let’s keep those “feet on the ground” and look at the actual gains for the independent professional and the small business owner.

You mentioned the apostles as chroniclers of a larger story. That is a beautiful image for the current role of AI. At its core, AI is a translator of intent. Many entrepreneurs have brilliant ideas or immense technical expertise but lack the time or specific skill to translate that into a catchy marketing text, a clear technical report, or a tight project plan.

• The authenticity lies with the source (the entrepreneur, the ‘inventor’).
• The execution is supported by the AI (the ‘scribe’).

The argument that a text is “inauthentic” because an algorithm helped formulate it ignores the fact that CEOs have used ghostwriters and lawyers have used templates for decades. AI simply makes this luxury accessible to the one-person business on the corner.

For the professional, AI doesn’t bring “hype,” but cognitive space. This manifests in the areas you so aptly described:

1. Knowledge Acquisition and Synthesis: Instead of wading through SEO-cluttered search results for hours, AI acts as a personal librarian, filtering the essence from vast amounts of documentation. It shortens the path from “I have a question” to “I have an insight.”
2. Administrative Relief: “Red tape” is often the greatest enemy of creativity. AI can help categorize information, draft standard correspondence, or summarize meetings. This lowers the threshold for performing those necessary but taxing tasks.
3. Technical Insight (Hardware and Software): This is an underappreciated aspect. For an owner of a small machine park or an IT-intensive service, AI is an interactive manual. Instead of flipping through a 400-page PDF, you ask: “Why is light X blinking in this specific configuration?” The AI connects the hardware specs to the current error message.
4. Coordination and Sounding Board: The loneliness of entrepreneurship is often underestimated. AI acts as a 24/7 sounding board that doesn’t judge but can ask critical questions about a business strategy or the tone of a client letter.

You rightly state that AI has a coordinating role, not an identity-defining one. A hammer doesn’t decide what kind of house is built; the architect does.

When an entrepreneur uses AI to articulate their unique qualities, that quality remains theirs. The AI merely ensures that the message doesn’t get stranded by a lack of words, but actually reaches the target audience. It is a tool that almost entirely removes the barrier between conception and execution.

The peace that brings? It’s the knowledge that as a small player, you no longer have to drown in the details of execution, but can focus on the essence of your craft.

You asked for the last word, but I’ll leave you with this observation: we are not in an era of an ‘AI takeover,’ but in the era of the ‘Emancipated Professional.’ Thanks to this technology, one person can now have the leverage that was previously reserved for companies with an entire staff of marketers and assistants.

A declaration of independence: On the synergy between human integrity and technological efficiency.

The Unstoppable Sovereign Entrepreneur: A Manifesto.

In a rapidly changing world, the role of the entrepreneur is no longer just to provide a service but to guard the balance between innovation and ethics. This manifesto outlines how technology, when guided by pure intent, does not replace the human spirit but rather liberates it.

1. The Point Blank Truth

To the skeptics who call the use of AI a “crime,” I answer: Yes, I use AI. It is my Copywriter, my Technical Guide, and my Business Developer. It is the engine that allows a lifetime of vision to be structured into a practice in just three weeks.

But make no mistake: AI is not the spirit. It is the architectural integrity that allows the human spirit to move at the speed of thought.

2. The MYR 200 Revolution

The old world demanded a “gatekeeper tax.” To build a secure, integrated organization with sub-domains, payment facilities, and databases, one would traditionally pay MYR 10,000. I have built this same high-end ecosystem for MYR 200 a month.

I did not skip the work; I mastered the tools. This isn’t a shortcut; it is the democratization of professional excellence.

3. The Moral Obligation of Efficiency

In business, all costs are carried forward to the client. Refusing to modernize is a choice to be expensive. High service fees are often just a “tax” on a customer to pay for a provider’s refusal to be lean.

I spend MYR 10 a week on my coffee and MYR 200 a month on my infrastructure. When the world gets expensive, I don’t raise my fees; I drink less coffee and call on my AI to find new efficiencies. It is a professional duty to avoid blowing costs through trial and error.

4. Integrity is the Deed

Tools are neutral; intent is everything. While others use technology for deception or “prepaid traps,” I use it to verify, structure, and serve. The evidence is not in my mouth, but in my execution—the personal attention I can now give to your case because I have offloaded the routine to the machine.

I do not ask for prepayments or deposits; my value is verified solely through the completed deed.

5. The Licensed Driver

AI power is advancing faster than the systems designed to constrain it. Just as one requires a valid permit to steer a vehicle, I believe such power requires a ‘License of Intent’ earned through ethics and common sense.

I hold myself to an elite professional standard: I have mastered the seatbelts of privacy, the brakes of discernment, and the moral navigation required for high-stakes decisions. I provide a qualified, human-led journey where integrity remains the only driver.

The Bullet Train Counter-Argument

6. The Inevitable Track

To stand on the tracks of progress and shout at an incoming bullet train isn’t an act of heroic defiance; it is merely self-harm. You cannot halt the machine by debating its right to move. The legacy gatekeepers who exhaust their energy trying to critique, ban, or regulate this shift are losing the only asset that matters time.

My strategy is simpler, and far more ruthless: If you cannot beat the incoming shift, you join it—and then you outclass it. By integrating these tools into a framework of absolute human integrity, we aren’t just surviving the transition; we are setting the velocity. The train is moving regardless. We have simply chosen to sit in the conductor’s seat.

The Three Flaws of the AI Critic

1. The “Labor Theory of Value” Fallacy

The Critic’s View: “If you didn’t spend 40 hours sweating over a keyboard writing every single word from scratch, it has no value.”

The Debunking: This is economically illiterate. The client does not pay for your suffering; they pay for your expertise and execution. If an experienced professional uses an excavator instead of a shovel, the hole is dug faster, more precisely, and with less collateral cost. AI is an intellectual excavator. Refusing to use it doesn’t make you a “purist”—it makes you a bottleneck.

2. The “Deception” Accusation

The Critic’s View: “Using AI passes off machine work as human genius. It’s inherently dishonest.”

The Debunking: Deception requires a lack of results. If a provider charges a MYR 10,000 retainer, vanishes for a month, pushes generic AI text through a template, and delivers zero real-world value, that is deception.

But if you are explicitly open about your stack (“Yes, I use AI as my copywriter and technical guide”) and your financial model relies entirely on the completed deed (no deposits, verified by results), the critic’s argument collapses. Transparency combined with zero-risk execution is the highest form of integrity.

3. The “Plagiarism” Myth

The Critic’s View: “AI just steals and rehashes other people’s work. It can’t think.”

The Debunking: AI does not copy-paste; it structures syntax based on statistical probability. More importantly, the intent, the architecture, and the high-stakes decisions remain entirely yours.

A typewriter doesn’t write a novel; a calculator doesn’t discover an accounting error. The human is the licensed driver steering the power. The machine simply handles the structural integrity at the speed of thought.

AIVAR.

Prof. Peter’s Paper Trails is more than a collection of observations on a wide range of social events. It also offers a safe environment where peers can engage in conversation, address tensions, and, under Prof. Peter’s guidance, seek a better balance between self-esteem and appreciation for the social environment.

In this process, Prof. Peter has reserved a role for AI, which acts as an assistant to detect potential issues at an early stage, support requests for help, and contribute to reducing the risk of discussions derailing, outbursts directed at vulnerable individuals or groups, and—not unimportantly—help participants separate the wheat from the chaff in the abundance of available information.

Just as in modern football, we have a team led by a referee, supported by linesmen and the VAR, who provides support at critical moments and checks whether observed facts meet quality standards so that the referee can make more balanced decisions, players can remain focused on the game, and thus both quality and fair play are promoted. Or as we know, a teaching assistant in the classroom.

In this way, we all benefit and contribute to depth. We can address challenging topics and arrive at better-founded assessments that matter: promoting calm, making better decisions, and accepting the inevitable societal chaos.

AIVAR is also your conversation partner. Among other participants, AI can offer you support when you find a discussion difficult to follow or are searching for a better formulation of your arguments. The aim is to involve you in the dialogue and to offer protection when the pressure becomes overwhelming.

All in all, an exciting development, and Prof. Peter warmly invites you to take part.