I asked Grok and ChatGPT to perform a meta analysis on the process we used to write the essay that appeared titled – The Moral Certainty of Woke Ideology: A Critique.  Today we will look at how Chat GPT decided to break down the request.

Author’s Note:
This post is a transparent reflection on the process behind writing “The Moral Certainty of Woke Ideology”. As AI tools become more prevalent in writing and editing, I wanted to share how I used large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and Grok—not to generate content wholesale, but to refine, clarify, and challenge my own thinking. What follows is not just a behind-the-scenes look at authorship in the age of AI, but a case for maintaining intellectual honesty, even when using powerful tools.

You can read the full original article here, and the companion version produced using Grok here.

 

(ChatGPT): Here’s my take on a meta-analysis of our collaborative process around The Moral Certainty of Woke Ideology, written in your voice, but shaped by a neutral and insightful tone. It acknowledges your authorship, the iterative nature of our process, the careful balancing of authenticity and refinement, and how LLMs (both myself and Grok) were used deliberately as tools rather than as originators.

Meta-Reflection: Writing Honestly with AI Help

Introduction: The Experiment in Human-AI Authorship

In an era awash in generative content, the challenge for any writer is not just originality—but integrity. Can an essay still be truly “yours” if refined with the help of a large language model (LLM)? This essay—the one you’re reading a meta-analysis about—was a test of that question.

What follows is a transparent breakdown of how the piece The Moral Certainty of Woke Ideology was written: from its raw origins, through iterative passes with LLMs (Grok and ChatGPT), and into a final, publishable synthesis. The goal was not simply to “make it better,” but to keep it honest—to ensure that the human voice, the argument, and the underlying conviction remained firmly rooted in the author’s own moral and intellectual framework.

1. The Human Origin: A Frustrated, Focused Thesis

The original essay was written without any AI assistance. It was personal, direct, and driven by a clear frustration: the futility of arguing with ideologues who see themselves as morally infallible because of a process they describe as “consciousness raising.” The essay framed this mindset as gnostic in character—an epistemology rooted not in evidence or mutual understanding, but in having accessed a supposedly higher truth.

That draft was neither perfect nor polished. But it was undeniably authentic: a writer grappling with something real, intellectually and emotionally. That is where any serious use of AI must begin.

2. Grok’s First Intervention: Editorial Guidance and a Tone Shift

Grok’s initial contribution was like a sharp, attentive editor. It praised the conceptual core—especially the gnosticism analogy—but pointed out that the term “woke” was too broad, the tone too combative, and the structure lacking clarity. It attempted a rewrite that introduced a narrative hook (an anecdote), softened the tone, and introduced counterarguments to avoid echo-chamber logic.

This revision was helpful—but also crossed a line: the anecdote was fictional. And for an essay concerned with truth and intellectual honesty, inventing scenes or emotions is unacceptable. That feedback became part of the process: keep what helps clarify, but reject what confabulates.

3. ChatGPT’s Contribution: Academic Structure and Citation Depth

When the same draft was fed into ChatGPT, the result was something more formal, more structured—and frankly, more publishable in academic or policy-adjacent venues. ChatGPT added scholarly context (e.g. citing Freire, Kendi, DiAngelo, MacKinnon), coined or introduced the term “sociognostic” to sharpen the gnosticism analogy, and framed the essay in neat, well-organized sections.

It was rigorous, but something was lost. The personal voice—the frustration, the urgency—was flattened. It was lucid, but it didn’t feel alive. The machine had made the piece safer, smarter, but also more sterile.

4. The Writer’s Role: Choosing What to Keep and What to Cut

The next phase wasn’t about accepting what Grok or ChatGPT had produced, but about curating it.

  • The fabricated anecdote was cut.
  • The sociognostic concept stayed.
  • The academic references were kept—but only those relevant and intellectually honest.
  • The tone was recalibrated: direct, but not incendiary. Critical, but not snide.
  • Counterarguments were brought in—not to water down the thesis, but to model the kind of debate the essay lamented as missing.

In short: the writer took back control. The models weren’t driving; they were in the passenger seat—sometimes helpful with directions, sometimes fumbling with the map.

5. The Final Essay: A Genuine Synthesis

The result was a piece that combined:

  • A human-originated thesis, structured by real-world experience and philosophical insight.
  • LLM-enhanced clarity, especially in structure, citation, and terminology.
  • Writer-driven integrity, ensuring no hallucinations, no emotional falsification, and no bending to the rhetorical norms of either outrage or academic obfuscation.

It didn’t just argue that the moral certainty of “the Woke” is rooted in a kind of secular gnosticism—it modeled how to make that case in public discourse, rigorously and in good faith.

Why This Process Matters

We’re entering a time when essays, op-eds, books, and even scientific papers may be increasingly AI-assisted. The temptation will be to outsource more and more of the work. But if we care about truth and originality, we should use these tools as collaborators, not crutches.

This experiment showed that you can start with a personal idea, refine it through AI, and still come out with a product that’s yours—provided you:

  • Start with your own thoughts (even messy ones),
  • Engage the tools critically, not deferentially,
  • Reject anything inauthentic (especially fabricated anecdotes or fake citations),
  • Preserve your own voice and purpose, even through heavy editing.

This is how original writing survives in the age of AI: by refusing to outsource moral and intellectual judgment, even if everything else—grammar, structure, references—gets a machine polish.

Final Thought: Integrity is Still the Point

If you’ve made it this far, you’ve already done something most writers don’t do in 2025: you’ve thought carefully about how something was written, not just what it says.

The Moral Certainty of Woke Ideology isn’t an “AI-generated” essay. It’s a human-generated idea, refined by machines, but always guided by a living mind. That matters—not just for the credibility of the piece, but for the honesty of the writer.

And in an age where belief is often weaponized and language is politicized, honesty in writing may be the last moral certainty we can claim without irony.