​

Something I've noticed on LinkedIn, and across every platform right now, is the hate toward "AI slop."

Which is funny. Because everyone wants to use AI to speed up their writing. But nobody wants to get caught doing it. So you've got two reactions: people shaming it publicly, or people overcorrecting into pure personality posts to prove they're still human.

Neither one is the answer.

And it points to a tension I've been sitting with for weeks: as good writing becomes free and infinite, what actually becomes valuable?

The problem isn't AI. It's how most people are responding to it.

The instinct is to create more. More content, more platforms, more formats. If everyone can generate, the logic goes, you just have to generate more than everyone else.

But that's not a strategy. That's a race to the bottom you can't win.

Seth Godin has a concept in This Is Marketing that keeps coming back to me: the smallest viable market. Not the biggest audience. The smallest one that actually matters.

His point is that most people go wide because wide feels safe. More reach, more options, more upside. But wide is where you disappear. The people who win find the smallest corner where they, and only they, are the right answer.

The same thing's happening in content right now. The creators gaining real ground aren't posting more. They've picked a specific lane, a specific audience, a specific problem, and they're going deep. They're not trying to be known. They're trying to own a term.

Here's what's actually dying. And what isn't.

The AI content flood hit every platform at once. And there's a new kind of exhaustion that comes with it.

That's the real cost. Not time. Cognitive load. Every hour spent chasing the next tool is an hour you're not going deeper into the thing you actually know.

What's dying first: broad entertainment content. Hot takes, reaction posts, stitched-together trends. AI does that cheaper and faster than any individual can.

What's dying second, and this one's sneaky: hollow "human" content. The personality posts with no payload. Authentic on the surface. Nothing underneath.

Human slop is still slop.

What survives? A specific voice, with a specific point of view, solving a specific problem for a specific person.

Precision. Not personality.

The three shifts worth making.

Shift 1: Filter, don't broadcast.

Stop writing for everyone. Write for one person. The person who has exactly the problem you solve and doesn't know where to turn.

When you narrow the message, the right people lean in. The wrong ones leave. That tradeoff's the point.

Shift 2: Be the editor, not the generator.

You don't need the most ideas. You need to be the most trusted filter of the ideas that already exist.

That's the only promise this newsletter makes: I'll cut through the noise so you don't have to. That's not a content strategy. That's a relationship.

Shift 3: Build return visits, not impressions.

Before you publish anything, ask one question: would someone save this and come back to it Thursday when they actually need it?

If yes, you built a resource. If no, you built content.

Resources compound. Content expires.

This is the whole game. Not what AI can generate. What you know that it can't. Your lived experience. Your specific failures. Your read on your industry that took years to develop. AI can borrow your words. It can't borrow your proof.

The honest version.

As quality becomes commoditized, the human aspect becomes the new differentiator. But I think a lot of people are overdoing it. Vulnerability for the sake of it. Personality without value. That's just a different kind of noise.

The answer isn't more human. It's more specific.

I don't know exactly where the line is yet. But I know it starts with deciding what you're actually building: a following for entertainment, or a niche audience that supports something real. Because as AI gets better at entertainment, the second option is the only one with a long-term future.

In a world of infinite creation, the scarcest thing is a consistent voice you actually trust.

Be that. For fewer people. More often.

Who's the one specific person you're building for? Not the audience. The person.

Reply and tell me. I read every one.

​