Writing with AI While Maintaining Authentic Voice

How I Wrote the “Learning-with-AI-in-Public-by-Teaching Human Design” Article

Behind-the-scenes documentation of writing with AI while maintaining authentic voice. A transparent look at the “Article Writing Protocol” in action – including the messy parts.

Methodology

The core idea is to maintain my authentic voice while leveraging AI for structure. I use Claude.

The process is:

• I provide a briefing explaining what I want to write.
• Claude provides a general structure for the entire article and key points to cover in each section. We discuss until I’m satisfied.
• We proceed section by section:
  • Claude asks targeted questions to cover the key points.
  • I don’t necessarily answer them directly, I just use them as a springboard to start writing.
  • I write just raw ideas as they flow in a draft document.
• I quickly review the full draft content.
• Claude analyzes it and provide feedback and recommendations. We discuss until I’m satisfied.
• Claude fixes and improves the form while keeping the voice intact.
• I review and do some final editing – and usually put back some pieces I really want to keep.
• Claude proposes some version for title, subtitle, abstract, keywords. And ideas/prompts for the main visual.

You can read the full details of this methodology in the section “Article Writing Protocol” of my Human Design Learning/Teaching Pedagogy.

Here’s how I applied it to the aforementioned article…

Step 1: Briefing

I explained to Claude what I wanted to write about, and he asked clarifying questions to understand the scope and direction.

Here’s the initial prompt: (within a Claude Project configured for this Learning-with-AI-in-Public-by-Teaching experiment; so he has more context, instructions, and files)

Let’s write a first blog article to mainly say: «I discovered my Human Design design. I was immediately hooked. So I started to watch a lot of videos to learn more… and I became even more hooked! So I decided to Learning-with-AI-in-Public-by-Teaching – a multi-facet experiment.» Then explaining what I’m planning to do from a high-level point of view. Linking to the pedagogy to learn more.
My last blog article is: https://pascal.polleunus.be/blog/understanding-myself-through-human-design

Step 2: Key Points Overview for Entire Article

Here’s what 🧞‍♂️ Claude proposed, and what 🤠 I added/modified:

1. Hook: The Discovery Momentum
   • 🧞‍♂️ Discovered Human Design and your chart
   • 🧞‍♂️ Initial fascination (“so interesting, I’m hooked!“)
   • 🧞‍♂️ Watched videos to learn more
   • 🧞‍♂️ Got even MORE hooked
   • 🧞‍♂️ The turning point: understanding wasn’t enough
2. The Realization
   • 🧞‍♂️ Understanding yourself vs. truly understanding the system
   • 🧞‍♂️ The difference between consuming information and mastering it
   • 🧞‍♂️ Your investigator nature demanding deeper knowledge
   • 🧞‍♂️ Connection to Feynman quote: “If you can’t explain it simply…”
   • 🤠 Splenic intuition saying “this is important“, “a good string to have on my bow”
   • 🤠 Human Design as potential tool for your future projects (Eutopia, Unity Ground Zero, Makers Paradise)
     • 🤠 As a beacon to attract aligned people
     • 🤠 As a deconditioning tool (first phase when people arrive)
     • 🤠 Fits your vision for education in Eutopia
   • 🤠 Strategic recognition building (focusing on one thing first before introducing bigger mission)
3. The Decision: Learning-with-AI-in-Public-by-Teaching
   • 🤠 “I’ve always learned in an atypical way” – this multi-facet approach fits how you naturally learn
   • 🧞‍♂️ Four simultaneous experiments merged into one approach
   • 🧞‍♂️ Brief explanation of what each part means (very high-level)
4. The Experiment: What This Looks Like
   • 🧞‍♂️ Creating educational content while learning
   • 🧞‍♂️ Using AI as learning partner (not just research assistant)
   • 🧞‍♂️ Learning in public (documenting the journey)
   • 🤠 MOVE TO 6: 🧞‍♂️ Knowledge graph approach (structured, modular learning)
5. The Why: Personal Alignment
   • 🧞‍♂️ Deep understanding through teaching (Feynman technique)
   • 🧞‍♂️ Building recognition as educator (Projector preparing for invitations)
   • 🧞‍♂️ Supporting self-esteem and energy alignment
   • 🧞‍♂️ Attracting collaborators
   • 🧞‍♂️ Revenue potential (ethical monetization)
6. The How: The Pedagogy
   • 🧞‍♂️ Brief mention of structured approach
   • 🤠 MOVED FROM 4: 🧞‍♂️ Knowledge graph approach (structured, modular learning)
   • 🤠 Following the “System Mastery” learning path
   • 🧞‍♂️ Link to full pedagogy for those interested
   • 🧞‍♂️ Invitation to explore methodology
7. The Invitation: Join the Journey
   • 🧞‍♂️ What readers can expect
   • 🧞‍♂️ How they can follow along
   • 🧞‍♂️ Open invitation without pressure
8. Living My Design: Already Honoring My Blueprint
   • 🧞‍♂️ Investigator (1): Deep research foundation
   • 🧞‍♂️ Opportunist (4): Building recognition through teaching
   • 🧞‍♂️ Projector:
     • 🧞‍♂️ Preparing for invitations (not just giving unsolicited advice)
     • 🤠 Focusing on one thing (Human Design) to build recognition first
   • 🧞‍♂️ Splenic Authority: Trusting the “yes” to this experiment
   • 🧞‍♂️ Cross of Crisis:
     • 🧞‍♂️ Using unique perspective to influence
     • 🤠 Human Design aligns with bigger life mission
     • 🤠 Building foundation now for the larger vision later

Step 3: Section-by-Section Iteration

Section 1: The Discovery Momentum

Key Points from Step 2:

• 🧞‍♂️ Discovered Human Design and your chart
• 🧞‍♂️ Initial fascination (“so interesting, I’m hooked!“)
• 🧞‍♂️ Watched videos to learn more
• 🧞‍♂️ Got even MORE hooked
• 🧞‍♂️ The turning point: understanding wasn’t enough

🧞‍♂️ Interview Questions:

1. The initial discovery: What was the exact moment or circumstance when you first encountered Human Design? What made you decide to look into your chart?
2. The fascination: When you first saw your chart or learned about your design, what specifically hooked you? Was it a particular insight, or just the overall system?
3. Going deeper: You mentioned watching “a lot of videos” – what drove you to keep watching? What were you looking for?
4. The shift: At what point did you realize that just understanding your own chart wasn’t enough? What was the feeling or thought that made you want to go deeper into the system itself?

Plan Update:

🤠 Moved from section 2 to 3:

• Splenic intuition saying “this is important“, “a good string to have on my bow”

Section 2: The Realization

Key Points from Step 2:

• 🧞‍♂️ Understanding yourself vs. truly understanding the system
• 🧞‍♂️ The difference between consuming information and mastering it
• 🧞‍♂️ Your investigator nature demanding deeper knowledge
• 🧞‍♂️ Connection to Feynman quote: “If you can’t explain it simply…”
• 🤠 Human Design as potential tool for your future projects (Eutopia, Unity Ground Zero, Makers Paradise)
  • 🤠 As a beacon to attract aligned people
  • 🤠 As a deconditioning tool (first phase when people arrive)
  • 🤠 Fits your vision for education in Eutopia
• 🤠 Strategic recognition building (focusing on one thing first before introducing bigger mission)

🧞‍♂️ Interview Questions:

1. Understanding yourself vs. the system: At what point did you realize there’s a difference between “this explains ME” and “I want to understand HOW this works”? What triggered that shift?
2. Your investigator kicks in: You mentioned the Feynman quote “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough yet” – when did this standard become important for your Human Design learning?
3. The bigger mission intuition: You said your splenic authority told you “this is important for your bigger mission” – can you describe that moment/feeling? How did you connect Human Design to Eutopia, Unity Ground Zero, Makers Paradise?
4. Strategic recognition: You mentioned that Projectors “must” focus on one thing to be recognized – when did you realize Human Design could be that “one thing” for you? Was this a calculated decision or another splenic hit?

Plan Update:

🤠 Moved from section 2 to 3:

• The difference between consuming information and mastering it
• Connection to Feynman quote: “If you can’t explain it simply…”

Section 3: The Decision: Learning-with-AI-in-Public-by-Teaching

Key Points from Step 2:

• 🤠 “I’ve always learned in an atypical way” – this multi-facet approach fits how you naturally learn
• (🤠 Plan Update) 🧞‍♂️ The difference between consuming information and mastering it
• (🤠 Plan Update) 🧞‍♂️ Connection to Feynman quote: “If you can’t explain it simply…”
• 🧞‍♂️ Four simultaneous experiments merged into one approach
• 🧞‍♂️ Brief explanation of what each part means (very high-level)

🧞‍♂️ Interview Questions:

1. Your learning style: You said “I’ve always learned in an atypical way” – can you describe how you naturally learn? What makes traditional methods (books, courses) not work for you?
2. The four experiments: You’re running four experiments simultaneously:
   • Learning by Teaching (Feynman)
   • Learning with AI
   • Learning in Public
   • Pedagogy as Self-Reflection How did you realize these four things should be combined? Was it one decision or did they naturally merge?
3. Why this approach fits: How does this multi-faceted approach align with how you’ve always wanted to learn?

Section 4: The Experiment: What This Looks Like

Key Points from Step 2:

• 🧞‍♂️ Creating educational content while learning
• 🧞‍♂️ Using AI as learning partner (not just research assistant)
• 🧞‍♂️ Learning in public (documenting the journey)

🧞‍♂️ Interview Questions:

1. Creating educational content while learning: What does this look like practically? Are you writing as you learn each concept? What format(s)?
2. AI as learning partner: How is working with AI different from just “using it for research”? What’s the actual collaboration like?
3. Learning in public: Where are you sharing this journey? What are you comfortable showing (confusion, mistakes, breakthroughs)?
4. The outcome: What tangible things will exist from this experiment? (blog posts, courses, tools, etc.)

Plan Update:

🤠 Undo: Moved back from section 6 to 4:

• 🧞‍♂️ Knowledge graph approach (structured, modular learning)

Section 5: The Why: Personal Alignment

Key Points from Step 2:

• 🧞‍♂️ Deep understanding through teaching (Feynman technique)
• 🧞‍♂️ Building recognition as educator (Projector preparing for invitations)
• 🧞‍♂️ Supporting self-esteem and energy alignment
• 🧞‍♂️ Attracting collaborators
• 🧞‍♂️ Revenue potential (ethical monetization)

🧞‍♂️ Interview Questions:

1. Deep understanding through teaching: Why is the Feynman Technique specifically important to you? (You touched on this in Section 3, but here we can go deeper into the personal why)
2. Building recognition / Preparing for invitations: What does “being recognized as an Human Design educator” actually mean to you? What would that look like?
3. Self-esteem and energy alignment: How does this experiment support your self-esteem? And what do you mean by “energy alignment”?
4. Attracting collaborators: Who are you hoping to attract? What kind of collaborations do you envision?
5. Revenue potential: How do you think about monetizing this? What feels ethical vs. what feels icky?

Side Note:
I’ve been working for too long (as a Projector) – 4-5 hours straight. What I wrote was a lot more confused and painful to do. So I’ll stop for today and continue tomorrow – honoring my energy type as part of this experiment.

Section 6: The How: The Pedagogy

Key Points from Step 2:

• 🧞‍♂️ Brief mention of structured approach
• 🤠 MOVED FROM 4: 🧞‍♂️ Knowledge graph approach (structured, modular learning)
• 🤠 Following the “System Mastery” learning path
• 🧞‍♂️ Link to full pedagogy for those interested
• 🧞‍♂️ Invitation to explore methodology

🧞‍♂️ Interview Questions:

1. The structured approach: You mentioned following the “System Mastery” learning path – what does that mean? Why that path versus others?
2. Knowledge graph: You’ve talked about this throughout – can you explain simply what it is and why it matters for learning Human Design?
3. The pedagogy link: What should readers know about your pedagogy if they’re curious? What’s the elevator pitch?
4. Invitation to explore: Why would someone want to look at your methodology? What’s in it for them?

Section 7: The Invitation: Join the Journey

Key Points from Step 2:

• 🧞‍♂️ What readers can expect
• 🧞‍♂️ How they can follow along
• 🧞‍♂️ Open invitation without pressure

🧞‍♂️ Interview Questions:

1. What readers can expect: If someone follows your journey, what will they actually see? (frequency, format, platforms?)
2. How to follow along: Where should people go to see your updates?
3. The invitation itself: What’s the vibe you want – excited? casual? no pressure? What would make someone want to follow?

Section 8: Living My Design: Already Honoring My Blueprint

Key Points from Step 2:

• 🧞‍♂️ Investigator (1): Deep research foundation
• 🧞‍♂️ Opportunist (4): Building recognition through teaching
• 🧞‍♂️ Projector:
  • 🧞‍♂️ Preparing for invitations (not just giving unsolicited advice)
  • 🤠 Focusing on one thing (Human Design) to build recognition first
• 🧞‍♂️ Splenic Authority: Trusting the “yes” to this experiment
• 🧞‍♂️ Cross of Crisis:
  • 🧞‍♂️ Using unique perspective to influence
  • 🤠 Human Design aligns with bigger life mission
  • 🤠 Building foundation now for the larger vision later

🧞‍♂️ Interview Questions:

1. Investigator (1): How does this deep research approach honor your line 1?
2. Opportunist (4): How is teaching Human Design helping you build recognition and network?
3. Projector nature: How is this whole experiment an example of “preparing for invitations” vs. giving unsolicited advice?
4. Splenic Authority: What was the splenic “yes” that started this? How are you trusting in-the-moment knowing?
5. Cross of Crisis: How does this Human Design work connect to your bigger life mission? How is it building foundation for the transformation work you’re called to do?

Step 4: Finalization

After completing all 8 sections over two writing sessions, I had a complete first draft.

My feedback to Claude:
“Here’s the whole article. What do you think? Shall we proceed with making this… readable? 😂”

Claude’s assessment:

• Overall: authentic voice strong throughout, butterfly metaphor works well, structure flows logically
• What needs work: Section 5 shows energy depletion, some typos/grammar throughout, transitions could be smoother
• Recommendation: holistic polish pass – fix typos, tighten repetition, smooth transitions, resolve brackets, keep voice intact

I agreed and asked Claude to proceed.

The polish:
Claude created an artifact with the polished version. I reviewed it against my first draft, putting back specific phrasings I wanted to keep – knowingly imperfect but to convey a certain “underlying message“, like I would in real-life.

Final touches:
I asked Claude to propose some version for title, subtitle, abstract, keywords. Aswell as ideas/prompts for the main visual.
I made my own version of these – usually combining some bits from here and there.

Time investment:

• Day 1: ~4-5 hours (sections 1-5, stopped due to energy depletion)
• Day 2: ~2 hours (sections 6-8, finalization)
• Total: ~6-7 hours (including methodology development)

This was the first time, had a huge amount of elements to include and it included developing the “Article Writing Protocol” itself, so future articles should be faster.

You can read the final result here: Learning-with-AI-in-Public-by-Teaching Human Design.