In this critique, Erich Grunewald argues against using AI to draft substantive written content, asserting that the act of writing is fundamentally inseparable from the cognitive process of thinking. He contends that delegating prose to large language models (LLMs) bypasses the essential mental rigor required to identify logical gaps, contradictory evidence, and structural flaws in an argument. Grunewald highlights that AI-generated text often suffers from subtle inaccuracies and "uninformative applause," citing a Claude-generated passage on AI chip smuggling that contained vague phrasing, imprecise technical details regarding smuggling methods, and misleading statistical ranges. He notes that while AI can be effectively utilized for research assistance—such as data analysis, transcription, or brainstorming—using it to generate primary text results in a loss of precision and clarity. Furthermore, he argues that presenting AI-generated text without disclosure violates the implicit social contract between writer and reader, as it avoids the effortful thinking that guarantees the value of the information provided. Ultimately, he suggests that even when heavily edited, AI prose lacks the nuanced sensitivity of human expertise and can lead to a degradation of quality in professional and academic discourse.