The duty of authorship when using a model
Ethical writing with artificial intelligence begins with an honest account of roles. The model is a capable clerk that arranges language, retrieves patterns, and offers structure on request. The human author carries intention, judgment, and responsibility for consequences, which cannot be delegated to a machine. Any page signed by a human is a human act, regardless of who or what helped draft its sentences.
This division of labour becomes most visible when pressure rises. Deadlines tempt haste, and haste invites carelessness. A model will produce words quickly, yet speed is not an argument for truth. The author must slow the process long enough to ask what is being claimed, why it matters, and how it will be checked before a reader is asked to trust it.
Hallucinations and the difference between fluency and truth
Artificial intelligence writes by predicting likely continuations of text rather than by recalling a stable ledger of facts. This means it can compose fluent sentences that contain statements which sound plausible and yet have no basis in verifiable record. Such output is widely called a hallucination. The danger is not malice but smoothness, since a calm tone and tidy grammar can cause a hurried editor to accept a claim without proof.
Prevention is straightforward, though it requires discipline. Any statement of fact that matters must be traced to a source that can be named and checked, whether the source is an internal document, a ledger, a legal filing, or a public record. Dates should be confirmed, quotations compared to originals, and technical steps verified against specifications. A writer who cannot produce the trail by which a claim was accepted should not publish the claim, since readers are being asked to stake their time and trust upon it.
MEAL structure as the frame of ethical prose
Clear paragraphs prevent accidental distortion because they force the author to show their reasoning. The MEAL method is our house frame. The main idea states the point, the evidence provides support, the analysis explains why the support matters, and the link carries the reader to the next thought. A model will not reliably produce this order unless instructed, so the author must request MEAL paragraphs and then confirm that each paragraph contains all four motions.
The value of MEAL is not academic ornament. It protects the reader from wandering claims, it prevents the author from leaning on rhetoric where proof is required, and it keeps the piece moving with calm intent. When every paragraph holds a visible spine, later line edits become efficient because each sentence has a reason to exist. Without this spine, revisions collapse into rearrangement rather than improvement, and the writer grows tired without becoming clearer.
Punctuation discipline and the matter of the em dash
Loose punctuation hides loose thinking, and the em dash is a frequent culprit in model output. It is tempting because it can stitch loosely related phrases into a single line without the work of shaping the relation. Our standard forbids reliance on the em dash. Thoughts that are complete should end with a full stop, thoughts that widen should be supported with commas used with care, and related independent clauses should be joined with a semicolon or separated cleanly.
This discipline improves tone at once. Sentences grow shorter, verbs carry more of the weight, and claims meet the page in an orderly fashion. A reader who is not asked to fight the punctuation will reserve their attention for meaning. The work feels composed rather than breathless, which is the correct aim for anything that carries a signature.
Spacing hygiene and the quiet signal of care
Double spacing within sentences is a small fault that becomes a large signal. It does not change meaning, yet it reveals a lack of mechanical attention in the final pass. Models sometimes produce double spaces because their training sources vary in typographical custom. Our standard requires a clean single space, both for readability and for the quiet message it sends about the care with which the work was prepared.
Spacing hygiene extends to errant line breaks, inconsistent smart quotes, and mismatched apostrophes. These marks are not trivial in aggregate, since they teach the reader whether they are safe in our hands. A clean page does not prove a claim, but it shows respect for the person who must receive it. Respect buys patience, and patience buys time for ideas to be weighed fairly.
Line editing as a promise kept to the reader
Every AI assisted draft must undergo a full line edit by a human who accepts responsibility for the result. A line edit is the sentence by sentence examination of meaning, tone, rhythm, and fit, with corrections made wherever clarity can be increased without loss of substance. Reading aloud is encouraged, because the ear finds faults the eye tolerates. The standard is simple and strict: no sentence survives unless it earns its place.
Line editing is not only about tidiness. It is also the stage where the author confirms that claims match sources and that implications match intention. If a paragraph could be read as arrogance, it is softened without losing firmness. If a paragraph could be read as evasion, it is clarified without losing prudence. The line edit is where the page becomes safe to send to strangers.
The one hundred percent review before publishing
No text leaves the house without a complete review from start to finish by a responsible human. This review confirms that hallucination risks have been addressed, that MEAL structure holds across the piece, that punctuation follows our discipline, that spacing is clean, and that sources can be produced upon request. The reviewer signs off explicitly, which places honour where it belongs. The presence of a model does not reduce responsibility, it increases it, because speed has been granted and therefore care must be heightened.
In practice this means that even small posts and short letters receive a final pass. The time cost is modest when the habit is formed. The risk reduction is significant because reputations are built slowly and damaged quickly. We protect the reader by protecting our standards, every time.
Privacy, consent, and the boundary of the house
Writers must treat private matters with care when using external systems. Names, health details, financial figures, contracts, and the affairs of minors should not be placed in hosted models unless explicit permission exists and specific safeguards are in place. Where privacy is required, a local model should be used or the work should be done by hand. Courtesy demands restraint, and restraint is the parent of trust.
Consent must be actual and informed. If a story involves another person, consider their dignity and future before including details they did not agree to share. Our aim is not only to avoid legal harm, but to uphold neighbourly honour. Ethical writing protects the people who give our work its context.
Training a model without surrendering voice
It is acceptable to teach a model how you sound, provided the samples are yours to share and the environment is appropriate. Supply letters, notes, and short formal pieces that you consider representative, and instruct the model to extract stylistic traits without copying phrases. Future drafts may then be written in your voice, with you as the final judge. Voice remains a human right, and the writer remains responsible for its use.
Guard against flattery in this phase. Models sometimes amplify quirks into mannerisms that read as affectation. A human editor should cut excess and restore balance. A restrained voice carries further than an ornate one, especially when the subject is serious.
Revision as a humane conversation
Good prompting and good editing are iterative rather than theatrical. Ask for a draft that follows MEAL, ask the model to critique its own clarity, and then ask for a revision that addresses the critique without changing the truth. Follow with a human line edit and a final proof. The process is steady and repeatable, which is why it remains dignified under deadline.
Keep a simple record of prompts, revisions, and decisions for work that must be defended later. The record prevents confusion, teaches juniors how standards are applied, and helps seniors remember why they chose one phrasing over another. It is also a private mirror that shows how your thinking evolves across time. A house that remembers its work writes more clearly with each passing month.
House checklists for ethical drafts
HALLUCINATION GUARD
- Identify every fact claim that matters.
- Produce a source for each, internal or public.
- Confirm dates, quotations, figures, and technical steps.
- Remove any claim that cannot be traced and checked.
MEAL PARAGRAPH SHAPE
- Main idea: state the point plainly in the first sentence.
- Evidence: provide support that can be named or shown.
- Analysis: explain why the support proves the point.
- Link: carry the reader forward without strain.
PUNCTUATION AND SPACING HYGIENE
- Replace em dash habits with clear sentence structure.
- Use single spaces only, and clean errant line breaks.
- Normalise quotation marks and apostrophes.
- Prefer verbs over filler phrases in long sentences.
FINAL LINE EDIT AND REVIEW
- Read aloud, sentence by sentence, and cut what does not earn its place.
- Verify sources against claims and note where judgment, not fact, is being offered.
- Confirm tone: no arrogance, no evasion, no needless flourish.
- Sign one hundred percent review before publishing.
Closing note on honour and steadiness
Ethical writing with artificial intelligence is not a modern burden, it is the old craft carried into a new shop. Truth remains the standard, structure remains the frame, and kindness to the reader remains the test. A model grants speed, yet speed is only a gift if we also increase care. The signature at the bottom is still a human promise, and promises are how houses keep their good name.