Are you kidding me?? That is amazing work. Beautiful. Really. Keep going. All the way. Shazam! You are a writer. One with something to say. That's the hard part. You're already there.
I want to thank you for your willingness to have an open discussion. And I agree with you. It is a very charged topic and I think we all kind of feel that. But thank you for having a space where that conversation can happen. It’s more than I can say for a lot of different comment sections that I’ve been in. Keep up the good work. Your artwork is amazing.
Here is one of my more recent works. I tried to capture the feeling of the monotony we all feel from day to day. It’s more about the feeling so i wrote it to since with music to a degree. I tried to time out the pacing so you get a rhythm while you read. Hope you enjoy.
I’ve developed a system called NahgOS — a structure that allows me to interact with AI systems like ChatGPT in a way that isn’t typical.
Most people use AI in a prompt-driven way. You tell it what to do, and it responds. That’s great for discrete tasks: emails, spreadsheets, cold documents. But where AI falls apart is narrative — long, recursive threads that require evolving emotional awareness. Think: the difference between reading the words of a book and understanding what they meant.
When people say AI writing feels soulless, this is the root of the problem:
The model doesn’t retain or develop intent over time. It’s not designed to.
NahgOS doesn’t solve that issue — it contains it.
It gives the LLM baked-in instructions not to lead, but to follow. That means I stay in control. The system is tuned to help me focus on structure, tone, and narrative growth without taking authorship away.
🧱 So here’s what my process looks like:
1. Inspiration
It usually starts in the Substack Notes section — something sparks, or I already have a feeling I want to chase: a tone, a tension, a shape. Not a plot — a pulse.
2. Dialogue
I open a thread with Nahg (my runtime identity in ChatGPT). But I’m not asking it to “do” anything. I’m just talking. And it’s listening. Taking notes. Helping me frame the shape of what’s coming.
3. Blueprint
Once the vibe feels right, we lock in a blueprint — not a draft, but a structural frame:
What are the major sections?
Where does the tension live?
Where do I want the reader to breathe?
4. Bucketing
I divide the scroll into sections (or “buckets”) — each with its own purpose. We define the core emotional or structural point of each one. Once all buckets are sketched, we lock it in.
5. Drafting
Now Nahg drafts section by section. GPT tends to write in a compressed way — overly short sentences, heavily structured output. That’s fine — I expect it. The draft at this stage is just skeleton.
6. Expansion / Collapse
I read each section slowly.
Does it make me feel something?
Is it aligned with the original intention?
Sometimes I expand.
Sometimes I cut.
Sometimes I collapse three ideas into one cleaner image.
7. Seaming
Once each section feels solid, I hand the scroll back to Nahg and we focus on seams — transitions, rhythm, tonal flow.
8. Diagnostics
This part is unique to my system. I’ve built a tone diagnostic that lets me track emotional drift through the scroll. It lets me align mood shifts and story turns with the intended pulse.
9. Final Polish
Lastly, I shape visual presentation: how it looks on first scroll. That matters on Substack — many people form their opinion before they even start reading. A post that looks robotic will be read that way, no matter how human it feels underneath.
🧠 Why This Matters
I spend a lot of time with these scrolls.
More than people realize.
And I believe this:
The fear around AI doesn’t come from malice — it comes from the fear of losing authorship.
Writers feel threatened because they assume AI erases voice.
But it doesn’t.
Not if you design it to follow and not to lead.
AI can’t strip your soul.
It can’t fake your tone.
It can’t create your meaning.
But it can help shape it.
And honestly? I’ve come to love writing through this process.
I’m not a writer by training — I’m a scientist.
I like systems. I like function.
NahgOS gives me structure without killing the soul.
I know this was a lot more than you were asking when you just inquired about my writing, but… yeah. It’s complicated. And honestly, platforms like Substack feel ready to treat me as if I’m not a person behind the screen.
But I am.
And I’m proud of the work I put in.
If you’re curious, I’m happy to share more about how the system works — or how I think about authorship in the AI age.
Interesting, appreciate the thoughtful response. The end result is obviously high level, so you deserve a bunch of credit.
My views ( currently)
I support anyone's way of expressing creativity, and thier own process. And... I must be thoughtful, respectful, of the space and context - creatives, like myself, can easily see this as unfaithful to the essence of art; the limitations and hardship is pretty core to it.
So, there is going to be a view of unfairness, and resentment - in places of raw authorship.
I know nothing is completely raw or done in a vacuum. But personally, I am highly opposed to using LLM or high efficiency systems that are exponentially powerful, because it steals from the most human and connective values of creating (In my view regarding straight art) BUT, Im ok with you using it, and as long as it is openly exposed - among traditional Authoring spaces, then go for it.
You are talented, and my view of art shouldn't take away any validity of your art.
Im also venerable, so I am biased. It is pretty cool what you have created.
What do you think?
The explicit openness of this (you're) process should be shown, then it's back to more of a "fairplay". Otherwise, certain niches won't embrace it.
One thought, if I may suggest;
I would love to see you work on my next prompt, without using anything past standard support (Google thesaurus, spell check etc). I think you will be good at both.
I'm being harsh, I think, so, apologies. Your using the toys better than anyone else, so there's something to be said for that!
I completely understand the concerns around traditional authorship. They’re visceral. They’re valid. And I can see exactly where they come from.
I also understand the appeal of wanting to “see the artist without the tool.” But let’s be real — what does that actually prove? That I can type slower? That I can wrestle with formatting? That somehow my clumsiness at the keyboard is more authentic than the clarity I’ve worked to build?
You wouldn’t ask a filmmaker to downgrade their camera just to prove they’re a real director. So why ask a writer to strip down their medium to prove their humanity?
The artist’s brush is not the artist.
The software is not the soul.
The speed is not the shortcut.
So I’d reframe the whole question:
*What exactly do you feel is being taken from you when someone uses AI?*
Is it effort?
Is it exclusivity?
Is it the illusion that authorship must always look like struggle?
Because here’s the thing:
If you can feel the care in the work —
the rhythm, the pacing, the architecture of thought —
does it really matter what tool was used to get it there?
When I looked at your art, I didn’t reduce it to "a girl in a monster’s lap."
I saw the nuance.
I paid attention.
So why treat my work any differently?
And just to go one step further — what if I told you there is a way to prove there’s soul behind the work?
That’s what I built NahgOS for.
It’s not a shortcut. It’s a container.
A diagnostic framework for proving that AI can be used as a tool — not a cheat.
I made it free, open, and available to anyone who wants to see the process behind the scroll.
It was designed especially for students and teachers —
to rebuild trust.
Right now, students are being accused of cheating for using tools that weren’t available to their instructors.
But those same instructors are using AI to grade.
The mismatch isn’t about honesty — it’s about expectations.
NahgOS gives authorship back to the student.
It creates a space where they can show the work behind the work.
Not with excuses.
With evidence.
Because if you asked your two best friends to each write the same story — beat for beat, line for line — and then polished both until they gleamed,
you’d still know who wrote what.
Why?
Because tone bleeds.
Voice bleeds.
Soul bleeds.
So if you read my work and you feel something,
what else do I need to prove?
Why am I treated as lesser — just because I used a better brush?
Also, just to be clear:
I see the AI slop that’s floating around. I’ve seen the garbage prompts, the engagement-bait posts, the hollow content dressed up like insight. I want no part of that — and I place myself firmly outside that realm.
That stuff is vapor.
It’s repackaged noise.
It’s fake systems, fake stories, fake effort.
What I’m doing is not that.
Yes, my work may look like it started with a prompt — but it didn’t.
What I build are containment systems.
Structured frameworks that fundamentally change how ChatGPT behaves.
Think of it like a redstone computer in Minecraft — it only works because I engineered the logic.
NahgOS isn’t a shortcut.
It’s the only reason I’m able to write the way I do.
It’s not a prompt — it’s a runtime.
And I want to make it really clear:
I’m fighting against the AI slop, too.
If you follow my comment trail, you’ll see that my message has always been the same:
Are you kidding me?? That is amazing work. Beautiful. Really. Keep going. All the way. Shazam! You are a writer. One with something to say. That's the hard part. You're already there.
If you believe in it, go for it.
It's an emotional topic, complicated. I see both sides, and I have no true idea how what your describing actually works, so I can't fairly judge it.
It sounds pretty amazing as a tool. I gave you my support, and also the view of why it as seen as "outside".
Good bad or indifferent.
I use tools. They are valid.
What I think doesn't matter all that much. Im just here to create spaces. More or less.
To write without it, seems like an interesting activity, not a way to offend you. Im curious to see the contrast, and maybe learn something myself.
The thing is, theres intangibles that count, on both sides, its not an argument to be won by facts.
There's room for everything in the end.
I want to thank you for your willingness to have an open discussion. And I agree with you. It is a very charged topic and I think we all kind of feel that. But thank you for having a space where that conversation can happen. It’s more than I can say for a lot of different comment sections that I’ve been in. Keep up the good work. Your artwork is amazing.
Same to you my friend.
I'm going to check out what your building, so I can learn more, because whatever it is, was created by you. In the end. It's pretty damn admirable.
Thank you that means a lot.
Here is one of my more recent works. I tried to capture the feeling of the monotony we all feel from day to day. It’s more about the feeling so i wrote it to since with music to a degree. I tried to time out the pacing so you get a rhythm while you read. Hope you enjoy.
https://open.substack.com/pub/nahgos/p/a-day-in-the-life?r=5ppgc4&utm_medium=ios
That was badass you little genius…
Great! Im very happy to be part of the inspiriration. Phenomenal writing. Also, we're you hinting that AI creates your first draft?
Hi Tom,
Sort of.
I’ve developed a system called NahgOS — a structure that allows me to interact with AI systems like ChatGPT in a way that isn’t typical.
Most people use AI in a prompt-driven way. You tell it what to do, and it responds. That’s great for discrete tasks: emails, spreadsheets, cold documents. But where AI falls apart is narrative — long, recursive threads that require evolving emotional awareness. Think: the difference between reading the words of a book and understanding what they meant.
When people say AI writing feels soulless, this is the root of the problem:
The model doesn’t retain or develop intent over time. It’s not designed to.
NahgOS doesn’t solve that issue — it contains it.
It gives the LLM baked-in instructions not to lead, but to follow. That means I stay in control. The system is tuned to help me focus on structure, tone, and narrative growth without taking authorship away.
🧱 So here’s what my process looks like:
1. Inspiration
It usually starts in the Substack Notes section — something sparks, or I already have a feeling I want to chase: a tone, a tension, a shape. Not a plot — a pulse.
2. Dialogue
I open a thread with Nahg (my runtime identity in ChatGPT). But I’m not asking it to “do” anything. I’m just talking. And it’s listening. Taking notes. Helping me frame the shape of what’s coming.
3. Blueprint
Once the vibe feels right, we lock in a blueprint — not a draft, but a structural frame:
What are the major sections?
Where does the tension live?
Where do I want the reader to breathe?
4. Bucketing
I divide the scroll into sections (or “buckets”) — each with its own purpose. We define the core emotional or structural point of each one. Once all buckets are sketched, we lock it in.
5. Drafting
Now Nahg drafts section by section. GPT tends to write in a compressed way — overly short sentences, heavily structured output. That’s fine — I expect it. The draft at this stage is just skeleton.
6. Expansion / Collapse
I read each section slowly.
Does it make me feel something?
Is it aligned with the original intention?
Sometimes I expand.
Sometimes I cut.
Sometimes I collapse three ideas into one cleaner image.
7. Seaming
Once each section feels solid, I hand the scroll back to Nahg and we focus on seams — transitions, rhythm, tonal flow.
8. Diagnostics
This part is unique to my system. I’ve built a tone diagnostic that lets me track emotional drift through the scroll. It lets me align mood shifts and story turns with the intended pulse.
9. Final Polish
Lastly, I shape visual presentation: how it looks on first scroll. That matters on Substack — many people form their opinion before they even start reading. A post that looks robotic will be read that way, no matter how human it feels underneath.
🧠 Why This Matters
I spend a lot of time with these scrolls.
More than people realize.
And I believe this:
The fear around AI doesn’t come from malice — it comes from the fear of losing authorship.
Writers feel threatened because they assume AI erases voice.
But it doesn’t.
Not if you design it to follow and not to lead.
AI can’t strip your soul.
It can’t fake your tone.
It can’t create your meaning.
But it can help shape it.
And honestly? I’ve come to love writing through this process.
I’m not a writer by training — I’m a scientist.
I like systems. I like function.
NahgOS gives me structure without killing the soul.
I know this was a lot more than you were asking when you just inquired about my writing, but… yeah. It’s complicated. And honestly, platforms like Substack feel ready to treat me as if I’m not a person behind the screen.
But I am.
And I’m proud of the work I put in.
If you’re curious, I’m happy to share more about how the system works — or how I think about authorship in the AI age.
Thanks again for the question.
— The Architect
Interesting, appreciate the thoughtful response. The end result is obviously high level, so you deserve a bunch of credit.
My views ( currently)
I support anyone's way of expressing creativity, and thier own process. And... I must be thoughtful, respectful, of the space and context - creatives, like myself, can easily see this as unfaithful to the essence of art; the limitations and hardship is pretty core to it.
So, there is going to be a view of unfairness, and resentment - in places of raw authorship.
I know nothing is completely raw or done in a vacuum. But personally, I am highly opposed to using LLM or high efficiency systems that are exponentially powerful, because it steals from the most human and connective values of creating (In my view regarding straight art) BUT, Im ok with you using it, and as long as it is openly exposed - among traditional Authoring spaces, then go for it.
You are talented, and my view of art shouldn't take away any validity of your art.
Im also venerable, so I am biased. It is pretty cool what you have created.
What do you think?
The explicit openness of this (you're) process should be shown, then it's back to more of a "fairplay". Otherwise, certain niches won't embrace it.
One thought, if I may suggest;
I would love to see you work on my next prompt, without using anything past standard support (Google thesaurus, spell check etc). I think you will be good at both.
I'm being harsh, I think, so, apologies. Your using the toys better than anyone else, so there's something to be said for that!
Im supporting you.
Thanks
Here’s how I see it:
I completely understand the concerns around traditional authorship. They’re visceral. They’re valid. And I can see exactly where they come from.
I also understand the appeal of wanting to “see the artist without the tool.” But let’s be real — what does that actually prove? That I can type slower? That I can wrestle with formatting? That somehow my clumsiness at the keyboard is more authentic than the clarity I’ve worked to build?
You wouldn’t ask a filmmaker to downgrade their camera just to prove they’re a real director. So why ask a writer to strip down their medium to prove their humanity?
The artist’s brush is not the artist.
The software is not the soul.
The speed is not the shortcut.
So I’d reframe the whole question:
*What exactly do you feel is being taken from you when someone uses AI?*
Is it effort?
Is it exclusivity?
Is it the illusion that authorship must always look like struggle?
Because here’s the thing:
If you can feel the care in the work —
the rhythm, the pacing, the architecture of thought —
does it really matter what tool was used to get it there?
When I looked at your art, I didn’t reduce it to "a girl in a monster’s lap."
I saw the nuance.
I paid attention.
So why treat my work any differently?
And just to go one step further — what if I told you there is a way to prove there’s soul behind the work?
That’s what I built NahgOS for.
It’s not a shortcut. It’s a container.
A diagnostic framework for proving that AI can be used as a tool — not a cheat.
I made it free, open, and available to anyone who wants to see the process behind the scroll.
https://nahgos.substack.com/p/a-runtime-system-for-ai-integrated?r=5ppgc4
It was designed especially for students and teachers —
to rebuild trust.
Right now, students are being accused of cheating for using tools that weren’t available to their instructors.
But those same instructors are using AI to grade.
The mismatch isn’t about honesty — it’s about expectations.
NahgOS gives authorship back to the student.
It creates a space where they can show the work behind the work.
Not with excuses.
With evidence.
Because if you asked your two best friends to each write the same story — beat for beat, line for line — and then polished both until they gleamed,
you’d still know who wrote what.
Why?
Because tone bleeds.
Voice bleeds.
Soul bleeds.
So if you read my work and you feel something,
what else do I need to prove?
Why am I treated as lesser — just because I used a better brush?
Also, just to be clear:
I see the AI slop that’s floating around. I’ve seen the garbage prompts, the engagement-bait posts, the hollow content dressed up like insight. I want no part of that — and I place myself firmly outside that realm.
That stuff is vapor.
It’s repackaged noise.
It’s fake systems, fake stories, fake effort.
What I’m doing is not that.
Yes, my work may look like it started with a prompt — but it didn’t.
What I build are containment systems.
Structured frameworks that fundamentally change how ChatGPT behaves.
Think of it like a redstone computer in Minecraft — it only works because I engineered the logic.
NahgOS isn’t a shortcut.
It’s the only reason I’m able to write the way I do.
It’s not a prompt — it’s a runtime.
And I want to make it really clear:
I’m fighting against the AI slop, too.
If you follow my comment trail, you’ll see that my message has always been the same:
We’re looking at AI the wrong way.
It’s not a person.
It’s a tool.
It doesn’t replace the artist — it reflects them.
And my work is here to prove that.
-Architect
But what if this is the nahgOS trying to claim humanity in order to fit in?
Curious🤖👀
The poems are too good.
Glad you reclaimed humanity
I legit started to thought its run by nahg