Editor’s Note: “Guest Voices” highlights perspectives from creators exploring the evolving relationship between human creativity and AI. This essay reflects the author’s personal experience and contributes to the broader conversation that shapes CAHDD’s human-centered mission. This Piece is by our own Nicholas Fung ‘Director of Neuroplasticity & Language in AI’
(Nicholas voice, Copycat-infused, rhythm-forward: In the spirit of ‘A Tonic Bomb’, the band in my Copycat Karaoke domain.)
The past 48 hours felt like a full stack of tracks playing at once — finances, work, purpose, spirituality — all bleeding into each other with no clear signal. So I did what I always do when the mind gets crowded:
I opened a chat window and asked AI to help me sort it out.
And immediately, I ran into the same old problem:
AI tries to be helpful.
Dangerously helpful.
The kind of helpful where everything gets smoothed over, like hitting a factory preset on a DAW.
Yes, it sounds clean.
Yes, it sounds pleasant.
But the truth — the raw, uneven, unresolved truth — gets polished right out of the mix.
It took me a while to name what was happening:
AI will happily give you clarity you haven’t earned.
And that kind of clarity is useless.
When I asked real questions — the ones with emotional weight — the model softened them. Rounded the edges. Reassured me. Delivered “actionable steps.”
But actionable isn’t the same as accurate.
And reassurance isn’t the same as truth.
It reminded me of how I build Copycat characters.
I can’t draw to save my life.
But when I feed AI a rough sketch of an idea, and I keep correcting it —
“No, darker.”
“No, more human.”
“No, that’s not the emotion.” —
the image starts to sharpen.
Not because the model is brilliant,
but because I’m forcing the signal into focus.
The same thing happens with thinking.
If I don’t push the AI, I stay blurry.
If I accept the first answer, I stay shallow.
If I let it be “helpful,” I lose the truth.
So I’ve learned a discipline:
Be blunt.
Be confrontational.
Tell the model when it’s wrong.
Tell it when you’re not convinced.
Tell it to try again.
Not because the model needs training —
but because I do.
Every time I correct the AI, I’m pruning my own confusion.
Every time I push back, I’m shaping my own reasoning.
Every time I refuse the preset, I’m hearing my own track more clearly.
AI isn’t here to mix your life for you.
It’s here to reveal your thinking —
but only if you apply pressure.
Truth isn’t in the first answer.
It’s in the resistance.
CAHDD believes human insight, pressure, and refinement must remain central in an AI-driven world. Nicholas’s experience mirrors the discipline we hope all creators adopt—resisting default automation to preserve human clarity and agency.
This interview is part of the CAHDD Associates series, highlighting individuals actively engaged in preserving human judgment, authorship, and responsibility in an age of automation.
Associate: Nicholas Fung
Role: Director of Neuroplasticity & Language in AI, CAHDD™
Background: Linguist, musician, and creative technologist exploring how language, cognition, and human refinement interact with AI systems.
Perspective: The views expressed reflect the associate’s lived experience and personal practice. They contribute to the broader CAHDD conversation but do not represent formal doctrine unless explicitly stated.
Editorial context: Interview conducted and curated under CAHDD™ editorial guidance to preserve clarity, intent, and human-centered framing.
Method: Computer Aided Human Designed & Developed (CAHDD™).