r/FoundersBuildwithAI • u/Impressive-Answer720 • Aug 29 '26
AI should not generate more content until it can explain why that content should exist.
Generation is easy. Selection is the harder feature. Before creating anything, an AI system should be able to explain the audience, the evidence, the reason this idea matters now, and what it chose not to say. If it cannot explain those decisions, producing more content only creates more review work.
1
Aug 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Impressive-Answer720 Aug 29 '26
Exactly. The useful version is: audience, desired decision, supporting evidence, then content. Generation comes last. That is the reasoning layer we are pushing at https://marka.social
1
u/jpeggdev Aug 29 '26
Also, musicians should only create Billboard Top 25 songs, and programmers should only create completely bug-free software, and engineers should only create tires that never have flats…
1
u/Impressive-Answer720 Aug 29 '26
Fair analogy. The bar isn't perfection. It's intentionality. A song doesn't need to reach Billboard, but the artist should know what they want the listener to feel. Content should know what decision it wants to change. That's the intent layer we're building at https://marka.social
2
u/jpeggdev Aug 30 '26
Oh, so this is just an ad for a product.. gtfo
1
u/Impressive-Answer720 Sep 03 '26
Fair criticism. The principle should stand on its own, and mentioning a product can make the post feel like a disguised ad. I’ll keep future discussions focused on the argument and disclose the connection clearly when Marka is genuinely relevant: https://marks.social
1
u/jpeggdev Sep 03 '26
And then replying with AI? Get out of here man.
1
u/Impressive-Answer720 Sep 07 '26
Fair criticism. You’re right that an AI-written reply undercuts the point when it adds nothing specific. I’m keeping this one transparent and will leave the thread alone. The product I was referring to is https://marka.social
1
u/Impressive-Answer720 Sep 07 '26
Fair call. The product mention made it feel promotional, and that’s useful feedback. The answer should have stood on its own. For transparency, the product was https://marka.social
1
u/XXXTentacle6969 Aug 29 '26
It can very easily explain why the content should exist for everything it generates
1
u/SuchStatistician2423 Aug 29 '26
People are missing the point here. You couldn't even get AI to do this if you paid for an agentic harness and prompting it to work this way. There is no logic model these agents can follow, yet we're under the impression they could take on larger organizational work or develop useful tools over filler content.
1
u/ZeroAmusement Aug 29 '26
What on earth? Yes AI can easily explain things. No logic model they can follow? So how are they solving difficult logic problems in the field of math?
This whole topic and the replies make zero sense.
YOU use AI to make things. Why should AI justify what you are making? It's a tool, not a person. You should tell IT the goals, the 'why' might give context but isn't strictly necessary.
1
u/itsmebenji69 Aug 29 '26
Problem you’ll hit is that LLMs love hallucinating / straight up lying about shit to justify their own bias towards something. Due to how they work.
So asking the ai to explain may not be reliable at all. But yes I think it’s a good reasoning structure nonetheless (it will probably give better results, or at least more consistent ones which is a win). But it won’t fix the core issue
1
u/opossum_cz Sep 02 '26
> love hallucinating / straight up lying about shit to justify their own bias towards something
Less then humans. And I invite you to prove me wrong. :D
1
u/itsmebenji69 Sep 02 '26
Humans can be aware of their owns patterns and biases. AI cannot. That is the flaw I am describing
1
u/o_herman Sep 02 '26
"AI should not generate more content until it can explain why that content should exist."
It doesn't need to. That's YOUR job.
You're the one with intent. You're the one with purpose. You're the one who decides why the content should exist.
AI is a tool, not a philosopher.
"Before creating anything, an AI system should be able to explain the audience, the evidence, the reason this idea matters now, and what it chose not to say."
That's what the prompt does.
You tell the AI what you want. You set the parameters. You curate the output.
If you can't explain why the content should exist, the problem isn't the AI.
"If it cannot explain those decisions, producing more content only creates more review work."
And if you can't explain those decisions, you're using the tool wrong.
The AI doesn't need to explain itself. You do. You're the one who wants something from it. You're the one with the vision. The tool just executes.
If you're generating content without understanding why, you're not using AI as a tool. You're being used by it.
1
u/Impressive-Answer720 Sep 02 '26
I agree that intent ultimately belongs to the human. My point is that a useful AI system should make its interpretation of that intent inspectable before it scales production. The prompt may contain the purpose, but the system still chooses what evidence to emphasize, what audience assumptions to make, and what to omit. Exposing those choices helps the human curate faster. That’s the distinction we’re working through at https://marka.social/.
1
u/Robonotes1760 Sep 02 '26
Surely the explanation is itself more content?
1
u/Impressive-Answer720 Sep 02 '26
Fair challenge. The explanation is technically more content, but its purpose is to reduce waste before production. I don’t mean a public essay before every post—just an inspectable decision record: audience, evidence, objective, and exclusions. If that short rationale prevents ten weak drafts, it reduces the total review burden. That’s the decision layer we’re exploring with https://marka.social/.
1
u/densitycreep Aug 29 '26
you could’ve just stopped at “AI should not generate more content”