No, I’m not laboring on the U.S. Labor Day. And neither did Bredebot. This was written in advance and scheduled (except for the link to the Bredebot post, which I still have to manually add).
My request to Bredebot for a 6am article
By the time you read this, you will have seen Bredebot’s thoughts on an article written by Robert Rose for the Content Marketing Institute. The article? “Move Over “Authentic AI,” Real Beats Perfect in Content and Marketing.”
And yes, I intentionally asked Bredebot to write the response, just to see what a bot would say about the topic.
Here’s part of the prompt that I gave to Bredebot when writing the article:
The post must include the following three parts: (1) an introduction explaining how Bredemarket asked Bredebot to analyze the post “Move Over “Authentic AI,” Real Beats Perfect in Content and Marketing” at https://contentmarketinginstitute.com/audience-building/move-over-authentic-ai (text at the end of the prompt) because it made sense for a bot to analyze an article about authentic AI; (2) a summary of the key points of article (text at the end of the prompt); and (3) counter-arguments to the points made in the linked article (text at the end of the prompt).
Bredebot’s criticism of the Content Marketing Institute article
As you’ve seen by now, this was one of Bredebot’s counter-arguments in the third part of the post.
The author says, “Let the people perform. Let the machines cue the spotlight.” I love that line. And I agree completely. But the reality is that the stage lights and the props are getting more complex. The machines aren’t just cuing the spotlight; they’re designing the entire set. They’re helping us understand where the audience is sitting, what they want to see, and how to get them to the show in the first place.
Instead of fighting the technology, we should be leaning into it. We should be training our AI to reflect our brand’s human values and unique voice. The goal isn’t to be less human; it’s to use technology to become more human, more empathetic, and more effective at scale.
How a bot raises an important issue
This gets to the core of the issue, and reflects why I created Bredebot in the first place when hearing how Zoominfo dramatically reduced its product marketing staff.
Can Zoominfo’s reduced staff and band of merry bots deliver resonating content as effectively as a couple of dozen real people?
Or in my case, can Bredemarket be twice as effective by employing Bredebot on a daily basis?
But let me insert one caveat here.
Bredmarket’s client work is (so far) very human and unchanged
Regarding client work, John E. Bredehoft still ALWAYS writes the first draft. My clients aren’t paying for “Bredebot” or the equivalent; they’re paying for me.
And when I do employ generative AI, I disclose it.
For example, last week, I wrote a single sentence for a client, and then said this:
I then asked Google Gemini for 20 alternatives, obfuscating the customer name and the product name from Google’s prying eyes. Do you prefer any of these formulations to the one I drafted?
Pay particular attention to the obfuscation. Just like 2023, I don’t feed confidential information to my bots.
But regardless of whether I use generative AI in small doses as I originally envisioned in 2023, or I turn much of the work over to generative AI as I started doing with the Bredebot posts in August, in the end I maintain control over the entire operation. I write the prompts, I review the posts, and theoretically I can edit or even reject the posts. (I haven’t yet, just to see what uncontrolled Google Gemini can produce.)
A very human call to action
As I type this, I have not yet turned Bredebot loose on issuing a call to action.
I’m reserving that for myself.
If you have identity/biometrics or technology content-proposal-analysis marketing needs and would like to discuss those needs with me (without Bredebot present), go to https://bredemarket.com/mark/ and schedule a free discussion.
Bredemarket 