@BasilPuglisi

Content & Strategy, Powered by Factics & AI, Since 2009

PR & Writing

Multi AI Comparative Analysis: How My Work Stacks Up Against 22 AI Thought Leaders

by Leave a Comment

When a peer asked why my work matters, I decided to run a comparative analysis. Five independent systems, ChatGPT (HAIA RECCLIN), Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, and Grok, compared my work to 22 influential voices across AI ethics, governance, adoption, and human AI collaboration. What emerged was not a verdict but a lens, a way of seeing where my work overlaps with established thinking and where it adds a distinctive configuration.

AI ethics, AI governance, HAIA RECCLIN, multi AI comparison, AI self assessment, Basil Puglisi

Why I Did This

I started blogging in 2009. By late 2010, I began adding source lists at the end of my posts so readers could see what I learned and know that my writing was grounded in applied knowledge, not just opinion.

By 2012, after dozens of events and collaborations, I introduced Teachers NOT Speakers to turn events into classrooms where questions and debate drove learning.

In November 2012, I launched Digital Factics: Twitter Mag Cloud, building on the Factics concept I had already applied in my blogs. In 2013, we used it live in events so participants could walk away with strategy, not just inspiration.

By 2025, I had shifted my focus to closing the gap between principles and practice. Asking the same question to different models revealed not just different answers but different assumptions. That insight became HAIA RECCLIN, my multi AI orchestration model that preserves dissent and uses a human arbiter to find convergence without losing nuance.

This analysis is not about claiming victory. It is a compass and a mirror, a way to see where I am strong, where I may still be weak, and how my work can evolve.

The Setup

This was a comparative positioning exercise rather than a formal validation. HAIA RECCLIN runs multiple AIs independently and preserves dissent to avoid single model bias. I curated a 22 person panel covering ethics, governance, adoption, and collaboration so the comparison would test my work against a broad spectrum of current thought. Other practitioners might choose different leaders or weight domains differently.

How I Ran the Comparative Analysis

  • Prompt Design: A single neutral prompt asked each AI to compare my framework and style to the panel, including strengths and weaknesses.
  • Independent Runs: ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, and Grok were queried separately.
  • Compilation: ChatGPT compiled the responses into a single summary with no human edits, preserving any dissent or divergence.
  • Bias Acknowledgement: AI systems often show model helpfulness bias, favoring constructive and positive framing unless explicitly challenged to find flaws.

The Results

The AI responses converged around themes of operational governance, cultural adoption, and human AI collaboration. This convergence is encouraging, though it may reflect how I framed the comparison rather than an objective measurement. These are AI-generated impressions and should be treated as inputs for reflection, not final judgments.

Comparative Findings

These are AI generated comparative impressions for reflection, not objective measurements.

Theme Where I Converge Where I Extend Potential Weaknesses
AI Ethics Fairness, transparency, oversight Constitutional checks and balances with amendment pathways NIST RMF No formal external audit or safety benchmark
Human AI Collaboration Human in the loop Multi AI orchestration and human arbitration Mollick 2024 Needs metrics for “dissent preserved”
AI Adoption Scaling pilots, productivity 90 day growth rhythm and culture as multiplier Brynjolfsson and McAfee Requires real world case studies and benchmarks
Governance Regulation and audits Escalation maps, audit trails, and buy in NIST AI 100-2 Conceptual alignment only, not certified
Narrative Style Academic clarity Decision maker focus with integrated KPIs Risk of self selection bias

What This Exercise Cannot Tell Us

This exercise cannot tell us whether HAIA RECCLIN meets formal safety standards, passes adversarial red-team tests, or produces statistically significant business outcomes. It cannot fully account for model bias, since all five AIs share overlapping training data. It cannot substitute for diverse human review panels, real-world pilots, or longitudinal studies.

The next step is to use adversarial prompts to deliberately probe for weaknesses, run controlled pilots where possible, and invite others to replicate this approach with their own work.

Closing Thought

This process helped me see where my work stands and where it needs to grow. Treat exercises like this as a compass and a mirror. When we share results and iterate together, we build faster, earn more trust, and improve the field for everyone.

If you try this yourself, share what you learn, how you did it, and where your work stood out or fell short. Post it, tag me, or send me your findings. I will feature selected results in a future follow up so we can all learn together.

Methodology Disclosure

Prompt Used:
“The original prompt asked each AI to compare my frameworks and narrative approach to a curated panel of 22 thought leaders in AI ethics, governance, adoption, and collaboration. It instructed them to identify similarities, differences, and unique contributions, and to surface both strengths and gaps, not just positive reinforcement.”

Source Material Provided:
To ground the analysis, I provided each AI with a set of my own published and unpublished works, including:

  • AI Ethics White Paper
  • AI for Growth, Not Just Efficiency
  • The Growth OS: Leading with AI Beyond Efficiency (Part 2)
  • From Broadcasting to Belonging — Why Brands Must Compete With Everyone
  • Scaling AI in Moderation: From Promise to Accountability
  • The Human Advantage in AI: Factics, Not Fantasies
  • AI Isn’t the Problem, People Are
  • Platform Ecosystems and Plug-in Layers
  • An unpublished 20 page white paper detailing the HAIA RECCLIN model and a case study

Each AI analyzed this material independently before generating their comparisons to the thought leader panel.

Access to Raw Outputs:
Full AI responses are available upon request to allow others to replicate or critique this approach.

References

Scaling AI in Moderation: From Promise to Accountability

by Leave a Comment

TL;DR

AI moderation works best as a hybrid system that uses machines for speed and humans for judgment. Automated filters handle clear cut cases and lighten moderator workload, while human review catches context, nuance, and bias. The goal is not to replace people but to build accountable, measurable programs that reduce decision time, improve trust, and protect communities at scale.

The way people talk about artificial intelligence in moderation has changed. Not long ago it was fashionable to promise that machines would take care of trust and safety all on their own. Anyone who has worked inside these programs knows that idea does not hold. AI can move faster than people, but speed is not the same as accountability. What matters is whether the system can be consistent, fair, and reliable when pressure is on.

Here is why this matters. When moderation programs lack ownership and accountability, performance declines across every key measure. Decision cycle times stretch, appeal overturn rates climb, brand safety slips, non brand organic reach falls in priority clusters, and moderator wellness metrics decline. These are the KPIs regulators and executives are beginning to track, and they frame whether trust is being protected or lost.

Inside meetings, leaders often treat moderation as a technical problem. They buy a tool, plug it in, and expect the noise to stop. In practice the noise just moves. Complaints from users about unfair decisions, audits from regulators, and stress on moderators do not go away. That is why a moderation program cannot be treated as a trial with no ownership. It must have a leader, a budget, and goals that can be measured. Otherwise it will collapse under its own weight.

The technology itself has become more impressive. Large language models can now read tone, sarcasm, and coded speech in text or audio [14]. Computer vision can spot violent imagery before a person ever sees it [10]. Add optical character recognition and suddenly images with text become searchable, readable, and enforceable. Discord details how their media moderation stack uses ML and OCR to detect policy violations in real time [4][5]. AI is even learning to estimate intent, like whether a message is a joke, a threat, or a cry for help. At its best it shields moderators from the worst material while handling millions of items in real time.

Still, no machine can carry context alone. That is where hybrid design shows its value. A lighter, cheaper model can screen out the obvious material. More powerful models can look at the tricky cases. Humans step in when intent or culture makes the call uncertain. On visual platforms the same pattern holds. A system might block explicit images before they post, then send the questionable ones into review. At scale, teams are stacking tools together so each plays to its strength [13].

Consistency is another piece worth naming. A single human can waver depending on time of day, stress, or personal interpretation. AI applies the same rule every time. It will make mistakes, but the process does not drift. With feedback loops the accuracy improves [9]. That consistency is what regulators are starting to demand. Europe’s Digital Services Act requires platforms to explain decisions and publish risk reports [7]. The UK’s Online Safety Act threatens fines up to 10 percent of global turnover if harmful content is not addressed [8]. These are real consequences, not suggestions.

Trust, though, is earned differently. People care about fairness more than speed. When a platform makes an error, they want a chance to appeal and an explanation of why the decision was made. If users feel silenced they pull back, sometimes completely. Research calls this the “chilling effect,” where fear of penalties makes people censor themselves before they even type [3]. Transparency reports from Reddit show how common mistakes are. Around a fifth of appeals in 2023 overturned the original decision [11]. That should give every executive pause.

The economics are shifting too. Running models once cost a fortune, but the price per unit is falling. Analysts at Andreessen Horowitz detail how inference costs have dropped by roughly ninety percent in two years for common LLM workloads [1]. Practitioners describe how simple choices, like trimming prompts or avoiding chained calls, can cut expenses in half [6]. The message is not that AI is cheap, but that leaders must understand the math behind it. The true measure is cost per thousand items moderated, not the sticker price of a license.

Bias is the quiet danger. Studies have shown that some classifiers mislabel language from minority communities at about thirty percent higher false positive rates, including disproportionate flagging of African American Vernacular English as abusive [12]. This is not the fault of the model itself, it reflects the data it was trained on. Which means it is our problem, not the machine’s. Bias audits, diverse datasets, and human oversight are the levers available. Ignoring them only deepens mistrust.

Best Practice Spotlight

One company that shows what is possible is Bazaarvoice. They manage billions of product reviews and used that history to train their own moderation system. The result was fast. Seventy three percent of reviews are now screened automatically in seconds, but the gray cases still pass through human hands. They also launched a feature called Content Coach that helped create more than four hundred thousand authentic reviews. Eighty seven percent of people who tried it said it added value [2]. What stands out is that AI was not used to replace people, but to extend their capacity and improve the overall trust in the platform.

Executive Evaluation

  • Problem: Content moderation demand and regulatory pressure outpace existing systems, creating inconsistency, legal risk, and declining community trust.
  • Pain: High appeal overturn rates, moderator burnout, infrastructure costs, and looming fines erode performance and brand safety.
  • Possibility: Hybrid AI human moderation provides speed, accuracy, and compliance while protecting moderators and communities.
  • Path: Fund a permanent moderation program with executive ownership. Map standards into behavior matrices, embed explainability into all workflows, and integrate human review into gray and consequential cases.
  • Proof: Measurable reductions in overturned appeals, faster decision times, lower per unit moderation cost, stronger compliance audit scores, and improved moderator wellness metrics.
  • Tactic: Launch a fully accountable program with NLP triage, LLM escalation, and human oversight. Track KPIs continuously, appeal overturn rate, time to decision, cost per thousand items, and percentage of actions with documented reasons. Scale with ownership and budget secured, not as a temporary pilot but as a standing function of trust and safety.

Closing Thought

Infrastructure is not abstract and it is never just a theory slide. Claude supports briefs, Surfer builds authority, HeyGen enhances video integrity, and MidJourney steadies visual moderation. Compliance runs quietly in the background, not flashy but necessary. The teams that stop treating this stack like a side test and instead lean on it daily are the ones that walk into 2025 with measurable speed, defensible trust, and credibility that holds.

References

  1. Andreessen Horowitz. (2024, November 11). Welcome to LLMflation: LLM inference cost is going down fast. https://a16z.com/llmflation-llm-inference-cost/
  2. Bazaarvoice. (2024, April 25). AI-powered content moderation and creation: Examples and best practices. https://www.bazaarvoice.com/blog/ai-content-moderation-creation/
  3. Center for Democracy & Technology. (2021, July 26). “Chilling effects” on content moderation threaten freedom of expression for everyone. https://cdt.org/insights/chilling-effects-on-content-moderation-threaten-freedom-of-expression-for-everyone/
  4. Discord. (2024, March 14). Our approach to content moderation at Discord. https://discord.com/safety/our-approach-to-content-moderation
  5. Discord. (2023, August 1). How we moderate media with AI. https://discord.com/blog/how-we-moderate-media-with-ai
  6. Eigenvalue. (2023, December 10). Token intuition: Understanding costs, throughput, and scalability in generative AI applications. https://eigenvalue.medium.com/token-intuition-understanding-costs-throughput-and-scalability-in-generative-ai-applications-08065523b55e
  7. European Commission. (2022, October 27). The Digital Services Act. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act_en
  8. GOV.UK. (2024, April 24). Online Safety Act: explainer. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer
  9. Label Your Data. (2024, January 16). Human in the loop in machine learning: Improving model’s accuracy. https://labelyourdata.com/articles/human-in-the-loop-in-machine-learning
  10. Meta AI. (2024, March 27). Shielding citizens from AI-based media threats (CIMED). https://ai.meta.com/blog/cimed-shielding-citizens-from-ai-media-threats/
  11. Reddit. (2023, October 27). 2023 Transparency Report. https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/17ho93i/2023_transparency_report/
  12. Sap, M., Card, D., Gabriel, S., Choi, Y., & Smith, N. A. (2019). The Risk of Racial Bias in Hate Speech Detection. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 1668–1678). https://aclanthology.org/P19-1163/
  13. Trilateral Research. (2024, June 4). Human-in-the-loop AI balances automation and accountability. https://trilateralresearch.com/responsible-ai/human-in-the-loop-ai-balances-automation-and-accountability
  14. Joshi, A., Bhattacharyya, P., & Carman, M. J. (2017). Automatic Sarcasm Detection: A Survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 50(5), 1–22. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3124420

The Human Advantage in AI: Factics, Not Fantasies

by Leave a Comment

TL;DR

– AI mirrors human choices, not independent intelligence.
– Generalists and connectors benefit the most from AI.
– Specialists gain within their fields but lack the ability to cross silos or think outside the box.
– Inexperienced users risk harm because they cannot frame inputs or judge outputs.
– The resource effect may reshape socioeconomic structures, shifting leverage between degrees, knowledge, and access.
– The Factics framework proves it: facts only matter when tactics grounded in human judgment give them purpose.

AI as a Mirror of Human Judgment

Artificial intelligence is not alive and not sentient, yet it already reshapes how people live, work, and interact. At scale it acts like a mirror, reflecting the values, choices, and blind spots of the humans who design and direct it [1]. That is why human experience matters as much as the technology itself.

I have published more than nine hundred blog posts under my direction, half original and half created with AI [2–4]. The archive is valuable not because of volume but because of judgment. AI drafted, but human experience directed, reviewed, and refined. Without that balance the output would have been noise. With it, the work became a record of strategy, growth, and experimentation.

Why Generalists Gain the Most

AI reduces the need for some forms of expertise but creates leverage for those who know how to direct it. Generalists—people with broad knowledge and the ability to connect dots across domains—benefit the most. They frame problems, translate insights across disciplines, and use AI to scale those ideas into action.

Specialists benefit as well, but only within the walls of their fields. Doctors, lawyers, and engineers can use AI to accelerate diagnosis, review documents, or test designs. Yet they remain limited when asked to apply knowledge outside their vertical. They do not cross silos easily, and AI alone cannot provide that translation. Generalists retain the edge because they can see across contexts and deploy AI as connective tissue.

At the other end of the spectrum, those with less education or experience often face the greatest danger. They lack the baseline to know what to ask, how to ask it, or how to evaluate the output. Without that guidance, AI produces answers that may appear convincing but are wrong or even harmful. This is not the fault of the machine—it reflects human misuse. A poorly designed prompt from an untrained user creates as much risk as a bad input into any system.

The Resource Effect

AI also raises questions about class and socioeconomic impact. Degrees and titles have long defined status, but knowledge and execution often live elsewhere. A lawyer may hold the degree, but it is the paralegal who researches case law and drafts the brief. In that example, the lawyer functions as the generalist, knowing what must be found, while the paralegal is the specialist applying narrow research skills. AI shifts that equation. If AI can surface precedent, analyze briefs, and draft arguments, which role is displaced first—the lawyer or the paralegal?

The same tension plays out in medicine. Doctors often hold the broad training and experience, while physician assistants and nurses specialize in application and patient management. AI can now support diagnostics, analyze records, and surface treatment options. Does that change the leverage of the doctor, or does it challenge the specialist roles around them? The answer may depend less on the degree and more on who knows how to direct AI effectively.

For small businesses and underfunded organizations, the resource effect becomes even sharper. Historically, capital determined scale. Well-funded companies could hire large staffs, while lean organizations operated at a disadvantage. AI shifts the baseline. An underfunded business with AI can now automate research, marketing, or operations in ways that once required teams of staff. If used well, this levels the playing field, allowing smaller organizations to compete with larger ones despite fewer resources. But if used poorly, it can magnify mistakes just as quickly as it multiplies strengths.

From Efficiency to Growth

The opportunity goes beyond efficiency. Efficiency is the baseline. The true prize is growth. Efficiency asks what can be automated. Growth asks what can be expanded. Efficiency delivers speed. Growth delivers resilience, scale, and compounding value. AI as a tool produces pilots and slides. AI as a system becomes a Growth Operating System, integrating people, data, and workflows into a rhythm that compounds [9].

This shift is already visible. In sales, AI compresses close rates. In marketing, it personalizes onboarding and predicts churn. In product development, it accelerates feedback loops that reduce risk and sharpen investment. Organizations that tie AI directly to outcomes like revenue per employee, customer lifetime value, and sales velocity outperform those that settle for incremental optimization [10, 11]. But success depends on the role of the human directing it. Generalists scale the most, specialists scale within their verticals, and those with little training put themselves and their organizations at risk.

Factics in Action

The Factics framework makes this practical. Facts generated by AI become useful only when paired with tactics shaped by human experience. AI can draft a pitch, but only human insight ensures it is on brand and audience specific. AI can flag churn risks, but only human empathy delivers the right timing so customers feel valued instead of targeted. AI can process research at scale, but only human judgment ensures ethical interpretation. In healthcare, AI may monitor patients, but clinicians interpret histories and symptoms to guide treatment [12]. In supply chains, AI can optimize logistics, but managers balance efficiency with safety and stability. The facts matter, but tactics give them purpose.

Adoption, Risks, and Governance

Adoption is not automatic. Many organizations rush into AI without asking if they are ready to direct it. Readiness does not come from owning the latest model. It comes from leadership experience, review loops, and accountability systems. Warning signs include blind reliance on automation, lack of review, and executives treating AI as replacement rather than augmentation. Healthy systems look different. Prompts are designed with expertise, outputs reviewed with judgment, and cultures embrace transformation. That is what role transformation looks like. AI absorbs repetitive tasks while humans step into higher value work, creating growth loops that compound [13].

Risks remain. AI can replicate bias, displace workers, or erode trust if oversight is missing. We have already seen hiring algorithms that screen out qualified candidates because training data skewed toward a narrow profile. Facial recognition systems have misidentified individuals at higher rates in minority populations. These failures did not come from AI alone but from humans who built, trained, and deployed it without accountability. The fear does not come from machines, it comes from us. Ethical risk management must be built into the system. Governance frameworks, cultural safeguards, and human review are not optional, they are the prerequisites for trust [14, 15].

Why AGI Remains Out of Reach

This also grounds the debate about AGI and ASI. Today’s systems remain narrow AI, designed for specific tasks like drafting text or processing data. AGI imagines cross-domain adaptation. ASI imagines surpassing human capability. Without creativity, emotion, or imagination, such systems may never cross that line. These are not accessories to intelligence, they are its foundation [5]. Pattern recognition may detect an upset customer, but emotional intelligence knows whether they need an apology, a refund, or simply to be heard. Without that capacity, so called “super” intelligence remains bounded computation, faster but not wiser [6].

Artificial General Intelligence is not something that exists publicly today, nor can it be demonstrated in any credible research. Simulation is not the same as possession. ASI, artificial super intelligence, will remain out of reach because emotion, creativity, and imagination are human—not computational—elements. For my fellow Trekkies, even Star Trek made the point: Data was the most advanced vision of AI, yet his pursuit of humanity proved that emotion and imagination could never be programmed.

Closing Thought

The real risk is not runaway machines but humans deploying AI without guidance, review, or accountability. The opportunity is here, in how businesses use AI responsibly today. Paired with experience, AI builds systems that drive growth with integrity [8].

AI does not replace the human experience. Directed with clarity and purpose, it becomes a foundation for growth. Factics proves the point. Facts from AI only matter when coupled with tactics grounded in human judgment. The future belongs to organizations that understand this rhythm and choose to lead with it.

Disclosure

This article is AI-assisted but human-directed. My original position stands: AI is not alive or sentient, it mirrors human judgment and blind spots. From my Ethics of AI work, I argue the risks come not from machines but from humans who design and deploy them without accountability. In The Growth OS series, I extend this to show that AI is not just efficiency but a system for growth when paired with oversight and experience. The first drafts here came from my own qualitative and quantitative experience. Sources were added afterward, as research to verify and support those insights. Five AI platforms—GPT-5, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, and Grok—assisted in drafting and validation, but the synthesis, review, and final voice remain mine. The Factics framework guides it: facts from AI only matter when tactics grounded in human judgment give them purpose.

factics

References

[1] Wilson, H. J., & Daugherty, P. R. (2018). Collaborative intelligence: Humans and AI are joining forces. Harvard Business Review, 96(4), 114–123. https://hbr.org/2018/07/collaborative-intelligence-humans-and-ai-are-joining-forces

[2] Puglisi, B. (2025, August 18). Ethics of artificial intelligence. BasilPuglisi.com. https://basilpuglisi.com/ethics-of-artificial-intelligence/

[3] Puglisi, B. (2025, August 29). The Growth OS: Leading with AI beyond efficiency. BasilPuglisi.com. https://basilpuglisi.com/the-growth-os-leading-with-ai-beyond-efficiency/

[4] Puglisi, B. (2025, September 4). The Growth OS: Leading with AI beyond efficiency Part 2. BasilPuglisi.com. https://basilpuglisi.com/the-growth-os-leading-with-ai-beyond-efficiency-part-2/

[5] Brynjolfsson, E., & Mitchell, T. (2017). What can machine learning do? Workforce implications. Science, 358(6369), 1530–1534. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8062

[6] Funke, F., et al. (2024). When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nature Human Behaviour, 8, 1400–1412. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02024-1

[7] Zhao, M., Simmons, R., & Admoni, H. (2022). The role of adaptation in collective human–AI teaming. Topics in Cognitive Science, 17(2), 291–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12633

[8] Bauer, A., et al. (2024). Explainable AI improves task performance in human–AI collaboration. Scientific Reports, 14, 28591. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82501-9

[9] McKinsey & Company. (2025). Superagency in the workplace: Empowering people to unlock AI’s full potential at work. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/superagency-in-the-workplace-empowering-people-to-unlock-ais-full-potential-at-work

[10] Sadiq, R. B., et al. (2021). Artificial intelligence maturity model: A systematic literature review. PeerJ Computer Science, 7, e661. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.661

[11] van der Aalst, W. M. P., et al. (2024). Factors influencing readiness for artificial intelligence: A systematic review. AI Open, 5, 100051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiopen.2024.100051

[12] Rao, S. S., & Bourne, L. (2025). AI expert system vs generative AI with LLM for diagnoses. JAMA Network Open, 8(5), e2834550. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2834550

[13] Ouali, I., et al. (2024). Exploring how AI adoption in the workplace affects employees: A bibliometric and systematic review. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 7, 1473872. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1473872

[14] Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2

[15] NIST. (2023). AI risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0). U.S. Department of Commerce. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1

The Growth OS: Leading with AI Beyond Efficiency Part 2

by Leave a Comment

Growth OS with AI Trust

Part 2: From Pilots to Transformation

Pilots are safe. Transformation is bold. That is why so many AI projects stop at the experiment stage. The difference is not in the tools but in the system leaders build around them. Organizations that treat AI as an add-on end up with slide decks. Organizations that treat it as part of a Growth Operating System apply it within their workflows, governance, and culture, and from there they compound advantage.

The Growth OS is an established idea. Bill Canady’s PGOS places weight on strategy, data, and talent. FAST Ventures has built an AI-powered version designed for hyper-personalized campaigns and automation. Invictus has emphasized machine learning to optimize conversion cycles. The throughline is clear: a unified operating system outperforms a patchwork of projects.

My application of Growth OS to AI emphasizes the cultural foundation. Without trust, transparency, and rhythm, even the best technical deployments stall. Over sixty percent of executives name lack of growth culture and weak governance as the largest barriers to AI adoption (EY, 2024; PwC, 2025). When ROI is defined only as expense reduction, projects lose executive oxygen. When governance is invisible, employees hesitate to adopt.

The correction is straightforward but requires discipline. Anchor AI to growth outcomes such as revenue per employee, customer lifetime value, and sales velocity. Make governance visible with clear escalation paths and human-in-the-loop judgment. Reward learning velocity as the cultural norm. These moves establish the trust that makes adoption scalable.

To push leaders beyond incrementalism, I use the forcing question: What Would Growth Require? (#WWGR) Instead of asking what AI can do, I ask what outcome growth would demand if this function were rebuilt with AI at its core. In sales, this reframes AI from email drafting to orchestrating trust that compresses close rates. In product, it reframes AI from summaries to live feedback loops that de-risk investment. In support, it reframes AI from ticket deflection to proactive engagement that reduces churn and expands retention.

“AI is the greatest growth engine humanity has ever experienced. However, AI does lack true creativity, imagination, and emotion, which guarantees humans have a place in this collaboration. And those that do not embrace it fully will be left behind.” — Basil Puglisi

Scaling this approach requires rhythm. In the first thirty days, leaders define outcomes, secure data, codify compliance, and run targeted experiments. In the first ninety days, wins are promoted to always-on capabilities and an experiment spine is created for visibility and discipline. Within a year, AI becomes a portfolio of growth loops across acquisition, onboarding, retention, and expansion, funded through a growth P&L, supported by audit trails and evaluation sets that make trust tangible.

Culture remains the multiplier. When leaders anchor to growth outcomes like learning velocity and adoption rates, innovation compounds. When teams see AI as expansion rather than replacement, engagement rises. And when the entire approach is built on trust rather than control, the system generates value instead of resistance. That is where the numbers show a gap: industries most exposed to AI have quadrupled productivity growth since 2020, and scaled programs are already producing revenue growth rates one and a half times stronger than laggards (McKinsey & Company, 2025; Forbes, 2025; PwC, 2025).

The best practice proof is clear. A subscription brand reframed AI from churn prevention to growth orchestration, using it to personalize onboarding, anticipate engagement gaps, and nudge retention before risk spiked. The outcome was measurable: churn fell, lifetime value expanded, and staff shifted from firefighting to designing experiences. That is what happens when AI is not a tool but a system.

I have also lived this shift personally. In 2009, I launched Visibility Blog, which later became DBMEi, a solo practice on WordPress.com where I produced regular content. That expanded into Digital Ethos, where I coordinated seven regular contributors, student writers, and guest bloggers. For two years we ran it like a newsroom, which prepared me for my role on the International Board of Directors for Social Media Club Global, where I oversaw content across more than seven hundred paying members. It was a massive undertaking, and yet the scale of that era now pales next to what AI enables. In 2023, with ChatGPT and Perplexity, I could replicate that earlier reach but only with accuracy gaps and heavy reliance on Google, Bing, and JSTOR for validation. By 2024, Gemini, Claude, and Grok expanded access to research and synthesis. Today, in September 2025, BasilPuglisi.com runs on what I describe as the five pillars of AI in content. One model drives brainstorming, several focus on research and source validation, another shapes structure and voice, and a final model oversees alignment before I review and approve for publication. The outcome is clear: one person, disciplined and informed, now operates at the level of entire teams. This mirrors what top-performing organizations are reporting, where AI adoption is driving measurable growth in productivity and revenue (Forbes, 2025; PwC, 2025; McKinsey & Company, 2025). By the end of 2026, I expect to surpass many who remain locked in legacy processes. The lesson is simple: when AI is applied as a system, growth compounds. The only limits are discipline, ownership, and the willingness to move without resistance.

Transformation is not about showing that AI works. That proof is behind us. Transformation is about posture. Leaders must ask what growth requires, run the rhythm, and build culture into governance. That is how a Growth OS mindset turns pilots into advantage and positions the enterprise to become more than the sum of its functions.

References

Canady, B. (2021). The Profitable Growth Operating System: A blueprint for building enduring, profitable businesses. ForbesBooks.

Deloitte. (2017). Predictive maintenance and the smart factory.

EY. (2024, December). AI Pulse Survey: Artificial intelligence investments set to remain strong in 2025, but senior leaders recognize emerging risks.

Forbes. (2025, June 2). 20 mind-blowing AI statistics everyone must know about now in 2025.

Forbes. (2025, September 4). Exclusive: AI agents are a major unlock on ROI, Google Cloud report finds.

IMEC. (2025, August 4). From downtime to uptime: Using AI for predictive maintenance in manufacturing.

Innovapptive. (2025, April 8). AI-powered predictive maintenance to cut downtime & costs.

F7i.AI. (2025, August 30). AI predictive maintenance use cases: A 2025 machinery guide.

McKinsey & Company. (2025, March 11). The state of AI: Global survey.

PwC. (2025). Global AI Jobs Barometer.

Stanford HAI. (2024, September 9). 2025 AI Index Report.

Platform Ecosystems and Plug-in Layers

by Leave a Comment

The plug-in layer is no longer optional. Enterprises now curate GPT Store stacks, Grok plug-ins, and compliance filters the same way they once curated app stores. The fact is adoption crossed three million custom GPTs in less than a year (OpenAI, 2024). The tactic is simple: use curated sections for research, compliance, or finance so workflows stay in line. It works because teams don’t lose time switching tools, and approval cycles sit inside the same stack. Who benefits? With a little checks and balances in the practices, the marketing and compliance directors who need assets reviewed before they move find streamlined value.

Grok 4 raises the bar with real-time search and document analysis (xAI, 2024). The tactic is to point it at sector reports or financials, then ask for stepwise summaries that highlight cost, revenue, or compliance gaps. It works because numbers land alongside explanations instead of scattered across drafts, with Grok this happens UpToDate and in real time, not just a database in the AI. The benefit goes to analysts and campaign planners who must build messages that hold up under review because the output sees everything up to date of prompt, not just copy that sounds good.

Google and Anthropic moved Claude into Vertex AI with global endpoints (Google Cloud, 2025). The fact is enterprises can now route traffic across regions with caching that lowers cost and latency. The tactic is to run coding and content workflows through Claude inside Vertex, where security and governance are already in place. It works because performance scales without losing control. Who benefits? Developers in regulated industries, when they invest in their process and speed matters but oversight cannot be skipped.

Perplexity and Sprinklr connect the research and compliance layer. Perplexity Deep Research scans hundreds of sources and produces cite-first briefs in minutes (Perplexity, 2025). The tactic is to slot these briefs directly into Sprinklr’s compliance filters, which flag tone or bias before responses go live (Sprinklr, 2025). It works because research quality and compliance checks are chained together. Who benefits? B2C brands that invest into their setup and new processes when they run campaigns across social channels where missteps are public and costly.

Lakera Guard closes the loop with real-time filters. Its July updates improved guardrails and moderation accuracy (Lakera, 2025). The tactic is to run assets through Lakera before they publish, measuring catch rates and logging exceptions. It works because risk checks move from manual review to automatic guardrails. Who benefits? Fortune 500 firms, SaaS providers, and nonprofits that cannot afford errors or policy violations in public channels.

Best Practice Spotlights
Dropbox integrated Lakera Guard with GPT Store plug-ins to secure LLM-powered features (Dropbox, 2024). Compliance approvals moved 30 percent faster, errors fell by 35 percent, not a typo. One lead said it was like plugging holes in a chessboard, the leaks finally stopped. The lesson is that when guardrails live inside the plug-in stack, speed and safety move together.

SoftBank worked with Perplexity Pro and Sprinklr to upgrade customer interactions in Japan (Perplexity, 2025). Cycle times fell 27 percent, exceptions dropped 20 percent, looked like plugging holes in a chessboard, and customer satisfaction lifted. The lesson is that compliance and engagement can run in parallel when the plug-in layer does the review work before the customer sees it.

Creative Consulting Corner
A B2B SaaS provider struggles with fragmented plug-ins and approvals that drag on for days. The solution is to curate a GPT Store stack for research and compliance, add Lakera Guard as a pre-publish filter, and track exceptions in a shared dashboard. Approvals move 30 percent faster, error rates drop, and executives defend budgets with proof. Optimization tip, publish a monthly compliance scorecard so the lift is visible.

A B2C retailer fights campaign fatigue and review delays. Perplexity Pro delivers cite-first briefs, Sprinklr’s compliance module flags tone and bias, and the team refreshes creative weekly. Cycle times shorten, ad rejection rates fall, and engagement lifts. Optimization tip, keep one visual anchor constant so recognition compounds even as content rotates.

A nonprofit faces the challenge of multilingual safety guides under strict donor oversight. Curated translation plug-ins feed Lakera Guard for risk filtering, with disclosure lines added by default. Time to publish drops, completion improves, complaints shrink. Optimization tip, keep a public provenance note so donors see transparency built in.

Closing thought
Here’s the thing, ecosystems only matter when they close the space between idea and approval. This doesn’t happen without some trial and error, then requires oversight, which sounds like a lot of manpower, but the output multiplies. GPT Store curates’ workflows, Grok 4 brings real-time analysis, Claude runs inside enterprise rails, Perplexity and Sprinklr steady research and compliance, and Lakera Guard enforces risk checks. With transparency labeling now a regulatory requirement, provenance and disclosure run in the background. The teams that treat ecosystems as infrastructure, not experiments, gain speed they can measure, trust they can defend, and credibility that lasts. The key is not to try to minimize but balance oversight with the ability to produce more.

References

Anthropic. (2025, July 30). About the development partner program. Anthropic Support.

Dropbox. (2024, September 18). How we use Lakera Guard to secure our LLMs. Dropbox Tech Blog.

European Commission. (2025, July 31). AI Act | Shaping Europe’s digital future. European Commission.

European Parliament. (2025, February 19). EU AI Act: First regulation on artificial intelligence. European Parliament.

European Union. (2025, July 24). AI Act | Shaping Europe’s digital future. European Union.

Google Cloud. (2025, May 23). Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4 and Claude Sonnet 4 on Vertex AI. Google Cloud Blog.

Google Cloud. (2025, July 28). Global endpoint for Claude models generally available on Vertex AI. Google Cloud Blog.

Lakera. (2024, October 29). Lakera Guard expands enterprise-grade content moderation capabilities for GenAI applications. Lakera.

Lakera. (2025, June 4). The ultimate guide to prompt engineering in 2025. Lakera Blog.

Lakera. (2025, July 2). Changelog | Lakera API documentation. Lakera Docs.

OpenAI. (2024, January 10). Introducing the GPT Store. OpenAI.

OpenAI Help Center. (2025, August 22). ChatGPT — Release notes. OpenAI Help.

Perplexity. (2025, February 14). Introducing Perplexity Deep Research. Perplexity Blog.

Perplexity. (2025, July 2). Introducing Perplexity Max. Perplexity Blog.

Perplexity. (2025, March 17). Perplexity expands partnership with SoftBank to launch Enterprise Pro Japan. Perplexity Blog.

Sprinklr. (2025, August 7). Smart response compliance. Sprinklr Help Center.

xAI. (2024, November 4). Grok. xAI.

Multimodal Creation Meets Workflow Integration

by Leave a Comment

Ever been that person who had to sit with a nonprofit director needing videos in three languages on a shoestring budget? The deadline is tight, the resources thin, and panic usually follows. Except now, with the right stack, the story plays differently. One script in Synthesia becomes localized clips, NotebookLM trims prep for board updates, and Midjourney V7 provides visuals that look like they came from a big agency. What used to feel impossible for a small team now gets done in days.

That’s the shift happening now. Multimodal tools aren’t just for global giants, they’re giving small businesses and nonprofits options they never had before. Workflows that once demanded big crews and bigger budgets are suddenly accessible. Translation costs drop, campaign cycles speed up, and the final product feels professional. A bakery can localize TikToks for new customers. An advocacy group can roll out explainer videos in multiple languages without hiring a full production staff.

Meta’s LLaMA 4 brings native multimodal reasoning into normal workflows. It reads text, images, and simple tables in one pass, which means a screenshot, a product sheet, and a few rough notes become a single, usable brief. The way to use it is simple, gather the real assets you would hand to a teammate, ask for an outline that pairs each claim with a supporting visual or citation, and lock tone and brand terms in a short instruction block. Watch outline acceptance rate, factual edits per draft, and how long it takes to move from inputs to an approved brief.

OpenAI’s compile tools work like a calm research assistant. They cluster sources, extract comparable data points, and produce a clean working draft that is ready for human review. The move is to load only vetted links, ask for a side by side table of claims and evidence, then request a narrative that uses those rows and nothing else. Keep an evidence ledger next to the draft so reviewers can click back to the original. Track cycle time per asset, first draft on brand, and the number of factual corrections caught in QA.

ElevenLabs “Eleven Flash” makes voiceovers feel professional without the usual invoice shock. The model holds natural pacing and intonation at a lower cost per finished minute, which puts multilingual narration and fast updates within reach for small teams. TechCrunch’s coverage of the one hundred eighty million raise is a signal that voice automation is not a fad, production barriers are falling, and smaller players benefit first. The workflow is to create consented voice profiles, normalize scripts for clarity, batch generate by language and role, and keep an audio watermark and rights register. Measure cost per finished minute, listen through rate, turnaround from script to publish, and support ticket deflection on pages with audio.

Synthesia turns one approved script into localized video at scale. The working number to hold is a ten language rollout that lifts ROI about twenty five percent when localization friction drops. Use it by locking a master script, templating lower thirds and brand elements, generating each language with native captions and region specific calls to action, then routing traffic by locale. Watch ROI by locale, video completion, and time to first localized version.

NotebookLM creates portable audio overviews that actually shorten prep. Teams report about thirty percent less time spent getting ready when the briefing sits in their pocket. The flow is to assemble a small canonical packet per initiative, generate a three to five minute overview, and attach the audio to the kickoff doc or LMS module. Measure reported prep time, meeting efficiency scores, and downstream revision counts once everyone starts from the same context.

Midjourney’s coherence controls keep small brands from paying for a second design pass. Consistent composition and style adherence move concept art toward production faster. The practical move is to encode three or four visual rules, subject framing, color range, and typography hints, then prompt inside that sandbox to create a handful of options. Curate once, finalize in your editor, and keep a short gallery of do and don’t for the next round. Track concept to final cycle time, brand consistency scores, and how quickly paid performance decays when creative is refreshed on schedule.

ElevenLabs for dubbing trims production time when you move a base narration into multiple languages or roles. The working figure is about a third saved end to end. Set language targets up front, generate clean transcripts from the master audio, produce dubbed tracks with timing that matches, then add a bit of room tone so it sits well in the mix. Measure total hours saved per release, multilingual completion rates, and engagement lift on localized pages.

“This research is a reality check. There’s enormous promise around AI, but marketing teams continue to struggle to deliver real business impact when they are drowning in complexity. Unless AI helps tame this complexity and is deeply embedded into workflows and execution, it won’t deliver the speed, precision, or results marketers need.” — Chris O’Neill, CEO of GrowthLoop

FTC guidance turns disclosure into a trust marker. Clear labels, watermarking, and provenance notes reduce suspicion and protect credibility, especially for nonprofits and local businesses where trust is the currency. Operationalize it by adding a short disclosure line near any AI assisted media, watermarking visuals, and keeping a lightweight provenance section in your QA checklist. Track complaint rates, unsubscribe rate after disclosure, and click through on assets that carry clear labels.

Here is the point. Build small, repeatable workflows around each tool, connect them at the handoff points, and measure how much faster and further each campaign runs. The scoreboard is simple, cycle time per asset, first draft on brand, localization turnaround, completion and click through, and ROI by locale.

Best Practice Spotlight

Infinite Peripherals isn’t a giant consumer brand, it’s a practical tech company that needed videos fast. They used Synthesia avatars with DeepL translations and cranked out four multilingual explainers for trade shows in just 48 hours. Not a typo, two days. The payoff was immediate, a 35 percent jump in meetings booked and 40 percent more video views. For smaller organizations, this shows what happens when you combine tools instead of adding headcount [DeepL Blog, 2025].

Toys ’R’ Us is a big name, sure, but the lesson scales. The team used OpenAI’s Sora to create a fully AI-generated brand film. It drew millions of views and boosted brand sentiment while cutting costs. For a nonprofit or small business, think smaller scale: a short mission video, a donor thank-you message, or a seasonal ad. The principle is the same — storytelling amplified without blowing the budget [AdWeek, 2024].

Marketing tie-ins are clear. AdAge highlighted how localized TikTok and Reels campaigns bring results without big media buys [AdAge, 2025]. GrowthLoop’s ROI analysis showed how even lean campaigns can track returns with clarity [GrowthLoop, 2025]. The tactic for smaller teams is to measure ROI not just in revenue, but in saved time and extended reach. If an owner or director can run three times the campaigns with the same staff, that’s value that counts.

Creative Consulting Concepts

B2B Scenario
Challenge: A regional SaaS provider struggles to onboard new clients in different languages.
Execution: Synthesia video modules and NotebookLM audio summaries.
Impact: Onboarding time cut by half, fewer support calls.
Optimization Tip: Add a customer feedback loop before finalizing translations.

B2C Scenario
Challenge: A boutique clothing shop wants to engage younger buyers across platforms.
Execution: Midjourney V7 ensures visuals stay on-brand, Synthesia creates Reels in multiple languages.
Impact: 30 percent lift in engagement with international customers.
Optimization Tip: Rotate avatar personalities to keep content fresh.

Non-Profit Scenario
Challenge: An advocacy group must explain a policy campaign to donors in multiple languages.
Execution: ElevenLabs voiceovers layered on Synthesia explainers with disclosure labels.
Impact: 20 percent increase in donor sign-ups.
Optimization Tip: Test voices for tone so they fit the mission’s seriousness.

Closing Thought

Here’s how it plays out. Infrastructure isn’t abstract, and it’s not reserved for companies with large budgets. AI is helping the little guy even the field. You can use Synthesia to carry scripts into multiple languages. NotebookLM puts portable voices in your ear. If you want more, Midjourney steadies the visuals, though many small teams lean on Canva. Still watching every penny? ElevenLabs makes audio affordable without compromise. Compliance runs quietly in the background, necessary but not overwhelming. The teams that stop testing and start using these workflows every day are the ones who gain real ground, speed they can measure, trust they can defend, and credibility that holds. Start now, fix what you need later, and don’t get trapped in endless preparing.

References

DeepL Blog. (2025, March 26). Synthesia and DeepL partner to power multilingual video innovation.

Google Blog. (2025, April 29). NotebookLM Audio Overviews are now available in over 50 languages.

TechCrunch. (2025, April 3). Midjourney releases V7, its first new AI image model in nearly a year.

Meta AI Blog. (2025, April 5). The Llama 4 herd: The beginning of a new era of natively multimodal AI innovation.

TechCrunch. (2025, January 30). ElevenLabs, the hot AI audio startup, confirms $180M in Series C funding at a $3.3B valuation.

FTC. (2024, September 25). FTC Announces Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes.

AdWeek. (2024, December 6). 5 Brands That Went Big on AI Marketing in 2024.

AdAge. (2025, April 15). How Brands are Using AI to Localize Campaigns for TikTok and Reels.

GrowthLoop. (2025, March 7). AI ROI explained: How to prove the value of AI for driving business growth.

Basil Puglisi used Originality.ai to eval the content of this blog. (Likely the last time)

Why AI Detection Tools Fail at Measuring Value [OPINION]

by Leave a Comment

AI detection platforms promise certainty, but what they really deliver is confusion. Originality.ai, GPTZero, Turnitin, Copyscape, and Writer.com all claim to separate human writing from synthetic text. The idea sounds neat, but the assumption behind it is flawed. These tools dress themselves up as arbiters of truth when in reality they measure patterns, not value. In practice, that makes them wolves in sheep’s clothing, pretending to protect originality while undermining the very foundations of trust, creativity, and content strategy. What they detect is conformity. What they miss is meaning. And meaning is where value lives.

The illusion of accuracy is the first trap. Originality.ai highlights its RAID study results, celebrating an 85 percent accuracy rate while claiming to outperform rivals at 80 percent. Independent tests tell a different story. Scribbr reported only 76 percent accuracy with numerous false positives on human writing. Fritz.ai and Software Oasis praised the platform’s polished interface and low cost but warned that nuanced, professional content was regularly flagged as machine generated. Medium reviewers even noted the irony that well structured and thoroughly cited articles were more likely to be marked as artificial than casual and unstructured rants. That is not accuracy. That is a credibility crisis.

This problem deepens when you look at how detectors read the very things that give content value. Factics, KPIs, APA style citations, and cross referenced insights are not artificial intelligence. They are hallmarks of disciplined and intentional thought. Yet detectors interpret them as red flags. Richard Batt’s 2023 critique of Originality.ai warned that false positives risked livelihoods, especially for independent creators. Stanford researchers documented bias against non native English speakers, whose work was disproportionately flagged because of grammar and phrasing differences. Vanderbilt University went so far as to disable Turnitin’s AI detector in 2023, acknowledging that false positives had done more harm to student trust than good. The more professional and rigorous the content, the more likely it is to be penalized.

That inversion of incentives pushes people toward gaming the system instead of building real value. Writers turn to bypass tricks such as adjusting sentence lengths, altering tone, avoiding structure, or running drafts through humanizers like Phrasly or StealthGPT. SurferSEO even shared workarounds in its 2024 community guide. But when the goal shifts from asking whether content drives engagement, trust, or revenue to asking whether it looks human enough to pass a scan, the strategy is already lost.

The effect is felt differently across sectors. In B2B, agencies report delays of 30 to 40 percent when funneling client content through detectors, only to discover that clients still measure return on investment through leads, conversions, and message alignment, not scan scores. In B2C, the damage is personal. A peer reviewed study found GPTZero remarkably effective in catching artificial writing in student assignments, but even small error rates meant false accusations of cheating with real reputational consequences. Non profits face another paradox. An NGO can publish AI assisted donor communications flagged as artificial, yet donations rise because supporters judge clarity of mission, not the tool’s verdict. In every case, outcomes matter more than detector scores, and detectors consistently fail to measure the outcomes that define success.

The Vanderbilt case shows how misplaced reliance backfires. By disabling Turnitin’s AI detector, the university reframed academic integrity around human judgment, not machine guesses. That decision resonates far beyond education. Brands and publishers should learn the same lesson. Technology without context does not enforce trust. It erodes it.

My own experience confirms this. I have scanned my AI assisted blogs with Originality.ai only to see inconsistent results that undercut the value of my own expertise. When the tool marks professional structure and research as artificial, it pressures me to dilute the very rigor that makes my content useful. That is not a win. That is a loss of potential.

So here is my position. AI detection tools have their place, but they should not be mistaken for strategy. A plumber who claims he does not own a wrench would be suspect, but a plumber who insists the wrench is the measure of all work would be dangerous. Use the scan if you want, but do not confuse the score with originality. Originality lives in outcomes, not algorithms. The metrics that matter are the ones tied to performance such as engagement, conversions, retention, and mission clarity. If you are chasing detector scores, you are missing the point.

AI detection is not the enemy, but neither is it the savior it pretends to be. It is, in truth, a distraction. And when distractions start dictating how we write, teach, and communicate, the real originality that moves people, builds trust, and drives results becomes the first casualty.

*note- OPINION blog still shows only 51% original, despite my effort to use wolf sheep and plumbers…

References

Originality.ai. (2024, May). Robust AI Detection Study (RAID).

Fritz.ai. (2024, March 8). Originality AI – My Honest Review 2024.

Scribbr. (2024, June 10). Originality.ai Review.

Software Oasis. (2023, November 21). Originality.ai Review: Future of Content Authentication?

Batt, R. (2023, May 5). The Dark Side of Originality.ai’s False Positives.

Advanced Science News. (2023, July 12). AI detectors have a bias against non-native English speakers.

Vanderbilt University. (2023, August 16). Guidance on AI Detection and Why We’re Disabling Turnitin’s AI Detector.

Issues in Information Systems. (2024, March). Can GPTZero detect if students are using artificial intelligence?

Gold Penguin. (2024, September 18). Writer.com AI Detection Tool Review: Don’t Even Bother.

Capterra. (2025, pre-May). Copyscape Reviews 2025.

Basil Puglisi used Originality.ai to eval this content and blog.

Building Authority with Verified AI Research [Two Versions, #AIa Originality.ai review]

by Leave a Comment

***This article is published first as Basil Puglisi Original work and written and dictated to AI, you can see the Originality.ai review of my work, it then is republished again in this same page after AI helps refine the content, my opinion is the second version is the better content and more professional but the AI scan would claim it has less value, I be reviewing AI scans next month***

I have been in enough boardrooms to recognize the cycle. Someone pushes for more output, the dashboards glow, and soon the team is buried in decks and reports that nobody trusts. Noise rises, but credibility does not. Volume by itself has never carried authority.

What changes the outcome is proof. Proof that every claim ties back to a source. Proof that numbers can be traced without debate. Proof that an audience can follow the trail and make their own judgment. Years ago I put a name to that approach: the Factics method. The idea came from one campaign where strategy lived in one column and data in another, and no one bothered to connect the two. Factics is the bridge. Facts linked with tactics, data tied to strategy. It forces receipts before scale, and that is where authority begins.

Perplexity’s enterprise release showed the strength of that principle. Every answer carried citations in place, making it harder for teams to bluff their way through metrics. When I piloted it with a finance client, the shift was immediate. Arguments about what a metric meant gave way to questions about what to do with it. Backlinks climbed by double digits, but the bigger win was cultural. People stopped hiding behind dashboards and began shaping stories that could withstand audits.

Claude Sonnet carried a similar role in long reports. Its extended context window meant whitepapers could finally be drafted with fewer handoffs between writers. Instead of patching paragraphs together from different writers, a single flow could carry technical depth and narrative clarity. The lift was not only in speed but in the way reports could now pass expert review with fewer rewrites.

Other tools filled the workflow in motion. ElevenLabs took transcripts and turned them into quick audio snippets for LinkedIn. Descript polished behind-the-scenes recordings into reels, while Surfer SEO scored drafts for topical authority before publication. None of them mattered on their own, but together they formed a loop where compliance, research, and social proof reinforced one another. The outcome was measurable: steadier trust signals in search, more reliable performance on LinkedIn, and fewer compliance penalties flagged by governance software.

Creative Concepts Corner

B2B — Financial Services Whitepaper
A finance firm ran competitor research through Perplexity Pro, pulled the citations, and built a whitepaper with Claude Sonnet. Surfer scored it for topical authority, and ElevenLabs added an audio briefing for LinkedIn. Backlinks rose 15%, compliance errors fell under 5%, and lead quality improved. The tip: build the Factics framework into reporting so citations carry forward automatically.

B2C — Retail Campaign Launch
A retail brand used Descript to edit behind-the-scenes launch content, paired with ElevenLabs audio ads for Instagram. Perplexity verified campaign stats in real time, ensuring ad claims were sourced. Compliance penalties stayed near zero, campaign ROI lifted by 12%, and sentiment held steady. The tip: treat compliance checks like creative edits — built into the process, not bolted on.

Nonprofit — Health Awareness
A health nonprofit ran 300 articles through Claude Sonnet to align with expertise and accuracy standards. Lakera Guard flagged risky phrasing before launch, while DALL·E supplied imagery free of trademark issues. The result: a 97% compliance score and higher search visibility. The tip: use a shared dashboard to prioritize which content pieces need review first.

Closing Thought

Authority is not abstract. It shows up in backlinks earned, in the compliance rate that holds steady, and in how an audience responds when they can trace the source themselves. Perplexity, Claude, Surfer, ElevenLabs, Descript — none of them matter on their own. What matters is how they hold together as a system. The proof is not the toggle or the feature. It is the fact that the teams who stop treating this as a side experiment and begin leaning on it daily are the ones entering 2025 with something real — speed they can measure, trust they can defend, and credibility that endures.

References

Acrolinx. (2025, March 5). AI and the law: Navigating legal risks in content creation. Acrolinx.

Anthropic. (2024, March 4). Introducing the next generation of Claude. Anthropic.

AWS News Blog. (2024, March 27). Anthropic’s Claude 3 Sonnet model is now available on Amazon Bedrock. Amazon Web Services.

ElevenLabs. (2025, March 17). March 17, 2025 changelog. ElevenLabs.

FusionForce Media. (2025, February 25). Perplexity AI: Master content creation like a pro in 2025. FusionForce Media.

Google Cloud. (2024, March 14). Anthropic’s Claude 3 models now available on Vertex AI. Google.

Harvard Business School. (2025, March 31). Perplexity: Redefining search. Harvard Business School.

Influencer Marketing Hub. (2024, December 1). Perplexity AI SEO: Is this the future of search? Influencer Marketing Hub.

Inside Privacy. (2024, March 18). China releases new labeling requirements for AI-generated content. Covington & Burling LLP.

McKinsey & Company. (2025, March 12). The state of AI: Global survey. McKinsey & Company.

Perplexity. (2025, January 4). Answering your questions about Perplexity and our partnership with AnyDesktop. Perplexity AI.

Perplexity. (2025, February 13). Introducing Perplexity Enterprise Pro. Perplexity AI.

Quora. (2024, March 5). Poe introduces the new Claude 3 models, available now. Quora Blog.

Solveo. (2025, March 3). 7 AI tools to dominate podcasting trends in 2025. Solveo.

Surfer SEO. (2025, January 27). What’s new at Surfer? Product updates January 2025. Surfer SEO.

YouTube. (2025, March 26). Descript March 2025 changelog: Smart transitions & Rooms improvements. YouTube.

Basil Puglisi shared eval from original content from Originality.ai

+++ AI Assisted Writing, placing content for rewrite and assistance +++

Teams often chase volume and hope credibility follows. Dashboards light up, reports multiply, yet trust remains flat. Volume alone does not build authority. The shift happens when every claim carries receipts, when proof is embedded in the process, and when data connects directly to tactics. Years ago I gave that framework a name: the Factics method. It forces strategy and evidence into the same lane, and it turns output into something an audience can trace and believe.

Perplexity’s enterprise release showed the strength of that approach. Citations appear in place, making it harder for teams to bluff their way through metrics. In practice the change is cultural as much as technical. At a finance client, arguments about definitions gave way to decisions about action. Backlinks climbed by double digits, and the greater win was that trust in reporting no longer stalled campaigns. Proof became part of the rhythm.

Claude Sonnet added its own weight in long-form reports. Extended context windows meant fewer handoffs between writers and fewer stitched paragraphs. Reports carried technical depth and narrative clarity in a single draft. The benefit was speed, but also a cleaner path through expert review. Rewrites fell, cycle time dropped, and credibility improved.

Other tools shaped the workflow in motion. ElevenLabs produced audio briefs from transcripts that fit neatly into LinkedIn feeds. Descript polished behind-the-scenes recordings into usable reels. Surfer SEO flagged drafts for topical authority before they went live. None of these tools deliver authority on their own, but together they form a cycle where compliance, research, and distribution reinforce each other. The results are measurable: steadier trust signals in search, stronger LinkedIn performance, and fewer compliance penalties flagged downstream.

Best Practice Spotlight

A finance firm demonstrated how Factics translates into outcomes. Competitor research ran through Perplexity Pro, citations carried forward, and Claude Sonnet produced a whitepaper that Surfer validated for topical authority. ElevenLabs added an audio briefing for distribution. The outcome was clear: backlinks rose 15 percent, compliance errors fell under 5 percent, and lead quality improved. The lesson is practical. Build citation frameworks into reporting so proof travels with every draft.

Creative Consulting Concepts

B2B — Financial Services Whitepaper

Challenge: Research decks lacked trust.
Execution: Perplexity sourced citations, Claude structured the whitepaper, Surfer validated authority, ElevenLabs created LinkedIn audio briefs.
Impact: Backlinks increased 15 percent, compliance errors stayed under 5 percent, lead quality lifted.
Tip: Automate Factics so citations flow forward without manual work.

B2C — Retail Campaign Launch

Challenge: Marketing claims needed real-time validation.
Execution: Descript refined behind-the-scenes launch clips, ElevenLabs produced audio ads, Perplexity verified stats live.
Impact: ROI rose 12 percent, compliance penalties stayed near zero, sentiment held steady.
Tip: Treat compliance checks as part of editing, not as a final review stage.

Nonprofit — Health Awareness

Challenge: Scale content without losing accuracy.
Execution: Claude Sonnet shaped 300 articles, Lakera Guard flagged risk, DALL·E supplied safe imagery.
Impact: Compliance reached 97 percent, search visibility climbed.
Tip: Use shared dashboards to prioritize reviews across lean teams.

Closing Thought

Authority is not theory. It is Perplexity carrying receipts, Claude adding depth, Surfer strengthening signals, ElevenLabs translating research to audio, and Descript turning raw into polished. Compliance runs in the background, steady and necessary. The teams that stop treating this as a trial and start relying on it daily are the ones entering 2025 with something durable, speed they can measure, trust they can defend, and credibility that endures.

References

Acrolinx. (2025, March 5). AI and the law: Navigating legal risks in content creation. Acrolinx. https://www.acrolinx.com/blog/ai-laws-for-content-creation

Anthropic. (2024, March 4). Introducing the next generation of Claude. Anthropic. https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-3-family

AWS News Blog. (2024, March 27). Anthropic’s Claude 3 Sonnet model is now available on Amazon Bedrock. Amazon Web Services. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/anthropic-claude-3-sonnet-model-is-now-available-on-amazon-bedrock/

ElevenLabs. (2025, March 17). March 17, 2025 changelog. ElevenLabs. https://elevenlabs.io/docs/changelog/2025/3/17

FusionForce Media. (2025, February 25). Perplexity AI: Master content creation like a pro in 2025. FusionForce Media. https://fusionforcemedia.com/perplexity-ai-2025/

Harvard Business School. (2025, March 31). Perplexity: Redefining search. Harvard Business School. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=67198

McKinsey & Company. (2025, March 12). The state of AI: Global survey. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai

Surfer SEO. (2025, January 27). What’s new at Surfer? Product updates January 2025. Surfer SEO. https://surferseo.com/blog/january-2025-update/

YouTube. (2025, March 26). Descript March 2025 changelog: Smart transitions & Rooms improvements. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdVY7wTZAIE

Basil Puglisi, sharing eval by Originality.ai after AI intervention in content.

Ethical Compliance & Quality Assurance in the AI Stack

by Leave a Comment

Compliance is no longer a checkbox buried in policy decks. It shows up in the draft you are about to publish, the image that slips into a campaign, and the audit that decides if your team keeps trust intact. February made that clear. Claude 3.5 Sonnet added compliance features that turn E-E-A-T checks into a measurable workflow, and OpenAI’s DALL·E 3 pushed a new standard for IP-safe visuals. At the same time, the EU AI Act crossed into enforcement, China tightened data residency, and litigation kept reminding marketers that brand safety is not optional.

Here’s the point: ethical compliance and quality assurance are not barriers to speed, they are what make speed sustainable. Teams that ignore them pile up revisions, take hits from regulators, or lose trust with customers. Teams that integrate them measure outcomes differently—E-E-A-T compliance rate, visual error rates, content cycle times, and even customer sentiment flagged early. That is the new stack for 2025.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet’s February update matters because it lets compliance ride the same rails marketers already use for SEO. Your sources describe a real time E-E-A-T scoring workflow that returns a 1 to 100 rating for expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness, and beta teams report about forty percent less manual review once the rubric is encoded. Search Engine Journal lays out the operating pattern that fits this. Export a clean URL list with titles and authors, send batches through the API with a compact rubric that defines what counts as evidence, authority, and trust, and ask for strict JSON that includes an overall score, three subscores, short rationales, a claim risk tag for anything that needs a citation, and a brief rewrite note when a subscore falls below your threshold. Queue thousands of pages, set the initial threshold at sixty, and route anything under that line to human editorial for a focused fix that only adds verifiable detail. Run the audit on a schedule, log model settings and timestamps, sample ten percent for human regrade every cycle, and never auto publish changes without review. Measure pages audited per hour, average score lift after remediation, time to publish after a flagged rewrite, legal exceptions avoided, and the movement of non brand rankings on priority clusters once quality improves.

Visual content brings its own risks, which is why OpenAI’s Brand Shield for DALL·E 3 functions less like a feature and more like a guardrail. The system steers generations away from trademarks, logos, and copyrighted characters. In testing it cut accidental resemblance to protected mascots by ninety nine point two percent, which matters in a climate where cases like Disney versus MidJourney sit in the background of every creative decision. Turn that protection into a working process. Enable Brand Shield at the policy level, write prompts that describe style and mood rather than brands, keep an allow and deny list for edge cases, and log every prompt and output with a unique ID, a hash, and a timestamp. Add a short disclosure line where appropriate, embed provenance or watermarking, and run a quick reverse image search spot check on high risk assets before publication. Track auto approval rate from compliance, manual review rate, incidents per thousand assets, average time to approve an image, takedown requests received, and the percentage of published assets with a complete provenance record. The result is speed with a paper trail you can defend.

Regulation framed the month as much as product updates. On February 4, the European Commission confirmed that the grace period ended and high-risk AI systems must now meet the EU AI Act’s standards. Non-compliance can cost up to €35 million or seven percent of global turnover. In China, new residency rules forced 62 percent of American companies to spin up separate AI stacks, with an average fifteen to twenty percent bump in costs. These moves reshaped strategy. Lakera AI responded with Guard 2.0, a risk classifier that checks prompts in real time against the AI Act’s categories, and Sprinklr added a compliance module that flags potential violations across thirty channels. Tactics here are about proactive design: build compliance hooks into workflows before the first asset leaves draft.

This is where Factics drive strategy. Claude handles audits and cuts review cycles. DALL·E delivers brand-safe visuals while reducing legal risk. Lakera blocks high-risk outputs before they become liabilities. Sprinklr tracks sentiment and compliance simultaneously, ensuring customer trust signals align with regulatory rules. Gartner put it bluntly: compliance has jumped from outside the top twenty priorities to a top-five issue for CMOs. That shift is measurable.

Best Practice Spotlight


The Wanderlust Collective, a travel brand, demonstrated what this looks like in practice. In February they launched a campaign called “Destinations Reimagined,” generating over 2,500 visuals across 200 global locations using DALL·E 3 with Brand Shield enabled. They cut campaign content costs by thirty-five percent compared to the prior year, while their legal team logged zero IP infringement issues. Social engagement rates climbed twenty percent above their 2024 campaigns, which relied on stock photography. The lesson is clear: compliance guardrails do not slow creativity, they scale it safely and make campaigns perform better.

Creative Consulting Concepts


B2B – SaaS Compliance Workflow
Picture a SaaS team in London trying to launch across Europe. Every department runs its own compliance checks, and the rollout feels like traffic at rush hour, everyone honking but nobody moving. The consultant fix is to centralize. Claude 3.5 audits thousands of assets for E-E-A-T signals. Lakera Guard screens risk categories under the EU AI Act before anything ships, and Sprinklr tracks sentiment across thirty channels at once. The payoff: compliance rate jumps to ninety-six percent and cycle times shrink by a third. The tip? Route everything through one compliance gateway. Do it once, not ten times.

B2C – Retail Campaigns
A fashion brand wants fast visuals for a spring campaign, but the legal team waves red flags over IP risk. The move is DALL·E 3 with Brand Shield. Prompts are cleared in advance by legal, and Sprinklr sits in the background to flag anything odd once it goes live. The outcome? Campaign costs fall by a quarter, compliance errors stay under five percent, and customer sentiment doesn’t tank. One brand manager joked the real win was fewer late-night calls from lawyers. The lesson: treat prompts like creative assets, curated and reusable.

Nonprofit – Health Awareness
A nonprofit team is outnumbered, more passion than people, and trust is all they have. They put Claude 3.5 to work reviewing 300 articles for E-E-A-T signals. DALL·E 3 handled visuals without IP headaches, and Lakera Guard made sure each message lined up with regional rules. The outcome: ninety-seven percent compliance and a visible lift in search rankings. Their practical trick was a shared compliance dashboard, so even with thin staff, everyone saw what needed attention next. Sometimes discipline, not budget, is the difference.

Closing Thought


It shows up in the audit Claude runs on a draft. It is the Brand Shield switch in DALL·E, the guardrails from Lakera, and the monitoring Sprinklr never stops doing. Most of the time it works quietly, not flashy, sometimes invisible, but always necessary. I have seen teams treat it like a side test and stall. The ones who lean on it daily end up with something real, speed they can measure, trust they can defend, and credibility that actually holds.

References

Anthropic. (2025, February 12). Announcing the Enterprise Compliance Suite for Claude 3.5 Sonnet. Anthropic.

TechCrunch. (2025, February 13). Anthropic’s new Claude update is a direct challenge to enterprise AI laggards. TechCrunch.

Search Engine Journal. (2025, February 20). How to use Claude 3.5’s new E-E-A-T scorer to audit your content at scale. Search Engine Journal.

UK Government. (2025, February 18). International AI safety report 2025. GOV.UK.

OpenAI. (2025, February 19). Introducing Brand Shield: Generating IP-compliant visuals with DALL·E 3. OpenAI.

The Verge. (2025, February 20). OpenAI’s ‘Brand Shield’ for DALL·E 3 is its answer to Disney’s MidJourney lawsuit. The Verge.

Adweek. (2025, February 26). Will AI’s new ‘IP guardrails’ actually protect brands? We asked 5 lawyers. Adweek.

TechRadar. (2025, February 24). What is DALL·E 3? Everything you need to know about the AI image generator. TechRadar.

European Commission. (2025, February 4). EU AI Act: First set of high-risk AI systems subject to full compliance. European Commission.

Reuters. (2025, February 18). China’s new AI rules send ripple effect through global supply chains. Reuters.

Sprinklr. (2025, February 6). Sprinklr announces AI+ compliance module for global brand safety. Sprinklr.

Lakera. (2025, February 11). Lakera Guard version 2.0: Now with real-time EU AI Act risk classification. Lakera.

AI Business. (2025, February 25). The rise of ‘text humanizers’: Can Undetectable AI beat Google’s E-E-A-T algorithms? AI Business.

Marketing AI Institute. (2025, February 21). Building a compliant marketing workflow for 2025 with Claude, DALL·E, and Lakera. Marketing AI Institute.

Gartner. (2025, February 28). CMO guide: Navigating the new era of AI-driven brand compliance. Gartner.

Adweek. (2025, February 24). How travel brand ‘Wanderlust Collective’ used DALL·E 3’s Brand Shield to launch a global campaign safely. Adweek.

Basil Puglisi placed the Originality.ai review of this article for public view.

The Smarter Way to Scale Cutting Content Costs Without Cutting Quality

by Leave a Comment

Content scales. But not by itself. Someone maps the workflow, someone else cleans the drafts, and everyone feels the squeeze when output jumps. January sharpened that reality. OpenAI, xAI, HeyGen, Synthesia, Jasper, Writesonic, and ContentShake all promise faster, cheaper, smarter. The decks look neat. Real campaigns are messier. Always a trade. Always a negotiation.

Efficiency is no longer only speed. Smart teams watch different signals. How many first drafts arrive on brand without edits. How often SEO rankings hold. How quickly a draft becomes something you would show a client. Cut human review too much and credibility leaks away. Add too much manual work and the savings disappear. The way forward pairs the right tools with the right guardrails.

OpenAI’s recent model updates sit in the middle of the tradeoff you manage every week. GPT 4o delivers roughly fifteen percent more speed and about twenty percent lower cost than the prior build, with a small accuracy giveback. o3 mini drives cost down further and does well on first passes for outlines and support chat. The play is sequencing, not picking a winner. Let o3 mini ideate and draft within a tight brief, then hand that draft to GPT 4o with clear instructions for fact checks, quote verification, and style polish. Gate that second pass with a short acceptance checklist so it fixes evidence and tone, not just phrasing. Track time to first draft, factual corrections per thousand words, and total tokens per asset. In my work this handoff drops blog drafting time from about ten minutes to under six, which changes the rhythm of an entire team day.

Grok 3’s preview makes the social side faster, but it still needs a second look before you move budget. Connected to X, it pulls sentiment swings, trending visuals, and influencer chatter into one view so a social manager can see what is moving without scrolling for an hour. Early testers like the signal but also note lag on spikes, sometimes around twenty percent slower than rivals when a topic surges. Treat Grok as radar, then verify through a quick layer of native searches, saved lists, and your social dashboard before you post or shift spend. Measure alert lead time versus manual discovery, false positive rate on trends, and the engagement or conversion delta on campaigns launched from Grok identified topics.

Video is where scale shows up once the guardrails are real. HeyGen now offers expressive avatars with more than twenty emotion cues and one click translation in roughly forty languages, while Synthesia keeps the finish quality consistent for corporate explainers. B2C teams turn one strong concept into dozens of localized shorts overnight. B2B teams remove the cost of crews and reshoots for training. The boundary is consent and clarity. A recent privacy survey highlights strong consumer concern about likeness use without explicit permission. Set policy before you ship, secure likeness rights, watermark and disclose, and keep a simple consent and provenance record. Run the workflow as master script, brand templates, caption sets, then language variants routed by locale. Track cost per finished minute, time to localize, completion rate, and support ticket deflection on pages with embedded clips. If feedback shows discomfort, increase disclosure prominence and switch to a human presenter for sensitive modules.

Template copywriting pays when you let tools do what they are good at and keep people where nuance matters. Jasper’s campaign workflows hold tone across ads, emails, and landing pages when the brand brief is strong. Writesonic pushes volume quickly but often needs a human for cultural polish. Practitioners repeatedly see edits in the twenty to thirty percent range on Writesonic drafts. The winning move is a hybrid lane. Jasper frames the set, Writesonic fills variants, editors close the gap. Measure edit distance to final, tone match scores from your style checker, click through and reply rates after the human pass, and total time saved per campaign compared to all human drafts. When editors keep rewriting the same parts, fold those rules into your Jasper brief and cut friction next time.

SEO stays the quiet referee because intent and evidence still decide what holds a top position. ContentShake paired with GPT 4o moves faster when a human tightens claims, adds lived expertise, and shows receipts. Your Ahrefs stat is a useful anchor. Only a small slice of pure AI articles reach the top ten after six months, while human edited AI content performs many times better. The rule is simple. Draft with the model, finish with proof. Build a topical map so you pick battles you can win, attach internal links before drafting, and add citations wherever a reader could ask, says who. Measure non brand organic on priority clusters, the share of URLs in the top ten after six months, dwell and scroll on revised pages, and the referring domains that accrue once the content signals real expertise. When a page stalls, refresh with new evidence and stronger internal links rather than starting over.

Best practice spotlight

“Only five percent of pure AI articles rank in the top ten after six months. Human enhanced content performs eight times better.” — Ahrefs, January 30, 2025

Creative consulting corner

B2B scenario
A SaaS team needs a whitepaper on time. Execution uses o3 mini for research drafts, GPT 4o for refinement, Jasper for campaign alignment, and ContentShake for the SEO layer. The expected result is a cycle that runs fifty percent faster at roughly one third lower cost. The pitfall is voice drift if the brand rules are not locked before drafting starts.

B2C scenario
A fashion brand wants to double TikTok reach. HeyGen produces multilingual clips from one master script. Grok 3 flags rising hashtags. GPT 4o drafts captions and alternates. Posting cadence doubles at about thirty percent lower cost. Skip watermarking and trust takes a hit.

Non Profit scenario
An NGO needs localized donor outreach across ten regions. Synthesia delivers formal appeals. HeyGen supports grassroots videos. ContentShake produces multilingual blog drafts for volunteers to refine. Donor conversion rises by about twenty five percent and localization time drops by about forty percent. Privacy compliance around likenesses still needs careful handling.

Closing thought

Some days the AI feels like magic. Other days it feels like babysitting. The work is finding the mix that your team will actually use. Let AI handle the heavy lift. Keep people on the wheel. That is how you scale without cutting quality.

References

After covering Originality.ai in content, Basil Puglisi has added the eval here on Basil’s Blogs. (Paid)