By Cheval John | Vallano Media November 1st, 2026
This article was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence.
The final version was reviewed, edited and fact-checked by the author
Graphics created with AI-assisted design tools.
Visual concepts, editorial direction, composition, and final creative decisions were developed by Vallano Media.
Twelve years ago, I participated in a nonfiction writing challenge.
Generative AI was not part of my writing process.
There was no ChatGPT sitting beside me, no AI assistant helping me organize research and no system I could ask to challenge an argument before I published it.
The process was more traditional: research, notes, writing, rewriting and editing.
Now it is 2026, and I am doing the challenge again.
This time, the blank page has company.
For the next 30 days, I will be working on a new book, Journalist and AI — Volume 1, while documenting what happens when artificial intelligence becomes part of the nonfiction writing process.
This is not an experiment in having AI write a book for me.
It is an experiment in what happens when a writer uses AI as a tool while remaining responsible for the research, reporting, verification, judgment, writing and final product.
That distinction matters.
Twelve Years Later
A lot has changed since 2014.
Writers already had search engines, digital publishing tools, social media and numerous technologies that had transformed how information was gathered and distributed.
But mainstream writers did not have the kind of easily accessible generative AI systems available today.
Now I can use AI to help organize research, examine competing ideas, identify weaknesses in an argument, compare information and assist with editing.
But that does not automatically make the writing better.
It does not automatically make the research accurate.
AI can accelerate good work.
It can also accelerate bad work.
It can help organize information more quickly, but it can also produce convincing errors, flatten a writer’s voice or reinforce a weak assumption if nobody challenges it.
That is part of what I want to explore over the next 30 days.
Why Do This Again?
I have already written books.
So this challenge is not about proving that I can finish one.
I am returning to it because the writing environment has changed so much that I want to experience the difference for myself.
Where does AI actually save time?
Where does it improve the work, and where does it create new problems?
Most importantly, can AI help a writer become more productive without sacrificing accuracy, judgment, transparency or individual voice?
Those questions are part of the reason Journalist and AI exists.
Instead of discussing them only in theory, I am going to put them to the test while writing the book itself.
This Is Not a Perfect Comparison
There is one thing I want to make clear from the beginning.
This is not a controlled experiment between 2014 and 2026.
AI is not the only thing that has changed since 2014.
I have changed too.
I have another 12 years of experience as a writer, publisher and researcher.
Publishing technology has changed.
The projects are different.
The way I organize information has changed.
So if I work faster in 2026 than I did in 2014, I cannot simply say AI caused the entire difference.
AI is an important variable, but it is not the only one.
That limitation is part of the experiment, and I do not intend to hide it.
What I can document is how AI affects the process I use today.
How AI Will Be Used
Artificial intelligence will be part of this project, but it will have defined roles.
I will use it to help organize ideas, analyze information, identify questions, compare sources, examine arguments and assist with editing.
I will also use it as an adversarial partner.
One of the most useful habits I have developed while working with AI is asking a different kind of question.
Instead of only asking, “Is this good?” I often ask:
“What is wrong with this?”
I use AI to red-team ideas and drafts — to search for weak arguments, missing context, unsupported assumptions and alternative interpretations.
But the AI’s criticism is not automatically correct either.
I still have to evaluate it.
The same principle applies to research.
AI can help me find patterns, organize information and work through material faster than I could manually.
But an AI-generated statement is not evidence.
If something matters to the book, it still has to be verified against reliable sources.
What AI Will Not Do
AI will not receive final editorial authority over this project.
I will
I decide what belongs in the book.
I decide whether an argument accurately reflects the evidence.
I decide whether the writing sounds like me.
And if an AI system produces something inaccurate, misleading, unsupported or simply not good enough, I am responsible for catching it.
A system capable of producing polished language quickly can also produce polished mistakes quickly.
Speed cannot become a substitute for judgment.
What Readers Are Going to See
For the next month, I want to make parts of this process visible.
There will be successes.
There will probably be mistakes.
There will be AI suggestions that improve the work and others that I reject.
There may be research that changes the direction of a chapter.
There may be sections that get rewritten completely because the first approach does not work.
And if AI wastes time, gives me weak information, sends me in the wrong direction or produces writing that I throw away, that belongs in the record too.
The goal is not to create the illusion that writing with AI is effortless.
The goal is to document what actually happens.
I will not be publishing every chapter of the book as I write it.
Readers will instead see selected parts of the process, observations from the experiment and what I learn along the way.
At the same time, Vallano Media will continue its regular Tuesday and Thursday publishing schedule, with additional articles published when news, reporting or other projects warrant it.
The book challenge will happen alongside that work rather than replace it.
My Rule for the Next 30 Days
The Write Nonfiction in November challenge does not require me to work on the project every single day.
That is a rule I am adding for myself.
From November 1 through November 30, I will work on Journalist and AI — Volume 1 every day.
Some days may produce a large amount of writing.
Other days may be spent revising, verifying information, reorganizing a chapter or questioning an argument that is not working.
The point is not to chase an arbitrary daily word count.
The point is to keep moving the manuscript forward.
Thirty Days
By November 30, I want more than a word count.
I want a complete first manuscript of Journalist and AI — Volume 1.
But I also want a record of how we got there.
How much did AI accelerate the process?
Where did human judgment remain indispensable?
Did greater speed allow more time for verification and deeper thinking, or did it simply encourage more production?
Did AI help preserve my voice, or did I sometimes have to push back against its tendency to make everything sound polished and generic?
And after 30 days, will I view the relationship between journalists and artificial intelligence differently than I do today?
I do not know all of those answers yet.
That is exactly why I am doing this.
In 2014, I participated in a nonfiction writing challenge using the tools available to me at the time.
Twelve years later, I am returning in a completely different technological environment.
The technology has changed.
The responsibility of the writer has not.
For the next 30 days, you are going to see the process.
I’m Taking the Nonfiction Writing Challenge Again-This Time With AI
By Cheval John | Vallano Media November 1st, 2026
This article was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence.
The final version was reviewed, edited and fact-checked by the author
Graphics created with AI-assisted design tools.
Visual concepts, editorial direction, composition, and final creative decisions were developed by Vallano Media.
Twelve years ago, I participated in a nonfiction writing challenge.
Generative AI was not part of my writing process.
There was no ChatGPT sitting beside me, no AI assistant helping me organize research and no system I could ask to challenge an argument before I published it.
The process was more traditional: research, notes, writing, rewriting and editing.
Now it is 2026, and I am doing the challenge again.
This time, the blank page has company.
For the next 30 days, I will be working on a new book, Journalist and AI — Volume 1, while documenting what happens when artificial intelligence becomes part of the nonfiction writing process.
This is not an experiment in having AI write a book for me.
It is an experiment in what happens when a writer uses AI as a tool while remaining responsible for the research, reporting, verification, judgment, writing and final product.
That distinction matters.
Twelve Years Later
A lot has changed since 2014.
Writers already had search engines, digital publishing tools, social media and numerous technologies that had transformed how information was gathered and distributed.
But mainstream writers did not have the kind of easily accessible generative AI systems available today.
Now I can use AI to help organize research, examine competing ideas, identify weaknesses in an argument, compare information and assist with editing.
But that does not automatically make the writing better.
It does not automatically make the research accurate.
AI can accelerate good work.
It can also accelerate bad work.
It can help organize information more quickly, but it can also produce convincing errors, flatten a writer’s voice or reinforce a weak assumption if nobody challenges it.
That is part of what I want to explore over the next 30 days.
Why Do This Again?
I have already written books.
So this challenge is not about proving that I can finish one.
I am returning to it because the writing environment has changed so much that I want to experience the difference for myself.
Where does AI actually save time?
Where does it improve the work, and where does it create new problems?
Most importantly, can AI help a writer become more productive without sacrificing accuracy, judgment, transparency or individual voice?
Those questions are part of the reason Journalist and AI exists.
Instead of discussing them only in theory, I am going to put them to the test while writing the book itself.
This Is Not a Perfect Comparison
There is one thing I want to make clear from the beginning.
This is not a controlled experiment between 2014 and 2026.
AI is not the only thing that has changed since 2014.
I have changed too.
I have another 12 years of experience as a writer, publisher and researcher.
Publishing technology has changed.
The projects are different.
The way I organize information has changed.
So if I work faster in 2026 than I did in 2014, I cannot simply say AI caused the entire difference.
AI is an important variable, but it is not the only one.
That limitation is part of the experiment, and I do not intend to hide it.
What I can document is how AI affects the process I use today.
How AI Will Be Used
Artificial intelligence will be part of this project, but it will have defined roles.
I will use it to help organize ideas, analyze information, identify questions, compare sources, examine arguments and assist with editing.
I will also use it as an adversarial partner.
One of the most useful habits I have developed while working with AI is asking a different kind of question.
Instead of only asking, “Is this good?” I often ask:
“What is wrong with this?”
I use AI to red-team ideas and drafts — to search for weak arguments, missing context, unsupported assumptions and alternative interpretations.
But the AI’s criticism is not automatically correct either.
I still have to evaluate it.
The same principle applies to research.
AI can help me find patterns, organize information and work through material faster than I could manually.
But an AI-generated statement is not evidence.
If something matters to the book, it still has to be verified against reliable sources.
What AI Will Not Do
AI will not receive final editorial authority over this project.
I decide what belongs in the book.
I decide whether an argument accurately reflects the evidence.
I decide whether the writing sounds like me.
And if an AI system produces something inaccurate, misleading, unsupported or simply not good enough, I am responsible for catching it.
A system capable of producing polished language quickly can also produce polished mistakes quickly.
Speed cannot become a substitute for judgment.
What Readers Are Going to See
For the next month, I want to make parts of this process visible.
There will be successes.
There will probably be mistakes.
There will be AI suggestions that improve the work and others that I reject.
There may be research that changes the direction of a chapter.
There may be sections that get rewritten completely because the first approach does not work.
And if AI wastes time, gives me weak information, sends me in the wrong direction or produces writing that I throw away, that belongs in the record too.
The goal is not to create the illusion that writing with AI is effortless.
The goal is to document what actually happens.
I will not be publishing every chapter of the book as I write it.
Readers will instead see selected parts of the process, observations from the experiment and what I learn along the way.
At the same time, Vallano Media will continue its regular Tuesday and Thursday publishing schedule, with additional articles published when news, reporting or other projects warrant it.
The book challenge will happen alongside that work rather than replace it.
My Rule for the Next 30 Days
The Write Nonfiction in November challenge does not require me to work on the project every single day.
That is a rule I am adding for myself.
From November 1 through November 30, I will work on Journalist and AI — Volume 1 every day.
Some days may produce a large amount of writing.
Other days may be spent revising, verifying information, reorganizing a chapter or questioning an argument that is not working.
The point is not to chase an arbitrary daily word count.
The point is to keep moving the manuscript forward.
Thirty Days
By November 30, I want more than a word count.
I want a complete first manuscript of Journalist and AI — Volume 1.
But I also want a record of how we got there.
How much did AI accelerate the process?
Where did human judgment remain indispensable?
Did greater speed allow more time for verification and deeper thinking, or did it simply encourage more production?
Did AI help preserve my voice, or did I sometimes have to push back against its tendency to make everything sound polished and generic?
And after 30 days, will I view the relationship between journalists and artificial intelligence differently than I do today?
I do not know all of those answers yet.
That is exactly why I am doing this.
In 2014, I participated in a nonfiction writing challenge using the tools available to me at the time.
Twelve years later, I am returning in a completely different technological environment.
The technology has changed.
The responsibility of the writer has not.
For the next 30 days, you are going to see the process.
Share this: