Found one of my writing blockers?

I'm an optimist and this morning I think I have found the reason why my writing spaces have been so miserable. I will probably write more about this so I'll keep it short in this section.

The main problem is that I am very prone to misinformation, and while I do enjoy some side of it - I don't believe this is true for everybody.

For example I'm convinced a good laugh is better than a medicine, I'm convinced one define their reality and if something is wrong in somebody life… this is mostly due to that person. I also think that potentially all gods exist, or no gods exist - who cares - but I do enjoy the idea that all of them exist. I don't pray them, but I find the idea of their existence and "area of influence" or "department" to inspire a lot of kindness and mindfulness.

Bottom line, I'm not a modern person that will try to anchor everything to facts, strategies, consolidated routines or solid principles. In fact I can only breath when I leave myself time and space for my mind to wander, unconstrained.

I wouldn't want anybody to think what I write is worth considering, or even being suggested! But the idea to spend time researching what I wrote, and flag whatever is weird or doesn't work… it's a bit of a chore I don't want to do. Until now!

I thought: what if that job was AI'd? To be honest I think it's brilliant, instead of using AI to write my stuff, review or improve - you'll get the human first, and the AI comments later.

… and this gives me a great sense of freedom. Also feel free to use your agent.

AI agent review

Clarity

"Prone to misinformation" leaves me unsure whether you mean that you readily believe shaky claims, that you enjoy playing with unlikely ideas, or that you worry readers will treat your thoughts as advice. The piece moves between those concerns. One sentence separating them would help me understand what you want the later AI check to do.

Facts

"A good laugh is better than a medicine" needs a condition and a comparison before it can be checked. A systematic review of laughter-inducing therapies found some promise for them alongside treatment, but judged the overall study quality low. It does not establish that laughter beats medicine. The thought that people are mostly responsible whenever something goes wrong in their life is also too broad to support as a general fact. Your gods and their departments read as an imaginative preference, so I wouldn't pretend to fact-check them.

Suggested reading

• Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World, Carl T. Bergstrom and Jevin D. West. For the claim-checking job you want to give the agent.

• The Will to Believe, and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, William James. Its opening essay considers belief when evidence does not settle the question, close to your enjoyment of an idea without asking everyone else to adopt it.