← enzosoler.com

Building with AI Without Outsourcing Taste

The difference between using AI as autocomplete and using it as leverage for decomposition, debugging, and decision-making.

Everyone uses AI now. Most people use it badly. They paste a vague prompt, accept the first output, and ship something that feels generated — because it was.

I've been building with AI every day for over a year. I used it to ship atlas.core — a cross-platform SaaS — solo. I use it for outbound messaging, CRM architecture, content, and code.

This is my framework for using AI without losing the thing that makes your work yours.

The Problem: AI as Autocomplete

The default way people use AI:

1. Have a vague idea
2. Ask AI to do it
3. Accept the output
4. Ship it

This works for trivial tasks. It fails for anything that matters. The output is generic because the input was generic. The AI doesn't know your constraints, your audience, your taste, or your standards. It optimizes for plausibility, not quality.

The result: a world flooded with competent-but-forgettable content, code that works but isn't architected, and products that feel like they were assembled from templates.

AI doesn't have taste. You do. The moment you outsource the judgment call, you lose the thing that makes your work different.

The Alternative: AI as Leverage

Leverage means using a tool to amplify your existing force — not to replace it. Here's how I think about it:

1. Decomposition, not generation

Don't ask AI to write the thing. Ask it to help you break the thing into parts.

When I was building role-based access for atlas.core, I didn't prompt: "Write a role-based access control system in React with Supabase." That would give me something generic that I'd spend days debugging.

Instead, I decomposed:

• "What are the standard patterns for RBAC in a SaaS with Supabase RLS?"
• "Given these 5 roles, what's the permission matrix for these 12 actions?"
• "What edge cases exist when a user's role changes while they have an active session?"
• "Show me the RLS policy for: trainers can read their assigned clients' data but not other trainers' clients."

Each prompt is specific. Each output is verifiable. I'm driving the architecture. AI is accelerating the implementation of each piece.

2. Adversarial review, not approval

After I write something — code, copy, strategy doc — I use AI to attack it, not validate it.

• "What are the three biggest weaknesses in this cold email sequence?"
• "Where would this database schema break at 10,000 users?"
• "A skeptical CTO is reading this proposal. What objections would they raise?"

This is the highest-ROI use of AI I've found. Humans are bad at critiquing their own work — we're anchored to our decisions. AI has no ego. It will find the holes if you ask it to look.

3. Enumeration, not creativity

AI is extraordinary at listing possibilities. It's mediocre at choosing between them. Use it for the first part, keep the second part for yourself.

• "List 20 possible subject lines for this cold email." → then I pick the 2 that match my tone
• "What are all the states a subscription can be in?" → then I decide which ones need UI and which are edge cases I handle silently
• "Give me 10 ways to structure this landing page section." → then I choose the one that serves the narrative

The selection is where taste lives. AI generates the option space. You navigate it.

Where AI Genuinely Replaces Work

Not everything needs human judgment. Some tasks are pure execution with clear success criteria. AI should own these:

• Boilerplate code. Setting up a new React component, writing a Supabase migration, creating a test fixture. Clear input, clear output, no ambiguity
• Format conversion. Turning a JSON schema into TypeScript types. Converting a design spec into Tailwind classes. Translating English copy to Portuguese
• Research synthesis. "Summarize the differences between RevenueCat and Adapty for mobile subscription billing." Faster than reading 10 docs yourself
• Debugging. "Here's the error, here's the relevant code, here's what I expected. What's wrong?" AI is excellent at pattern-matching against known error types

The key distinction: these tasks have verifiable outputs. You can immediately check whether the boilerplate compiles, the types match, the translation is accurate, the bug is fixed. Judgment isn't needed — verification is.

Where AI Will Destroy Your Work

Tasks where AI should assist but never decide:

• Brand voice. AI can write in any voice, which means it has no voice. If your outbound emails sound like everyone else's, you've optimized yourself into irrelevance
• Architecture decisions. "Should we use microservices or a monolith?" AI will give you a balanced answer. That's exactly what you don't need — you need a decision, with tradeoffs you've committed to
• Product prioritization. "What should we build next?" AI doesn't know your runway, your team's energy, your competitor's roadmap, or what your three biggest customers said last week
• Hiring. AI can screen resumes. It cannot judge cultural contribution, coachability, or whether someone will care about the work

The Operating Framework

Here's the mental model I use every time I reach for AI:

1. Define the task clearly. If I can't articulate what I need in one sentence, I'm not ready to use AI. I need to think first
2. Decide: execution or judgment? If execution → let AI own it and verify the output. If judgment → use AI for decomposition and adversarial review, but make the decision myself
3. Be specific. "Write me a landing page" is a bad prompt. "Write the hero section for a B2B SaaS targeting Series A CTOs who need to scale engineering. Tone: direct, no buzzwords. Under 40 words." That's a good prompt
4. Attack the output. Before accepting anything, ask AI to critique it. Or better — critique it yourself first, then ask AI what you missed
5. Own the result. If you ship it, it's yours. "AI wrote it" is not an excuse for bad work. You chose to ship it

The Bigger Point

AI doesn't make you better. It makes you faster at whatever you already are.

If you have good taste, clear thinking, and strong standards, AI amplifies all three. You decompose faster, explore more options, catch more edge cases, and ship sooner — while maintaining the quality bar that makes your work yours.

If you have vague thinking, low standards, and no taste, AI amplifies that too. You ship more mediocre work, faster. Which is worse than shipping less of it.

The builders who will matter in the AI era aren't the ones who use AI the most. They're the ones who know when to use it and when to think for themselves.

That's not a technical skill. It's taste. And taste is the one thing you can't automate.