Virtual Debate as the Antidote to AI-Generated Noise

By Hiran de Silva

In a thoughtful LinkedIn post, Raymond Macdonald—creative director and children’s author—raises a nuanced point about the authenticity of AI-generated content. He makes a compelling case: if you’ve got something valuable to say and use AI to articulate it, don’t apologize. Not everyone who has a meaningful idea is a great writer, and not everyone who writes well necessarily has great ideas. When those two things come together—original thinking paired with articulate expression—AI can be an amplifier, not a fraud.

But Macdonald also warns of a more troubling trend: the explosion of generic AI-generated content that floods our feeds with superficiality. He writes of a “soul sandblasted by 1,000 identical think pieces”—a vivid image for a bleak reality. In such a world, how do we elevate the signal above the noise? How does a genuinely important message, even when powerfully written, avoid getting drowned out?

That question struck a chord.

As someone who has written and refined over 5,000 pieces in the past five years—ideas, analyses, frameworks, rebuttals, evolutions—it’s not writing help I need. It’s reach. It’s relevance. And it’s resonance in a noisy, cynical environment. The real issue is not AI, but audience distortion. Those with the weakest ideas often rise to prominence because their content is optimized for virality, not veracity. In a world governed by algorithms, authority is no longer earned by expertise—it’s manufactured by engagement.

This leads us to a crisis of authenticity. Not just in style, but in substance. There’s a difference between AI assisting you to write what you know, and using AI to simulate knowledge you don’t have. The former democratizes access to expression. The latter produces expertly phrased nonsense.

From Content to Combat: The Case for Virtual Debate

Here’s my response to that dilemma: virtual debate.

In a world where important arguments are not happening—because the right people won’t turn up, or because vested interests don’t want their claims examined—we now have the means to simulate the confrontation they avoid.

AI can animate these debates. Not invent them, but recreate them using real positions taken publicly, by real actors in industry. These debates are not fictitious. They’re dramatizations of real claims, real objections, and real consequences. For example:

• When FP&A influencers argue that Excel is obsolete or unscalable, we can stage that claim against a real-world demonstration where Excel outperforms modern tools—on scalability, total cost of ownership, and agility.
• When they publish white papers comparing FP&A tools to each other, we can ask the missing question: Why is Excel not even in the ring? Is it because it’s unfit—or because it would win?
• When surveys show Excel users preferring VLOOKUP and conditional formatting, we can ask: Who are these users? Are they representative of the enterprise space, or selected precisely because they’re not?

These are the questions that never get asked in real time. But AI can give us the arena.

Just like Carol Cadwalladr exposed the echo chambers behind the Leave campaign—where misinformation was never challenged because it never crossed over—we can use AI to stage confrontations that the real ecosystem actively avoids. We can put bad logic under good light.

Reclaiming Authority from the Algorithm

AI-generated content, when used responsibly, helps surface voices that have something to say but struggle to cut through the algorithmic sludge. But when AI becomes a content mill, disconnected from any grounding in professional experience or technical accuracy, it creates what I call “synthetic authority.” Authority by illusion.

That’s the problem with most content in the FP&A software space. It’s not just that they make claims about Excel’s limitations—it’s that these claims go unchallenged in their native echo chambers. Their audience is selected for receptivity, not scrutiny. Their engagement loops reinforce the myth.

That’s why virtual debate matters. It creates a new layer of accountability—because it allows us to simulate scrutiny where it’s being avoided.

The Real Authors Behind the Scenes

Let’s be clear: AI didn’t generate the idea of a virtual debate. It didn’t decide to dramatize the suppression of Excel’s true capabilities. It didn’t choose to confront Paul Barnhurst’s framework, or Mark Proctor’s frequent dismissal of databases as too difficult to implement. I did. These are insights earned over 30 years of real experience building Excel-based systems that outperform the very tools being promoted as Excel’s successor.

So yes, I use AI to help script and stage these conversations. But the thinking, the strategy, the professional scars—those are mine.

Final Thought

AI is a tool. A powerful one. But a tool nonetheless. What matters is how we wield it.

Raymond Macdonald reminds us that having something worth saying is more important than writing it perfectly. I would add: sometimes, it’s not just what you say or how well you say it—it’s how loudly you can shout it above the din.

That’s what I’m building. A platform where real ideas can push back against synthetic authority. Where the true power of Excel—used properly—can be seen, heard, and compared head-to-head.

And for that, I make no apologies for using every tool at my disposal.

—
Inspired by Raymond Macdonald’s post on LinkedIn, interpreted through the lens of a decades-long campaign to elevate Excel as an enterprise-grade tool misrepresented by those who profit from misunderstanding it.