Let’s get this out of the way: yes — I used ChatGPT while building this website.
Not because I wanted to “let AI do my job”, but because I wanted to use the right tool for the right task. That’s also the message of this post: generative AI is not a replacement for engineering, design, or responsibility. It’s a productivity tool — and it shines when you apply it where it makes the most sense.
My consulting tagline is basically “systems that actually work”. That mindset doesn’t change just because the tool is new.
Generative AI is a tool, not a strategy
A hammer doesn’t design a house. A hammer helps when you already know what you’re trying to build.
Generative AI works the same way:
-
It accelerates writing, but it doesn’t create your point of view.
-
It suggests structure, but it doesn’t understand your business context unless you provide it.
-
It generates images, but it won’t magically capture your personal brand without iteration and constraints.
The value comes from combining AI with real experience: knowing what matters, what’s true, what’s useful, and what should never ship.
Where it helped most on this website
1) Content creation (the “first draft” problem)
Writing a website is deceptively hard. Not because the words are complicated — but because you need to say the right things clearly, consistently, and in a way that matches your positioning.
AI helped me:
-
break down long, repetitive paragraphs
-
create page structures (headlines, sections, CTA blocks)
-
rewrite texts until they sounded like me — direct, practical, not marketing fluff
This also fits the “Thoughts” section of my blog, where I share real experiences and reflections — not just code
2) SEO and structure (where checklists are your friend)
SEO is full of patterns: metadata, internal linking, readability, schema basics, category/tag consistency. AI is great at:
-
generating clean SEO titles and meta descriptions
-
proposing internal link opportunities
-
spotting “this section says the same thing twice”
-
creating variations without losing intent
That matters because I don’t want pages that look nice but don’t get found.
3) Code snippets and “small but annoying” tasks
If you’ve ever maintained a WordPress site, you know the pain: a small CSS change, caching, enqueue versions, little UI details, customizations that should take 10 minutes and somehow take an hour.
AI is perfect for:
-
drafting and refining small snippets (CSS, PHP, JavaScript)
-
generating scripts for automation and content operations
-
turning a vague problem into a concrete set of steps
But: I still review and test everything. AI reduces typing — it doesn’t remove responsibility.
Where AI did not help (or where I didn’t trust it)
This is the part people often skip.
AI is weakest when:
-
the problem needs deep system understanding
-
the trade-offs are architectural (performance, reliability, maintainability)
-
the outcome has risk (security, data protection, business-critical logic)
-
the “correct” answer depends on real constraints (your theme, your plugins, your hosting, your audience)
In those cases, AI can still assist — but it cannot lead.
The “context” problem: why personal brand needs iteration
One of the most interesting parts of this journey was using generative AI to produce visuals and content that match my context: my work, my style, my tone, and my services.
AI can generate images, but it needs:
-
clear constraints (style, colors, mood, message)
-
real examples (what I look like, how I dress, what “Fuertes-IT” should feel like)
-
multiple iterations (because the first output is rarely the final)
That’s not a weakness — it’s the real workflow. Just like software: build, review, improve, repeat.
A real example from client work: AI + systems + measurable outcomes
My work isn’t only about this website. In parallel, I’ve used AI in a more “industrial” context — for example in a larger digital transformation and SEO improvement project for WITEGA, where the challenge was scaling content and structure across a large specialized catalog.
That’s where AI becomes truly valuable:
-
when content is big enough that manual work becomes unrealistic
-
when consistency matters (templates, metadata, structured data)
-
when you need a repeatable process, not just a nice demo
My rule of thumb: use AI where it reduces friction
Here’s the guideline I’ve learned (and now apply everywhere):
Use generative AI for acceleration, not for decisions.
Use it to reduce friction in:
-
drafting content
-
producing variants
-
structuring ideas
-
automating repetitive work
-
generating visuals with context and constraints
But keep humans (and engineering discipline) in charge of:
-
truth
-
quality
-
security
-
architecture
-
final approval
Closing thoughts
So yes — surely I used ChatGPT for creating this website.
And I’m happy I did.
Because the result is not “an AI-generated website”. The result is a website that reflects my work, my standards, and my way of thinking — built faster, with fewer boring steps, and with more time spent on what actually matters: clarity, structure, and real value.
If you’re building a product, a website, or a process: don’t ask “Should I use AI?”
Ask: “Where does it make sense — and how do I stay responsible for the outcome?”
If you want to discuss how to apply this in your company (content scale, automation, internal tools, or “AI that actually works”), feel free to reach out.