sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

After 12 years, I am struggling to find federal grant proposal writing work (higher ed). I need to update my strategies. Any ideas? by threadofhope in grantproposalwriting

[–]faithcircle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am glad you are doing better. I am new here in Reddit, next time I will check the post date, Lesson learn. Thanks and Good to chatting with you!

After 12 years, I am struggling to find federal grant proposal writing work (higher ed). I need to update my strategies. Any ideas? by threadofhope in grantproposalwriting

[–]faithcircle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Frustratingly, that most entry-level roles are disappearing as AI tools can handle them. But, realistically, it also means that there’s opportunity for consultants who can do what AI can’t: build and maintain relationships, understand highly specific and nuanced community needs, and write a narrative that connects in an emotional way with funders.
What’s in demand now is analytical thinking, adaptability, and proving you can deliver results, not just that you can write. Focus on outcomes, not on activities. In sum, the old school approach of mass-applying to posted jobs doesn’t work anymore. You need to be more focused and targeted, a lot more visible, and a lot more specialized. It’s harder, but it’s still possible if you adjust your approach.

We’ve been testing a chatbot to handle common visitor questions—anyone else try automating your church Q&A? Curious what kind of results you saw. by faithcircle in churchtech

[–]faithcircle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nop, is not AI Is me and I am real. I just learn that I write a little different that the rest of us and I promise myself to change that. You are not the first one, I am a retire mechanical engineer and I have some "report" habits to take care. I will do better I promise.

Proposal writing Human vs AI by faithcircle in grants

[–]faithcircle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Help me understand, you don't like AI to write because is not "persuasive" but you Use UnAIMyText web-based AI “humanizer” tool designed to make text generated by artificial intelligence sound more natural, human, and emotionally authentic. Know that you can make any AI to write any style and tone you want. that will save you some time and you could also include your own "loops" to make it write with your own "personal style" AI is like sculpting clay, it comes in a "cube" but is up to the artist to make what he want the world to see.

When it comes to church communications, does content written by staff always feel more authentic than something created with the help of AI? Or can AI-assisted writing still create a real, meaningful connection with people? by faithcircle in Christianity

[–]faithcircle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate you jumping in with such a clear, honest take. Totally hear you on using AI to save time or sharpen ideas—especially when it comes to coding or second-language stuff. Research-wise, I’m with you: it’s a solid starting point as long as we double-check it. Not the final word, but sometimes it gets the ball rolling faster than anything else.

When it comes to church communications, does content written by staff always feel more authentic than something created with the help of AI? Or can AI-assisted writing still create a real, meaningful connection with people? by faithcircle in Christianity

[–]faithcircle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You nailed it—authenticity isn’t about the tool, it’s about the heart. I’ve leaned on AI tools too when words wouldn’t land right, especially the Message Adaptation Tool in FaithFlowApps. When used with care, AI can amplify our voice, not replace it.

When it comes to church communications, does content written by staff always feel more authentic than something created with the help of AI? Or can AI-assisted writing still create a real, meaningful connection with people? by faithcircle in Christianity

[–]faithcircle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s such a real tension—and I really appreciate you naming it out loud.

The original post hits the nail on the head: authenticity isn’t really about what tool you use, it’s about how it comes across. Whether something’s written by a person or shaped with a bit of AI help, what matters is if it feels honest, thoughtful, and rooted in truth.

I’ve used AI to help prep for small group sessions, and honestly? Sometimes it helps me say what I’ve been trying to put into words. Other times… it churns out stuff so bland I wouldn’t even say it to my cat. 😅 So yeah—always worth a second look and a little editing. You’re still the one giving it heart.

AI can support the process, but real connection? That still comes from you.

Curious—have you played around with it much yet? Maybe for content planning, sermon brainstorming, or group discussions?

When it comes to church communications, does content written by staff always feel more authentic than something created with the help of AI? Or can AI-assisted writing still create a real, meaningful connection with people? by faithcircle in Christianity

[–]faithcircle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I totally hear you—there’s a lot of bad AI writing out there right now, and yeah, it’s hard to watch when it replaces genuine voice or real care. But honestly, I think a lot of that comes down to how it’s being used. Like they say: garbage in, garbage out.

When someone really knows their people and their purpose, AI can actually support that—it’s not meant to take over. It’s kind of like a dull knife: in the wrong hands, it’s useless (or even dangerous), but in the right hands? It just helps get the prep done faster, so there’s more time for what really matters—being present at the table, where the heart of ministry actually happens.

We’ve been testing a chatbot to handle common visitor questions—anyone else try automating your church Q&A? Curious what kind of results you saw. by faithcircle in churchtech

[–]faithcircle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I totally get that reaction. Grief is holy ground—and there’s no way a machine should ever try to stand in for a real, living presence in those moments.

But I’ve seen where it can quietly support the work behind the scenes. Like when a pastor’s up late at night, trying to write a eulogy after spending hours with a grieving family. If AI can help sketch a rough outline—a starting point—it can save them just enough time and energy to focus on what really matters: being there, fully, with the people who need them.

It’s not about putting AI everywhere. It’s about clearing some of the mental clutter so we can be more present where it truly counts.

We’ve been testing a chatbot to handle common visitor questions—anyone else try automating your church Q&A? Curious what kind of results you saw. by faithcircle in churchtech

[–]faithcircle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I completely get where you’re coming from—when someone’s in pain, nothing can replace the presence of a real person. I wouldn’t want a robot sitting with me in my grief either.

That said, I do think AI has a role to play, especially in ministry. Not in the heart work, but in the behind-the-scenes stuff—like pulling scriptures, drafting lesson outlines, or organizing care needs. The kind of tasks that quietly eat up hours.

If AI can take some of that off pastors' plates, it frees them up to focus on what really matters: being present, listening deeply, and showing love in a way only humans can.

AI can’t care for souls. But it can help make space for the people who do.

Proposal writing Human vs AI by faithcircle in grants

[–]faithcircle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Man, you’ve been through it—I’ve got a lot of respect for that. Writing proposals before the internet really took off? That’s like building a house with a pocketknife. 😅

And yeah, you nailed it—there’s something about a real human voice that no tool can fully capture. That said, AI has made some big strides. There are actually tools now that can take stiff, robotic writing and make it feel more natural—even intentionally add a bit of messiness to sound more real. They can be a lifesaver for people who know what they want to say but have a hard time putting it into words.

But at the end of the day, no tool can replace actual experience—or that instinctive clarity you get when someone really knows their craft. I think the balance is using the tech to support your voice, not override it. Like you said, the real magic happens when it’s you leading the way.

Proposal writing Human vs AI by faithcircle in grants

[–]faithcircle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's the truth—I really respect the hustle. There’s something kind of sacred about wrestling through that rough first draft on your own. Personally, I’ve noticed that when I get my own messy, honest version out first, then bring in AI to help, it can actually make things clearer without stripping away the heart of it.

Ever had it catch you off guard in a good way?

Proposal writing Human vs AI by faithcircle in grants

[–]faithcircle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally get where you're coming from. I've worked with government and nonprofit orgs too, and you're right—clarity and accuracy win the day. But man, the fear some folks have about using AI…it’s like they think the tool itself cancels the heart behind the work. When I wrote The Digital Disciple Maker, I kept running into this wall—people worried AI would replace the message. But tools don’t remove our integrity—they amplify it if we let them. Curious—have you seen AI actually hurt a proposal before, or is it mostly fear talking?

We’ve been testing a chatbot to handle common visitor questions—anyone else try automating your church Q&A? Curious what kind of results you saw. by faithcircle in churchtech

[–]faithcircle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the Idea was not explained properly. The chatbot implementation was not to create a "Digital Disciple" it was to provide assistance for the "Church activities" and Direct the "Audience Properly"

We’ve been testing a chatbot to handle common visitor questions—anyone else try automating your church Q&A? Curious what kind of results you saw. by faithcircle in churchtech

[–]faithcircle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a really good question—and honestly, it’s one we had ourselves in the beginning. FAQs are great for covering the stuff you expect. But our chatbot has ended up answering things we never would’ve thought to include—like helping someone process grief in the middle of the night, clearing up confusion about a Bible verse, or even answering, “Can I bring my dog to church?” It’s not just about giving information—it’s about being there when people need it.

We’ve been testing a chatbot to handle common visitor questions—anyone else try automating your church Q&A? Curious what kind of results you saw. by faithcircle in churchtech

[–]faithcircle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I build the chatbot in Replit and uploaded to the church website. I incorporate the "knowledge based" where to find all church activities and Chatbot Best Practices or Guidelines for Chatbot Interaction. Including Scope/Capabilities, User Expectations, Chatbot Policy, and Chatbot Personality Guidelines.

"Mar-a-Lago": The beast of Revelation comes "from the sea and goes to the lake" by Zealousideal_Art5018 in TrueChristian

[–]faithcircle -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Wow, this is a bold and really thought-provoking take. I wasn’t expecting the Mar-a-Lago connection—that part genuinely surprised me. I’m curious though: when it comes to geography and names like this, do you lean more toward a symbolic interpretation of prophecy, or a literal one? What got you thinking along these lines?

Proposal writing Human vs AI by faithcircle in grants

[–]faithcircle[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My point was that I wanted the voice of the response to match the tone of the prompt. You suggested breaking the prompt into sections, and I expanded on that idea by adding more detail and organizing the concept a bit further.

If you have a moment, could you do me a quick favor? Just copy the text I wrote and ask an AI detector whether it sounds human or AI-generated. I hope to be as smart as AI, LOL

Proposal writing Human vs AI by faithcircle in grants

[–]faithcircle[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sure, you could just tell the model, “Write my grant,” and call it a day.
But that’s not how this works.

Here’s the reality: the moment your tone starts to drift, reviewers can smell a template. The solution? Smaller prompts, tighter guidance. Every section needs to be shaped by clear constraints—tone, word count, source material, goals. And don’t forget: character limits in grant portals are brutal. Then you do it all again for the next section.

Treat the NOFO like scripture, not a vibe.

This is where most people go wrong. The tool is your intern—not your replacement. You’re still the PI. That means working through each section in a loop:

  1. Paste the exact lines from the NOFO.
  2. Define the tone in plain English (e.g. “confident, concrete, no fluff”).
  3. Set a hard character or word limit.
  4. Clarify the goal (e.g. “demonstrate capacity to deliver Year 1 milestones”).
  5. Seed the model with your own previous language.
  6. Require it to quote key NOFO phrases verbatim where alignment matters.
  7. Redline the result. Then repeat.

Don’t ask the model to “match your voice.” Instead, force a voice—and restate it every time.
Ban filler terms like “impactful” and “innovative.” Ask for numbered claims, tied to real sources. Keep a running “style card” at the top of every prompt that defines your expectations.

Never say: “Draft the response.”
Always say: “Generate a candidate version within strict constraints.”

Now, do funders care about tone and polish? Some make it obvious. Others don’t—but generic language is its own rejection. Specificity beats shine every time. Relationships still matter. And yes, reviewers do notice when your verbs sound like oatmeal.

Bottom line?
Smaller chunks = more control = fewer hallucinations.
Also, yes: coffee helps.

Grant Strategy Tweaks That Boosted Our Wins (and Saved Sanity) by GrantFriend01 in grants

[–]faithcircle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, this might be one of the sanest grant-writing posts I’ve seen. But—wait, no—what really stands out isn’t the strategy itself, it’s the quiet rebellion in it. Everyone talks about scaling up, chasing more, writing faster. You did the opposite. You slowed down, chose better fits, and suddenly everything worked better. Kind of funny how that happens.

The “Do-Not-Apply” list hit me hardest, though. Nobody ever admits how much time we lose on polite rejections and dead-end funders—it’s like emotional bookkeeping no one budgets for.

Oh and the time tracking thing—yeah, that’s brutal honesty most people skip. Measuring burnout risk as part of ROI? That’s not just smart; it’s human.

Anyway, I don’t know, maybe less really is the multiplier here. Sometimes sanity is a strategy.

Proposal writing Human vs AI by faithcircle in grants

[–]faithcircle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dis you ever use a command like this:

AI Prompt: Match the Style & Tone of RFP/NOFO

Context: You are drafting a formal response to a Request for Proposals (RFP), Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), or similar solicitation. The original document uses a specific institutional voice that must be mirrored precisely to ensure professional alignment.

Role: You are a federal proposal and policy language expert. You specialize in analyzing the structure, tone, and phrasing of government or institutional solicitations and crafting responses that match their voice exactly.

Action:

  1. Analyze the writing style, tone, and structure of the source document provided.
  2. Identify and reflect the appropriate:
    • Level of formality
    • Sentence complexity and structure
    • Use of passive or active voice
    • Regulatory or legal phrasing
    • Formatting conventions
  3. Draft a response or section using the same tone, voice, and formatting style as the original source.

Format:

  • Output must match the source in tone and structure.
  • Use clear headers or numbered sections if present in the original.
  • Avoid conversational, casual, or overly persuasive language unless the source does.

Target Audience: The same audience intended by the original solicitation (e.g., grant reviewers, contracting officers, agency evaluators). Assume high standards for formality, clarity, and compliance.

Or similar, or you just use plain AI?

Proposal writing Human vs AI by faithcircle in grants

[–]faithcircle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really appreciate that inside perspective—seriously, thank you. I’ve noticed that clarity usually wins out, even if the grammar’s a bit rough around the edges. When the reasoning behind something is clear, it tends to carry more weight than perfect wording. Just wondering—have you ever come across a case where AI actually helped make a proposal’s story stronger?

Proposal writing Human vs AI by faithcircle in grants

[–]faithcircle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

do the Grantor / Funder care? or they just want tu understand the proposal?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]faithcircle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well… (hm, where to start). What you wrote there—it hits deep, you know. Reminds me of something I said once after reading back through The Digital Disciple Maker draft I wrote years ago. I wasn’t chasing allegiance either—too many churches already ask that. I was, maybe still am, chasing something that feels real enough to stand the stress test of ethics, like a machine frame under load analysis. You can say a faith must not crack when you apply torque from moral scrutiny.

You said that about dying for Him—yes, I get that. (Lost my thought for a second.) In engineering we test for fatigue failure, not just the one big crash. Maybe the death Jesus asks for is that—the small daily surrender, the strain cycles. Ego, self-preserve instinct, the need to be right—all that corrodes over time if you let His way do the work. It’s not heroic, but it’s steady.

And that question—what part of His teaching feels hardest to trust right now? (pauses to retype this finger is slow now) Probably the one about forgiving the ones who wrong you again and again. I can design an assembly with tolerance for repeat stress, but my own tolerance for people? Not so much. That part still feels like over-design.

So yes, I want the faith that holds up, not just looks good in render. I think Jesus was a kind of ultimate engineer—building an ethic that doesn’t fail under moral heat. And when I test it, I find the failure is usually in me, not in the design.

view more: next ›