Lab · 1

Can AI replace a CMS?

Dr. Paul tests what happens when AI takes over much of the traditional website production workflow.

Ongoing Actively running — this experiment continues as the site evolves.

Hypothesis

AI can eliminate much of the production layer when given the right constraints.

Result

Execution wasn’t the constraint. Judgment was — this page is itself running evidence.

Single-subject test, still running — not a controlled study. Read this as one practitioner’s evidence, not a general claim.

Method

Brief

What should exist, and why.

AI

Builds it — code, copy, and design.

Human judgment

Reviews, edits, decides what ships.

Live

Deployed automatically, in about a minute.

Tech

Claude GitHub Pages GitHub Actions Google Drive

Traditional

Marketing CMS Developer / Agency QA Deployment

Experiment

Marketing intent AI Human review Live

The experiment

The artifact isn’t a writeup — it’s this site, live right now. Every page was produced through the pipeline above.

AI handled

  • Code
  • Iteration
  • Troubleshooting
  • Deployment

Dr. Paul handled

  • Direction
  • Judgment
  • Taste
  • Final decisions

8 pages · ~1 min deployment · Human review required

Worked: AI handled the implementation surprisingly well.

Constraint: Context matters. Without enough context, AI can drift.

Evidence

The real numbers behind this page

Pulled straight from this repository’s own commit history — nothing estimated, nothing invented.

Input

162

commits

9,892

lines added (net +6,483)

8 days

elapsed since the first commit

Output

8

live pages shipped

~1 min

commit-to-live deploy time

4

old URLs preserved as permanent redirects

Key features: a custom design system, canvas-based generative visuals, scroll-triggered reveals, and this structured Lab experiment framework, built to scale to hundreds of entries.

As of this writing — these numbers grow as the experiment continues.

Finding

Execution wasn’t the constraint.
Judgment was.

AI could quickly build what was requested. The harder question was whether it was worth building.

Conclusion

Execution became more agile and cheaper.
Human judgment became more valuable.

AI didn’t replace the marketer. It changed where the marketer adds value.

Executive implication

Don’t just add AI to the workflow. Redesign the workflow around AI.

The opportunity isn’t simply replacing marketing technology with AI. It’s redesigning the marketing workflow around what humans and AI each do best.

Next Question · 2

Should Dr. Paul become an avatar?

Talking avatar, text chatbot, or shelved entirely — that’s the question this finding raised.

Back to the Lab