AI, Writers, and the Lost Art of Disagreement

Crazy (but not totally unexpected) thing happened when I posted my article, "What Writers Will Always Do Better Than AI", on several Facebook writing groups I'm a part of.

Within the writing community, there's a deep divide over AI - and understandably so. So when I published my article (which is by no means an aggressive push to use AI, but rather an emphasis on the opposite), some expressed deep appreciation for my take, while others ripped me apart for even hinting at the idea that writers should ever utilize AI, for any reason. 

Here's the truth: Writers have been using assistive tools for a very long time. Writing software, spell-check, Grammarly, libraries, news archives, index cards, readers, editors, and the input of other writers, just to name a few. Used responsibly, AI is another tool to add to the box. 

Having said that, AI is not "just" another tool. AI's power (and threat) is its potential to slowly move into other areas of the creative process and take over. We've seen more than enough evidence of that slow creep negatively impacting everything from movies to books to the emails we get from our co-workers.

Besides that, where is the line between "check my spelling", "give me five alternatives", and "write this article in my voice"? So I absolutely get and resonate with the concern of many writers.

That's where each of us needs to make the critical decision to not let that happen in our own work. The danger isn’t merely that machines become capable of writing. It’s that humans gradually stop practising the capacities that writing develops - reflection, ambiguity, imagination, argument, empathy, judgment, patience.

Rebuilding a Divided Writing Community

It's an important conversation. Unfortunately, it too often isn't a conversation, but rather a pretext for online war between "real" writers and "infidels". I'm not being hyperbolic, that's exactly how it's sometimes phrased.

Facebook groups too often sadly devolve into attacks on new or struggling writers for simply asking questions about if and how AI should be used. For many, the answer is a flat "never", and they're not afraid to tell you exactly what they think of AI, your question, and you. It takes on an almost radically religious character. Got to love the internet.

It's discouraging to me to take the hit as my intentions are mercilessly second-guessed. I can't imagine what it's like for new writers just looking for a little friendly guidance. Maybe the angry, online discourse is just a reflection of our times, where meaningful discussion is too often drowned in a sea of online trolling and mudslinging. I don't know. 

If it helps, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to compare it to another powerful but potentially dangerous tool: guns.

Weapons are in a political and sociological category of their own, I get it, but stick with me. Some people use guns to provide food for their families, others use them to hurt people. It's all in how the tool is used, and that matters. No binary argument required: guns kill people and people kill people, two things can be true. Point is, while I'm not a big gun guy, I appreciate that responsible owners know how to use them properly and I support that right, even though I'm terrified by what those tools are capable of. 

My hope is that writers can approach conversations about AI the same way, extending each other a little grace, even as we all stay on guard in our own practice.

Most of us are in this together, after all, just trying to get our ideas out and make some kind of positive difference. I, for one, refuse to let a few bad actors define an entire technology, never mind permit me to treat writers with innocent questions as automatic sell-outs. Writers of all people should be good at respectfully debating ideas, reflecting, integrating, evolving, and above all, considering their impact without going to war. 

That doesn't mean being soft on legitimate concerns. Just (ironically) being less robotic and more human.