To AI or Not To AI?

Three writers walk into a bar.

The first says, “I don’t use AI. Ever. And neither does any serious writer.”

The second says, “What do you mean? You used Google to find this bar.”

The third says, “I just want to make sure I’m not cheating. Be true to the craft, you know?”

The bartender says, “It’s simple, guys. Same rule as booze: it can help you write, so long as you don’t let it do the writing for you.”

The third answers: “In that case, I’ll have absinthe.”

 The Argument Everyone’s Having (But Not Really Having)

As a writer and writing coach, I think about this constantly. And I’ve swung like a pendulum from side to side, starting out firmly in the “never” camp before dabbling in the “dark side”, wondering if I was taking it too far, then swinging back again.

My concerns weren’t just ethical. They were creative. Professional. Educational. Downright existential. In the privacy of thoughts I dared not speak aloud, I wondered:

What kind of writer will using AI turn me into?

How might it slowly erode my ability to imagine and create in the first place?

What habits will I build (or destroy)?

How might it help or sabotage my career?

How could it affect other writers and writing as a whole?

And how long before the Matrix takes all of us?

The more I chewed on the whole enchilada, the more I remembered this isn’t actually a new problem. Tectonic shifts in technology have always forced society to walk that delicate line between tool and "the craft".

Just imagine how Gutenberg’s press sucker must have punched a whole industry of scribes. Or how terrifying the arrival of sound in film must have been to the international community of contract piano players. Many of us are old enough to recall how Photoshop initially outraged graphic designers or how e-books rang alarms for bookstores everywhere.

Each of these changes sent out shock waves, disrupting career paths midstride and creating anxiety about the future. (They also led to improvements and new opportunities no one saw coming. But I’ll leave that for another article.)

The question isn’t whether AI disrupts writing. It clearly does. The question is how much disruption we’re talking about, how best (if at all) to use it, what it turns us into, and where we should draw the line.

Truth is, if we’re being honest, AI can be an incredibly useful tool for writers. That might trigger an immediate “yuck” response in some, but think about it: we already happily lean on other writers, the internet, Google searches, expert input, and “sounding board” friends for help. Add to that editors, readers, writing groups, outlines, index cards, whiteboards, mind maps, research databases, spellcheck, grammar tools, and even voice-to-text.

All of these help us move quicker and clarify what we’re trying to say, but few writers would argue they invalidate the work. So it’s hard to make the de facto argument that using another tool is necessarily a bad thing.

Properly used, AI can help you do research, generate ideas, pressure-test your arguments, identify gaps, even straighten out your structure. It can also help you identify or narrow down your story options, challenge your assumptions, provide feedback - the list goes on.

The key thing at every step is that leaning on AI this way should be expanding your thinking, not replacing it.

That’s why, when talking about AI with the writers I coach or work alongside, I don’t have much use for unilateral “should”s and “shouldn’t”s that shut down any further discussion. I find that this approach weirdly forces people to take unnecessary (and potentially counterproductive) sides, warping writing into a kind of robotic, rule-based religion that quietly kills creativity. Ironic, huh?

What matters in the end is what our choices and habits are doing to our our writing ability, our success, and the fundamental role of written material.

So let’s look at the most common objections to using AI in the writing process and how a person might choose to respond.

 1. “It’s not real writing.” 

If AI generates it, it’s not truly mine. It’s not even human.

What’s seen at risk: Authorship, identity and authentic human expression.

Good point: If AI generates your sentences, you’re not building your own voice or representing real human thought or experience. You’re a curator, not a creator. And you’re contributing to a growing body of mechanical, inhuman work.

Balanced response: Keep the writing yours. Use AI for idea exploration and structure, like you do with other tools, but do the actual writing yourself.

2. “It’s basically plagiarism.” 

AI simply recycles or mimics someone else’s content without giving them the credit.

What’s seen at risk: Originality and ethics.

Good point: Copying AI output directly is no different than copying any other source.

Balanced response: Treat AI like notes. Consult, but always rewrite everything in your own words and apply your own thinking. (Example: You ask for opposing viewpoints, then rewrite and build your own argument from them.)

3. “It kills your voice.” 

My writing will become generic and bland.

What’s seen at risk: Distinctiveness, dynamism and self-expression.

Good point: AI defaults to “average”. Overuse leads to homogeneous “sameness”.

Balanced response: Use AI to identify problems, not rewrite your work. Develop your own way of expressing ideas, inject your unique personality into your writing. (Example: You asks where their draft is unclear, then rewrite those sections in your own voice.)

4. “It’s just a shortcut.” 

I’ll skip the necessary struggle involved in developing quality writing.

What’s seen at risk: Skill development.

Good point: The messy parts of writing are where insight comes from. Try to jump the line and you simply never become a good writer. Meanwhile, you build false confidence.

Balanced response: Use AI to explore options, then choose and develop one on your own. Embrace the mess as you come up with your own solutions - don’t just let AI give them to you.

5. “You’ll become dependent on it.” 

I’ll gradually lose my ability to write without help.

What’s seen at risk: Independence, strength, and confidence.

Good point: Too much reliance can become weakness.

Balanced response: Set your boundaries. Do core thinking and first drafts without AI. Share your work with humans, get their feedback, make changes, and bring it back to them.

6. “AI will steal my work.” 

My ideas will be taken or reused.

What’s seen at risk: Ownership and control.

Good point: Even though most AI platform policies promise “no public sharing”, there’s always a risk. Or at least the ugly feeling of one.

Balanced response: Be selective. Don’t paste everything you’ve written into tools you don’t trust. Use summaries or excerpts and treat AI like a semi-public space, not a private notebook. (Example: You describe a scene in general terms to explore ideas but keep the draft itself on your computer.)

7. “It’s going to take our jobs.” 

AI reduces the demand for what I have to offer.

What’s seen at risk: Livelihood and opportunities.

Good point: AI is replacing or eliminating positions in every industry at lightning speed.

Balanced response: Focus on getting good at what AI struggles with: voice, style, real human conversations, authentic relationships, your own lived human experience. And participate in calls for the limitation of its use and acceptance. Like any useful tool that has a hazardous downside – nuclear power, the internet, a chainsaw - its utility doesn’t give it a pass to run wild.

8. “It floods the world with garbage writing.” 

Before long, nobody will even know what good work looks like.

What’s seen at risk: Standards, expectations, appetite, and basic intelligence.

Good point: AI makes mediocre content easy to produce and proliferate.

Balanced response: Use AI to improve quality, not increase volume. Use AI to identify weak spots, then deepen the work yourself. Write good stuff and get it out there, one way or another.

9. “You can’t trust it, whether you’re a writer or reader.” 

AI can give me wrong or shallow answers and make me look like a fool.

What’s seen at risk: Accuracy and trust.

Good point: AI can sound convincing while being totally incorrect.

Balanced response: Treat AI output as a starting point, not the final answer. Triple-check everything and apply your own judgment. Hopefully, you’re already doing this, wherever your information comes from.

10. “It will turn your brain to mush.” 

My critical thinking skills in general will crumble over time.

What’s seen at risk: Cognitive sharpness - our ability to think, question, and solve problems.

Good point: If AI regularly does your thinking for you (generating ideas, making decisions, evaluating quality), those mental functions will inevitably weaken. Passive acceptance equals lazy thinking over time.

Balanced response: Use AI to challenge your thinking, not hand it to you. Ask it to raise questions and expose the gaps in your ideas and conclusions, then work out the solutions and make decisions on your own.

A Simple Way to Keep Yourself Honest

Here’s a helpful tip. Before using AI, ask:

• Am I avoiding my own thinking here?

• Would figuring this out myself make me a better writer?

• Do I fully understand what I’m about to use?

If the answer is no, stop.

All of the objections above obviously come from a real place and speak to a common core concern: not whether AI has a downside (it does), but how it affects us, how we should relate to it, and where we go from here.

I’m just going to say it: like it or not, AI is here to stay. Incurable fan of dystopian science fiction and keen observer of human nature that I am, I tried for years to pretend that we could somehow stem the tide, but we didn’t - and arguably, couldn’t.

But in retrospect, I’m not so sure that was the correct response, anyway. While my (hopefully justified) fears about AI do and likely always will linger, here’s my bottom line for us as writers: As with any tool, if AI strengthens our ability to think, create, write, and be original, it’s doing precisely what it should, and we would be wise to embrace it. If we allow it to oust these wonderfully and uniquely human attributes, it’s time to recalibrate.

In the end – surprise, surprise - it’s all up to us.