What AI Can Never Do – On Being A Writer When AI Exists

There’s two streams of discussion about AI floating around that I’ve noticed. There’s this realization that almost everyone is using it, because it’s just so easy. Teachers despair that students resort to it almost immediately, and many users share how AI makes writing work emails or whatever so much easier. But then there’s the editors discussing how exhausted they are at receiving endless AI manuscripts. They describe the writing as “bland” and don’t understand how the creators can’t see that the use of AI is so obvious. To me, this raises a question.

Why do so many of us feed information to AI and then think the text it spits back to us is better than what we’d write ourselves? I think because AI is very good at creating text the average person would expect to read, what our society on average considers acceptable and publishable.

“Good” AI Writing

Here’s why. AI writes what the average person considers “good” writing – the kind of writing they wish they could produce. There’s a cadence to acceptable, public writing – the kind you see in corporate blog posts, marketing copy, and social media posts designed to go viral. There’s also a cadence to “good” essays that will get a passing grade in school. And there’s a cadence to things like instructions and descriptions. This means these things can be copied by a computer, and the text will fit the template.

Since these types of writing are seen everywhere, people accept them as “good.” And it’s true they’re not necessarily easy to learn how to write. Good marketing copy, good instruction manuals, and good school essays take skill to produce, and it’s disheartening if AI can churn them out in minutes. (I’d argue that even then, a human needs to check these things for accuracy, but leaving that aside–it seems AI can reliably produce plausible text).

But does anyone read school essays for fun?

The kind of writing that people read–those of us who still read, anyway–is writing that connects. This is why so many editors find AI writing bland. Editors tend to be readers, so they quickly sense when text is an imitation. They can tell when a human voice is missing.

The kind of writing AI produces is the kind of writing without soul. But the thing is, the world ALREADY contains so much writing without soul. This is why AI has moved in so quickly.

Think of corporate newsletters, SEO-optimized blogs, ghost-written books designed to make the supposed author look smart… My dream is that the existence of AI forces everyone to realize this. In a world where computers do the writing, and other computers read it and summarize it for humans, maybe everyone will realize we produce too much useless text. And everyone will stop producing text that no one reads.

What AI Can Never Do

AI is very good at producing functional writing. So who knows, maybe it will take over marketing, or technical writing, or drafting emails. Maybe. But it’s a stretch to say it will take over literature. Because taking all the books in existence and averaging them out into a plausible text is like writing a story by a committee. You’ll come up with something bland and safe that everyone agrees on but no one particularly loves.

The same goes for magazine articles and news analysis and creative essays. AI can spit out text for basic news articles, with the who, what, where, when and how. But can it draw you into its writing? It write a hook, but that’s not the same as coming away from a piece with a new insight into the world.

Why is that? Why can’t AI come up with a thesis, some arguments, and imitate a voice, and then produce a text that is as memorable as, say, “Frank Sinatra Has a Cold” (which I’ve blogged about before)?

Because I think the way we’re taught to write is kind of wrong – or at least, it’s wrong for creative writing that matters. We’re taught to come up with what we’re trying to say, create a solid outline, and then to write it. But that’s never been how I write. Usually I don’t know what the meaning is of my writing at the beginning. I start with an idea, and THROUGH the process of writing I realize what I’m trying to say. This is what it means to create, not than just produce. By working your craft, you bring up treasures you might have never discovered without doing the work.

In fact, starting with a message is the quickest way for me to make my writing sound preachy. But if I let my creativity and thoughts and words on the page all mesh together, I can find what the underlying truth is that I’m trying to put out there into the world.

For example, in university there were many times I outlined a theme and three points for an essay, and then through writing I’ve realized that I just needed the first point (which often developed three subpoints of its own that would become the body of the paper). I’ve had that happen frequently with articles as well–only a small piece of what I thought I had to write about became part of the final piece, because there was more depth and discovery in the part of the initial idea that I actually wrote down that I didn’t need the rest of it.

Writing is more like chipping away at a sculpture (at least it is for me)–knowing there’s something there and working to reveal it. The sculpture in the stone reveals itself to you as you work.

Implications

So what’s the conclusion on AI, if writing is more a process of discovery than a mechanical production of text?

First of all, to those out there using AI instead of learning to write–the reason you learn to write is not to get a good grade, but to experience this process of discovery while you create. There is nothing like this feeling in the world. It’s a eureka feeling that can’t be put into words.

By writing and creating, you learn to refine your ideas. You learn to get in touch with what you’re really saying. And this is what gives your writing authenticity. This is what gives your writing voice. That’s why AI doesn’t have a voice, why it’s so often called “bland.”

Those who don’t care about being writers can use AI, sure. But those who are trying to make something that matters, who want to say something, shouldn’t.

Second, for writers, I think the way to steer around what AI is is to bring as much of what makes you human into your writing as possible. You have to reach inside and get in touch with your experience. You have to bring into your writing what you truly perceive about the world. This could be you specifically bringing yourself into the piece, but it doesn’t have to be. It can be you reflecting on your experience and bringing your conclusions into what you write, in a way AI never would because it cannot experience the world.

This also means it’s ok to let your writing be a bit flawed. Maybe your essay doesn’t have three points. Maybe it’s a bit wordy. But maybe those are the words that feel right for what you’re trying to say. After all, as I’ve argued before, true art is flawed. The best works of literature aren’t perfect, but we recognize what’s in them that makes them great.

In conclusion, I don’t think we can put the AI genie back into the bottle. It has made certain kinds of writing easier. It will produce plausible, average text faster than any human. Perhaps eventually all of us might be glad to offload this kind of service writing for AI. But when it comes to literature, or reading material that gives you an experience or changes your perspective, or stuns you with an insight–we will need writers who can write. So some of us still need to write well. I hope that is some of you out there reading this 🙂

Note: I used AI to generate the header image and blog image for the first time ever – using Bing Image Creator. It seemed appropriate to test it out in a blog on the topic of AI

***

Want more from me? Enter your email to get my author newsletter–it takes a monthly deep dive into different topics of Christian faith. Or check out a sample issue here.