The AI Boogeyman

I'm no more intimidated by AI than I am by a hammer. They are both tools. Either can be useful if used properly, or they can be useless without a human to skillfully wield the tool.

I understand that some people take a more alarmed view of this technology. Of course, I recognize how AI technology can be misused, or abused, particularly from an ethical standpoint.

As for me, though, I do not feel any danger of being replaced. Quite simply, AI cannot act in a genuinely creative manner. It is not human. It cannot think. As a creative writer, my humanity is not duplicable, no matter how sophisticated the AI programming might be.

Writers draw from their imagination, but they also draw from their experience of life. A machine has no imagination, though it may pull from a million sources that allow it to appear imaginative. Ultimately, though, it's a charade. This is, arguably, most apparent in the lack of nuance present in written works that are AI-generated.

The machine doesn't remember what it's like to swim in the ocean. The machine did not have a first kiss. It's never been sad, or happy. Importantly, it has never had an original thought of any kind.

I was writing before personal computers were a thing. When home PC's came around, I did not feel like my life as a writer was over. I adapted to the new tools and kept writing. I felt no ethical dilemma when Spell Check was introduced. Was I fooling people into thinking I was better at spelling than I actually am?

My track record as a writer isn't grand or enviable, in my opinion. I enjoy it and, objectively, I feel like I'm an above-average writer. Great? I don't think so. Good? Some days. Most days I'm probably just okay. Even understanding my own limitations, I don't think AI can come very close to matching my writing chops. So, why do so many fret over AI?

This may not be a popular opinion, but I think much of the crusade against AI in writing circles comes from a place of insecurity. If I were to guess, many (maybe most) of those on a mission to sniff out "fraudulent" AI content haven't really taken the time to investigate how AI works. If they did, they might not be so intimidated by it.

What concerns me a little more than AI does is the witchhunt-esque undercurrents to much of the AI discussion. On this very platform - Vocal -there is a reporting function that allows users to tattle on anyone suspected of having AI create their stories. Anyone who has become familiar with my commentary might guess that I have opinions on this matter. They would be correct. I have opinions, but even more, I have questions.

When I'm clicking through a site, looking for something to read, I'm not doing so in a confrontational manner. I'm looking for something to read, not trying to pick a fight. So, going in, everyone gets the benefit of the doubt that they publish original work that they have personally produced. For me to change my mind, something would have to happen. Some kind of mental alarm would have to go off.

Any time I see someone mention that they reported X number of AI stories, my first thought is not "way to go, defender of traditional writing". My first thought is usually a question. "What made you think the story was generated by AI?" Seriously. What is it that screams AI to you so much that you would take the time and effort to flag it? Are you driven by confidence in your own skill level and discernment, or is your insecurity leading you to see a boogeyman under every bed?

I don't know the answer to why other people do what they do, or why certain things concern them more than others. What I do know is that AI "creative" writing isn't very good, and it also tends to have little indicators if you study it. Do you know what else isn't very good? A lot of human-generated writing and, dare I say it, there are plenty of examples of poor writing on sites such as Vocal. Absolutely, there are some unsung talents out there, but there are also some new and inexperienced writers, as well as old and experienced writers who have never taken the time to hone their craft.

My point isn't to denigrate anyone on their writing journey but to highlight the fact that it doesn't take AI to spit out bad writing. That being the case, reading a poorly written story shouldn't be cause to question whether, or not, someone wrote something themself. Long before AI, people were making spelling errors, butchering grammar, and failing to concoct a compelling narrative. Frankly, AI isn't going to erase anyone's lack of creativity, but it might help clean up those spelling and grammar tragedies if you let it.

From my point of view, there are much bigger issues than AI in the writing sphere, including on Vocal. One such issue is spam. It's everywhere. It's annoying when it pops up in my story comments, but that's relatively harmless. If you want to see spam in action, check in on any Vocal Challenge and look at the entries. Scattered among the legitimate entries, both good and bad in quality, are usually a lot of stories/articles that have zero relevance to the challenge. These entries are nothing more than spam, clogging up the system and wasting everyone's time.

The other big issue is plagiarism. It is not uncommon for creators on Vocal to have their work stolen verbatim and re-published right here on the same platform. Not only does that take some gall, but it's potentially robbing the original creator of revenue. Oh, and those spam stories? Not surprisingly, sometimes they're also plagiarized.

If I were a gambling man, I'd say a large percentage of those spam stories are either flat-out plagiarism or recycled stock articles that can be found all over the internet. To me, this seems like a good opportunity to use AI. I think a good algorithm would go a long way to weeding out these plagiaristic and recycled stories that seem to be plentiful these days. In any case, it's not AI causing those issues. So, why is AI the boogeyman causing the most distress?

It might sound like tough love, but I think for the majority of writers, hunting down and exterminating AI-generated stories may not be the best use of their writing hours. If AI writing seems to you to be on par with human-generated material, you may need to spend more time reading and more time working on the nuts and bolts of your writing craft.

By improving your reading skills, you will see that AI-produced fiction and poetry are not very good. Sometimes it's downright atrocious. If someone does not recognize that, it makes me wonder if they have a well-rounded reading experience.

As a writer, if one's work is mistaken for AI, or vice versa, that is not a good testament to the writer. Again, it's only my two cents, but even a mediocre writer should have enough skill to set them apart from the bland and often repetitious content that AI spits out.

I honestly can't imagine an AI story winning a writer's challenge. Other than cluttering up a website, I don't think AI stories are stealing anyone's thunder. If your writing is on the same quality level as AI, that's on you, not on AI. If you're writing is better than AI (and I imagine it is), then AI isn't a boogeyman worth much of your time. Is it?

What do you think? I know this is a hot-button topic these days. I also know that my thoughts on the subject may not be shared, or even accepted, by a lot of writers.

If you agree or disagree, with anything I've said on the subject, please let me know in the comments.