Take Me To Your Reader

an essay

It can be called both a boom and a bust. The AI revolution, as it is so-called, has seemingly taken over as it also fails in other areas. What it has taken over, if anything, is largely the corporate fancy. One cannot argue as to how much of our lives this AI thing has permeated, appearing in almost every app, on every website, and in many conversations. Corporations have fallen in love, scratching that ADHD mindset business has to pick up the next shiny penny as the dollars found in the boring stuff are missed. While we dive into the shallow pool, many are finding it to be lackluster compared to what is promised, with greater and greater energy needed to pour into fractional – nay, negligible improvements. Yet, many seem destined to keep chasing this carrot, determined to prove it is the next thing.

Conversely, the artist community has met AI with hostility and derision, with barriers raised as to how much AI can be accepted before we simply call the work “AI slop”, and where a creative can use it, if at all, to help them in their process.

Personally, I wouldn’t call AI “slop”; I call it unremarkably average. Then again, it depends on what AI one is talking about.

AI has become this overarching term referring to any algorithm or program that at least appears to learn or does learn. It swallows everything from efficient analytical machines to those attempting to mimic humans in some capacity, be it through generating images, texts (such as stories, poems, research papers, etc), or conversations. We have AI relationship simulators, therapists, assistants, and even now AI family members.

Writers in particular, have been called out when they use AI to write their stories, either in part or in full, so much so that now places like the Authors’ Guild are creating pay-plans to certify works as non-AI generated. (I mean, hey, at least it’s helping to create another revenue stream for someone, right?)

To really break this down, I do think there needs to be some delineation between what really can be called AI and what really is just advanced data analysis. We tend to lump any program that can “learn”, or better described, update its capabilities and techniques based on the information it collects, as an AI, but if the system is doing pure analytics, even if it is making some suggestions based on those analytics, I wouldn’t necessarily class this as true AI. Grammarly and ProWritingAid are popular writing programs that could (at least in part) classify under this delineation. I know of several industry “AI” programs that are nothing more than large data aggregators and analyzers. This means they take data sets and then can identify patterns quickly, spitting out conclusions from this analysis.

Or it can be a sophisticated search engine, although much like the rest of the internet, results can be fraught with errors or fallacies.

Where I tend to draw the line in the AI revolution is where AI effectively is impersonating a human, whether it be through the creation of “art” (as I believe art is a deeply human endeavor) or conversation or whatever. When a person uses AI to form a story and effectively “write” it (I would prefer to call the act “assembling”), then the use of AI has gone too far. But then again, has it?

Ghost writers have been a tool used for quite a long time in the industry, where a person who has a good story but is a poor or unskilled writer can utilize the skills of another writer to assemble that story. They then slap their name as the author and move forward, with little asterisks to provide those who are willing to look deeper the knowledge that the content was not directly written by the named author, but by someone else. Maybe this asterisk is something we need, but then again, who wants to acknowledge it? Even still, the ghost writer is still a human.

AI in the writing world is like Ozempic in the fitness world in this way. It’s effectively a cheat code, and to those who put in the effort, who struggle to do the work and learn the craft, see it as an affront. That’s not to say that AI use is necessarily wrong unless the author claims full creative production when they use AI in some great capacity. It is through this lie, this omission of the means of creativity where I draw a real line and have a problem.

Granted, it is very unlikely I would even bother with a story where an author admits using AI to assemble a short story, novel, poem, or whatever it be. I respect the admission and do not begrudge them in any way, but I remain uninterested in it ultimately.

Going back to Grammarly and ProWritingAid, these editing programs do have features that indeed function in a more immersive, intrusive way, in the more real AI-like means. Just the other day I had another offer from ProWritingAid to use the more AI powered components they offer, such as story building, virtual beta-reader, etc. While the portions of ProWritingAid I use strictly highlight potential grammatical issues, users can also opt to have any number of things in their manuscript analyzed, as well as the ability to have the program modify text to “improve it”. Again, this gets writers in a situation where one can only guess as to how the writer uses it. My own admission to having a lifetime paid membership to ProWritingAid makes my own work suspect. It puts the onus on me to prove to everyone that I use it in the most benign of means rather than in any manner which might turn my writing into the dreaded AI-slop.

In truth here, editors are a mixed bag, no matter whether the editor be man or machine. Or woman for that matter. Maybe a better way to say it would be human or machine? (Really, the fight over term vs imbued meaning can be nothing less than nauseating, so I am moving on.) Editors, like writers, have differing levels of ability. They can also be varied in how well they work with any given writer, making the writer in effect worse if the editing style doesn’t mix well with the writing style of the author. In publishing houses, news outlets, and other areas, editors also have the job of aligning work to the voice and structure of the house, making sure that each writer, however unique they might be, fits within the milieu of the style of the greater entity. Where this runs afoul is in the greater whole of art in general and particularly for independent artists (writers included).

My argument is that an independent artist, or one who does not have any obligation to greater market force, like a traditional publishing house, newspaper, or otherwise and should not have the guardrails of editing adherence that writers with contracted agreements have. Nor should we be expected to care if we don’t somehow mimic them in some way. It is my assertion then that editing is a writer’s choice in this case, and can be done by human or AI with little regard or concern, as long as the original work — story, plotting, and the writing itself — is human created. My only other caveat here is that any highlighted issue (for either human or AI editing) be fully decided on and fixed by human hands. The writer must ask if it really is an issue. And if so, how is it fixed? Revisions, just like the story and the writing itself, should also be done by the human.

I argue this point simply as editors are such a disparate group, that an impartial AI judge is probably on average more effective than most, and will catch mostly all potential errors, and not argue with you if you choose to ignore the suggested fix.

Each issue ProWritingAid brings up, when I use it, is decided upon without simply clicking through the “fix” button. In fact, I often hit ignore or will go back and rewrite if there is a real problem properly identified, neglecting the suggestions the program usually makes to make the correction, as the program doesn’t genuinely understand what I am trying to do with my writing voice.

Of course, many would still think that much wrong. Fine. I think stories written without quotations for dialogue is pretentious garbage, yet there are those who fawn over such stylistic choices. Each person is entitled to their own level of tolerance. I personally do not see an issue using some AI-like tool like ProWritingAid within reason, as it has been used in that way for many years prior to this AI boom. Again, it matters only how someone uses it.

Too many people see it as an easy offload of difficulty. After all, writing is just too damn hard. Writing well, even harder. Learning a skill – too difficult. Coming up with a good idea? No chance. Something people will like? Are you kidding me?

Creative work takes too long and requires too much effort. Because of this, many are tempted to use AI, or any means for that matter, to shortcut the work needed. Why anyone would do this is beyond me. Sure, some writers make it big, but the vast majority of us will continue to operate in obscurity. Then again, I am not thinking of the trade-off. Putting minimal to no effort and getting something is better in the eyes of these people than is the pursuit of the process of creativity. A terribly written book using AI you can slap your name on that sells one book is a better investment than the sometimes years spent writing a book to sell nothing. Yet, the quick, effortless payoff is empty compared to the intimacy many writers have with their work. If an artist was truly prioritizing the financial piece of it, then it makes sense to succumb to the temptation of AI. I would then argue it isn’t about the art then, so can we really call them an artist?

I guess that is the crux of why the accusation stings so much. It accuses someone of cheapening their art, their writing, their efforts. And it is near impossible to defend against. Because AI is so remarkably average, it is going to feel next to impossible for anyone to outpace the possibility of an accusation of using AI in their writing. That in and of itself is ample temptation for the malevolent among us to gain standing and status not through effort, but through tearing down others. And really, the list people use for that is endless. Destruction is always easier than creation. Unless you ask AI.

Please consider subscribing!

Even better, consider buying a book! Links to where you can buy below:

Jeremy C Kester