I remember the good old days, when writers, real writers, would spend their day chiseling each syllable into stone, and then came papyrus. You call that writing? Back then, it took strength and stamina to complete a sentence. Now, anyone with a reed and some ink can record their thoughts. The gods will not be pleased.
Great article, Stephanie. In my opinion, the whole question surrounding the use of AI in the writing process is already moot. Like you, I simply don't give a fuck about what other people think about the so-called authenticity of the process. In fact, I am more interested in learning how to use the tool to tell a better story. In my case, I have discovered that in working with ChatGPT to write a scene, I am the story architect, and GPT is my personal assistant with whom I work to build the scaffolding before I write the scene. It's like having a developmental editor participate in the writing process as early as the first draft. Why toil away in my lonely garret when I can engage a resource that helps weigh out the value of each beat in each scene? Moreover, I am writing science fiction that incorporates some of today's scientific controversies. Imagine being able to discuss the relevance of the Law of Increasing Functional Information as it applies to the plot and characters in my story, and the "person" has my plot outline and character arcs already stored in memory, actually knows what I am talking about, and is available 24/7. Given the choice of using this resource or staying stuck in the identity mind trap of what it means to be a real writer, please shut the fuck up and leave me alone.
I know you're taking a lot of flak for "coming out" and rebutting the tired arguments of the old guard, but someone's got to do it, and you're doing a great job! Thanks.
SPOT ON! I love how you're using it, thanks for sharing—I don't think most people understand it's basically like having a writers room where you can pass around ideas and flesh out concepts. I think these people actually believe you just type in a one-sentence prompt and get some magic output (which is always intriguing to me bc if it's truly that easy, why do they always have terrible content of their own? Oh right, it's bc they like the "old way")
Omg Stepfanie, you are lowkey leading a new movement in thought over here. Love it. You’ve gotten SO MUCH unnecessary flak for literally no good reason.
And as someone who participated in that flak—by leaving dismissive comments on notes—I just want to say I’m sorry. Happy to say I stand corrected.
I hope you can accept my apology and also accept my newly paid subscription as a token of peace. Even tho it’s just an excuse to unlock even more of your AMAZING WRITING 🤩
WOW, MAX!!! I'm always so impressed and inspired by people who are willing to change their minds, especially publicly. That takes balls! Huge kudos for opening your mind up to the potential of AI and the power of these tools. And thank you so much for becoming a paid subscriber—your support of my work means the world to me, truly. Apology definitely accepted (not bc you became a paid reader, but bc you engaged in honest and thoughtful dialogue leading to this moment—LOVE to see it) Thanks again! :)
I’m new here and don’t usually subscribe after just one article, but anyone who can turn their loudest critics into their most devoted paying fans? That’s a serious skill. Maybe next they'll be writing an apology essay about how you were right. I'm here for it.
yes omg, Stepfanie might actually have a superpower. i’ve gone from something of a hater to full-blown stan in record time but I’m not quite ready to write an apology essay.. yet. kinda embarrased of how mean i was at first. she's an absolute savage but has enough mercy to let me keep my last shred of dignity 😅
AI prompt idea for you: act as an AI expert. Instead of acting as a supporter, act as a critic and list counterarguments you can think of [list your AI positive arguments]. It would make your writing more interesting. Now it's a list of your arguments and a bunch of AI-generated text around it. Honestly I swear I'm not a hater and clearly your writing resonates with some people but this is just something to consider in the future if you want to strengthen your critical thinking skills as well as your arguments :)
Also, you could look into the environmental effects of using AI. I'm not saying AI shouldn't be used at all but maybe you could look into how you can do it in the most sustainable way and write a piece on that. Would be interesting.
"Word processors were supposed to make writers lazy. Calculators were going to atrophy mathematical thinking. GPS would destroy our sense of direction. In each case, the tool eliminated routine tasks and freed human capacity for higher-order functions."
In each of these examples, the fear proved true. Calculators have atrophied most people's ability to perform calculations. Instead they follow a script. GPS has ruined most people's sense of direction. They rely on following a script. Word processors ease writing so much that many tend to dramatically overwrite which inevitably cheapens the words, and I know contract lawyers who can't spell to save their life.
These tools are amazing, as is AI. The core problem which you seem to miss is that people who never develop any of the underlying skills become wholly dependent on these things and are rendered neutered without them.
I tutored in public schools where teachers neglected to actually teach multiplication and instead just hand a kid a calculator to move them along in the curriculum. I've watched countless people be incapable of navigating their own neighborhood (even things within walking distance) without the crutch of their device.
None of this is to say these tools are evil or bad. It's to say an overreliance on these tools makes anyone in that position weak. The work is less than it could be if you built up BOTH your own abilities and better tool use.
I followed your work because you wrote a wonderful article about how taste is the thing that matters. Taste is inherently human and irreplicable by a machine. It's the foundation of great artists in all media. The process you are so opposed to is not about suffering. The "grind" only appears to be a grind to casual observers. An artists process is the process of refinement and taste development.
I have no issue if you are utilizing AI to research and learn new things. But to have it connect the dots for you is to literally export one of the most foundational aspects of being human. This is why so many people have a visceral reaction to your views on the subject.
I fear though that because you have a strong monetary incentive to continue "generating" articles and ideas with AI that you aren't willing to actually explore the arguments and views presented by people such as myself. So far, it has all been attempts to dismiss rational and reasonable concerns about an overreliance on technology.
The work I do speaks for itself. I’m done apologizing to so-called purists who fundamentally don’t understand what AI is and who insist on misunderstanding what it is I’ve written about how I use these tools. I don’t care if you’re “ok with me utilizing” anything. I don’t work for you.
The conversation—whether people in the writing community like or not—must move toward practical AI ethics for writers.
We already use citations. We disclose sponsorship and conflicts of interest. We can talk about how best to do similar things for AI.
We can improve training sets to exclude copyrighted material. We can formalize opt-outs for training data (EU already has).
But trying to advocate for a profession-wide AI social ban is a delusional solution. The people who support it on Substack are straw-manning all AI technology and the people/ideas behind it. So many bad-faith arguments and so much vitriol.
Hi Stephanie, I was wondering if you would be interested in participating in our research about the future of AI in Creative Industries? Would be really keen to hear your perspectives. It only takes 10mins and I am sure you will find it interesting.
I remember the good old days, when writers, real writers, would spend their day chiseling each syllable into stone, and then came papyrus. You call that writing? Back then, it took strength and stamina to complete a sentence. Now, anyone with a reed and some ink can record their thoughts. The gods will not be pleased.
Great article, Stephanie. In my opinion, the whole question surrounding the use of AI in the writing process is already moot. Like you, I simply don't give a fuck about what other people think about the so-called authenticity of the process. In fact, I am more interested in learning how to use the tool to tell a better story. In my case, I have discovered that in working with ChatGPT to write a scene, I am the story architect, and GPT is my personal assistant with whom I work to build the scaffolding before I write the scene. It's like having a developmental editor participate in the writing process as early as the first draft. Why toil away in my lonely garret when I can engage a resource that helps weigh out the value of each beat in each scene? Moreover, I am writing science fiction that incorporates some of today's scientific controversies. Imagine being able to discuss the relevance of the Law of Increasing Functional Information as it applies to the plot and characters in my story, and the "person" has my plot outline and character arcs already stored in memory, actually knows what I am talking about, and is available 24/7. Given the choice of using this resource or staying stuck in the identity mind trap of what it means to be a real writer, please shut the fuck up and leave me alone.
I know you're taking a lot of flak for "coming out" and rebutting the tired arguments of the old guard, but someone's got to do it, and you're doing a great job! Thanks.
SPOT ON! I love how you're using it, thanks for sharing—I don't think most people understand it's basically like having a writers room where you can pass around ideas and flesh out concepts. I think these people actually believe you just type in a one-sentence prompt and get some magic output (which is always intriguing to me bc if it's truly that easy, why do they always have terrible content of their own? Oh right, it's bc they like the "old way")
Many such cases :)
Omg Stepfanie, you are lowkey leading a new movement in thought over here. Love it. You’ve gotten SO MUCH unnecessary flak for literally no good reason.
And as someone who participated in that flak—by leaving dismissive comments on notes—I just want to say I’m sorry. Happy to say I stand corrected.
I hope you can accept my apology and also accept my newly paid subscription as a token of peace. Even tho it’s just an excuse to unlock even more of your AMAZING WRITING 🤩
WOW, MAX!!! I'm always so impressed and inspired by people who are willing to change their minds, especially publicly. That takes balls! Huge kudos for opening your mind up to the potential of AI and the power of these tools. And thank you so much for becoming a paid subscriber—your support of my work means the world to me, truly. Apology definitely accepted (not bc you became a paid reader, but bc you engaged in honest and thoughtful dialogue leading to this moment—LOVE to see it) Thanks again! :)
I’m new here and don’t usually subscribe after just one article, but anyone who can turn their loudest critics into their most devoted paying fans? That’s a serious skill. Maybe next they'll be writing an apology essay about how you were right. I'm here for it.
Holy smokes what an amazing comment, tysm Erica—and welcome to the chaos :)
yes omg, Stepfanie might actually have a superpower. i’ve gone from something of a hater to full-blown stan in record time but I’m not quite ready to write an apology essay.. yet. kinda embarrased of how mean i was at first. she's an absolute savage but has enough mercy to let me keep my last shred of dignity 😅
no apology essay needed, Max! i appreciate the support and feedback :)
yay thank you - too nice! i was saving it to see if my internship application at Wild Bare Thoughts was accepted anyway
No girl, thank YOU. Looking forward to learning from your brilliant mind 🌌🧠💡
You always tie historic artistry into current events with such beautifully relatable resonance. I look so forward to reading your work each week!
That means so much—tysm, Jemise! 💗
Brillant 🤩
Ty, Gregory
AI prompt idea for you: act as an AI expert. Instead of acting as a supporter, act as a critic and list counterarguments you can think of [list your AI positive arguments]. It would make your writing more interesting. Now it's a list of your arguments and a bunch of AI-generated text around it. Honestly I swear I'm not a hater and clearly your writing resonates with some people but this is just something to consider in the future if you want to strengthen your critical thinking skills as well as your arguments :)
Super interesting study on how AI impacts your critical thinking skills: https://time.com/7295195/ai-chatgpt-google-learning-school/.
Also, you could look into the environmental effects of using AI. I'm not saying AI shouldn't be used at all but maybe you could look into how you can do it in the most sustainable way and write a piece on that. Would be interesting.
All the best
you have 2 subscribers—maybe you should focus on making your own writing more interesting. best!
wow you're really just rage baiting
"Word processors were supposed to make writers lazy. Calculators were going to atrophy mathematical thinking. GPS would destroy our sense of direction. In each case, the tool eliminated routine tasks and freed human capacity for higher-order functions."
In each of these examples, the fear proved true. Calculators have atrophied most people's ability to perform calculations. Instead they follow a script. GPS has ruined most people's sense of direction. They rely on following a script. Word processors ease writing so much that many tend to dramatically overwrite which inevitably cheapens the words, and I know contract lawyers who can't spell to save their life.
These tools are amazing, as is AI. The core problem which you seem to miss is that people who never develop any of the underlying skills become wholly dependent on these things and are rendered neutered without them.
I tutored in public schools where teachers neglected to actually teach multiplication and instead just hand a kid a calculator to move them along in the curriculum. I've watched countless people be incapable of navigating their own neighborhood (even things within walking distance) without the crutch of their device.
None of this is to say these tools are evil or bad. It's to say an overreliance on these tools makes anyone in that position weak. The work is less than it could be if you built up BOTH your own abilities and better tool use.
I followed your work because you wrote a wonderful article about how taste is the thing that matters. Taste is inherently human and irreplicable by a machine. It's the foundation of great artists in all media. The process you are so opposed to is not about suffering. The "grind" only appears to be a grind to casual observers. An artists process is the process of refinement and taste development.
I have no issue if you are utilizing AI to research and learn new things. But to have it connect the dots for you is to literally export one of the most foundational aspects of being human. This is why so many people have a visceral reaction to your views on the subject.
I fear though that because you have a strong monetary incentive to continue "generating" articles and ideas with AI that you aren't willing to actually explore the arguments and views presented by people such as myself. So far, it has all been attempts to dismiss rational and reasonable concerns about an overreliance on technology.
The work I do speaks for itself. I’m done apologizing to so-called purists who fundamentally don’t understand what AI is and who insist on misunderstanding what it is I’ve written about how I use these tools. I don’t care if you’re “ok with me utilizing” anything. I don’t work for you.
The conversation—whether people in the writing community like or not—must move toward practical AI ethics for writers.
We already use citations. We disclose sponsorship and conflicts of interest. We can talk about how best to do similar things for AI.
We can improve training sets to exclude copyrighted material. We can formalize opt-outs for training data (EU already has).
But trying to advocate for a profession-wide AI social ban is a delusional solution. The people who support it on Substack are straw-manning all AI technology and the people/ideas behind it. So many bad-faith arguments and so much vitriol.
Hi Stephanie, I was wondering if you would be interested in participating in our research about the future of AI in Creative Industries? Would be really keen to hear your perspectives. It only takes 10mins and I am sure you will find it interesting.
https://form.typeform.com/to/EZlPfCGm
I love your work (he writes, listening to “So What”), and am incredibly impressed with your turn of mind(s?). Keep it up!