I have never used AI either and never will. It makes me a bit angry to think that the writers I am supporting are using AI to write at all. Now I want transparency. I love supporting writers so they can write, but supporting AI writers, which to me translates into "lazy writers" or not really writers at all, just bots trying to profit of those writers (and artists) that do create their own content. How can we tell? I'd like to think I have a discerning eye, but do I?
I think all legitimate writers should come down hard on those who use AI to create words for them. It goes against everything we've come to know about the ethics and obligations of writing. We can't let it grow into acceptable practice.
Thank you. I do not and will not use AI in my writing. If my name is on it, for better or for worse I wrote it.
I do not and will not spit out another writer's stolen words. I firmly believe that we should respect writers who inspire or inform us by naming and linking to or citing them.
Confession - I used AI last week for the first time to give me some help in research. I'm working on explaining the word "agapé" to help folks cope with these challenging times (as part of a larger book on grief). I wanted to know if the concept of loving kindness and compassion was represented through this word in other thought systems. It was, as I expected, but I did find a new thought system to investigate. My task now is to go and look for some actual books by actual writers who practice loving kindness and compassion. That is what has me excited on this research before writing part - reading other people's legitimate work on a topic. AI confirmed what I was thinking, gave me a new piece of information, and then sent me on my way - didn't need - or want - any more help.This is the only way I think I will find AI useful: one little word or phrase that sends me looking for myself for information...because my writing will always be my own, every word labored over in love. Besides, AI will never recreate my snarkiness.
I think there are uses for AI and research appears to be one of them, though I’m seeing reports of AI getting it wrong sometimes, and even admitting to making things up if it doesn’t know the answer! But if it’s useful, go for it. I’m just opposed to letting it to do the writing. So many ethical problems with that.
It boggles my mind that there are that many people using or relying on AI for their writing. I would have guessed it to be a much smaller number. Maybe I'm just being naive in believing that most people wouldn't use it. Call me old fashioned but I'm trying to build my skill as a writer because I want to be good at it. The dream isn't to have some thing do the writing for me. I want to do that part! I'm honestly just flabbergasted. And disappointed. At least have the decency to suffer through being shit at something in order to eventually, hopefully, get good at it one day.
It does boggle. You’re doing the right thing. So am I. So is every writer within our spheres. I don’t know about those others. I do know I’ll never call them ‘writers’.
I use the free version of Grammarly to catch missing commas and unnecessary adjectives. I tried the next version up to see how it might help; I almost made a full day before I deleted the local app and opted out, because I couldn't persuade it to STFU when I was trying to be creative. I also do not agree with its suggestions about dialogue, because dammit, THAT'S NOT HOW MY CHARACTERS TALK YOU OBNOXIOUS COLLECTION OF POORLY-WRITTEN ALGORITHMS! <cough> Sorry.
I like using AI for illustration generation. It works much better than digging through Pixabay or Pexels.
Usually.
Then there are the long sessions where there is disagreement about how many people "four" is, based on what I have specified in prompt after prompt and the crap that is being (eventually) presented to me.
But use AI to produce a story, or even creative nonfiction piece? WTF for?
Interesting thoughts, Jack. To your last point: Why indeed? As to using AI generated photos—some people say they can always tell, and that makes them bothersome. I’m not sure I can always tell, but the ones I’ve seen seem lifeless, somehow. Even those that initially look quite beautiful.
So good, Ramona. Thank you for writing about this problem. I have never used AI. I'm not sure I even know how to, although I did notice I set up a password for ChatGPT at one point. I don’t remember when I did it or why. Maybe I was curious and wanted to check it out.
I’m an old high school English teacher, so I can tell you that the majority of the population probably needs AI to write coherent sentences. Don’t get me started about the inability of most to use proper grammar. Many could use a lesson on how to construct a five paragraph essay, and they’d be at a loss when it comes to writing a thesis statement for that essay.
I could always tell when a student plagiarized work because I knew their capabilities, so when they suddenly used what I called thesaurus words in an assignment, I wondered why they thought they could pull the wool over my eyes.
Thankfully, I retired before AI hit the classroom. I’d hate to be teaching high school language arts now. I can’t imagine how hard it must be to get anything legitimately written by students today. Sadly, even the teachers are probably using AI to develop lesson plans.
It strikes me that children aren't learning much anymore. Cursive is gone, grammar is basic, writing and language skills are no longer sources of pride. Government, civics, history, geography--not important. What is??
This is so true. If people were still taught to read and write well in school, they would not feel that they "need" to use an A.I. to produce anything passable.
I don't think the technology would be much of a problem IF the young people knew they could do better on their own.
That's not the reality for many students now, and if the objective is just to push out as much "content" per day as possible... well, machines can plagiarize faster than I can even think.
I agree, but for serious articles, I don't get too upset about this:
"He’s not using AI to generate full posts or images. Instead, he’s leaning on it for productivity, research, and to proofread his writing"
Maybe not the proofreading, but research is fine, especially in some tech areas.
Still, this is likely to be moot. The new round of investment is going to bring intense pressure to generate more revenue by Substack, and that will lead to the inclusion of display ads, and that will then begin the flooding with AI slop to drive eyeballs, clicks, and interactions.
Soon there will be bot farms turning out epic amounts of mediocrity to drive the growth that the investors will demand, and the once semi-pure world here will be a wispful memory.
Not too many other places you can go without becoming your own unpaid sysadmin, but I will try to follow you folks wherever you go.
That's how I came here; just following a real person who was being shadow banned across all the blogs, because his writings didn't make us want to buy the useless crap being advertised there.
Shadow banned? In what way? I just do my thing and hope I'm doing it well enough without schemes or tricks or guile. I'm a writer. I write. If my readers see value in what I do and they see fit to pay for a subscription, I'm grateful. But I'll write what I write, no matter what. And I'll do it as honestly as I'm able.
Shadow banned in the sense that the work gets buried under hundreds of other works with a few similar words inn the title or tags. Severe enough that even I could not find my own writings without entering the exact title in quotes, and that was many, many years ago. Although it was not my stuff (a polite word) that brought me to Substack, it was the real writers vanishing elsewhere .
My take on Substack is that we’re given the freedom to create our own niches and build our own communities, and, while none of it is easy, it is possible. I understand feeling invisible. I’ve felt that way many times, and it’s not fun. But I’ve given up on trying to figure out what ‘success’ means.
I love to write. I can do that here. I love it when readers find me and like what I write. I love it when they join up and interact and we become a community, no matter how large or small. It took a long while, but I’m content now with where I am.
And I love discovering other writers, either through happenstance or through Notes or through recommendations. I spend a good amount of time seeking them out. I hope they’ll do the same with me. And that’s how it goes.
That is exactly what I expect when this platform is also owned by and run for the benefit of the ultra rich. Enshitification happens every time. But it's nice reading y'all while it lasts. The fact that survey was even published tells you where the owners intend to go.
I would bet that by the end of the year, AI tools will be integrated into the Substack editor to entice authors to use them to generate more content more quickly to get more eyeballs on it so that the ads they introduce make more money for the investors.
Mark my words, the enshittification will be on steroids now.
I've never used AI - and in reaction to the existence of AI I'm doing more writing by hand using a fountain pen than ever! I'm also working on handwriting more of my future books and keeping the digital stuff of book production to a bare minimum. This is me flipping AI the bird.
Ramona, you know I think writers shouldn’t be using AI to generate their pieces. The key ethical red flag or “tell” for me is authors who don’t disclose how or when they’ve used AI - the fact that so many don’t indicates that they know readers will have less respect for it if a bot was involved. So, at the very least, I advocate full disclosure of AI use - and many of us humanists better start telling readers up front things like “This work was 100% human written.”
That said, I have been testing chatbots and writing about it here for a while now. I have used AI-generated images on occasion, but only to make a point and with full disclosure. There are ways that I can see AI helping with research, although I don’t use it for that (I don’t want a bot deciding which threads to follow). But I have used AI to pose questions to me about a topic or experience that I then respond to, generating more of my own material.
As educators, we’re stuck with it, but I’ve been working on teaching materials that might employ AI at certain steps of the writing process. Regardless, though, transparency about AI use and the data mined for training LLMs is what I want - and it’s what we’re not getting from the tech companies in charge. That really worries me. As writers, we need to resist their focus on optimization and productivity.
Martha, I need to catch up with the work you've done on this issue, and I will. I'm so old-school I doubt I'll ever trust AI enough to stop being suspicious, but I do want to know what others have found useful. I especially want to know how they're avoiding the pitfalls while taking advantage of those things they might not otherwise be able to do as readily in other ways.
That's the key, isn't it? Finding that quicker, more efficient way of doing the work. But at what price?
I'm not sure I'm avoiding pitfalls by testing AI, but understanding how it works matters, especially for writing instructors. For me, increased efficiency or productivity is the wrong focus for anyone doing creative writing. There really is a price to handing off the creative process, one that I'm unwilling to pay. If I ruled the world, I'd toss out the use of chatbots or customized GPT agents completely for teaching writing — they undercut far too much of the mucky process of figuring out your own ideas and how to express them. But humanists like me don't rule the world (far from it), and generative AI is now part of the teaching landscape.
So, some of my attitude about GenAI is pragmatic. More important, though: my increasing focus on AI literacy is about resisting the facile hype from tech optimists and non-writers. It's good that so many writers and educators are speaking out about this, but the tech elite won't get it until it hurts their bottom line, which means maybe never. That's why what teachers do right now is so crucial for the next generation of students. Hard as it is, we can't ignore or deny that AI has already changed digital media. We need to figure out the right guardrails and pin down those pitfalls for critical thinking and creativity. @biblioracle @janerosenzweigwrites @jvhalbrooks @nickpotkalitsky
Martha, I can’t speak to any of the artificial intelligence uses outside of creative writing. I don’t know enough about the advantages. I only know what I read from people who understand those things and have found legitimate uses, both in knowledge and efficiency. I’ll take their word for it.
My concern is in the loss of imagination and creativity. I fear the elimination of our uniqueness, our cleverness, our ability to draw out emotions and bring readers into our circles where they find a bit of themselves in our words, in our thoughts—the very things that set us apart—in favor of ease and the use of talents not our own.
For me, the word ‘writer’ carries a history, a legacy, indeed a responsibility. It took years for me to say out loud or in writing that I was a writer. I felt I had to earn the title, and maybe it was harder for me because I had no real training, no degrees, nothing that set that title in stone. But there it is, and if I seem a bit overzealous now, it’s because I take this calling seriously.
This is the stand I take, and I’m grateful that others are coming forward to describe their own experiences. We need to do this now, while AI is growing and in transition. We may be living with these decisions forever.
Ramona, you're not overzealous! Far from it. I also worry about the impact on imagination, creativity, a sense of inner life, ability to see experience from another perspective, and so on. The only way for me to fight off those worries is to look at what others are doing (particularly educators) to rework, say, curriculum in order to encourage critical thinking. So, if my focus seems too narrow, I apologize. I do think AI has many benefits for medicine, scientific research, learning theory, etc. But because of the machine-learning "black box" aspect of GenAI output, writing itself as a craft and critical human ability is often lumped together with other disciplines that have a different focus on measurable outcomes. There's a clear mismatch with creative writing; what's far less clear (and a real problem in classrooms) is when generative AI hinders learning.
Thank you, Martha. I admire your ability to see things clearly and to be able to articulate them. I find value in everything you write, and I always learn from you. Truly
The solution, it seems to me, for creative writers, is to avoid AI altogether. It shouldn’t be that hard. We’ve done without it for eons. We don’t need to latch onto every shiny new thing, as if it can only improve what we’re already doing. Words and the ability to put them in our own kind of order is our superpower. Why mess with it?
The quote below tells me that the major deficiency of AI is that men now have to do it themselves instead of expecting their secretaries to catch everything because they’re too busy to bother . . .
“Based on our results, a typical AI-using publisher is 45 or over, more likely to be a man, and tends to publish in categories like Technology and Business. “
I ran across an AI prompt encouraging one to create, say, a cat in a business suit behind a deck. So I tried it. Absolutely thrilled with the result, I created a leech the size of Godzilla strolling down the middle of a large city, again thrilled.
I have used AI to help me with branding and brainstorming (for my screenplays) but I don't feel like it's made me any less of a writer. I think now that I've read your piece, it might but I mostly do the heavy lifting when it comes to writing my articles since it's more fun and I'm developed enough in my craft to know that AI makes a terrible writer. Grammerly is an AI tool though so I wonder if that counts. What do you think?
I have never used AI and don't see the point.
No, neither have I. That’s why I find this whole thing so fascinating. It’s obvious writers can do without it.
If people rely on AI to write stories then they perhaps should find a different business or craft because they're not real writers.
Exactly. I’ve been pushing that point as well, because in order to be called a writer one must WRITE. Not copy.
I have never used AI either and never will. It makes me a bit angry to think that the writers I am supporting are using AI to write at all. Now I want transparency. I love supporting writers so they can write, but supporting AI writers, which to me translates into "lazy writers" or not really writers at all, just bots trying to profit of those writers (and artists) that do create their own content. How can we tell? I'd like to think I have a discerning eye, but do I?
Agreed. I think writers should be transparent. Tell us whether you did the writing, or not!
I think all legitimate writers should come down hard on those who use AI to create words for them. It goes against everything we've come to know about the ethics and obligations of writing. We can't let it grow into acceptable practice.
Yes, totally agree.
Thank you. I do not and will not use AI in my writing. If my name is on it, for better or for worse I wrote it.
I do not and will not spit out another writer's stolen words. I firmly believe that we should respect writers who inspire or inform us by naming and linking to or citing them.
I agree. The more we talk about this, the more it may become clear that using AI to write anything that should come from the writer is WRONG.
Confession - I used AI last week for the first time to give me some help in research. I'm working on explaining the word "agapé" to help folks cope with these challenging times (as part of a larger book on grief). I wanted to know if the concept of loving kindness and compassion was represented through this word in other thought systems. It was, as I expected, but I did find a new thought system to investigate. My task now is to go and look for some actual books by actual writers who practice loving kindness and compassion. That is what has me excited on this research before writing part - reading other people's legitimate work on a topic. AI confirmed what I was thinking, gave me a new piece of information, and then sent me on my way - didn't need - or want - any more help.This is the only way I think I will find AI useful: one little word or phrase that sends me looking for myself for information...because my writing will always be my own, every word labored over in love. Besides, AI will never recreate my snarkiness.
LOL. Wait’ll AI figures out how to use snark!
I think there are uses for AI and research appears to be one of them, though I’m seeing reports of AI getting it wrong sometimes, and even admitting to making things up if it doesn’t know the answer! But if it’s useful, go for it. I’m just opposed to letting it to do the writing. So many ethical problems with that.
It boggles my mind that there are that many people using or relying on AI for their writing. I would have guessed it to be a much smaller number. Maybe I'm just being naive in believing that most people wouldn't use it. Call me old fashioned but I'm trying to build my skill as a writer because I want to be good at it. The dream isn't to have some thing do the writing for me. I want to do that part! I'm honestly just flabbergasted. And disappointed. At least have the decency to suffer through being shit at something in order to eventually, hopefully, get good at it one day.
It does boggle. You’re doing the right thing. So am I. So is every writer within our spheres. I don’t know about those others. I do know I’ll never call them ‘writers’.
I use the free version of Grammarly to catch missing commas and unnecessary adjectives. I tried the next version up to see how it might help; I almost made a full day before I deleted the local app and opted out, because I couldn't persuade it to STFU when I was trying to be creative. I also do not agree with its suggestions about dialogue, because dammit, THAT'S NOT HOW MY CHARACTERS TALK YOU OBNOXIOUS COLLECTION OF POORLY-WRITTEN ALGORITHMS! <cough> Sorry.
I like using AI for illustration generation. It works much better than digging through Pixabay or Pexels.
Usually.
Then there are the long sessions where there is disagreement about how many people "four" is, based on what I have specified in prompt after prompt and the crap that is being (eventually) presented to me.
But use AI to produce a story, or even creative nonfiction piece? WTF for?
Interesting thoughts, Jack. To your last point: Why indeed? As to using AI generated photos—some people say they can always tell, and that makes them bothersome. I’m not sure I can always tell, but the ones I’ve seen seem lifeless, somehow. Even those that initially look quite beautiful.
So good, Ramona. Thank you for writing about this problem. I have never used AI. I'm not sure I even know how to, although I did notice I set up a password for ChatGPT at one point. I don’t remember when I did it or why. Maybe I was curious and wanted to check it out.
I’m an old high school English teacher, so I can tell you that the majority of the population probably needs AI to write coherent sentences. Don’t get me started about the inability of most to use proper grammar. Many could use a lesson on how to construct a five paragraph essay, and they’d be at a loss when it comes to writing a thesis statement for that essay.
I could always tell when a student plagiarized work because I knew their capabilities, so when they suddenly used what I called thesaurus words in an assignment, I wondered why they thought they could pull the wool over my eyes.
Thankfully, I retired before AI hit the classroom. I’d hate to be teaching high school language arts now. I can’t imagine how hard it must be to get anything legitimately written by students today. Sadly, even the teachers are probably using AI to develop lesson plans.
It strikes me that children aren't learning much anymore. Cursive is gone, grammar is basic, writing and language skills are no longer sources of pride. Government, civics, history, geography--not important. What is??
This is so true. If people were still taught to read and write well in school, they would not feel that they "need" to use an A.I. to produce anything passable.
I don't think the technology would be much of a problem IF the young people knew they could do better on their own.
That's not the reality for many students now, and if the objective is just to push out as much "content" per day as possible... well, machines can plagiarize faster than I can even think.
I agree, but for serious articles, I don't get too upset about this:
"He’s not using AI to generate full posts or images. Instead, he’s leaning on it for productivity, research, and to proofread his writing"
Maybe not the proofreading, but research is fine, especially in some tech areas.
Still, this is likely to be moot. The new round of investment is going to bring intense pressure to generate more revenue by Substack, and that will lead to the inclusion of display ads, and that will then begin the flooding with AI slop to drive eyeballs, clicks, and interactions.
Soon there will be bot farms turning out epic amounts of mediocrity to drive the growth that the investors will demand, and the once semi-pure world here will be a wispful memory.
Not if we're still here.
Not too many other places you can go without becoming your own unpaid sysadmin, but I will try to follow you folks wherever you go.
That's how I came here; just following a real person who was being shadow banned across all the blogs, because his writings didn't make us want to buy the useless crap being advertised there.
Shadow banned? In what way? I just do my thing and hope I'm doing it well enough without schemes or tricks or guile. I'm a writer. I write. If my readers see value in what I do and they see fit to pay for a subscription, I'm grateful. But I'll write what I write, no matter what. And I'll do it as honestly as I'm able.
Thankfully, I'm not alone in that.
Shadow banned in the sense that the work gets buried under hundreds of other works with a few similar words inn the title or tags. Severe enough that even I could not find my own writings without entering the exact title in quotes, and that was many, many years ago. Although it was not my stuff (a polite word) that brought me to Substack, it was the real writers vanishing elsewhere .
My take on Substack is that we’re given the freedom to create our own niches and build our own communities, and, while none of it is easy, it is possible. I understand feeling invisible. I’ve felt that way many times, and it’s not fun. But I’ve given up on trying to figure out what ‘success’ means.
I love to write. I can do that here. I love it when readers find me and like what I write. I love it when they join up and interact and we become a community, no matter how large or small. It took a long while, but I’m content now with where I am.
And I love discovering other writers, either through happenstance or through Notes or through recommendations. I spend a good amount of time seeking them out. I hope they’ll do the same with me. And that’s how it goes.
That is exactly what I expect when this platform is also owned by and run for the benefit of the ultra rich. Enshitification happens every time. But it's nice reading y'all while it lasts. The fact that survey was even published tells you where the owners intend to go.
I would bet that by the end of the year, AI tools will be integrated into the Substack editor to entice authors to use them to generate more content more quickly to get more eyeballs on it so that the ads they introduce make more money for the investors.
Mark my words, the enshittification will be on steroids now.
I've never used AI - and in reaction to the existence of AI I'm doing more writing by hand using a fountain pen than ever! I'm also working on handwriting more of my future books and keeping the digital stuff of book production to a bare minimum. This is me flipping AI the bird.
I love reading works that have been hand-written and illustrated. I wish I had that talent!
Thank you. It encourages me to hear that you love reading handwritten works! I'll keep going...
Ramona, you know I think writers shouldn’t be using AI to generate their pieces. The key ethical red flag or “tell” for me is authors who don’t disclose how or when they’ve used AI - the fact that so many don’t indicates that they know readers will have less respect for it if a bot was involved. So, at the very least, I advocate full disclosure of AI use - and many of us humanists better start telling readers up front things like “This work was 100% human written.”
That said, I have been testing chatbots and writing about it here for a while now. I have used AI-generated images on occasion, but only to make a point and with full disclosure. There are ways that I can see AI helping with research, although I don’t use it for that (I don’t want a bot deciding which threads to follow). But I have used AI to pose questions to me about a topic or experience that I then respond to, generating more of my own material.
As educators, we’re stuck with it, but I’ve been working on teaching materials that might employ AI at certain steps of the writing process. Regardless, though, transparency about AI use and the data mined for training LLMs is what I want - and it’s what we’re not getting from the tech companies in charge. That really worries me. As writers, we need to resist their focus on optimization and productivity.
Martha, I need to catch up with the work you've done on this issue, and I will. I'm so old-school I doubt I'll ever trust AI enough to stop being suspicious, but I do want to know what others have found useful. I especially want to know how they're avoiding the pitfalls while taking advantage of those things they might not otherwise be able to do as readily in other ways.
That's the key, isn't it? Finding that quicker, more efficient way of doing the work. But at what price?
I'm not sure I'm avoiding pitfalls by testing AI, but understanding how it works matters, especially for writing instructors. For me, increased efficiency or productivity is the wrong focus for anyone doing creative writing. There really is a price to handing off the creative process, one that I'm unwilling to pay. If I ruled the world, I'd toss out the use of chatbots or customized GPT agents completely for teaching writing — they undercut far too much of the mucky process of figuring out your own ideas and how to express them. But humanists like me don't rule the world (far from it), and generative AI is now part of the teaching landscape.
So, some of my attitude about GenAI is pragmatic. More important, though: my increasing focus on AI literacy is about resisting the facile hype from tech optimists and non-writers. It's good that so many writers and educators are speaking out about this, but the tech elite won't get it until it hurts their bottom line, which means maybe never. That's why what teachers do right now is so crucial for the next generation of students. Hard as it is, we can't ignore or deny that AI has already changed digital media. We need to figure out the right guardrails and pin down those pitfalls for critical thinking and creativity. @biblioracle @janerosenzweigwrites @jvhalbrooks @nickpotkalitsky
Martha, I can’t speak to any of the artificial intelligence uses outside of creative writing. I don’t know enough about the advantages. I only know what I read from people who understand those things and have found legitimate uses, both in knowledge and efficiency. I’ll take their word for it.
My concern is in the loss of imagination and creativity. I fear the elimination of our uniqueness, our cleverness, our ability to draw out emotions and bring readers into our circles where they find a bit of themselves in our words, in our thoughts—the very things that set us apart—in favor of ease and the use of talents not our own.
For me, the word ‘writer’ carries a history, a legacy, indeed a responsibility. It took years for me to say out loud or in writing that I was a writer. I felt I had to earn the title, and maybe it was harder for me because I had no real training, no degrees, nothing that set that title in stone. But there it is, and if I seem a bit overzealous now, it’s because I take this calling seriously.
This is the stand I take, and I’m grateful that others are coming forward to describe their own experiences. We need to do this now, while AI is growing and in transition. We may be living with these decisions forever.
Ramona, you're not overzealous! Far from it. I also worry about the impact on imagination, creativity, a sense of inner life, ability to see experience from another perspective, and so on. The only way for me to fight off those worries is to look at what others are doing (particularly educators) to rework, say, curriculum in order to encourage critical thinking. So, if my focus seems too narrow, I apologize. I do think AI has many benefits for medicine, scientific research, learning theory, etc. But because of the machine-learning "black box" aspect of GenAI output, writing itself as a craft and critical human ability is often lumped together with other disciplines that have a different focus on measurable outcomes. There's a clear mismatch with creative writing; what's far less clear (and a real problem in classrooms) is when generative AI hinders learning.
Thank you, Martha. I admire your ability to see things clearly and to be able to articulate them. I find value in everything you write, and I always learn from you. Truly
The solution, it seems to me, for creative writers, is to avoid AI altogether. It shouldn’t be that hard. We’ve done without it for eons. We don’t need to latch onto every shiny new thing, as if it can only improve what we’re already doing. Words and the ability to put them in our own kind of order is our superpower. Why mess with it?
The quote below tells me that the major deficiency of AI is that men now have to do it themselves instead of expecting their secretaries to catch everything because they’re too busy to bother . . .
“Based on our results, a typical AI-using publisher is 45 or over, more likely to be a man, and tends to publish in categories like Technology and Business. “
Good catch! 😏
100% my writing, all the time, every time.💕
I ran across an AI prompt encouraging one to create, say, a cat in a business suit behind a deck. So I tried it. Absolutely thrilled with the result, I created a leech the size of Godzilla strolling down the middle of a large city, again thrilled.
I’m thrilled for you. 😏
It was a prelude to a political comment that I neer posted.
I do not ever use AI because I value my humanness above all. I will not train AI. Stay human my friends.
I have used AI to help me with branding and brainstorming (for my screenplays) but I don't feel like it's made me any less of a writer. I think now that I've read your piece, it might but I mostly do the heavy lifting when it comes to writing my articles since it's more fun and I'm developed enough in my craft to know that AI makes a terrible writer. Grammerly is an AI tool though so I wonder if that counts. What do you think?
I have never used Grammarly, so I can't say. If I have a grammar or usage question, I Google it. So far, I've always found my answers.