The Argument Against AI Writing Is at Least 2,400 Years Old

IDK about the 2400 year old argument (apparently against paper), but if you need to use AI to organize your book find something else to do. If you don't have the patience or motivation to learn and do this, why should a reader have the patience to read the book. Most people who use AI in their creative process don't understand the creative process. Having something trained to do what came before to help you do something new is like putting guardrails on yourself to prevent you from doing something new. It feels right when you're doing it, but that's why they can charge for it. Like Coka-Cola -- It tastes great while you're drinking it so you buy it. After a while of this it puts your pancreas under distress leads to a myriad of health problems (diabetes, heart disease, kidney failure, cancer) that could have been prevented by just not drinking Coke.

I am not sure after reading his article what Brad is in favor of and what he is against. Juding the work, not the tool. Absolutely. AI at the end of the day is just a tool. How we wield it matters. "Augmenting ourselves with tools is what humans do." We need to define the "augmenting ourselves" in this debate.

As an immigrant, English not my first language. AI definitely makes my writing "sound" better. However, I don't see my personality in such output. It's definitely easier to write stuff using AI, but should we do that? Writing sharpens thinking. It takes a lot of energy to write something and to write it well, but writers benefit from the act of writing. I believe we should all do it.

Do we need to be great at slapping labels on bottles? No. Do we need to be great at plowing a field when there is a machine to help with that? No. Do we need to engage in writing to some extent? I believe so.