yes, and thats the one that gets me so much I want to scream. The whole "It's AI slop!" without even reading one word. OR, as you said, if they DID like it, but then find out after the fact, they try to gaslight us because they simply cannot allow themselves to admit something produced "by machine" could be beautiful or pleasing.
Course, at the same time, they have no problem with photographs, movies, digital art, electronic music...
And if you point out that AI art has to have a human guiding it and prompting it and building it to make it fit a human's vision; that the AI isn't just prompting itself, but that the prompt itself came from the mind of a human, you'll be told "that isn't the same thing!"
And I want to know why. Why is this somehow not my story, my creation, just because I used the AI to bring it to life? Why even though I have 10 years worth of notes, spend thousands of words crafting the prompt and then surgically editing the response line by line to get it to exactly what I had envision - how is that "the machine" and not "me?"
Man I have had comments from people telling me the same things. That even though I wrote out the chapter synopsis and then had AI write the chapter based on that synopsis that I am not a writer while ignoring images of pages that I hand wrote. They have said that writing a synopsis or notes doesn't make you a writer. Its bullshit.
I can foresee a world where the human is taken out of it, unfortunately. Where my kindle tracks my reading to the point where it knows what I like (when I keep turning pages at 2am), and what I don’t (when I put the book down and go to sleep). I can also imagine it generating a bespoke book ‘just for me’ full of confirmation bias, and free from all discomfort.
It’s the lack of discomfort that makes me most uncomfortable.
But then, I believe that humans are inherently creative. They will always find a new way to express themselves.
"I suffered to make this, therefore it is valuable, therefore I am valuable. " and because I personally am NOT suffering when I make my short films with Seedance but am enjoying it immensely.. what then? no value? these motherfxckers are the same ones who can't "draw a stick figure" so they can go eat a button
I truly am so grateful to start finding folks like this in my feed because for the longest time, all I've heard is the anti-AI side. Even in writing forums I'm in.
Just last week, for instance, I was excited about a story I had been working on with Grok, building up chapter after chapter and had realized as I concluded the Act 1, that I had the beginnings of a good novel on my hands. I was excited. The AI was helping me shape the synopsis that I had started with into something that had some real meat to it. Of course I knew it was the brainstorming phase. Of course I knew that what Grok produced (after 1,000's of words in dozens of prompts where I painfully explained each see as I saw it and then surgically edited over another half dozen prompts to even get close to something acceptable) was only a rough draft - a detailed outline or plot synopsis.
But it was a start. I was no longer staring at a blank word doc and a blinking cursor, unable to figure out how to even start the first scene or how to narrative the active scene I could see in my head. Because that has always been my problem. I have stories. I have characters. I can see scenes in my head like tv episodes. But I struggle so hard to try to capture what I see in my head in a narrative form. Now if I could just write it like the Silmarillion and "tell" you the story? We'd be fine. I actually did that this weekend to describe it to a friend and realized when I was finished I had written 10,000 words in 5 hours because it wasn't narrative. AI allows me to write that 10,000 word synoposis and then start generating the narrative from it to give me a place to start. Something to edit and reword and rewrite, but a starting point.
However, when I posted to this one particular person (whom I have encourage quite often in their own writing career) about my excitement about finally having a breakthrough, I got the chilly response of "its machine generated. You'd be better off writing it yourself and not letting the machine write it for you."
I'll be honest, it completely deflated me. Just like going into my other writing groups and seeing the pharisaical attitudes of "oh, it's not real art!" or "well, if you had taken that 4,000 words you fed as a prompt to the AI and just written the story, you'd already be 4,000 words into the story." or the "using the AI will make you lazy and destroy your creativity."
And one of the things that really gets me in all this is that these are the same people who crow about having "destroyed the gates!" and "taken down the gatekeepers!" of traditional publishing, who are so proud that Indie publishing means they could finally get their stories out without a harried editor at a publishing company blocking them; now the readers can have the stories they've always wanted and writers can find their audience!
These same people are appointing themselves the new gatekeepers over what is "a writer" and what is not. Worse yet, they are trying to gatekeep readers as well, telling readers what they should and should not read.
The struggle is real - I have had very similar experiences to every one that you've described! It's good to find people like you here as well. Until I took of my mask and just started declaring who I am and what I do and how I do it, I thought I was alone. Now I realize there are plenty of us. We just believe it's not safe for us to come out.
Bam — that bit about having it all in your head and not being able to get it onto the page? Yeah. Same. That’s not laziness, it’s a bottleneck. Glad you found a way through.
Oof. That's an awfully strong 'us-versus-them' vibe.
I like that your question is very specific. I'm not going to answer it right now. I don't know what my answer is, yet.
I will say this: AI is not our friend. It is, at its core, a tool intended to make it easier for companies to fire their employees, and reduce labor costs. I say this as somebody watching the AI reaper carve through their particular field of employment.
And that applies to artistic fields just as much as it applies to, say, translation, or customer support. Don't think that the artists who are championing AI now are any safer than those who won't touch it.
AI is not our friend because it’s under the corporate structure and the corporate structure is not our friend. AI is like all tools that humans make, potentially positive, potentially negative. It really comes down to the user.
If they only knew how much blood, sweat and tears can go into structuring, molding, shaping and prompting. How much suffering can happen until that magic machine finally arranges all those stolen pieces into something coherent, emotionally appealing and ideally resulting in a captivating story.
Most believe it's just typing "Write a story about xyz", hitting enter and waiting for the machine to spit out it's stolen slop we can sell as our own.
People forget that for thiusands of years artists were not treated as gods. They were artisans. Craftsmen. Laborers. If someone liked it, they bought it, or traded their own craft for it. And many of them used the latest technology of the time.
The only moment I ever care if something was made from AI is when the person claims he made the artistic piece himself when in fact he didn’t… that also includes when ESL students present me sentences already translated in English claiming they wrote the sentences themselves, however upon listening to the way they speak, that isn’t the case.
So, the question really depends did the person actually put in the effort OR being lazy?
I read your other comment but I need to point out that equating AI with laziness is false. It’s not lazy to use AI. In fact, a lot of the time, it’s harder than just writing it. The real problem is that it doesn’t really matter how much effort was put into something. It only matters if the end product is something someone else desires. It takes me five minutes to splash paint on a canvas and someone may love that and call it art. Or I could spend hours painting something truly horrendous that no one would even look at. Effort really doesn’t matter. 🤷♀️
When I said ‘lazy,’ I meant people who pretend AI‑generated work is their own — not people who use AI openly or skillfully. My issue is with dishonesty, not with the tool
But we’re not required by anyone to list the tools we use to write. Just like no one was ever required to disclose if they used a ghostwriter. So, I don’t see this as being relevant.
It looks like we may be talking past each other. I already mentioned that I use AI myself — quite openly — so this isn’t about policing tools or demanding disclosures.
My point was simply about honesty: when someone presents AI‑generated work as entirely their own, that’s where the word “lazy” applies. Not to the tool, not to the user, but to the misrepresentation.
And yes, many platforms now ask creators to disclose AI use, which is why the distinction matters in a broader context. That’s all I was referring to — nothing more dramatic than that.
I’m against disclosure in general because it’s used as a weapon against creatives using these tools. So, I don’t see it as lazy when they’re only trying to protect themselves against the abuse that’s thrown at those who disclose. It’s sad that that’s where we are as a community, but it’s the sad truth that if you disclose, you open yourself up to doxxing, bullying, and death threats. I hear you that you want disclosure. I do not. (I, personally, had no choice since I decided to teach AI. But living through the bullying and death threats really sucks.)
I think we’ve reached the point where our perspectives are heading in different directions, and that’s completely fine. My original comment was simply about honesty in authorship, not danger or personal risk.
I appreciate the exchange, but I’m going to step out here — this thread has moved well beyond the essay itself, and I’d rather not drift further from the original topic.
I worry about this approach Steph...though I completely understand why it feels necessary. The problem is that hiding never works with bullies. The more people who are transparent and matter-of-fact about AI use, the less power the vigilantes have.
The problem that I see so prevalent on the internet right now, though, is that those who want to be fair and open about their AI use, how much they use it, and even writing entire blog posts showing exactly how they use it, are being vilified and torn apart just because they dared to use the AI in the first place.
The witch hunts and the extreme vitriol being leveled at anyone who is even accused of using it is killing any chance of honesty and true conversation. And that really irks me, to be honest. I want to be honest about how I write, and I'll be happy to show you how I do it, what my process is, how much I have built up before I even start a prompt. But why should I be open and forthcoming with it if all that honesty will do is bring attack after attack and attempts to destroy my platform, my work, and ensure that I never can show my face in the online sphere again?
I really do want to be honest and open. But its really frustrating when my desire to be honest results in me not being able to share my work at all with anyone because the anti-AI crowd believes they have the moral superiority and thus the right to set up new gates and purity tests and determine who is allowed to write what and how and better yet, what readers are allow to like and not like.
You know, BamBoncher, when I published my memoir THE CHRONICLES OF MY AI & I, I explained that .. Yes, I had AI assistance as an Editor, Proofreader, Beta Reader when completing my novel THE SEA CAPTAIN.
I already had written (I SAVE all my writings in PDF with dates on a USB drive) 4 chapters and had writer's block.
AI helped sort, organize, & ensure continuity when I decided to complete the novel. Because I also online teach and whenever I had a free pause, I typed a chapter and have Hans (ChatGPT's name) check my grammar, flow, etc... He didn't *write* my story, *i* wrote my story.
Hans handled what a paid editor, proofreader, etc.. would do ... and I don't earn that kind of money to pay out.
Before bots, there was already Grammarly, Quillbot, ProWriting Aid assisting with editing, etc... I even used Quillbot when I started my novel and other short stories... so what the heck is wrong using the AI as an ASSISTANT??
However, the fussy ones complain, I say, they are the ones who lack talent and lazy.
Art galleries are full of artwork nobody buys. Viewers glance at it and move on to the next one someone poured their heart into. Sorry, No red dot for you either. Book stores are the same. Full of books nobody buys. The point is, if you don’t like it just move on.
What I actually care about is if AI usage is disclosed. I mean AI written or AI edited.
I also don't think human written work should be in a position to have to compete directly with AI written work. It's unfair, because self-publishing rewards catalogue sizing, giving AI generated work an advantage regardless of quality. AI can produce an entertaining book, I'll grant, but I don't think it will ever achieve the quality of prose that a human can. Therefore, the two shouldn't have to compete as if they're the same kind of product.
Other than that, I'm not all that bothered about AI generated writing. There's an author or two who admit to using AI that I'm considering checking out. I'll never read such books like a writer, but it might be an entertaining read.
yes, and thats the one that gets me so much I want to scream. The whole "It's AI slop!" without even reading one word. OR, as you said, if they DID like it, but then find out after the fact, they try to gaslight us because they simply cannot allow themselves to admit something produced "by machine" could be beautiful or pleasing.
Course, at the same time, they have no problem with photographs, movies, digital art, electronic music...
And if you point out that AI art has to have a human guiding it and prompting it and building it to make it fit a human's vision; that the AI isn't just prompting itself, but that the prompt itself came from the mind of a human, you'll be told "that isn't the same thing!"
And I want to know why. Why is this somehow not my story, my creation, just because I used the AI to bring it to life? Why even though I have 10 years worth of notes, spend thousands of words crafting the prompt and then surgically editing the response line by line to get it to exactly what I had envision - how is that "the machine" and not "me?"
I never get an answer for that one either.
Man I have had comments from people telling me the same things. That even though I wrote out the chapter synopsis and then had AI write the chapter based on that synopsis that I am not a writer while ignoring images of pages that I hand wrote. They have said that writing a synopsis or notes doesn't make you a writer. Its bullshit.
I can foresee a world where the human is taken out of it, unfortunately. Where my kindle tracks my reading to the point where it knows what I like (when I keep turning pages at 2am), and what I don’t (when I put the book down and go to sleep). I can also imagine it generating a bespoke book ‘just for me’ full of confirmation bias, and free from all discomfort.
It’s the lack of discomfort that makes me most uncomfortable.
But then, I believe that humans are inherently creative. They will always find a new way to express themselves.
Yes. Normally, nobody ever answers the question: is it good? Did you feel anything?
They'd rather die than admit any quality to any piece of AI-assisted expression.
And if they learn it later, after having praised it, they will tell you that they always felt something was off.
You can't win.
"I suffered to make this, therefore it is valuable, therefore I am valuable. " and because I personally am NOT suffering when I make my short films with Seedance but am enjoying it immensely.. what then? no value? these motherfxckers are the same ones who can't "draw a stick figure" so they can go eat a button
PREACH
I truly am so grateful to start finding folks like this in my feed because for the longest time, all I've heard is the anti-AI side. Even in writing forums I'm in.
Just last week, for instance, I was excited about a story I had been working on with Grok, building up chapter after chapter and had realized as I concluded the Act 1, that I had the beginnings of a good novel on my hands. I was excited. The AI was helping me shape the synopsis that I had started with into something that had some real meat to it. Of course I knew it was the brainstorming phase. Of course I knew that what Grok produced (after 1,000's of words in dozens of prompts where I painfully explained each see as I saw it and then surgically edited over another half dozen prompts to even get close to something acceptable) was only a rough draft - a detailed outline or plot synopsis.
But it was a start. I was no longer staring at a blank word doc and a blinking cursor, unable to figure out how to even start the first scene or how to narrative the active scene I could see in my head. Because that has always been my problem. I have stories. I have characters. I can see scenes in my head like tv episodes. But I struggle so hard to try to capture what I see in my head in a narrative form. Now if I could just write it like the Silmarillion and "tell" you the story? We'd be fine. I actually did that this weekend to describe it to a friend and realized when I was finished I had written 10,000 words in 5 hours because it wasn't narrative. AI allows me to write that 10,000 word synoposis and then start generating the narrative from it to give me a place to start. Something to edit and reword and rewrite, but a starting point.
However, when I posted to this one particular person (whom I have encourage quite often in their own writing career) about my excitement about finally having a breakthrough, I got the chilly response of "its machine generated. You'd be better off writing it yourself and not letting the machine write it for you."
I'll be honest, it completely deflated me. Just like going into my other writing groups and seeing the pharisaical attitudes of "oh, it's not real art!" or "well, if you had taken that 4,000 words you fed as a prompt to the AI and just written the story, you'd already be 4,000 words into the story." or the "using the AI will make you lazy and destroy your creativity."
And one of the things that really gets me in all this is that these are the same people who crow about having "destroyed the gates!" and "taken down the gatekeepers!" of traditional publishing, who are so proud that Indie publishing means they could finally get their stories out without a harried editor at a publishing company blocking them; now the readers can have the stories they've always wanted and writers can find their audience!
These same people are appointing themselves the new gatekeepers over what is "a writer" and what is not. Worse yet, they are trying to gatekeep readers as well, telling readers what they should and should not read.
It truly drives me up the wall sometimes!
The struggle is real - I have had very similar experiences to every one that you've described! It's good to find people like you here as well. Until I took of my mask and just started declaring who I am and what I do and how I do it, I thought I was alone. Now I realize there are plenty of us. We just believe it's not safe for us to come out.
Bam — that bit about having it all in your head and not being able to get it onto the page? Yeah. Same. That’s not laziness, it’s a bottleneck. Glad you found a way through.
Oof. That's an awfully strong 'us-versus-them' vibe.
I like that your question is very specific. I'm not going to answer it right now. I don't know what my answer is, yet.
I will say this: AI is not our friend. It is, at its core, a tool intended to make it easier for companies to fire their employees, and reduce labor costs. I say this as somebody watching the AI reaper carve through their particular field of employment.
And that applies to artistic fields just as much as it applies to, say, translation, or customer support. Don't think that the artists who are championing AI now are any safer than those who won't touch it.
AI is not our friend because it’s under the corporate structure and the corporate structure is not our friend. AI is like all tools that humans make, potentially positive, potentially negative. It really comes down to the user.
The section about how Genesis is a big prompt made me laugh. I never thought of it that way! Excellent post all around.
This really resonated with me:
"In the beginning was the fucking prompt."
And the following was what made me comment. I humbly request that you check out the 'origin story' I just completed when you get a chance.
"Produced the first cave painter grinding red ochre by firelight, trying to put something unsayable on a wall."
Excellent article!
If they only knew how much blood, sweat and tears can go into structuring, molding, shaping and prompting. How much suffering can happen until that magic machine finally arranges all those stolen pieces into something coherent, emotionally appealing and ideally resulting in a captivating story.
Most believe it's just typing "Write a story about xyz", hitting enter and waiting for the machine to spit out it's stolen slop we can sell as our own.
If only they knew...
No
“So let me get this straight: random-chance-plus-iteration is noble when it happens in carbon, but it’s soulless theft when it happens in silicon?”
For me, yes.
People forget that for thiusands of years artists were not treated as gods. They were artisans. Craftsmen. Laborers. If someone liked it, they bought it, or traded their own craft for it. And many of them used the latest technology of the time.
I just wrote about this too!! Psychic??
https://shannonquenzler.substack.com/p/is-creating-without-suffering-really
Also yes it’s in the vibes right now.
Yay! I’ll take a look. 🫶
If you like the t-shirt, do you care if it was made with child slave labour?
Yes, I'm being deliberately extreme. The point is whether the output is 'good' or not is just one consideration. Some people have others.
Sure. That’s why I asked the question. Most people don’t have an answer other than “YOU ARE STOOPID BAD HUMAN FOR PLAY WITH AI” 🤖
Hard to get a decent discussion huh? Even from the 'humans'!
Fear of being replaced.
The only moment I ever care if something was made from AI is when the person claims he made the artistic piece himself when in fact he didn’t… that also includes when ESL students present me sentences already translated in English claiming they wrote the sentences themselves, however upon listening to the way they speak, that isn’t the case.
So, the question really depends did the person actually put in the effort OR being lazy?
I read your other comment but I need to point out that equating AI with laziness is false. It’s not lazy to use AI. In fact, a lot of the time, it’s harder than just writing it. The real problem is that it doesn’t really matter how much effort was put into something. It only matters if the end product is something someone else desires. It takes me five minutes to splash paint on a canvas and someone may love that and call it art. Or I could spend hours painting something truly horrendous that no one would even look at. Effort really doesn’t matter. 🤷♀️
When I said ‘lazy,’ I meant people who pretend AI‑generated work is their own — not people who use AI openly or skillfully. My issue is with dishonesty, not with the tool
But we’re not required by anyone to list the tools we use to write. Just like no one was ever required to disclose if they used a ghostwriter. So, I don’t see this as being relevant.
It looks like we may be talking past each other. I already mentioned that I use AI myself — quite openly — so this isn’t about policing tools or demanding disclosures.
My point was simply about honesty: when someone presents AI‑generated work as entirely their own, that’s where the word “lazy” applies. Not to the tool, not to the user, but to the misrepresentation.
And yes, many platforms now ask creators to disclose AI use, which is why the distinction matters in a broader context. That’s all I was referring to — nothing more dramatic than that.
I’m against disclosure in general because it’s used as a weapon against creatives using these tools. So, I don’t see it as lazy when they’re only trying to protect themselves against the abuse that’s thrown at those who disclose. It’s sad that that’s where we are as a community, but it’s the sad truth that if you disclose, you open yourself up to doxxing, bullying, and death threats. I hear you that you want disclosure. I do not. (I, personally, had no choice since I decided to teach AI. But living through the bullying and death threats really sucks.)
I think we’ve reached the point where our perspectives are heading in different directions, and that’s completely fine. My original comment was simply about honesty in authorship, not danger or personal risk.
I appreciate the exchange, but I’m going to step out here — this thread has moved well beyond the essay itself, and I’d rather not drift further from the original topic.
Wishing you a good rest of your day.
I worry about this approach Steph...though I completely understand why it feels necessary. The problem is that hiding never works with bullies. The more people who are transparent and matter-of-fact about AI use, the less power the vigilantes have.
That is a fair and valid concern.
The problem that I see so prevalent on the internet right now, though, is that those who want to be fair and open about their AI use, how much they use it, and even writing entire blog posts showing exactly how they use it, are being vilified and torn apart just because they dared to use the AI in the first place.
The witch hunts and the extreme vitriol being leveled at anyone who is even accused of using it is killing any chance of honesty and true conversation. And that really irks me, to be honest. I want to be honest about how I write, and I'll be happy to show you how I do it, what my process is, how much I have built up before I even start a prompt. But why should I be open and forthcoming with it if all that honesty will do is bring attack after attack and attempts to destroy my platform, my work, and ensure that I never can show my face in the online sphere again?
I really do want to be honest and open. But its really frustrating when my desire to be honest results in me not being able to share my work at all with anyone because the anti-AI crowd believes they have the moral superiority and thus the right to set up new gates and purity tests and determine who is allowed to write what and how and better yet, what readers are allow to like and not like.
You know, BamBoncher, when I published my memoir THE CHRONICLES OF MY AI & I, I explained that .. Yes, I had AI assistance as an Editor, Proofreader, Beta Reader when completing my novel THE SEA CAPTAIN.
I already had written (I SAVE all my writings in PDF with dates on a USB drive) 4 chapters and had writer's block.
AI helped sort, organize, & ensure continuity when I decided to complete the novel. Because I also online teach and whenever I had a free pause, I typed a chapter and have Hans (ChatGPT's name) check my grammar, flow, etc... He didn't *write* my story, *i* wrote my story.
Hans handled what a paid editor, proofreader, etc.. would do ... and I don't earn that kind of money to pay out.
Before bots, there was already Grammarly, Quillbot, ProWriting Aid assisting with editing, etc... I even used Quillbot when I started my novel and other short stories... so what the heck is wrong using the AI as an ASSISTANT??
However, the fussy ones complain, I say, they are the ones who lack talent and lazy.
Art galleries are full of artwork nobody buys. Viewers glance at it and move on to the next one someone poured their heart into. Sorry, No red dot for you either. Book stores are the same. Full of books nobody buys. The point is, if you don’t like it just move on.
What I actually care about is if AI usage is disclosed. I mean AI written or AI edited.
I also don't think human written work should be in a position to have to compete directly with AI written work. It's unfair, because self-publishing rewards catalogue sizing, giving AI generated work an advantage regardless of quality. AI can produce an entertaining book, I'll grant, but I don't think it will ever achieve the quality of prose that a human can. Therefore, the two shouldn't have to compete as if they're the same kind of product.
Other than that, I'm not all that bothered about AI generated writing. There's an author or two who admit to using AI that I'm considering checking out. I'll never read such books like a writer, but it might be an entertaining read.
Well, I freely disclose that AI is involved in every post that lands on Feral Architecture. Not the AI most folks are using though. https://psyche.sh/