Reading in Public No. 96: Is AI changing how we define what it means to write?
And how I'm rewriting my internal monologue in response
Last week I had the rather unsettling experience of opening another book related newsletter and reading a paragraph that looked strikingly similar to something I’d written a few weeks ago. The idea wasn’t super unique, but it was specific enough to give me pause—and the wording itself was familiar enough to give me a small pit in my stomach as I read it.
As I say often to myself and my friends in this world, there are only so many ways to write about books and reading. It’s absolutely possible that two people who write about books had similar ideas and wrote about them in similar ways. I’m not naïve or deluded enough to think this particular concept could only have come from my brain. It’s also possible that this person read my piece a few weeks ago, absorbed it, and unconsciously reproduced it in a similar style. That happens all the time and I certainly don’t blame anyone when it does.
The other possibilities are more nefarious. I suppose it’s possible that this person read my piece a few weeks ago and straight up plagiarized it. That is, of course, something that happens as well. But the thought that keeps gnawing at me is that this particular instance seems likely to be a case of AI regurgitating language eerily similar to something I wrote.
Of course I’ll never know and it doesn’t really matter. These things happen. Many reading related newsletters circulate similar suggestions, ideas, and recommendations, and I’m not hung up on one small paragraph in another newsletter. But we also know that many Substack writers (and apparently NYT freelancers) are using AI to assist in the writing process1. And while I was in my brief obsessive phase over this particular case, I couldn’t stop wondering why even start a newsletter if you’re going to outsource the writing of it to a computer?
On a recent episode of Hard Fork, writer Jasmine Sun distinguished between the holistic reality of being a writer and what she called text generation.
I think AI is a superhuman text generator. My job, I am generating text probably 25 percent of the hours in my day. I spend a lot of time interviewing people. I spend a lot of time coming up with ideas. I spend a lot of time reading, and not just reading indiscriminately, but reading very particular sources that feel like the right ones. And so usually, at the point that you are doing one of these tests, you’re saying generate one paragraph very specifically about, like, why Trump won the 2016 election, 500 words or less. And you’ve already given the prompt, which I think is a critical part of writing, is like, what are you going to write about? You’ve often supplied some of the evidence and the guidance and the form of it, saying like, 500 words or less. And at that point, I do think that AI is probably a better text generator than almost all humans are. But again, when I think about it, AI is still very bad at coming up with ideas for articles. It is still very bad at reporting. The nontext generation parts of the role feel further away from automation.
What I like and agree with here is that writing is so much more than sitting down and putting words on the page. The writing process is distinct to each individual, but it is a process beyond generating language. Part of the process might be going for a walk and thinking up new topics, showering while mulling over exact wording, or reading essays to see what other people have said about the issue. A lot happens before, during, and after the words go on the page.
But “text generating” is still a major part of writing! If someone has done all the thinking, all the reading, come up with a fascinating question and a compelling thesis, but haven’t generated any text, they haven’t written. Call me old fashioned but I would say the text, the words, the language are still an essential component of being a writer. Anyone who has attempted to write anything knows that there is a chasm between having an idea and finding the right language for it. Tinkering with the syntax, crafting the right tone and connotation, selecting just the right word to effectively convey the meaning are not just part of writing, they are the final steps in the thinking process. Putting an idea through the crucible of “text generation” strengthens that idea into an argument a writer can stand behind.
I think we can see how important word choice is in this very example. Sun said on the podcast that “I do think that AI is probably a better text generator than almost all humans are.” But, in my opinion, AI is the only “text generator” in the equation—of course they are superior. Humans can’t simply generate text because we have to think, struggle, mull, ponder, edit, rethink, rephrase, take a break, and come back to do it all over again. The phrase “text generator” is cold and mechanical. It values efficiency over creativity. Are we really going to reduce the beauty of the written word to “text generation”?
So why would someone start a newsletter only to outsource the writing to a machine? I think we have over emphasized efficiency and output at the expense of effort and process. Everyone building a business or finding a creative outlet on the internet now is a “content creator”—another mechanistic term emphasizing production and lumping all variety of creative outlets into the highly consumable container of “content.” My worry is that in allowing ourselves to become content creators and text generators, we are redefining what it means to write and risking our humanity in the process.
So my message today is if you are someone who puts out a silly little newsletter—heck, if you’re someone who frequently writes Instagram captions—I hope you’ll abandon the language of “content creator” and start thinking of yourself as a writer. I personally have shied away from describing myself as a writer. It feels presumptuous to use that label when I don’t think of the substance of my newsletter as particularly writerly2. But I’m going to work on shifting my mindset.
Thinking of yourself as a writer doesn’t need to be self-aggrandizing or pretentious, and it doesn’t mean you’re putting yourself in the same league as the authors you admire. What it means to me is valuing the process as much as, if not more than the product. Whether you hate the writing process or love it, whether you draft beautifully worded creative fiction or helpful advice for your readers, if you show up, think through the ideas, and struggle through the language, you are a writer. Defining yourself as such allows you to hold onto what only you can do as a human. Because the world doesn’t need more generated text. It doesn’t need more content created. It needs your humanity.
And if you are a reader navigating this ever shifting landscape and the new landmines of AI, I hope you’ll be precious about where and how you devote your time. AI witch hunts are on the horizon and I’m not sure how useful the questioning and second guessing is going to be. But as you navigate all the “content” coming your way (and there will be more as AI improves and more people get comfortable with it), I hope—at the risk of sounding cringe—that you’ll focus on what truly adds joy, value, rigor, and authentic humanity to your life.
Tell me your thoughts! How are you navigating the new reality of AI as a writer or a reader?
For questions, comments, or suggestions, please don’t hesitate to reach out by emailing fictionmattersbooks@gmail.com or responding directly to this newsletter. I love hearing from you!
This email may contain affiliate links. If you make a purchase through the links above, I may earn a small commission at no additional cost to you.
If you enjoyed today’s newsletter, please forward it to a book-loving friend. That’s a great way to spread bookish cheer and support the newsletter!
Happy reading!
Sara
AI detection tools are notoriously fallible, but I think those of us who read a lot of newsletters have certainly come across articles that could have plausibly been written by AI.
I’m not fishing for compliments here. I just know I’m not out here doing the kind of work that Naomi Kanakia or Clara are doing.
I so appreciate this! I've been thinking a lot about AI (always, but especially) in the wake of the whole Hachette AI scandal--how messy it all is, whose responsibility it is to police AI-use, why/if the distinction is important, how it's nice to see readers rejecting AI in favor of human writing, for now at least, but I really do expect this to evolve in favor of AI if only because it's all so messy and profits favor efficiency, etc. AND I've been thinking (always, but especially now with the AI of it all) about content creation and how and why people create and how and why people consume.
I think current content culture values the external, the product, the metrics, feeding the never ending scroll. People largely create for likes, for attention, for follows, and for financial gain that can come downstream of that, but honestly, I think that's quite superficially rewarding, especially when we consider just how much effort is put into any sort of content creation--even if it's AI generated there's an element of thought that goes into it as you talked about. Of course there are plenty of people more intrinsically motivated, who value the process, who want to create something real, who find the journey rewarding, not just the destination, and I, of course, think consumers of content value this is as well--it's the process that creates meaning and connection and that's what we all truly crave. But, that's not what's being promoted in the spaces and platforms we're largely consuming content, and I agree, this erodes our humanity and benefits the machines.
I think as AI further integrates into our world we're going to have to individually, but I hope also collectively, consider our values and what we want to prioritize AND be willing to put in the effort to center those values. AI is a tool that can be used in a lot of ways. AI companies are working really hard to convince us we need to maximally merge with AI, but I'm uninterested in that. I want writing, not merely content. I want human generated art. I value the process and the way art gives us insight into and connection with other humans. I know I'm not alone in this, though I fear we're facing an uphill battle.
I really appreciate both your embrace of the label of writer and also the way you've defined it--this is valuable. Also, writers are gonna write, you know? One does not require an audience in order to be a writer (though it's really nice to have!) I think I'm becoming more concerned with impact to readers and how the landscape of human and machine generated content is only going to become more treacherous.
Ive come across so many posts on here that sound like AI, and it really makes me dislike what I read, even if the ideas behind them are okay. I wonder if there’s a chance that, as people get better at recognising AI writing patterns, they’ll also turn away from it more because it all sounds the same, ie, fake? You can use AI to say anything and it’s contrary if you want, and it will come up with the same sentence structure that makes its vague statements sound deeper than they are, and it’s making me, as a reader distrust not just the writer but the content itself. Maybe it’s just me though and I shouldn’t be hopeful haha