I'm a reader and my first thought to your question was "well, what's the difference between AI and a ghost writer?" Figuratively. But either or, I think AI cheapens the process. Thanks for asking :)
Saw this on X and felt compelled to put in my two cents.
For what it's worth, I don’t see a problem here, though maybe I’m biased.
I’m an editor by trade—in German, not English. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s this: everyone needs an editor. The version authors send us is never the version that gets published.
When I write my Substack stories in English, I use AI as an editor. I write every text, but I let the AI clean it up. I’m still the author—I make the final call—but I value the input. It’s helpful. I see it the way I see my own job: an editor lending a hand on something they didn’t write.
Getting help from an editor usually isn’t considered cheating. And the way you describe it, the AI you’re using sounds more like a very engaged editor.
Now, whether that’s a problem because it makes human editors a little more replaceable... that’s another conversation. One that hits close to home, since that’s my own line of work. But I’m not rich, and I can’t afford a “real” human editor for a hobby project. And truth be told, the AI does just as good a job, for what I need, as any editor I’ve ever worked with.
I replied to your post on Notes, but I want to thank you here as well for this feedback.
The responses I'm getting from o3 are very detailed and quite helpful. I find it both easier to work with than human editors/collaborators and more dangerous because I can just pick and choose what I like and nobody would ever know or complain that I didn't give credit. But I can't hurt its feelings. It doesn't care if I incorporate anything it says. And I can keep throwing things against the wall with it and it never gets tired. It can read an entire manuscript in 30 seconds and hold the details in its "mind" and give structural feedback that flows through a whole narrative. It's just...different to work with.
Yes, the waters are uncharted, no doubt about it. As many have said, this feels like a second Industrial Revolution. It’s a tool that will change or replace parts of the human workforce, whether we like it or not. And because we can talk to this tool, it’s uncanny. At least to me.
(I have to keep reminding myself it’s not sentient. I don’t really have to say thank you, for example.)
And yeah, like you said—it’s easier than working with a human editor. Faster. Better at catching mistakes. Infinitely patient. And truth be told, I don't see a danger in having the final say. In getting to pick and choose what I like. For now, at least.
Maybe I’m naive. Maybe I’m missing something. But as a writer, it feels like I have the tools to shape the voice I always wanted to have—even if I didn’t quite know how to get there before. And sure, if I pick and choose wrongly or something comes off strange, I have no one to blame but myself. But maybe, in a weird way, that makes the work more personal.
I think the real danger lies in laziness. When the AI becomes so helpful, so easy, that you stop double-checking what it suggests. You actually give up your final say because it's usually right.
It’s like using a GPS. You stop reading signs. You stop paying attention to where you are. You just follow the voice, even when it leads you into a dead end.
I’m using ai for a similar project and I think that
1) as long as the ideas are really yours
2) you don’t get out to write the whole damned thing
You’re ok. That sort of use is not different than taking it to your pal and saying “can you read this? I’ve worked myself into a corner / i need help organizing this all” except it can actually read the whole project in minutes whereas your pal might take weeks to get back to
If you feel badly about it, you could always make a note in the acknowledgements indicating that you used it and in what way
Steve, the cognitive issues (symptoms) you describe are all very consistent with drinking too much alcohol, which you've posted about many times as part of your life. What could be worse is any psychotropic/neuropharmacological drugs you may be taking (as do 65 million other Americans), eg, antidepressants, benzodiazepenes etc. These compress not only emotions, making people more depressed, they destroy creativity, energy, drive...cause apathy and damage cognitive function, recall, memory. I worry about you based on your posts. If I'm wrong, my apologies. If not, I can recommend resources to help.
I’ve always had this problem. Even before I got into drinking to assuage an anxious brain. (I drink a lot less than I used to, too.)
I always assumed I’d write my first novel in my 20s, but I could never finish anything. I think I have a structural blind spot in how my brain works that makes doing longer form fiction really challenging. Very good at writing scenes, but not story arcs. Trying to figure out how to overcome that.
If you are set on using it, credit AI as a co-author, I guess. my issue with AI in humanistic production is people then claiming credit for original work after outsourcing that labor to essentially other (unpaid, unconsenting) people (bc AI is based on the work of actual creatives aggregated, way back up the line).
Another major issue for me (though you may differ, based on what I glean of your politics) is that to me the environmental impact of AI does not justify its use- it's a want, not a need in most cases and generates tons of virtual slop and physical waste- so I'm pretty against it. I also think we are in the middle of a massive sales pitch for it, because people stand to make a TON of money on it and those are the same folks who would prefer not to pay employees whenever possible in order to maximize their profits. I get that that is "good business" but I am also not rushing to structure my creative work (I have a PhD in Lit) around what I essentially see as primarily a product for consumption rather than a genuine creative tool.
Also, the brain is a muscle- I need to actually engage in complex planning, starting something from the beginning and seeing it through to the end, stretching my imagination. I fear we are the product (the data sources) for AI rather than the collaborators with it. It reminds me a lot of the early days of social media and smartphones- it was both a new horizon for human connectivity and at this point we know that these platforms survive through selling our data and that there is good research they are basically terrible for the brain and attention (especially for developing ones). Do I wish we didn't have smartphones? It's a counterfactual that I am neutral about, but I really (intentionally, with screen timers and no social media apps and turning off ad preferences and breaking algos wherever I can) try NOT to structure my creative or social life around it. I expect AI to follow a similar trajectory- it will make a lot of people a ton of money, help people churn out mostly subpar creative work at a never-before-seen scale, clogging up our virtual worlds even more, and then eventually people will begin to distance themselves from it (as we are beginning to see with smartphones/social media) as its quality deteriorates or becomes more nakedly profit-centric.
I know this rant is longer than what you are actually asking- sorry.
I really dislike AI for any creative work at all. I work in a creative field and am amazed that people want to use it for this. From what I have seen and know about it, it is only possible for it to take what has already created and regurgitate it. It misses the whole point of trying to make something unique or to find a new approach to things already produced. I was curious what it would do if I fed it an idea that I had already written for an animated short that is in my pipeline. What I got back was just bland and easy without anything interesting. I know that you said you were not going to not use it for the actual writing but I just worry that we are going to end up with inexpensive and boring material.
I don't know what you've worked with, but I'm using ChatGPT o3 for this brainstorming/outlining session, and it's scary good. It's really coming up with stuff I can work with to fix the holes and re-align the plot of a novel that's already half way done.
I had it write a couple short stories in styles of authors I like. The results are impressive:
I'm a reader and my first thought to your question was "well, what's the difference between AI and a ghost writer?" Figuratively. But either or, I think AI cheapens the process. Thanks for asking :)
Saw this on X and felt compelled to put in my two cents.
For what it's worth, I don’t see a problem here, though maybe I’m biased.
I’m an editor by trade—in German, not English. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s this: everyone needs an editor. The version authors send us is never the version that gets published.
When I write my Substack stories in English, I use AI as an editor. I write every text, but I let the AI clean it up. I’m still the author—I make the final call—but I value the input. It’s helpful. I see it the way I see my own job: an editor lending a hand on something they didn’t write.
Getting help from an editor usually isn’t considered cheating. And the way you describe it, the AI you’re using sounds more like a very engaged editor.
Now, whether that’s a problem because it makes human editors a little more replaceable... that’s another conversation. One that hits close to home, since that’s my own line of work. But I’m not rich, and I can’t afford a “real” human editor for a hobby project. And truth be told, the AI does just as good a job, for what I need, as any editor I’ve ever worked with.
I replied to your post on Notes, but I want to thank you here as well for this feedback.
The responses I'm getting from o3 are very detailed and quite helpful. I find it both easier to work with than human editors/collaborators and more dangerous because I can just pick and choose what I like and nobody would ever know or complain that I didn't give credit. But I can't hurt its feelings. It doesn't care if I incorporate anything it says. And I can keep throwing things against the wall with it and it never gets tired. It can read an entire manuscript in 30 seconds and hold the details in its "mind" and give structural feedback that flows through a whole narrative. It's just...different to work with.
Feeling like I'm in uncharted waters here.
Yes, the waters are uncharted, no doubt about it. As many have said, this feels like a second Industrial Revolution. It’s a tool that will change or replace parts of the human workforce, whether we like it or not. And because we can talk to this tool, it’s uncanny. At least to me.
(I have to keep reminding myself it’s not sentient. I don’t really have to say thank you, for example.)
And yeah, like you said—it’s easier than working with a human editor. Faster. Better at catching mistakes. Infinitely patient. And truth be told, I don't see a danger in having the final say. In getting to pick and choose what I like. For now, at least.
Maybe I’m naive. Maybe I’m missing something. But as a writer, it feels like I have the tools to shape the voice I always wanted to have—even if I didn’t quite know how to get there before. And sure, if I pick and choose wrongly or something comes off strange, I have no one to blame but myself. But maybe, in a weird way, that makes the work more personal.
I think the real danger lies in laziness. When the AI becomes so helpful, so easy, that you stop double-checking what it suggests. You actually give up your final say because it's usually right.
It’s like using a GPS. You stop reading signs. You stop paying attention to where you are. You just follow the voice, even when it leads you into a dead end.
I’m using ai for a similar project and I think that
1) as long as the ideas are really yours
2) you don’t get out to write the whole damned thing
You’re ok. That sort of use is not different than taking it to your pal and saying “can you read this? I’ve worked myself into a corner / i need help organizing this all” except it can actually read the whole project in minutes whereas your pal might take weeks to get back to
If you feel badly about it, you could always make a note in the acknowledgements indicating that you used it and in what way
I asked ChatGPT, and it said you should definitely keep using it.
Hi Steve, I imagine these conversation like those that the INKLINGS had at the Eagle and Child. Go for it!
AI is, for a period of time, a tool.
Use it if it helps your process — not using it makes no sense unless there’s some “only humans can make art dammit!” hill you feel you must die on.
Steve, the cognitive issues (symptoms) you describe are all very consistent with drinking too much alcohol, which you've posted about many times as part of your life. What could be worse is any psychotropic/neuropharmacological drugs you may be taking (as do 65 million other Americans), eg, antidepressants, benzodiazepenes etc. These compress not only emotions, making people more depressed, they destroy creativity, energy, drive...cause apathy and damage cognitive function, recall, memory. I worry about you based on your posts. If I'm wrong, my apologies. If not, I can recommend resources to help.
I’ve always had this problem. Even before I got into drinking to assuage an anxious brain. (I drink a lot less than I used to, too.)
I always assumed I’d write my first novel in my 20s, but I could never finish anything. I think I have a structural blind spot in how my brain works that makes doing longer form fiction really challenging. Very good at writing scenes, but not story arcs. Trying to figure out how to overcome that.
If you are set on using it, credit AI as a co-author, I guess. my issue with AI in humanistic production is people then claiming credit for original work after outsourcing that labor to essentially other (unpaid, unconsenting) people (bc AI is based on the work of actual creatives aggregated, way back up the line).
Another major issue for me (though you may differ, based on what I glean of your politics) is that to me the environmental impact of AI does not justify its use- it's a want, not a need in most cases and generates tons of virtual slop and physical waste- so I'm pretty against it. I also think we are in the middle of a massive sales pitch for it, because people stand to make a TON of money on it and those are the same folks who would prefer not to pay employees whenever possible in order to maximize their profits. I get that that is "good business" but I am also not rushing to structure my creative work (I have a PhD in Lit) around what I essentially see as primarily a product for consumption rather than a genuine creative tool.
Also, the brain is a muscle- I need to actually engage in complex planning, starting something from the beginning and seeing it through to the end, stretching my imagination. I fear we are the product (the data sources) for AI rather than the collaborators with it. It reminds me a lot of the early days of social media and smartphones- it was both a new horizon for human connectivity and at this point we know that these platforms survive through selling our data and that there is good research they are basically terrible for the brain and attention (especially for developing ones). Do I wish we didn't have smartphones? It's a counterfactual that I am neutral about, but I really (intentionally, with screen timers and no social media apps and turning off ad preferences and breaking algos wherever I can) try NOT to structure my creative or social life around it. I expect AI to follow a similar trajectory- it will make a lot of people a ton of money, help people churn out mostly subpar creative work at a never-before-seen scale, clogging up our virtual worlds even more, and then eventually people will begin to distance themselves from it (as we are beginning to see with smartphones/social media) as its quality deteriorates or becomes more nakedly profit-centric.
I know this rant is longer than what you are actually asking- sorry.
Steve,
Just don't.
It'd surely turn the best case scenario - the Big Breakthrough - into an occasion for persistent self-doubt and regret. Better to fail on your own!
At least, that's how I think about the matter.
If it weren't wholly mine, I couldn't put my name to it. I'd feel like a deceiver, a fraud. And I'd always wonder...
No, I'd rather never Make It. Better to never Make It, than that.
Philip
Steve, you are not a novelist.
Try short stories.
Take a single idea or memory and write about it.
What do you mean, “you’re not a novelist”?
Who put you in charge of that?
Sorry if I offended you.
After spending years trying to write a novel, my best friend and editor told me that I should not give up. He suggested short stories.
It works!
I think AI would only dampen your brilliance. You are intelligent, creative, and a damn fine writer.
I really dislike AI for any creative work at all. I work in a creative field and am amazed that people want to use it for this. From what I have seen and know about it, it is only possible for it to take what has already created and regurgitate it. It misses the whole point of trying to make something unique or to find a new approach to things already produced. I was curious what it would do if I fed it an idea that I had already written for an animated short that is in my pipeline. What I got back was just bland and easy without anything interesting. I know that you said you were not going to not use it for the actual writing but I just worry that we are going to end up with inexpensive and boring material.
I don't know what you've worked with, but I'm using ChatGPT o3 for this brainstorming/outlining session, and it's scary good. It's really coming up with stuff I can work with to fix the holes and re-align the plot of a novel that's already half way done.
I had it write a couple short stories in styles of authors I like. The results are impressive:
https://x.com/SteveSkojec/status/1914674093640606093
"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?"
Are those the stakes?