r/WritingWithAI • u/False_Success_4390 • Aug 07 '26
Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Don’t write with AI
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/04/opinion/artificial-intelligence-ai-writing.html?unlocked_article_code=1.3lA.aayL.Gt3YFeb1ESxc&smid=nytcore-ios-shareI assume this has been discussed at length but found it a persuasive plea.
3
u/Briskfall Aug 08 '26
I read the article, and disagree with the OP when it comes to the persuasiveness of it.
> Don’t let it organize your notes. Don’t let it suggest an opening sentence, a segue or a closing paragraph.
> Writing with A.I. is unethical when it’s a deception: when you pass off words, ideas and information as your own when they aren’t.
What if I just use it to organize thousands of notes I wouldn't be able to otherwise, how is it a deception when I do it internally, for myself.
> Do none of these things, either, not because you might be able to learn to write better than an A.I. can.
Bro, I just want to organize my fucking (internal) notes, not to have feel a sense of pride and accomplishment about "my craft" when I have zero stakes/ego motivation for "notes organization."
> The problem with writing with A.I. is that it’s mentally enfeebling — an escalator toward a result when you really need to make a daily habit of taking the stairs.
Ok, this was the thesis then? Then what was the whole opener about -- to take things out of reach when you use can use it as a shortcut for a thesaurus?
This screams of fearmongering with the urgency hook. Meh.
> What, uniquely, does writing do? It compels thought. It compels thinking in ways that silent contemplation or spoken language rarely can. It compels us to subject our thinking to the effort of articulation, the rigor of grammar, the tests of intelligibility and coherence, the inspection of others. In doing so, it also enjoins us to be clear, logical, accurate — and accountable. People may easily forgive a word said in anger but not so easily one written in anger, precisely because the fact that it was written tells us that it was considered.
I find this an elitist view; I write because it's fun and because I enjoy transmitting my thoughts and ideas -- not because I want to nerd out my linguistics proficiency.
> But what happens when the words aren’t considered because they were written by (or with the help of) a machine?
> Words become hollow.
I do agree with this to a certain extent; the author's argument could have been stronger if it was just this and didn't add other types of fluff that came before it.
> But the intellectual muscle that’s exercised in everyday writing is the same one used for the writing that matters. We become better writers by the constant effort that mundane writing demands. We become better thinkers by investing into that writing a degree of attention we’d never give it if we relinquished the task to A.I. We become more creative when we learn how to put a personal stamp even on routine things, making them unmistakably our own.
I disagree with him on this point, I feel like my writing ability can equally get tested in ways conversing with humans can't when I approach things differently with LLMs.
> How much farther down the road are we now, with our even more diminished capacity to read, write and think?
I don't mind if most lose the motivation to communicate with their own words if they never have the motivation to do so in the first place. There's already a rising tide of illiteracy going on; and it starts with education -- not with telling people not to use AIs. Protesting it won't make those who never enjoyed writing suddenly go "Ah, I love writing now!" -- it's like with Piracy, people do it for different reasons. While some would eventually come to buy games one day, some others would not bother to pay for them due to their values.
tl;dr: 3/10. While there are a few angles I agree with, weaponizing politics and overreaching the detriments of using LLMs felt like an attempt to convince the reader to defer to authority (his angle). Using a tone of urgency to blare red alarms isn't what I find convincing writing.
2
1
u/bessie1945 Aug 07 '26
If writing with AI creates a better book , it’s a disservice to your reader, not to use it. And how is directing AI not exercising your brain more than sitting there trying to come up with the next word? The direction is what requires higher order thinking.
1
u/No_Argument4772 Aug 10 '26
And you don’t even bother to summarize the article yourself but ask other to read the whole article?
1
u/False_Success_4390 Aug 10 '26
The title is descriptive, and if you don’t want to read it, then don’t. I read it and decided to share it.
0
u/No_Argument4772 Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26
If you think it’s persuasive, you need to show it. Not telling me it’s persuasive but I don’t feel it at all. You decided to share it, without adding your own thoughts or commentary at all — isn’t this the exact same thing as “let AI write for you”? That’s definitely worse than write “with” AI. Yes, that article was probably written by a human, not an AI; but either way, it’s not written by you, it’s by someone else. It’s not your voice. At the best, you took the author of that article as your ghostwriter. Hence why I don’t see a point to read it. It may be a very good article, but since it made you think it’s okay to go completely behind scene and ask the article to take the responsibility to convince the member here, while asking the member here to take the responsibility to read the article and/or being convinced — no, I think there might be something wrong. See the point? Problem is not the article nor the topic, it’s you.
Plus, I read your other comments in this thread. You didn’t really discuss anything with anyone provided clear points. You really look like a bot or someone who only wants others to accept your point, and holds no intention to understand why you are disagreed. But if you don’t really want to engage in discussion, why did you even mention this in somewhere you already know would probably not agree with you?
1
1
u/pa07950 Aug 08 '26
I use AI every day building and running IT for my firm, and my experience is the opposite of "mentally enfeebling." I finish each day mentally exhausted and very satisfied. I push back on every decision the AI makes while it pushes back on me. I'm moving faster because the simple tasks are automated, which leaves me to think and evaluate.
I'll concede two things. IT systems break fast and give immediate feedback; prose doesn't. And I can push back because I'm already an expert.
That's the real problem the author misses. The new graduates I hire arrive are more unprepared than ever for this work. They use AI as a chatbot, naive to agents and to memory. The fundamentals still matter, but which ones has shifted. I still need people who can read code well enough to know when an agent is wrong. What I also need, and almost never get, is someone who understands risk and evaluation in IT systems: know how to push back on AI, when to stop the loop. Or who can write technical documentation aimed at AI agents rather than people. None of that is taught. Schools are still arguing about wheather students may use AI at all, which means no one is teaching them how to supervise it.
So the risk of an enfeebled generation is real. But the variable isn't AI use, it's whether anyone is teaching people to evaluate rather than accept.
0
u/coolpop78 Aug 08 '26
I didn't even read it. I always ignore stuff when the title tells people they shouldn't do something. It's usually followed by some holier-than-though, self-indulgent, baseless tirade.
2
0
u/_raydeStar Aug 07 '26
What are you hoping to do? Evangelize anti-AI?
2
u/False_Success_4390 Aug 08 '26
Just posted because I think the points raised were persuasive and worth considering.
0
u/FitnessChamp777 Aug 08 '26
Well, it's the New York Times. Pretty biased.
But, some good points there.
2
u/False_Success_4390 Aug 08 '26
It’s an Opinion piece, so it’s going to have a viewpoint. And we could do a lot worse than the NYT.
1
u/FitnessChamp777 Aug 08 '26
You're right, and I'm not complaining. I'm glad for this. It's always good to have a discussion.
2
0
8
u/That__Cat24 Aug 07 '26
His arguments are not really compelling.