The editor in your pocket

This is something I wanted to write about for a while. One of the common complaints about generative AI is that everyone suddenly has access to a tool that helps them write in flawless English, or for that matter, in any of the many languages AI works with. People who once struggled to put together a proper email, letter or article are suddenly producing perfectly readable prose.

I do not see this entirely as a bad thing. If more people can communicate better, written communication becomes much more effective. Struggling to express ourselves clearly is no fun, either for the person writing or the one trying to understand. A good idea can easily get lost because the person who holds it struggles to put it into words.

But let us remember how things were before AI came along. Back in those days, people in positions of authority or power often had people with a good command of language working under them. In Bhutan, someone who was good at Dzongkha or English would draft a letter, prepare a speech or polish something written by the boss. The final version, of course, went out under the official’s name. Nobody accused anyone of destroying the English language.

Published writers had their own resources. Their editors corrected grammar, rearranged paragraphs, removed unnecessary passages and sometimes substantially rewrote what the authors had put on paper. Newspapers were no different. They employed editors, sub-editors and proofreaders whose job was to make sure what ultimately reached the readers was clearer and better than what first arrived on their desks. No one thought there was anything dishonest about it. In fact, we accepted it as part of producing good writing.

And then there were ghostwriters. If you had a fascinating story to tell but lacked the skill or the motivation to write it yourself, someone could write it for you, provided you had the money. Thus, the need for writing assistance is hardly something AI invented. AI has only changed who gets to have that assistance.

This is why I find some of the anxiety around AI interesting. Writing help has existed for a long time, but good editors cost money. Ghostwriters even more. A good assistant usually came with a certain position or authority. Today, wherever there is reasonable internet access, ordinary people have access to language assistance that was once largely available to those with money, position or professional connections.

In that sense, generative AI has made the language playing field a little more equal. Someone might have a good story, an interesting experience or something important to say, yet hesitate because they lack the confidence to write in English. It was not that people had no ideas. Most often, they simply struggled to put those ideas into words that other people would understand.

Of course, AI is different from a good human editor. An editor knows the writer, understands context and will tell the writer that an argument makes no sense. A good editor also knows when to leave an imperfect sentence alone because it sounds like the person who wrote it. AI is far less reliable in making those judgements, and if you let it loose, it can make everyone sound oddly alike.

I have started calling this kind of writing ‘AIac’. You know it when you see it. Everything is grammatically correct. Every paragraph flows neatly into the next. There are dramatic little one-sentence paragraphs here and there and even the conclusion sounds a little too perfect. There is nothing wrong with it, but somehow it does not sound like the person who was writing it.

To me, that is where the writer’s responsibility begins. Generative AI can only give us what we feed it. If there is no interesting idea, experience or argument to begin with, perfect grammar will not rescue the writing. There is still a difference between asking AI to help express your thoughts and asking it to do all the thinking for you. Otherwise, the editor in your pocket might become a little too nosy.

That is why I think there is no need to fear the death of human creativity. We still must bring our experiences, memories, opinions, humour, arguments and stories. And those are the things worth writing about in the first place. AI might help arrange the words, but the reason for writing is solely our own.

That is why AI is not the end of writing. It only makes the editor available to us all. And whether we have something worth saying is still entirely up to us.