No, Generative AI Isn’t “Democratising” Writing

You may as well say a driverless car is democratising driving tests

Photo by Steve Johnson on Unsplash

In the backstory to Frank Herbert’s classic science fiction novel Dune, thousands of years before the events of the book, Herbert speaks of the “Butlerian Jihad”; a holy war fought by humans against thinking machine oppressors. When victory was finally achieved, religious texts were revised with the following law: “Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.” Hence, why there are no thinking machines in the Dune story.

After reading Medium’s recent update concerning use of AI on their platform, I think professional writers need a Butlerian Jihad of their own, against generative AI tools. However, before I get into this rant, I want to state a couple of caveats. Firstly, the key word here is “generative”. I don’t see a problem with using tools like Grammarly as long as the text originated with a human being. Yes, some people slavishly and indeed foolishly accept every suggestion Grammarly offers without thinking for themselves, but it can be useful for picking up typos.

Nor do I think Grammarly should replace a human editor (there are plenty of things it doesn’t pick up on), but not every technological tool aimed at assisting writers should be cast asunder in a fit of Luddite rage. Grammarly can also be useful for those suffering from dyslexia and similar conditions. My eldest son has to deal with dyslexia, but thankfully this tool means his university essays are at least able to be double-checked. Again, there is no need to throw the beer out with the beer bottle, and I see no issue with this.

My second caveat concerns people who wish to deploy generative AI for entirely personal use. Know you’re not a writer, but want to have a bit of fun playing novelist for kicks? Go for it. Perhaps you’ve got a story in your head you’d love to see on paper, but purely for you to read (for all I know, it could be a very kinky fantasy — no judgement). In this scenario, when the writing isn’t a commercial enterprise of any kind, and offers no threat to professional writers, it’s none of my business. Have fun and knock yourselves out.

All that said, generative AI remains an existential threat to professional writers. Yes, I know that’s like saying the Pope is Catholic, but here’s the particular gnat in my single malt whisky: Of all the defences mounted against this dehumanising scourge, the notion that generative AI “democratises” writing particularly sticks in my craw. Other trendy buzzwords used defending generative AI in this manner include “inclusivity”, “empowerment”, and “liberation”, expounding on how such technology bypasses boring old “gatekeepers” and “elitists” who think writers should have old-fashioned things like talent, training, and experience.

The technophile pro-AI crowd weaponise terms like “inclusivity” in a manner intended to make old fuddy-duddies like me look “bigoted” for not unquestioningly and excitedly embracing this boil on the arse of humanity. However, to quote Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park, to me it is abundantly clear we’re in “so preoccupied with whether or not you could, you didn’t stop to think if you should” territory. In metaphorical terms, the fences are about to shut down, and the carnivorous velociraptors of generative AI are about the rip professional writers to shreds. Do we really want a future where art and creativity are outsourced to machines? I say no, no, a thousand times no.

What’s more, I absolutely and emphatically reject the idea that generative AI democratises anything. Can you imagine this idea being applied to other skilled jobs besides writing? You may as well say getting in a driverless car qualifies someone to have a driving licence and be called a taxi driver. I could just as easily argue that following a YouTube video on how to undertake a tricky cranial operation “democratises” brain surgery. Whilst we’re at it, can we “democratise” Olympic sport? It’s so “elitist” saying only those who are physically capable and have trained should get to compete. Who are these “gatekeepers” telling me I can’t compete for a pole-vaulting gold medal?

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. My point is simple: To be a writer, you must first have the ability to write. To string a sentence together and say something interesting. I’m not saying you aren’t creative if you can’t write. That’s why film directors hire screenwriters, and sometimes celebrities hire ghost writers to pen their autobiographies. But they hire other human beings, not generative AI. Why? Because they have a soul. True human experience cannot be generated by machinery, and if that makes me an elitist gatekeeper then so be it.

We live in an age that increasingly devalues skilled craftsmanship of all kinds, not just writers. My wife recently purchased various pairs of laces from an alleged cobbler and asked him what type would be best for what kind of footwear, which were prone to breaking, and so forth. He couldn’t offer any answers. Not too long ago, someone claiming to be a cobbler would have been able to inform my wife in detail about what she needed to know. Today, such people seem to be trained in sales and very little more.

This contempt for professionalism is a cancerous plague at the heart of Western society, fuelled by corporate greed. In the name of “efficiency” and even “inclusivity”, we short-sightedly do away with skilled jobs. Writing is no exception, and all writers face this dystopian challenge to our livelihoods; a challenge that will come at a steep cost to our collective humanity.

I remain hopeful that common sense will ultimately prevail, but in the meantime, I do not accept that generative AI democratises writing. If that is true, then what is the point of gifted writers learning their craft? Of striving for wit, creativity, and artistic excellence? What is the point of developing a voice? A singular personal touch in poetry, plays, screenplays, novels, creative non-fiction, essay writing, reviewing, and so forth? If generative AI is democratising writing, and talent is no longer a vital requirement, then we might as well do away with all literary awards. No Booker Prize. No Oscar for Best Screenplay. No journalism trophies. Just participation trophies.

Butlerian Jihad now.

(Originally published at Medium.)

The Dillon Empire beyond Substack

For a full list of my published novels, click click here.

For more on my novels and other projects, click here for my blog.

For my Patreon page, click here.

For my Medium page, click here.