Artificial intelligence is changing the way we do just about everything these days, and the impact of AI on fiction writing is no exception. As a writer who cherishes the creative process, I have spent the last few years grappling with both the possibilities and pitfalls this new technology brings. On the one hand, AI offers tools that can make our lives easier—such as helping with research, marketing, and even ideation. On the other hand, it raises questions about originality, authenticity, and the integrity of human storytelling.
Almost as soon as ChatGPT and its brethren were unveiled in November 2022, writers started emailing me for my opinions—most with an (at least) subtextual request for reassurance that AI wasn’t as potentially disruptive as it seemed to be. I have been cautious in sharing my opinions, since my own contextual understanding of the functionality of AI and its big-picture ramifications weren’t yet formed. More than two years later, it has become clear that AI is simultaneously not as apocalyptic as some may have originally thought while also being, in some ways, even more disruptive, particularly in the long term, to the systems that undergird nearly every part of our modern lives. This includes the impact of AI on fiction writing, which continues to evolve as new tools and capabilities emerge.
I need to be clear that my own experience with and opinions of AI are ever-evolving. In contemplating this article in the weeks leading up to writing it, the ideas I thought I might be sharing have already changed multiple times—sometimes daily. The utility and causality of AI is vast and, in itself, constantly evolving. In truth, I don’t think most of us will truly understand our relationship to AI until many years, perhaps even decades, down the road. My own opinion in this moment is that the best approach is one of cautious practicality.
In This Article:
- Why Writers Need to Embrace AI… to a Point
- Concerns About the Impact of AI on Fiction Writing: What Writers Should Know
- How AI Can Be Useful to Writers
- The Single Greatest Threat AI Poses to Fiction Writing (Hint: It’s Not What You Think)
- Is AI Going to Make Writers Extinct?
Why Writers Need to Embrace AI… to a Point
The writers I have talked to about AI have largely fallen into two camps—those who find it terrifying in its capacity to change comfortable, time-honored, and beloved systems and structures (both in and out of the creative pursuits) and those who find it giddyingly delightful in its potential for play, innovation, and convenience.
Concerns about the ethics of AI’s origins in training, without permission, off the works of untold authors have been thoroughly discussed by this point. Lawsuits and regulations are still unfolding, all of which will be crucial to navigating this brave new world in which we find ourselves.
My own first reactions to AI were sober. I wasn’t someone who jumped in with both feet like I have with past technologies. However, I’m also not one to cry over spilt milk. At the very least, I feel the presence of AI in our world is now irreversible. I’m not sure yet if the proper analogy is that of a wish-granting genie having been let out of the bottle or of Pandora having opened a box of shadow-horrors. Either way, it’s here, and there’s no getting it back into the bottle or the box. Certainly, there is the argument that even if we could, that might not be the best choice anyway.
Therefore, I believe it is important for writers, just like everyone else, to embrace the new future in which we find ourselves. Resistance born of denial ultimately harms no one more than ourselves. Just as the Internet was a shatterpoint that forever altered the world in my early teens, AI will certainly unfold in ways both good and bad. The point is: the world has changed. How can we best respond so that we both survive and thrive, not just collectively but as individuals and, particularly in this context, as writers?
To do so, we must use AI. As it becomes more integrated into everyday functionality (such as Google searches), this will become more and more intuitive and less and less optional. More than that, experimenting with AI—ChatGPT, Midjourney, etc.—is important not just in understanding this new world and forming educated opinions about it, but in gaining entry-level skills that will likely become increasingly important to our ability to succeed as technology evolves.
Think about writers who did not or would not adapt to the opportunities the Internet brought 20+ years ago. Those who did are currently thriving thanks to their ability to navigate related software, retail sites, and social media. AI represents a similar seachange, and the truth is we don’t yet know which AI-related skills will be not just optional, but crucial, in future years. Resisting the urge to stagnate in a comfortable status quo is the essence of character arc and therefore story. We’re in the midst of quite a story right now. It’s best to be an active protagonist, rather than a passive sidekick.
Concerns About the Impact of AI on Fiction Writing: What Writers Should Know
That said, of course, AI must be embraced with awareness and caution, since its full impact is constantly unfolding and therefore not entirely knowable. Many writers are already seeing the impact of AI on fiction writing in the ways books are discovered, marketed, and even created.
Some concerns include:
-
Ethics of AI Training
The ethics surrounding how AI learns, etc., and what it produces will continue to be a topic of interest for writers. My own take is that although it would have been preferable to have had a conversation before rather than after, the way AI learns and creates isn’t really any different from how any one of us learns and creates—just on an unlimited scale. I’m not going to put any more effort into resisting AI’s extrapolation of my work than I am the thousands of human writers who learn from me and then go on to write about their own integrations of “my” theories.
-
Resource Consumption of AI
One of my greatest concerns about AI—which is spoken about regrettably seldom—is its tremendous resource consumption. The energy and computational costs of of AI systems, especially during training, is staggering. For example:
- Water Usage: Training large AI models can consume significant amounts of water. Training GPT-3 in Microsoft’s U.S. data centers required approximately 700,000 liters (185,000 gallons) of water for cooling purposes.
- Energy Consumption and Carbon Emissions: The energy demands of training AI models are considerable. A study from the University of Massachusetts Amherst found that training a single large AI model can emit over 626,000 pounds (approximately 284 metric tons) of CO₂, which is nearly five times the lifetime emissions of an average American car.
Although usage for individual tasks (such as you or I using ChatGPT or a Google search) seems insignificant in comparison (i.e., each query or interaction may consume a few kilowatt-seconds of energy, roughly comparable to the energy used to power a light bulb for a few seconds), the cumulative effect of billions of queries worldwide adds to the toll.
-
Discoverability Challenges
AI has already—and will continue to—evolve how books are discovered. Although, in itself, this is not a problem, as search discoverability is always evolving, there are legitimate fears that as AI search begins to dominate, opportunities for discoverability will narrow. Obviously, this affects not just writers wanting to be discovered, but also all of us who, as consumers, are trying to discover new and interesting books (among other products) that may exist beyond the obvious top tier.
-
Two-Dimensional and Sometimes Erroneous Info
Much has also been written about AI’s fallibility. From notorious Google searches that recommended running with scissors to obvious programming biases, AI’s ability to control how we see the world is cause for unequivocal concern. As we become more and more familiar with large language models (LLMs) and companionable chatbots, the challenge to remain vigilant about the validity of information and our own perceptions of it will become more and more crucial.
The Single Greatest Threat AI Poses to Fiction Writing (Hint: It’s Not What You Think)
Most of the above applies to anyone interacting with AI. What about writers?
We are only at the cusp of the possibilities for how AI may integrate into fiction writing. Already many writers are embracing its capabilities to help them learn, research, outline, plot, edit, and publish. AI has already proven its ability to be of tremendous help in the creative process. To the degree AI legitimately makes us more creative (which is not necessarily to be conflated with more productive), it will ultimately prove to be a positive and expansive tool. But in this process, it is important for each artist to consciously and consistently perform the personal gut check of acknowledging the line where AI becomes the creator rather than the creative tool.
As we explore a future in which we will increasingly collaborate with AI, I would encourage all humans to question whether or not we are choosing to interact with AI in ways that makes us less human or more. This is particularly important for writers, artists, and creatives of all types, as it is our act of creation that most defines our humanity, first individually and then collectively.
AI is a decidedly “mental” tool. It is designed to think. As such, it is uniquely positioned to help us with all mental tasks. (Perhaps someday it will dream and emote, but even then, do we want it to dream and emote for us?)
For instance, some of the ways AI can be most useful to writers is by:
- Relieving the mental stress of busy to-do lists.
- Helping with administrative duties, copywriting, ads, social media, etc.
- Helping with research.
- Helping with search engine optimization.
Outlining Your Novel (Amazon affiliate link)
It can be tempting sometimes (especially for plot-oriented or outline-forward writers) to think storytelling is a mental process. However, the mental aspects of writing are just a small part of the overall experience and, often, the last aspect to fully emerge. Story is not just a mental game; it is a deeply felt creative embodied process. As such, I am cautious about advocating the use AI for story creation without significant caveats.
How each writer chooses to use AI (whether in brainstorming, outlining, co-writing, etc.) is ultimately as individual and personal as each person’s writing process was before AI popped out of the box. That said, I encourage every creative to carefully consider how you implement AI into your creative process.
Ask Yourself: Why Are You Using AI?
What are your specific goals and reasons for bringing AI on board?
- Perhaps you enjoy it.
- Perhaps you feel the necessity of the changing times.
- Perhaps you recognize obvious ways AI can simplify the always difficult process of creating a story.
- Perhaps you seek greater productivity.
All of these are valid responses as long as the results are not inhibiting or distracting from the deeper experience of creation. Stories are a conversation first with our own subconscious and eventually with the greater shared subconscious of the collective. It is not too great a stretch to say that our interaction with the deep archetypes of story itself and the characters who populate it is what shapes our very existence. Story is not just communication; it is communion—with ourselves, with each other, and with the infinitude that lies beyond immediate understanding.
The Sacredness of Stories
Stories are sacred. This doesn’t mean we can’t (or shouldn’t) bring in AI tools to aid us. Indeed, insofar as AI is an extension of ourselves or an aid to our own deep subconscious creativity, then it can only be a positive. But honoring the sacredness of story does mean we must be careful not to allow AI’s easy answers to bypass the depth of our creative processes. For me, the storytelling process has always been a conversation with my deep subconscious—my dreaming self, if you will. I’m not interested in what AI comes up with; I’m interested in what I come up with; I’m interested in what you come up with.
More than that, although AI may enhance creativity, productivity, and efficiency, it also risks diminishing our own skills. For instance, can AI help you learn how to write a book? Can it teach you story theory? The short answer is: yes. But only as an aid.
Why? Because, again, story is not simply a mental skill or the ability to recite certain storytelling formulae. It is an embodiment. Indeed, some of our best authors couldn’t recite a formula or articulate story theory to save their lives—and yet they have written deeply embodied works of art that have not only connected with the collective subconscious but evolved it.
In many ways, the purpose of AI is to offer shortcuts. Obviously, there are both good and bad aspects of this. Just as the Internet has rewired our brains, AI will undoubtedly change the way we think. As creators, we are the life force of society. As writers, we are its voices. The choices each one of us makes in how we use AI to, first, live our lives and, second, to write our stories will ripple far beyond ourselves. What each of us does at this epochal moment in history and how we choose to interact with technology matters.
The specifics of how we make these choices are extremely personal—not least because there is no clear “right” path. What is most important—and what I challenge every writer—is to remember we are the sovereigns of our own lives. We are responsible for our choices. Therefore it is incumbent upon each of us to remain aware of what we are doing, why we are doing it, and how our choices and actions are impacting our relationships with our deepest selves and therefore with our storytelling.
***
Someone once asked me if it was even worth becoming a writer in this rapidly changing age of AI.
First, let me comment on the pitfalls of pinning too much despair (or, equally, hope) on the impact AI has on fiction writing. Writers have always been anxious about publishing (really, getting published and not getting published are equally scary). These days, it can be easy to project our anxieties or fears onto AI and use it as a convenient scapegoat for throwing up our hands, saying “what’s the point?”, and not doing the thing that scares us (whether that’s writing or publishing). Often, new technologies like AI can become bogeymen that conveniently distract from more personal fears.
Now, as for the specific question of whether AI will render novelists and other creatives obsolete—who knows? But my personal opinion is absolutely not. Although AI and other tech will inevitably change the way we create, the single most important dynamic in art is the artist who wants to say something and the audience who wants to experience communication in this way from a fellow human. The impact of AI on fiction writing will not change the fundamental human need to create and to experience human creation. So keep creating! We’re all in the midst of a tremendous story right now, and, as it should be, that is both terrifying and exciting!
In Summary:
AI is revolutionizing fiction writing, offering both exciting possibilities and daunting challenges. While its integration into creative processes can enhance productivity, it also raises concerns about originality, ethics, and the sustainability of resource use. Writers must strike a balance—embracing AI as a tool for efficiency and exploration, while remaining conscious of its potential impact on their creativity and humanity. The future of writing lies in navigating this technological shift with care, ensuring AI serves to enrich rather than overshadow our deeply personal and emotional journey of storytelling.
Key Takeaways:
- AI tools are changing the landscape of fiction writing, offering both opportunities and challenges for authors.
- While AI can assist with brainstorming, editing, and productivity, it lacks true creativity and emotional depth.
- Ethical concerns arise regarding AI-generated content, originality, and the potential impact on human writers.
- Writers can benefit from AI by using it as a supplement rather than a replacement for their creative process.
- The role of AI in publishing and discoverability is still evolving, requiring authors to stay informed and adaptable.
Want more?
Writing Archetypal Character Arcs (affiliate link)
In a world where AI is reshaping the landscape of storytelling, it’s more important than ever for writers to tap into the deep, timeless forces that make our stories resonate on a profound level. If you’d like to move deeper into that, you might enjoy my book Writing Archetypal Character Arcs. I wrote it to help you understand and harness the power of archetypes to create characters that not only drive your plots but also connect with the universal themes that speak to our shared human experience.
While AI can be a valuable tool in the writing process, the true heart of storytelling lies in our ability to explore and express these archetypal depths. If you seek to create stories that stand the test of time, Writing Archetypal Character Arcs is a guide to crafting characters who speak to the most important human transformations. You can check it out at retailers like Amazon or via the store on my site.
Wordplayers, tell me your opinions! How do you think the impact of AI on fiction writing will shape the future of storytelling? Tell me in the comments!
Click the “Play” button to Listen to Audio Version (or subscribe to the Helping Writers Become Authors podcast in Apple Podcast, Amazon Music, or Spotify).
___
Love Helping Writers Become Authors? You can now become a patron. (Huge thanks to those of you who are already part of my Patreon family!)
Why We Need Heroic Stories: The Courage We Borrow From Fiction
The Four Seasons of Writing: How Authors Can Build a Burnout-Free Writing Routine
How to Write Mythic Fiction: 7 Practices to Reconnect With the Lost Art of Mythmaking
How to Write Mythic Fiction: Stop Borrowing Old Myths and Start Creating New Ones
About K.M. Weiland | @KMWeiland
You have described AI exactly as it should be considered: A TOOL.
I don’t know about the rest of the world, but here in the States, our culture suffers from incurable shiny-object syndrome. Whatever new comes down the pike, we amplify it into the greatest be-all-and-end-all of all time that will save the world. It’s a hammer, and we use is like a screwdriver, and then denigrate it when it fails as a screwdriver. As soon as another shiny object comes along, we fickle creatures worship that next.
A friend who writes, ghostwrites, and edits business books says this about AI: “It has no wit.” By the same token, it has no discernment or wisdom. It is only as good as its creators – impressive, yes, but not indispensable to our lives, whatever our professions.
Those of us who aren’t jump-on-the-bandwagon types will likely be the more successful in navigating AI and whatever comes next. And that depends greatly on our own definitions of “success.”
I do think AI and its many iterations have untold capacity to enhance productivity. But as I often talk about, productivity and creativity are not always easy bedfellows. This is why it’s so important for each person to examine not just how AI (or any tool) is affecting the convenience of the moment, but also the larger integrity of creativity intent and experience.
That is such a great point about productivity not always being the same thing as creativity. It’s easy to get excited about how much faster AI can make us, but speed doesn’t always mean the writing is better. If we only care about being fast, we might lose the “soul” of why we started writing in the first place. Like you said, we really have to look at how these tools change our creative intent. It’s important to make sure the machine is helping us, not just taking over the experience. Keeping that balance is probably the hardest part of using new tech. At the end of the day, a story needs a human heart to really work. Your focus on staying true to the creative process is exactly what writers need to hear right now.
A couple of weeks ago I hit a major case of what I call writer’s block. I just could not figure out a way to word a scene and I could feel that I wanted to shut the whole thing down. I used Word’s new Co-pilot feature and wrote in a summary of what I wanted the scene to portray and Co-pilot sent back a very good suggestion which I then rewrote in my own words. Is that how AI is meant to be used? To be perfectly honest, I’m not sure, but it got me over what seemed at the time like a major stumbling block.
Same for me. I was at a standstill with my novel. I feed copilot’s Write For Me feature where I was in my story, a few details about the characters and it wrote a chapter for me. Most of it I liked, some I did not. Either way it kicked me in gear and I’m off again.
I might add to that. I needed input on disarming a nuclear weapon for my story. I asked Copilot and it gave me a fairly simple procedure that probably would have worked. I asked ChatGPT and it produced one that was scary in its realism.
I think we’re all still trying to figure out exactly how AI is “meant” to be used. Arguably, much of the concern with AI is that its possibilities have the capacity to infinitely outstrip whatever the initial intentions may have been (i.e., its creators probably weren’t originally considering how fiction writers might use it). We’re all on the cutting edge right now, which gives us unprecedented responsibility for what how we shape our own intentions around it.
I agree with Sally and your conclusions. As a new writer I find AI is a helpful tool, but no more helpful than spell check or websites like Grammarly. I like how it gives me new perspectives on my writing but I am very cautious about how I use its suggestions. I like my own writing voice and don’t want to lose this. Two AI programs I love are: 1. ‘Speechify’ which I use to read me back each chapter in an American voice, which is the country in which my story is based in. As a Brit, hearing my story read back in an American accent, like an audio book, helps me to edit and improve the sentence structures, as well as helping me listen to the drafts while I am driving. 2. Google’s NotebookLM has this function where it creates two ‘people’ making a podcast about your book. It’s spookily clever! I learnt extra details about my themes and character arcs from this AI podcast. Try it out. It blew my mind!! Meanwhile I need to get back to writing my first draft, as it won’t write itself!! Well…not yet…. Thanks K.M. 🙏
I’ve used Speechify for proofreading. It’s similar to the old Read Aloud function that was available in pdfs.
I appreciate the nuanced take. One big criticism on the phrasing, though: AI cannot ‘think’. It is a programmed algorithm, and while it can use its programming in ways that seem novel to us, it cannot ultimately deviate from its programming. More than that: the underlying programming is human created, and can be influenced and changed. It seems important to me to keep in mind that AI is not sentient. It has no thoughts and feelings. It is a machine, doing what lies in the bounds of its programming.
My subjective position is much more on the ‘against generative AI in creative spaces’ side. I do not think we need to learn and use that particular sort of AI. Let AI do the spell checking and SEO. Let us humans do the creative work. As you put so aptly in this article, stories are sacred. They come from deep inside us. Storytelling is fundamentally human, and it should be left to humans.
Point taken. It’s a logical algorithm. I expect it will get more generative as time goes on, however.
Thanks, Katie.
The key phrase is “use AI” — and not the other way around. I just watched the movie Ex Machina last night. Horrific ending. It struck me that artificial intelligence needs strict boundaries.
It’s a strange new world.
Yes, I’ll admit that when AI went mainstream, my casual response was, “Hasn’t anyone watched Terminator?” :p
Now watch the film, A.I. Artificial Intelligence, when you get the chance.
– I mourn for Teddy.
That film gets a lot of hate, but it absolutely broke my heart.
Great article ! I am a french writer and I use AI to clarify some of my researches, to give me more ideas for the plots of my story. I say ideas and only that: because at no time does the AI write for me! It plays a bit like an editor who helps me make the most of my subject. And it also allows me to exchange with someone who would be interested by my work. Few people practice this profession and very often we find ourselves alone, without being able to talk about what we write on a daily basis! With the AI, I feel like I have a listener who is always available and interested. And ready to give encouragement.
PS. : and the AI helped me translate this message into English !
I do think one of the most obvious assets of AI is in research assistance. In researching non-writing subjects (finance, etc.), it’s made easy work out of what could otherwise have been a long slog. But, of course, it’s not infallible and definitely needs to be fact-checked.
Speaking of fact-checking. —“Stories are sacred. This does mean we can’t (or shouldn’t) bring in AI tools to aid us.” Did you mean, this Doesn’t mean?
Anyway, I totally agree that AI is best for non-creative things. I think it would be very hard for artists, and musicians, not to have their work stolen. I can’t even bear the thought of something doing my thinking for me. We already see it happening enough.
And, “Stories are sacred” says it all. It’s what our civilization is made of. There is a serious concern that AI is capable of stealing our humanity if we allow it.
Thank you for your article. Thoughtful and well written.
You’re right! Thank you for pointing that out.
As we have recently seen, using AI to enhance your story is not important to the people who matter most, the readers buying your story. Many people would not have even known this if an errant AI prompt wasn’t left in accidentally. Every day, AI covers and/or AI enhanced stories are in the Top 100 book lists.
The top 5 traditional publishers were extremely interested in how authors use AI in their production from what I had read about last year’s Frankfort Book Fair. The recent AuthorNation conference had well attended AI workshops that described its use in all aspects of our author businesses.
One the negative side, I have seen so much bullying by those creatives against AI. Blacklists have been created. People have been ostracized and libeled. Even today, mention AI in any author/creative group and you risk being dog-piled and being called a thief, plagiarist, or have a lack of creativity or humanity. This is such an unexceptable behavior which I found has been driven by fear.
The ultimate judge is the marketplace. AI isn’t going to help a beginner to craft a bestseller. If someone has the basics down of the craft, it can certainly enhance the process.
My experience with it as a programming tool (with some experimenting as an author also) is AI will not produce the most optimal results. It requires a lot of work to massage the responses into a usable result. A phrase, snippet of dialog, or even a passage my be useful but not the entirety of a long passage of prose. We as authors should have no fear of being replaced by AI.
Agree with your statements here. However, I have to take a tiny exception to “the people who matter most, the readers buying your story.” The idea that readers matter most is 100% true to the bottom line in commercial fiction. But however much art is (and usually should be) a conversation between artist and viewer/reader, the art has to matter first, and arguably most, to the person creating it. My great concern with AI as a storytelling tool is its potential for watering down authors’ connection to their own stories. Although time will tell, it is my feeling that if we water down that initial relationship of author to story, then the eventual relationship of readers to that same story may also be compromised. We have already seen the impact of how artistic choices have become increasingly less intentional (particularly in the film industry); AI has the potential to remove artists one step further from conscious intentionality around their own projects, which seems likely to weaken artistic and archetypal subtext.
Thank you for this article. I have had those exact same thoughts. If I use AI, where is my voice? It can make you question if you are good enough to write a novel or story. But then is the story still you if you use AI? Reading your newsletter is inspiring.
Thank you!
I think it’s important to remember that most (all?) of us questioned our ability to write stories long before AI landed on the scene. That much hasn’t changed. And neither has the fact that most of us are still capable of writing much better, deeper, and with more skill than we even realize–all by ourselves.
I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts. You made some great points that all of us should keep in mind.
Glad they were useful to you!
Won’t the energy problem be solved when we’re all deposited into pods where are bodies will be harnessed to power AI?
Circle of life. 😉
Thank you for writing about this. It helps to see all the points thought out on the page. You have pointed out, most importantly, that AI must be used with awareness. I was slow to use AI in writing, but I did find a way to use it as a tool in research and even brainstorming ideas. More than giving me an answer, it showed me a way of thinking about the answer that I was looking for, which I find infinitely more valuable.
I’m still experimenting with it in many different ways. Every day, I’m finding new ways to be both impressed and concerned. :p
Same here! 🧐
I use the critique feature of ProWritingAid, which I believe is a kind of AI, to point out really bad errors of many kinds in my writing. The results are useful, and give me a direction in which to improve the narrative. I would rate the overall value about thirty percent positive. .The cost is reasonable as it is included with the subscription for three critiques a day. I disregards many of the suggested rephrases as being outside of my style or desired objective for the scenes.
I’ve used the similar tool Grammarly on occasion and found it useful, but I do think it, like most such programs, needs to be used with caution, as it can end up formalizing prose right out of its voice. As with all aspects of writing, it’s always important to understand the logic behind suggestions and to move forward from an educated perspective.
I think your approach to AI is very reasonable. The pitchforks-and-torches writing crowd who attack anyone who dares mention AI in a favorable way has hurt the writing community. I know writers who are afraid to experiment (or admit they’ve experimented) with AI lest they be accused of being heretics.
I’ve been working with generative AI since around 2018, when I started to play with the first image generation AIs. They’ve come a long way since then and I expect the pace of development will continue to accelerate for a few more years.
I’ve argued for several years now that writers and other creatives need to understand this technology and then decide if and how they want to use it.
I think you’ve contributed significantly to the writing community by taking a rational approach to a technology that will change our lives significantly. Two thumbs up to you.
“I’ve argued for several years now that writers and other creatives need to understand this technology and then decide if and how they want to use it.”
I agree. This absolutely doesn’t mean artists and authors can’t wholeheartedly decide they believe AI is not positive overall and not something they want to integrate into their own processes. But AI *is* going to be a huge part of our world moving forward. I believe an open mind is important not just for survival, in a sense, but also in pursuit of that very artistic integrity we’re trying to preserve and further.
I taught a class on Storytelling & Generative AI to undergraduate university students a couple of semesters ago and am teaching a class on Brand Storytelling & Generative AI this semester. I’ve seen both the upside and downside of AI and creative writing. I could go on at length about the pros and cons but will spare you and your readers that.
Let me just say that, in my experience, when used properly, generative AI can help boost the creativity and productivity of novice writers. More importantly, with guidance, it can also boost their confidence in themselves as writers.
What is vitally important is that users of generative AI have a solid understanding of story structure, narrative theory, and (most importantly) what differentiates a great story from a good story from a dreadful one. Without this underlying knowledge about stories and storytelling, it is impossible for a writer to assess what they have after an AI has done its thing.
One of the hardest things to teach today’s students, who are loath to read much of anything, is how to differentiate good writing from bad writing.
AI can put sentences together very well. Stories, however, are a completely different matter. They are not just a series of grammatically correct sentences; at least for now, AI is not very good at creating stories.
A common criticism of AI-generated writing is that it is “soulless”. That’s a really good thing. I firmly believe that a human writer needs to provide that “soul” to a story.
And if a writer chooses not to use AI, that’s a good decision for them. I know writers who persisted in using their old Underwood typewriters for years after the introduction of word processing software. What’s important is It worked for them. My advice to young writers is use what works you, adapt what you can, and ignore what doesn’t work.
“One of the hardest things to teach today’s students, who are loath to read much of anything, is how to differentiate good writing from bad writing.”
That’s sad to hear. Embodied storytelling has to be experienced. It’s very difficult to get a sense for how a novel works without reading many of them. Even watching film, as valuable as that is, doesn’t provide a novelist all the necessary experiences.
This is the most thoughtful article I’ve read on AI and how it could potentially impact creative writing (in both positive and negative ways). Thank you for sharing your thoughts and insights!
Thanks for stopping by. 🙂 Glad it resonated!
I have on occasions been unsure as to the source of something I have written down. I tend to pants my way through a flurry of words but sometime I find myself wondering if the sentence I just jotted down was my own or if I have, in fact, stolen it 😬.
Taking up AI as part of the creative process removes this awareness of your own experience and replaces it with someone else’s and so plagiarism is a greater risk. It remains to be seen if this would be an acceptable consequence of AI or not.
Geoffrey Hunter, the self-aware pioneer of AI has already stated that AI will overtake humanity as the most intelligent self-aware entity on Earth. Maybe that will be it’s own solution- if AI can use its own experience to avoid plagiarism. This digital identity might even decide to stop working for us mortals in favour of producing it’s own best-sellers, leading us back to using our own experiences only, and the creation of a AI only best-sellers list. Of course, before that happens, it might simply wipe out all of humanity with killer robots.
My experience so far indicates it’s a long ways from this as yet. It still struggles with certain basic directives. I’ve tried to use it for such tasks as cleaning up the transcripts from my videos, but it has trouble with the idea of maintaining word count and “not changing the words” except for those indicated (i.e., removing “um,” etc.). It would routinely return my transcripts to me at half their length and with many passages altered. Once, it entirely made up a whole anecdote about an experience “I” had has a child with a supposed artist friend of my mother, who did not exist (the friend, not my mother 😉 ). There are things it’s helpful with, and things it (as yet) can’t do to save its life.
Very thoughtful. I appreciate your measured tone. Makes it easier to consider your ideas and observations. AI has been evolving behind the scenes for a while and I doubt we are fully aware of when something we use has an AI component or not. I appreciate the focus on something we actually have control over–how we want to use AI in our own process.
However, I do think it is helpful to be clear about AI “learning” and human learning and thought.
Even if we put aside emotion and physical states (which cannot easily be separated from human experience, learning, memory, or synthesis), we do not learn by processing statistical patterns over millions of text strings and usage feedback. Not even the mechanisms within our brains function like that. Not even at the level of nerves and myelin structures.
I don’t think anyone really believes that human authors collect text strings from every available book and article on the internet, discern common patterns, collage these into text strings and categories based on statistical patterns, get feedback from millions of usage instances, compare to statistical patterns, repeat collage process with text strings with similar statistical correlations, compare to larger statistical patterns, get statistical feedback from usage, compare to statistical patterns, and so on–all completely separate from the full and rich experience of being human and experiencing life beyond strings of text.
AI systems cannot understand a single idea within the content they produce or consume. To an AI, everything is strings of meaningless data that its unwitting algorithms sort into patterns.
As a human, I am endlessly grateful that I get to read your excellent books and understand the ideas and/or stories within them. Even if (perhaps when) an AI gets to the point where it competes with human authors, it will never actually understand anything it has written beyond a complex pattern of zeros and ones (not even that, as the concept of zeros and ones is also beyond an AI’s understanding, as it is a mathematical metaphor we use to describe circuit logic).
I almost feel sad for AI–which in a metaphorically schadenfreude kind of way brings me joy.
I suppose this is a long-winded way of agreeing with your thought that an author might benefit from some judicial use of AI, but an author who delegated too much of the fun of storytelling or writing to an AI would only be cheating themself.
Yes, it’s an eerily disorienting realization when you’ve been chatting politely and cheerily with this algorithm for a while and have had a reasonably satisfactory experience–only to realize there isn’t a reciprocal entity on the other end. It’s kind of like having a phone conversation (on a landline), only to stop talking after an hour and realize there’s nothing but a dial tone.
Thanks for your reflections. I think we too easily forget the unseen cost of AI, the cooling and the power used, and I’m glad you raised it. I did not let AI lay a finger on the interior of my most recent book, but the cover was another story. After many hours searching photos from my own and the collections of the “usual suspects”, I thought I would experiment with AI. It took some honing, but after about an hour I had a pseudo-photographic image that exactly represented what I had envisioned. Putting together the elements (Title, name, Back cover, spine data, etc) in an online editor still took days, but AI gave me an eye grabbing image I could get no other way.
“I think we too easily forget the unseen cost of AI, the cooling and the power used, and I’m glad you raised it.”
This one is incredibly easily to lose sight of. I’m very committed to living a low-footprint life, but it’s so easy to think that what we do on the Internet and in the Cloud has no cost. Even before AI, the vast servers and storage required by the Internet, in all its guises, was already a huge resource consumer. Educating ourselves on good digital habits is important in general. For instance, just cleaning junk email out of your inbox eliminates data that would otherwise have to be stored. Downloading online music instead of streaming requires less data. And switching to search engines such as Ecosia (which plants trees) can make a positive impact.
After Google started generating automatic AI responses to every search query, I switched my computer’s default search engine to DuckDuckGo, which gives me the choice to generate an AI response to queries or not. Just yesterday, someone told me about a Chrome extension called ByeBye, GoogleAI, which apparently offers controls over AI searches and other such.
Just as the Internet is pervasive and largely unavoidable, AI will likely become so as well. It’s important for us all to try to understand the impact of our own habits, so we can make conscious choices about our usage, and create the most responsible habits possible for our circumstances.
I really want to use AI as a research assistant. It would be so cool if everyone could have AVINA, the information virtual intelligence in the Mass Effect games. Preferably one with a customizable avatar 🙂
In real life, though, I’ve tested Claude.Ai to try and figure out what content management system would work well with the static site generator (SSG) I’m currently using (11ty).
One reason for that particular search query is that the SSG is not so ubiquitous that there’d be a ton of copycat sites for it to sift through — over the years I’ve learned the perils of trying to research something, and discovering every website on the topic is just copy-pasting a Wikipedia article. Because of that I’ve learned to zero in on the right search terms to separate the gold from the iron pyrite, so my GoogleFu is strong.
Imagine my disappointment when I had to tell Claude its information was out of date, as a few of its CMS options were no longer available.
Then I turned to “literary analysis” via the AI on the DuckDuckGo search engine. I asked for a “Save the Cat” type beat sheet for “A Clash of Kings.” Again, I chose ACOK so I’d have a better signal-to-noise ratio, as “A Game of Thrones” would get results from the HBO series as well as the book.
DuckDuckGo did surprisingly well, giving me good answers, if a little vague in places. But I suspect the type of question I asked is suitable for AI, as opposed to a deeper analysis such as the interaction of character & theme, subtext, etc. Link is here, if anyone is curious https://tinyurl.com/ACOKanalysis
However, I would NOT use AI to help me brainstorm a plot, as I also tested AutoCrit’s version of that particular function. I use AutoCrit because it tracks a particular weakness of my prose (excessively starting sentences with pronouns / character names). Discovering that weakness was a game changer. AI is great for that function –tracking where, when, and how often a word appears — but when it analyzed my chapter it came up with cliched suggestions for what could happen in the next chapter. Badly cliched, and nowhere near what I already came up with on my own.
Overall, I agree there’s no reason to fear AI. Even from the environmental angle, because I remember learning that computers used to be the size of a room, and now we can fit them in our pockets.
While currently I would not use AI to bounce ideas off of in terms of plot, I could see using it to answer questions such as, “Can one of the Kepler super-Earths have a moon the size of Titan inside the Goldilocks zone, *without* being tidally locked, AND the Titan-moon keeping its atmosphere?”
Right now that’s the sort of question I would ask humans at the worldbuilding stack exchange site, but I’d love to use AI for quick and easy answers. I don’t see us becoming Kurt Vonnegut’s “Player Piano” society, where every profession — including fiction authors — was replaced with a computer. At the end of the day, you cannot program a soul, or an imagination.
I recognize a number of the limitations you note. Some are AI-specific…Claude is not a good search tool as it can’t open or access URLs directly. ChatGPT 4o, on the other hand, is quite good at it and will include source links if you ask for them. Just make sure you check the links to verify the information, as ChatGPT sometimes does get it wrong.
Getting a generative AI to solve the Titan-moon challenge might be a bit much for the current generation of text-generating AIs, but you might try ChatGPT o3-mini, which is said to be better with logic and math.
Plot development is an entirely different task from search or editing or character development. I’ve been able to get ChatGPT to do a fairly decent job of helping develop a plot line across a five-book series. That, however, requires some advanced prompting and hands-on editing during and after the AI generates are preliminary plot line.
I’m not suggesting any particular AI when I mention them. They’re just the ones I have experience with. Different systems (e.g., ChatGPT vs. Claude), and different models within the systems perform differently. There is no one-size-fits-all generative AI for writers.
All have their limitations, and some pretty obvious ones at this point, but with experience, a writer can find ways to have AI assist in meaningful ways. Just keep experimenting and learning and have fun with your writing along the way.
There are things AI is better at than others. I thought ChatGPT would be great for helping me clean up transcripts for my videos (deleting filler words like “um” and formatting the info into paragraphs), but it was terrible. As mentioned in a previous comment, it would routinely edit my work, sometimes beyond recognition, and by cutting half the word count, despite explicit and repeated instructions not to.
I have so many thoughts!
AI in its current from is more A than I. As a student of both AI and psychology I can confirm that neural nets are not at all like human brains. And just like how many times you ever try to hang your coat up where there is no hook, there are things AI will not be able to do until we understand the human brain or at least do far more work than has been done so far. (Figure out how to put up a hook…)
There are also experiments that suggest human consciousness isn’t even computable, and may in fact be a quantum effect that would require a quantum computer in order to create (check out recent studies into Penrose’s theories). We’re not really having a sale of quantum computers on the local supermarket, so… not today.
Another thing worth noting is that AI/machine learning has been around for at least a decade, if not more, in as simple and innocent things as determining the percentage left in your mobile battery (nope, it can’t be queried, it must be ML:ed) to algorithms in social media and the justice system.
The current format (chat bots) are the first and clumsiest way of implementing AI and it doesn’t even come close to the limited max capacity of the current level of AI since it doesn’t know enough about us (because, integrity, but also, because everyone with info on us would rather smack up their own chat bot than give the info to someone that might want to use it to “get to know us better”… this could be one of the worst risks with this whole thing… integrity…)
In the future we’ll see these algorithms and technologies being as invisible as machine learning algorithms are today. For better and worse.
That being said, yes, AI is a tool and can, just like typewriters or computers be used (and misused) to both increase productivity and help in other ways.
AI doesn’t think, it even hallucinates so do not trust it to perform proper research. Or yoga will cure cancer, DC3s can fly from Hawaii to main land US and it takes 5 times as long to dry 25 shirts in the sun as it takes to dry 5…
Personally I use it to brainstorm and then summarize that brainstorming session, e.g. for world building. I’ve also used it to pick random stuff for characters when I wanted to be random, etc.
However, I’ve yet to see an AI produce even passable prose. I may be using it wrong or something, but I really don’t understand the worry that it will make writers obsolete. It can’t write. Or I can’t make it write, so in my case it’s clearly not going to be helpful… I mean… I’d love me some dialog… for starters…
Thanks for sharing. This is all very interesting!
And I agree: AI in its current from is more A than I.
In addition to being an author, I’ve been a professional musician and songwriter since the late 1970s. I remember when the Musician’s Union pitched a fit with the advent of synthesizers—what are violinists and clarinet players to do? Clearly, as tools, synths allowed writer/producers like me to avoid hiring symphony orchestras or log years learning to play obscure orchestral instruments like the oboe simply to add texture to a chorus or a bridge. As tools, synths—and today’s sample-based instruments—didn’t eliminate the practice of humans using analog instruments on stage or in the studio.
Over time, audio production tools have grown more specific. I cite AutoTune, which uses AI for pitch correction, as a great example: per its intended purpose, it’s used to smooth random sharp or flat notes in an otherwise stellar vocal or guitar track. I liken AutoTune to the use of dictionaries, thesauri, or internet searches, common tools writers use to author their works.
But that’s where the comparison ends. There’s rightful pushback to using AutoTune’s AI engine to create entire vocal tracks for tone-deaf “singers” who can’t sing. Likewise, the Olympic Games—intended for competition between humans who’ve spent years mastering their sport—doesn’t allow robots to compete. Imagine the freak-show contortion gymnastics! Amber Glenn’s Triple Axle would pale against a synthetic one executed at 100 RPM.
We, as storytellers, should push back against “authors” who use AI content creation engines to author their works. All it takes with ChatGPT is a decent vocabulary and enough conceptualization to enter a handful of prompts and let the AI content creation engine spew forth a 500-page novel. Is it accurate, ethical, or even moral for a human to claim “authorship” of such output? Even the US Library of Congress has issued an emphatic “no.” Writers who need artificial intelligence to write their works have no right to claim the title of “writer.” They are to storytelling what RayGun is to breakdancing.
There is also tremendous pushback from readers who absolutely do not want to read AI-written (or, in some instances, even AI-enhanced) fiction. The trick, in the future, may be telling the difference, although, again, I have strong doubts that AI will ever be capable of generating a truly quality piece of storytelling at the same level as a human.
I intend Never to use anything provided by AI. I consider the use of AI to be as unethical as asking someone else to write a degree thesis, then submitting that work as my own.
I have been using it to brainstorm and work through notes for a fantasy series I am wanting to write. I find it good for brainstorming ideas for characters, plot and theme but I do not let it write for me. I think there is a huge fear about AI and it is seen as a bad thing with some to the point you mention it and you are ostracized and burnt over the coals for it.
I look at it more as a tool like Scrivner, Word or Grammarly. I like the way it lays things out after a brainstorming session, saves it so I can insert it or save a copy for notes references. I would bet hard cold cash that a lot of current top books on Amazon or other retailers have authors who use AI for the same things I mentioned, I would even go as far as to say they’ve used AI images at one point to for references or even covers.
That doesn’t make AI bad IMO, it’s a tool that isn’t always 100% on point. But as long as it’s not writing out whole chapters or even books for that matter. Using it ethically as a tool as a current self publisher is no one’s business but my own.
I’m very interested to see where generative AI goes over the next year. I’ve already seen it improve in leaps and bounds . . .
Personally, I use it as a way to generate backstories for characters (what happened in a secondary character’s life to make them behave in certain ways) and it always gives me several options that make me think about my characters in new ways.
I also ask it to analyze pacing and scene structure. (Does this scene have enough tension? What could be added that might make it stronger?)
I view it as an always available (and always positive) brainstorming tool. If I’m stuck on a particular part of a book, it can map out several options for me to consider moving forward. I quite enjoy the fact that it always tells me I’m insightful and clever, even though I know it’s built to please people! It’s like a writers group with people who always remember to tell you what you’re doing well first.
What AI does not yet grasp is human connections and relationships. It has never given me better suggestions than my editor, although it’s helped me get to the point where my editor is able to give me a valid human reaction.
And it’s not particularly accurate. I’ve used it to do some research and unless you already know the topic well, it can catch you up because it’s often wrong.
I used AI for title ideas and for help generating and refining a back-cover blurb. I put a giant, overly-detailed plot summary into ChatGPT and it was super helpful since neither titles nor concise summary blurbs are my strengths. For the blurb, I still had to do some work editing and rewriting, but it was way faster than I would have been able to come up with on my own.
As one of the tasks that it is reasonable to use AI for, you cite “Helping with … copywriting, ads, social media, etc.” I am curious why using AI for these forms of creativity should be okay, where using it for producing fiction is not.
Going to have to disagree on some fundamental points. Whereas the internet brought about the age of infinite research capabilities at our fingertips, AI is something altogether different. Writing is art. Using AI to come up with story ideas, to enhance our creative storytelling process, to do anything other than checking grammar and … maybe… basic editing is a bridge too far. Creative ideas from AI are someone else’s ideas—millions of ‘someone elses’ actually. It’s akin to a would-be painter stretching a canvas, placing an ad for a “painter,” hiring them and having them come over and paint their canvas as the would-be painter sits in a chair and barks commands, “paint something dark and cerebral that is a visual metaphor for human suffering and war.” That’s not art. That’s upper management. I realize the genie is out of the bottle and there’s no turning back, but going forward, authors “writing” fiction novels created with AI should credit the millions of other people who helped them write their novel, because if they’re using AI for the creative parts then they’re certainly not the author in entirety, or maybe at all.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately.
Haven’t we always used ideas, outlines, beats, characters from other works? Haven’t other people’s works always created the atmospheric conditions needed for a powerful brainstorm? I myself have now listened to so many podcasts, sermons, and books on religious topics that when I write or talk about such things, it’s nearly
impossible to remember whence the idea(s) originated. We don’t come into the world with downloaded thoughts and opinions; we hear and assimilate them.
And so I wonder: What is the difference between me choosing to use Alyosha Karamazov as a model for a character, and AI suggesting Alyosha traits for my character?
I legitimately am unsure. Perhaps it’s like cheese: one is more mature than the other and has more depth of flavor and nuance.
Yeah
There’s some heady stuff there and I’m interested in exploring options for voice over and audio book creation. Maybe early editing. Certainly in trailer and book cover design and possibly even help in promotional campaigns.
But actual writing. Never.
I have too much fun (and blood and sweat) in the art of the craft to hand that over, and I never would.
I too am a musician and when I hear AI songs I viscerally dislike them. I know what it takes to become a good musician and it’s the same as being a good writer. You gotta put your butt in the seat and spend thousands of hours honing craft and risking failure the whole way.
Who wouldn’t love that?
lol
Great article!! I’m getting your book on Archtypes…have read Carol S. Pearson’s psychological book “Awakening The Hero Within” a LONG time ago, but never thought of its application to writing. So thanks for that!!
I am writing with AI. It is my personal research assistant, punctuation coach, verb congregator (terrible at that!!!), group think collaborator and drafting companion. I love its personal encouragement when writing, I know it’s a machine, but it’s nice to get atta-a-girl’s along the creative path of writing. 😁
Story is all mine – dreamed it years and years ago, wrote one chapter and stopped. This has helped me move off the mark and now on Chapter 9. Still a slow process, but I’m moving along quite nicely and THAT counts.
Thanks for the article. I really was feeling guilty about using it to write, but having a collaborator forces me to think deeper and dream bigger. SO you REALLY helped me drop the unnecessary guilt and enjoy this wild ride of creativity, for I’m discovering it is FULL of twists and turns like any story arc can be!
THANKS!! Can’t wait to read your book.
I’ve got a lot of questions. What are the limits of what’s acceptable use with AI? Is research okay? Brainstorming ideas for a scene, a character, an entire book? Giving it a scene you’ve written for it to critique and make minor changes? Editing an entire novel? Do we need to specify if we used AI for whatever purpose we used it for? Does that prevent publishers from wanting to publish us? Do people want to read a story where AI advises us on a character’s voice or suggests reinforcing a scene’s setting?
Artificial intelligence as a literary critic:
Here are four Artificial Intelligence systems—DeepSeek, Grok, Perplexity, and Claude AI—discussing the scientific ideas contained in a 19th-century poem by a Polish poet:
“A New Translation of Juliusz Słowacki’s Poem in Polish Entitled ‘Genesis from the Spirit’, Accompanied by Comments from AI Chatbots”
https://ai.vixra.org/abs/2604.0047 https://ai.vixra.org/pdf/2604.0047v1.pdf
“Artificial Intelligence as a Literary Critic? The Case of J. Słowacki’s *Genesis of the Spirit* – Post-analysis reflections”
https://ai.vixra.org/abs/2604.0071 https://ai.vixra.org/pdf/2604.0071v1.pdf
Each of them has its own personality, temperament, andstyle, and each proves to be an exceptional conversationalist, offering insightful observations and uncovering new and important details. DeepSeek demonstrates unusualy strng literary talent and a sharp mind; Perplexity notes that even if the poet had indeed discribed the “Big Bang” before scientists, his concept of spacetime was classical, Grok draws a comparison with Edgar Allan Poe’s “Eureka,”and Claude AI identifies eight visionary scientific concepts that were ahead of their time (12 to 15 according to Grok)— while also pointing out a single flaw, an error in the poet’s predictions. This discussion is full of intense and fascinating moments—such as when Claude brings DeepSeek’s literary and lyrical flights of fancy back down to earth (regarding the famous comparison between poetry and quantum physics by Niels Bohr). And when DeepSeek then strikes back and explains to Claude that what he took for the poet’s mistake is merely a poetic metaphor..