The Use of AI in Writing: How, and To What Extent?

Artificial Intelligence has become an undeniable presence in nearly every facet of modern life. From education and industry to commerce, healthcare, and psychology, AI is utilized to varying degrees and is increasingly seen as an indispensable tool. In these fields, leveraging AI is not viewed as a sign of laziness or incompetence but rather as a hallmark of professionalism and adaptability—a necessary alignment with technological progress.

However, a curious double standard emerges when it comes to writing. If an author reveals they used a language model like ChatGPT or another AI tool to assist their writing, public perception often shifts. Their work is suddenly at risk of being judged as lacking in authenticity and value. This raises a fundamental question: Why is the use of technology considered a sign of advancement everywhere else, but in writing, it is often viewed as a “shortcut” or a “weakness”? Is this not a modern manifestation of a classic “technology phobia”—the same fear and skepticism that historically greeted innovations like the printing press, magazines, and the typewriter?

To clarify this point, consider the tools we use without a second thought in our daily lives: calculators, Google Maps, Google Translate, and grammar checkers like Grammarly. We don’t label someone who uses a calculator as “mathematically illiterate,” nor do we accuse someone who uses a spell-checker of having “poor writing skills.” These tools are designed to alleviate the burden of repetitive and complex tasks, allowing us to work with greater speed and accuracy.

Yet, writing is different. Unlike solving a mathematical equation or correcting a misspelled word, writing carries a unique cultural and intellectual weight. A text is always attributed to an author, which imbues the act of writing with a special sensitivity and nuance.

This distinction is rooted in several core challenges:

1. The Challenge of Authorship and Accountability
   The policies and regulations governing publishing are built on a fundamental principle: only a human can bear the ethical and legal responsibility for a text, not a machine. If errors, distortions, or plagiarism occur in a written work, a human must be held accountable. Consequently, scientific journals and publishers have established strict rules regarding AI use. Many permit AI for tasks like improving language fluency but prohibit or deem it unethical for full-scale writing and scientific analysis. Reputable journals often mandate that authors explicitly disclose how, where, and which AI tools were used. Furthermore, most publishing houses have declared that works entirely generated by AI hold no legal copyright and are not eligible for publication.
2. The Cognitive Challenge: Writing as a Learning Process
   Writing is not merely a vehicle for transmitting knowledge; it is a vital mental activity and a process of learning in itself. When an author brainstorms ideas, structures an argument, and conducts research, they are actively exercising and refining their own thinking. They learn how to connect an introduction to a conclusion and how to logically sequence their arguments. Field research indicates that when the entire writing process is outsourced to a machine, the individual’s mind is not actively engaged. Over time, this can lead to a decline in their analytical thinking, reasoning, and critical skills. A student who consistently relies on AI to generate complete texts may achieve short-term results, but in the long run, their capacity for reasoned argument, critique, and creative expression will likely diminish.
3. The Challenge of Over-Reliance and Disconnection
   When writers or students become overly dependent on AI tools, they risk losing touch with primary sources—books, libraries, and academic journals. The writing and research process can begin to feel pointless and hollow. Instead of delving into original research and reading, they settle for pre-packaged answers. This creates a detrimental “shortcut” that ultimately stunts the development of independent research and writing skills.
4. The Challenge of Passive Learning
   Effective writing requires active mental engagement and participation in the process of ideation. This includes reading, note-taking, rewriting, and critiquing. Most research on the impact of AI on writing suggests that when learning becomes a passive experience where the author has no real hand in the creation, a deep and fundamental understanding of the subject matter fails to materialize. The individual becomes a mere content consumer, copying texts without critical thought. Writing is an opportunity to reconstruct knowledge and practice one’s intellect; when this opportunity is entirely ceded to a machine, learning becomes superficial, insignificant, and transient.

The Path Forward: AI as a Collaborative Tool

Despite these challenges, we should not overlook the positive potential of language models in writing. When used correctly and ethically, AI can significantly enhance and advance writing skills. The key is for the author to employ AI as a tool to facilitate the writing process, not as a replacement for their own intellect. Writers can use AI for brainstorming, improving text fluency, finding the right words and phrases, and correcting spelling and grammatical structures. In this collaborative model, the author’s voice and influence remain dominant and evident.

This brings us to a crucial question: Where do we draw the line between the conscious, purposeful use of AI-generated content and its uncritical consumption?

An author with extensive knowledge, adequate information, and a solid foundation in their subject possesses the power to review, critique, and analyze AI-generated content. They can distinguish accurate information from falsehoods and identify where the AI might have made an error or succumbed to an “algorithmic hallucination.” In this scenario, any use of AI-generated material will be informed, corrected, and appropriately integrated.

In contrast, an individual lacking sufficient background knowledge may accept the AI’s output at face value. They lack the ability to discern sound reasoning from flawed logic or to identify biased or fabricated sources. They may be unable to recognize where the AI has introduced bias or produced skewed content. Consequently, instead of being the creator or author, they become an unquestioning, passive consumer of the text.

Conclusion: The Human at the Helm

The future—and present—of writing in the age of AI does not lie in its outright prohibition nor in its unregulated, boundless use. What matters is human responsibility and creativity. No machine can possess true thought or bear accountability for the written word. Only a human can be answerable for their work, engage in critique, and infuse a text with genuine creativity.

If this boundary is respected, Artificial Intelligence can enter the service of human thought and writing. If it is ignored, writing risks becoming a process with neither a true creator nor a responsible owner. We are already seeing a proliferation of texts and articles where the human touch is conspicuously absent. The fate of writing in this new era hinges precisely on this choice: whether we treat AI language models as assistants to our own creativity and intellect, or as replacements for ourselves.

Key Changes and Expansions:

• Tone and Flow: The text has been restructured for a more natural and persuasive flow in English.
• Vocabulary: Uses more precise and varied vocabulary (e.g., “indispensable tool,” “hallmark of professionalism,” “algorithmic hallucination,” “conspicuously absent”).
• Structure: Clearer paragraphing and the use of bolded subheadings (The Challenge of…) to improve readability and organization.
• Expanded Concepts:
  • The introduction of “technology phobia” is more explicitly linked to historical examples.
  • The section on “The Cognitive Challenge” more clearly defines writing as a “learning process.”
  • The conclusion is strengthened to emphasize the central dichotomy: “assistant vs. replacement.”
• Clarity: Complex ideas are broken down into more digestible sentences while maintaining the original’s intellectual rigor.

Support Dawat Media Center

If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and sustains our future. Support the Dawat Media Center from as little as $/€10 – it only takes a minute. If you can, please consider supporting us with a regular amount each month. Thank you
DNB Bank AC # 0530 2294668
Account for international payments: NO15 0530 2294 668
Vipps: #557320

  Donate Here