A Misstep in AI: The Backlash Against Google’s Gemini Ad
In response to the rapid emergence and widespread availability of Artificial Intelligence (AI) writing tools, people are questioning whether using AI in place of creative personal human writing is appropriate.
During the Olympics, Google sponsored an ad about a young lady inspired by a female athlete. She wanted to write a letter expressing her appreciation for her example. The Google ad suggested that their AI product, Gemini, be used to compose the letter.
This resulted in a backlash of public criticism, suggesting that a personal letter was an inappropriate use of AI. Google subsequently pulled the ad. Google pulls Gemini AI ad from Olympics after backlash, by Victoria Song.
Victoria Song pinpointed the issue In her article: “Generally speaking, humans crave authentic connection. What makes a fan letter precious is the knowledge that someone took time out of their busy life to express what you or your work means to them.”
Why AI Shouldn’t Replace Human Thought and Creativity
AI is a helpful writing tool with many uses. Used with discretion, it can help creative writers improve their writing and suggest topics they may not have considered. While AI can enhance certain aspects of writing, using it to generate content risks eroding the very essence of personal expression.
But some uses are inappropriate. AI use is unacceptable when it hijacks human creative writing. Having AI write a blog post, then applying “light editing” and publishing it, is a clear example of AI replacing creative human writing.
Likewise, having AI write a “first draft” on a topic to get ideas can also replace creative human thought and writing. While it sounds innocuous, it is not. AI first drafts can easily set the organization and content of a piece before it’s written, thus preempting human thought and organization. As Ethan Mollick wrote in his book Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI, “When we use AI to generate our first drafts, we don’t have to think as hard or as deeply about what we write.”
“At the level of tasks, we need to think about what Al does well and what it does badly. But we also need to consider what we do well and what tasks we need to remain human. Those we can call Just Me Tasks. They are tasks in which the Al is not useful and only gets in the way, at least for now. They might also be tasks that you strongly believe should remain human, with no Al help.”
Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI, Ethan Mollick
Don’t be the “creative writer” who opts for easy and skips the hard work of thinking, organizing, and creating authentic human creative writing by letting AI do your work. Do your own work and creation first, then use AI sparingly to enhance that work.
Enhancing vs. Replacing: Finding the Right Balance with AI
One of the questions in these discussions is the difference between enhancing creative writing and replacing it. I don’t think it’s possible to come up with a formula that defines exactly “how much is too much,” or when the use of AI becomes replacement as opposed to enhancement. It’s on a spectrum, not an either/or type of decision, and depends on the circumstances.
A clear example of replacement is prompting AI to write a blog post on a topic and then edit and publish it. That’s enhancing AI’s work, not human creative work.
On the other hand, an author writing their own first draft, then using AI to improve the grammar and spelling or suggest a headline or section heading, is clearly human creative work enhanced by AI. Doing your own thinking, organizing, and writing a first draft is authentic human expression and thought. The selective use of AI puts the finishing touch on an article that is your human creation.
Likewise, writing your own first draft and then asking AI for suggestions can either enhance creative writing or replace writing, depending on how you handle the suggestions. If you adopt them wholesale and just cut and paste extensive changes into your draft, you’re leaning heavily toward replacement as opposed to enhancement. But if you evaluate the usefulness of each suggestion and modify (or completely rewrite) those you agree with to reflect your unique voice and style, you’re leaning more toward enhancement, not replacement.
Enhance Your Writing with AI: Tips for Keeping Your Voice Authentic
Use AI to enhance, not replace. Write your first draft independently, then leverage AI for suggestions. This ensures your work remains a true reflection of your thoughts while benefiting from AI’s capabilities.
• Do your own thinking, research, and writing, then ask AI for suggestions. After you’ve done your own thinking and research and completed your first draft, ask AI for an outline of ideas on the topic. If AI proposes additional ideas you choose to address, take the ideas and develop them using your own thoughts and research.
Write your own first draft. Don’t let AI write it for you. Let it be personal, a reflection of your thinking and your expression.
• Ask AI for suggestions to improve your first draft. Tell AI it’s an expert editor. Feed it your first draft and ask it to make suggestions for improvement. Make any revisions you feel would benefit your writing. Don’t just cut and paste. Keep it personal.
• Ask AI for headline suggestions. I suck at drafting good blog post headlines, so I typically feed AI my completed blog post and ask it to give me headline suggestions. If I like a suggestion, I’ll revise it and use it as the headline for my blog post. I also sometimes use it to suggest section headings.
• Ask AI for suggested action steps. I like to include recommended action steps at the close of my blog posts. After writing one or more, I’ll ask AI if it has any suggestions for additional action steps. If there’s one or more I like, I’ll write them into my post.
• Ask AI to generate an image. Sometimes, I ask AI to generate an image to illustrate the topic of a blog post. The featured image for this post is an example.
Most of these suggestions first appeared in my blog post, Don’t Let AI Silence Your Unique Human Voice: How to Use AI as a Writing Ally, Not a Replacement.
Debunking AI Defenses: Ghostwriting and Evolving Tools
My friend Scott Loftesness recently published a blog post defending what he thinks is the appropriate extensive use of AI. He makes two arguments:
1. The extensive use of AI is justified by appealing to the historical use of ghostwriting. Scott argues that using AI to write text is analogous to ghostwriting. He writes, ”In my mind, use of an AI to help with writing is analogous to hiring a ghostwriter to help write an article. Or even hiring a copywriter to help create clever ad copy.”
• Equating AI with ghostwriting misses the mark. Ghostwriting, written by another human, still reflects genuine human thought. AI, on the other hand, generates text based on patterns devoid of personal insight or emotion. That makes this argument irrelevant and misleading to the question of using AI to replace human creative writing.
• Ghostwriting is not appropriate for writers who explicitly or implicitly claim that their writing is their authentic human creation.
According to Wikipedia, ghostwriting is typically used by celebrities, executives, participants in timely news stories, and political leaders to draft speeches, autobiographies, memoirs, magazine articles, or other written material. Ghostwriting is not used by people who claim to be creative writers but by people who don’t have the skills or the time to write their own creative material.
It’s unethical for someone who claims to be a creative writer to put their name on other people’s writing. That’s called plagiarism. The same is true when a creative writer puts their name on what is extensively the result of AI predictive writing.
• I wouldn’t read and follow a ghostwritten blog. I read creative authors with the idea that they did their own thinking and writing, not a predictive text ghostwriter. If I learned someone’s writing was ghostwritten, machine, or otherwise, I would drop their material from my reading.
It raises the question of why I should bother reading a writer who extensively uses AI to write his material. If a writer’s material and organization came from AI, what’s the point of reading the material at all? Why not just go to AI and ask the question?
2. The extensive use of AI is justified by comparing the use of AI as a writing tool to the progression from pens to digital tools. Scott argues that using AI to write text is analogous to using a keyboard instead of a pen. He writes, “I rarely pick up a pen anymore, for example, as almost all of my writing, journaling, etc. is done on a digital device. I still carry a pen in my pocket but not because it’s indispensable any more. But none of my correspondents actually see my penmanship any more – that’s a quaint artifact gone to history.”
• This argument is likewise irrelevant and misleading. Using a pen versus a keyboard to write is not analogous to using a predictive text machine to do your writing as opposed to doing your own creative writing. You’re still doing your own writing, whether you use a pencil, a typewriter, or a computer keyboard. Extensively using AI to write replaces you as a creative writer.
• This is not just about changing tools, like moving from a pen to a keyboard. It is about moving from creating your own writing to letting a predictive text machine replace it. It’s about replacing authentic heart-to-heart communication between humans with machine writing.
Rationalizations, Not Positive Arguments, to Justify Extensive AI Use
One thing I’ve noticed in many discussions about AI is that aside from the generalized view that “AI can write better than I can,” there are few real positive arguments supporting using AI to replace creative human writing. Frequently, efforts to support the extensive use of AI in writing completely miss the point, which is replacing authentic human connections.
Most of the arguments that I see, especially the last two presented by my friend, come across to me as rationalizations, not positive arguments. Moreover, they are rationalizations that miss the main point. They are not positive arguments for using AI to replace authentic human-to-human expression.
Preserving Authenticity: The Future of Creative Writing in an AI World
Although I think both the ghostwriting and the evolving tools arguments miss the point and are irrelevant, it’s valuable that my friend Scott has published them. I appreciate his sincerity and desire to improve his writing. His writings prompt me to think deeply about the appropriate use of AI and help me to define my thinking.
It matters how we choose to use AI in our writing. We can either work in such a manner that we’re enhancing AI’s writing or in a way that we use AI to enhance our own authentic human creative writing.
In a world where AI is increasingly intertwined with creativity, we must safeguard the human element in our work. True creativity isn’t just about efficiency—it’s about making genuine human connections through our unique voices.
“Ultimately, the goal is to become the best in the world at being you. To bring useful idiosyncrasy to the people you seek to change, and to earn a reputation for what you do and how you do it. The peculiar version of you, your assertions, your art.” Seth Godin, The Practice: Shipping Creative Work.