Opinion: AI Should Not Be Used for Substantive Writing Tasks

The Core Argument Against AI Writing

The author asserts that AI should not be used for any substantive writing that aims to convey ideas, arguments, or analyses. This applies even when users provide detailed bullet points or context, and even when human editing is involved. The primary reasons cited are that the writing process is fundamental to the thinking process, AI writing often contains hard-to-notice inaccuracies, and using AI without labeling it as such is considered rude and misleading.

Distinction from Other AI Uses

While critical of AI for generating original text, the author is not anti-AI in general. They support AI use for other parts of the research and writing processes, such as transcribing audio, analyzing data, searching for information, brainstorming, and providing feedback on drafts. AI for line and copy editing or rewriting passages for clarity is also deemed acceptable, provided human oversight is maintained.

Acknowledging AI's Advantages and Limitations

The author acknowledges that AI offers advantages like reduced effort and increased speed in writing. However, they believe the disadvantages of using AI for substantive writing outweigh these benefits. This perspective is based on the current and near-future capabilities of AI models, with an allowance that future, more advanced models might change this assessment, potentially leading to delegation of entire research or writing processes.

Writing as a Form of Thinking

A central tenet of the argument is that the act of writing is inseparable from the act of thinking. The purpose of research is to form accurate beliefs and communicate them, and writing is presented as one of the most effective ways to achieve this. The process of articulating thoughts in written form helps to clarify and refine understanding, often revealing gaps in knowledge that were not apparent before.