I have been an editor for more than 30 years. And I don’t care if my writers use AI or not.
When the AI topic comes up, I tell my writers this: “Use whatever tools you want. Just keep in mind that I hold you responsible for every word you hand in, and I am very picky.”
But being picky comes with an obligation: If I’m going to tell someone their work isn’t good enough, I owe them more than “you used AI.” The AI Gotcha game is tedious. (If you still want to play it, you can read one of the great guides in The Economist, The New York Times, or Wired on spotting AI writing.)
Focusing on catching people using AI misses the larger point.
Busted! Now What?
Suppose you spot someone using AI. You don’t just suspect they used AI. You know they did. What then?
That is the interesting question. Identifying AI use correctly is mechanical. Knowing what to do about it is judgment.
Let’s say your auto mechanic is suddenly writing you clear, cogent, detailed updates on your car, when you previously knew their genius as strictly mechanical. Are you going to AI-shame them? I don’t think so.
However, if you’re an English teacher and a student hands in a paper that clearly shows evidence of disallowed AI use, then you’ve got the difficult conversation ahead of you, in which you say, The assignment was to show me how you reason, but you showed me how something else reasons.
Any problem with a writer using AI depends greatly on the assignment, and we need to be clear about what upsets us when we see AI’s telltales. If, as an editor, I have to spend my time patching an AI-flavored argument that unravels the moment I tug a thread, I’m kicking that story back. But it’s the quality of the argument that’s sending it back, not the type of entity that made it.
And I owe the writer that explanation. We all do, when we call someone out. Indignation is cheap. “You used AI” identifies what someone did. It doesn’t explain why they shouldn’t have done it. If I’m going to hold a writer responsible for every word they hand in, I have to take responsibility for the words I return.
What Do They Owe?
What does the writer owe you, the reader? You must know before you launch your critique.
The AI tells have another name: cliches. If you are overusing "it's not X. It's Y" or hyphens or "The honest answer is..." I don't ultimately care if it came from AI or not, although it probably did. But I do care that the writing is boring, stale, and predictable. That was what bugged me about the Druckenmiller op-ed a few weeks ago. It was filled with cliche, poorly organized, and unreadably wonky.
Very good argument in the AI battle front. What I see mostly in the way of complaints is how it's killing creativity or it's lazy, but I see the opposite too. I see people doing clever and creative things with it, so they're not using it to put off effort but rather to extend their creative reach.
So intention is the starting point.