Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Cathy's avatar

This is exactly what I did, months ago. I fed it my full manuscript, and it threw out brilliant ideas about themes I had not fully realized (the depth) in my work. Now, I have 365 days' worth of facebook post ideas and 52 weeks' worth of substack post ideas. It's still a ton of work, and I may not be as thorough with my next book (probably will not), but it has been, and is continuing to be, educational and interesting for me.

Kevin McLaughlin's avatar

I think I'd argue that this could go either way. I just read your article top to bottom, and I have no idea whether you used an AI to help you write it or not. In my eyes, that's a VERY positive thing. I've seen well over two million words of AI text at this point (might be over three million, come to think of it), between editing gigs, books I've read on Kindle, online articles, and so on. I generally consider myself pretty good at spotting unaltered AI output most of the time.

Although it's getting tougher. Someone did a flash fiction test last autumn, and I only got 3/4 correct. ;)

Anyway, my point is I read these articles because they clearly convey your voice. Whatever process you're using, I can still hear Steph coming through in those words. I enjoy getting *your* take on things. I like reading *your* thoughts on a topic. It's always interesting and enlightening.

On the flip side, I've seen a few other Substacks where the posts are generally just raw AI, or very close to raw AI. The person has clearly asked a chatbot "write me a blog post about X, hitting these three major topics," and then just posted the results. These essays tend to be bland, boring, and hit only the surface of a topic. It's like reading the Google search summary on something - they're not really deep-diving into the nuances or personal feelings about a topic.

If I wanted the answer to "does AI make writers more or less human in their output," I could just ask the AI myself.

If I wanted to see "what does Steph Pajonas, one of the world's leading experts on the intersection of AI and publishing, think about the human side of writing with AI?" Well, there's only two ways I can get that info. I can call her and ask, or I can read her blog post on the topic. ;) Because the blog post was carefully constructed in a manner that rings of voice, personal experience, and individual feelings, it's interesting and valuable.

But if the post was the raw AI answer that anyone could get just by asking ChatGPT, that's neither. And therein lies the key, in my experience.

Our voices are why readers follow us. Learning to produce work that resounds with our experiences, feelings, ideals, and emotions is how we build fans and followers, regardless what tools are being used to write the work.

16 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?