Like the striking screenwriters out there on the picket lines, I’ve been concerned about the use of Artificial Intelligence in the world of writing. Could it really replace human novelists? I mean, it’s hard enough to write a book and then compete with other human writers to get it published. But adding AI-created books to the competition? That would suck.
Seeking answers, I put the question to ChatGPT, one of the more popular AI platforms. Our robot overlords responded thusly…
As impressive as AI technology is, it cannot replace novelists. Here are some reasons why:
• AI lacks human experience and emotions. One of the essential qualities that make a novel unique is the ability of the author to imbue it with their personal experience and emotions. A novel is not just a collection of 
words but a reflection of the author’s life, thoughts, and experiences. AI, on the other hand, lacks human emotions, which are essential to create a story that resonates with readers.
• AI cannot replicate human creativity. Creativity is not just about generating new ideas but also about connecting different ideas in innovative ways. Human beings have the ability to come up with unique combinations of ideas, which are not possible for AI to replicate.
• Novelists bring their unique voice to their work. Every novelist has their unique voice, style, and perspective. It’s their voice that makes their work stand out from others. AI can replicate a writer’s style to a certain extent, but it cannot bring its own unique voice to the work.
As you might imagine, I was relieved to hear this. I relaxed.
But wait. Could AI be lying to me, just telling me what I want to hear? Maybe AI is sneakier than we think. (Don’t forget Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey.) So I went back to ChatGPT and asked it to craft an argument in favor of AI replacing novelists. Here are some arguments it generated for potentially putting us out of work:
1. Efficiency and speed: AI can generate content at an incredibly fast pace, while human novelists may take months or even years to complete a novel.
2. Cost-effectiveness: Hiring AI to generate content can be more cost-effective than paying human authors for their time and expertise.
3. Consistency: AI can maintain a consistent tone, style, and character development throughout a story, eliminating the risk of inconsistencies that sometimes plague human-authored series.
These arguments gave me pause. But ultimately, ChatGPT concluded that a more likely scenario than AI completely replacing novelists is that writers will use it in a collaborative way, to help them brainstorm, generate rough content, and beat writers block.
Like I just did in this post.
Of course, I haven’t asked AI if it can replace picture book authors yet. I’m not sure I want to hear the answer.
There is a chance that AI will be used to create raw content that human authors will then add emotion and voice to. Think about non fiction leveled text for educational publishers or survey books like dictionaries. I write for a company that hires authors to ghost write family/personal histories. They are already talking about having AI conduct the interviews and produce the initial content. So even if it doesn’t replace authors completely, there are places where it certainly can. And this would impact the livelihoods of those who write in these spheres.
That’s fascinating, Debbie. So far, I’ve only used it for brainstorming purposes, but I can see publishers wanting to save money with it.