AI isn’t killing writers — it’s killing mediocre writing

For years, we were warned that artificial intelligence would eventually eliminate the need for writers. In mere seconds, it would be able to crank out essays, articles, reports, blog posts, you name it, rendering flesh-and-blood writers obsolete.

Well, those days are here. AI writing floods our inboxes, social media feeds, and web pages every single day.

But it’s not quite the product we were pitched. While bots can indeed string coherent sentences together, the end result is mediocre at best. Its flat, em-dash heavy, idiosyncrasy-free, polite prose is easily recognizable to average readers, most of whom are disenchanted by the lack of human touch.

It turns out AI — beholden to algorithms and formulas — cannot counterfeit the voices of the deeply complicated, unique creatures that are human beings.

Christopher Rufo and Jonathan Keeperman, BlazeTV hosts of “Rufo & Lomez,” believe that AI writing may actually make writers more valuable — but just the ones with genuine talent.

AI is undeniably eliminating the massive class of mediocre writers. The kind of text AI produces is quickly becoming “the default sound or voice of people who don't have talent, who can't do things on their own. ... It’s becoming the default voice of stupidity,” says Keeperman.

On the flip side, “Anybody who can write at a level above [AI] now has more value.”

The pervasiveness of AI copy seems to suggest that those genuine talents are few and far between.

“I am seeing [AI writing] everywhere. I am seeing it in published books. ... Tons of ad copy even for really prominent companies that obviously have huge marketing departments [are] leaning on these sort of tripartite adjectival phrases. ... There’s all these sort of syntactical signals that are giveaways,” says Keeperman, “but it's also making me attuned to people who can write really well, and I find myself gravitating towards those people.”

But that doesn’t mean writers can’t use AI to their advantage. It is an excellent tool for “research,” “aggregating a lot of information,” “analysis,” and “brainstorming,” Keeperman adds.

Rufo agrees. “Terrible writing, [but] it’s good for discovery. ... I think for certain tasks, it's better than a Google search or a search engine search.”

For someone like him, who conducts large-scale research, AI can expedite the process of sifting through hundreds of pages of PDFs, but it’s not fail-proof.

AI is “maybe comparable to an undergraduate research assistant but ... an unreliable [one],” says Rufo.

“You double-check the work, and you realize that the AI makes up 30% of the things that it's telling you.”

“It seems like something that has huge potential, but I just see it slowing down in its improvement. I see it still having some fundamental flaws that would prevent it from being a trustworthy object of delegation,” he says.

“I remain extremely skeptical of the AI doomers or AI fatalists who think that this is going to take over the world and the machines are going to be controlling everything. It's like it can't even format citations. I think we're a long ways away from the AI taking over the world.”

To hear more, watch the episode above

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.