The AI Conversation Just Shifted. Here's a Short Survey of Different Approaches.
About this episode
The episode discusses the evolving conversation around AI in writing and the importance of maintaining a writer's unique voice and editorial standards.
WHAT’S EMERGING AND WHAT IT MEANS The question is shifting from “should writers use AI” to “what kind of writing is worth doing.” Tim Moon argues the shame regime around AI use is making honest conversation harder. The Atlantic piece shows the detection question is real but temporary — and the deeper question is what’s lost when the thinking that produces writing goes away. Ramachandran shows the Commonwealth Prize fiasco was really a story about what we’d been rewarding. Sun and Morine both argue the writer’s comparative advantage is not the absence of AI but the presence of voice and testimony and the kind of writing only this writer would do. For the writers I’m trying to publish at Crossroads—for the writers in the cohort, for the writers I’m talking to in discovery calls—this is the frame I want to model. We are not the press that takes a position on AI. We are the press that asks whether every paragraph is bearing weight, whether the voice on the page is the writer’s voice, whether the manuscript contains things the writer brought back from somewhere only they have been. Those questions can be asked of a manuscript written entirely by hand or one written with AI assistance…
More episodes of Leading Human
- Weekend Edition: What Have You Ever Gained from Witholding?
- The Questions a Serious Editor Asks of a Manuscript
- Weekend Reflection: Wanting Everything and Becoming Nobody
- Hybrid Publishing Is Having a Moment
- On Green-Lighting Yourself
- Wrestling with the Self
Explore listener stats, chart rankings, contacts and more on the Leading Human podcast page.