Opinion As an editor, why I prefer bad writing to cookie-cutter AI-generated content
Even what may be called ‘bad writing’ or ‘poor English’ has its place: At least it is a person’s voice. In the Indian context, it may be the voice of a marginalised person, or of a field expert who has not had the privilege of an elite education
Personally, whenever I realise I am reading something that has the imprint of AI, I stop. It feels too inhuman. If that holds true for many people, it defeats the purpose of writing the article, which is unfortunate as the content itself may be important and informative. (Source: Getty) There is a certain dubious pleasure known only to a particular species of editor. It consists in staring at a hopelessly incoherent piece of writing, whining a little to whomever is unfortunate enough to be nearby, procrastinating more than a little, and then being totally drawn in once you do start. Taking on the whole blob at once can be daunting, so one tactic is to start a new document, copy and paste one paragraph and either edit it or type out your new version above or below. Pause, pat yourself on the back for a nice turn of phrase, and then paste the next one. It’s a lot of work, but at the end, there’s a sense of satisfaction, even a thrill at having created something — because you did, pretty much. Now, AI threatens to take away even this simple joy. Articles are pumped out with cookie-cutter, assembly-line perfection, the Ford Model Ts of writing. Writers whose prose was flawed, yet human, until about a year ago are now robotically correct. They all sound the same. Em dashes are now old hat — it’s all about “it is not this; it is that”: “It is not vulnerability; it is strength.” Ad nauseam. You start missing the “bad English” article that was your indulgence.
A new study by Graphite, a firm that works with AI, has found that the number of AI-generated articles online surpassed those written by humans in 2024. The evidence is everywhere, from the recent fiasco involving a Pakistani newspaper to social media posts. The dispiriting conclusion is that this is the inevitable reality, that human writing is analogous to handcrafted products and AI-generated “content” to mass-produced goods, and that the logic of capitalism will lead to the triumph of the latter.
The question is whether that logic holds. In this analogy, the consumer is the reader. Are readers necessarily lapping up this “content” or is it being shoved down their throats by Big Tech — just like the umpteen ways in which people’s data is collected and monetised? Or, the fact that most phones no longer come with headphone jacks. Nobody asked for any of this. It’s a bet, and bets can go bad in whole or in part.
Personally, whenever I realise I am reading something that has the imprint of AI, I stop. It feels too inhuman. If that holds true for many people, it defeats the purpose of writing the article, which is unfortunate as the content itself may be important and informative. Do readers’ tolerance levels for AI also vary depending on the type of writing? One might expect the bar to be higher for literature than for newspaper op-eds. However, AI-written books and even poetry do exist now and a 2024 study published in Scientific Reports found that for most participants, poetry written by AI was indistinguishable from that composed by humans. It was even rated more favourably. So it may be that my perceptions are not widely shared, and AI, especially as models continuously improve, will soon conquer all realms of human writing.
That would be a lethal blow to those who see writing — of many kinds, not just what is conventionally considered literature — as having an inherent, humane and artistic value beyond the pitiless swings of the invisible hand. Even what may be called “bad writing” or “poor English” has its place in this vision: At least it is a person’s voice. Sometimes, especially in the Indian context, it may be the voice of a marginalised person, or of someone who is an expert in their field but has not had the privilege of an elite education. Today, some such writers may be turning to AI to “polish” their writing and avoid rejection. But the result is often uncanny. It ought to be an editor’s job to work with such voices — not reject them out of hand based on language — and amplify them, while preserving the human quality of their writing. And as for writing that is not intended for an edited publication: Well, do you really need AI to write your Reddit post for you?
The writer is senior assistant editor, The Indian Express
rohan.manoj@expressindia.com
Share
