Is AI a Real-Life Dystopia?

The emergence of generative AI, which took the world by storm a few months back, has sparked intense discussions. I remember listening to a podcast where the hosts were discussing how this AI seemed to appear out of nowhere, almost like a secretive technological tool waiting in the dark for the right moment to emerge. They speculated about possible hidden agendas. While I don’t want to delve into conspiracy theories without evidence, and I respect that everyone is entitled to their beliefs, I do think AI, especially in the realm of creative work, is unintentionally creating a dystopia for creators.

The creative process for a human is far from mechanical—it often involves sweat, blood, and tears. Creators invest their time, money, and sincere efforts into their work, and it’s heartbreaking to think that the fruits of their labor could be swept away with just one click. This shift is particularly jarring for those in industries like translation.

Translation once relied on computer-assisted translation (CAT) tools, which helped agencies reduce the time and effort needed for human translators. Over time, translators adapted, learning to use these tools to streamline their workflow, saving time and effort by avoiding repetitive tasks. Some translators even contributed to the development of AI-related tools. However, overnight, these tools began to take over. Today, it’s possible to translate massive amounts of text in a fraction of the time once required. Though human oversight is still necessary, the demand for human translators is steadily decreasing, except in fields like literary translation, which requires a higher level of creativity.

For writers, the situation is particularly dire. Fiction and non-fiction authors pour their personal experiences, thoughts, and messages into their work. The involvement of AI in the creative process feels insulting to many, as it diminishes the value of their effort and experiences. While AI can potentially aid writers in various ways (which I won’t delve into here), the idea that a machine could replace the human touch in writing is unsettling.

However, not all writers are the same. Some people want to write their memoirs, for instance, but lack the skills or time to do so. In such cases, dictating their ideas to an AI might be a useful solution. We could argue that these individuals aren’t true writers because they haven’t learned the craft, and I partially agree with that. Yet, I also recognize that writing goals vary. Some people see writing as an escape from the 9-to-5 grind, while others use it to advance their business or coaching careers. So, while AI may create a dystopia for some, it could offer a solution for others.

The dystopia AI is creating doesn’t have to end in despair. Initially, I was skeptical of AI and avoided it. But after exploring its capabilities, I now believe that everyone is free to use AI as they see fit. There will come a time in the history of book-making when we’ll see a clear distinction between what is handmade and what is factory-made. This doesn’t mean writers should boycott AI tools—these tools can be incredibly helpful in stages like formatting, for example.

That said, I fear we’re losing the opportunity to nurture individual talents and skills related to the craft of writing. It’s like the difference between washing dishes by hand and using a dishwasher. If your dishwasher breaks or you choose not to use it, can you still wash the dishes properly? This metaphor may seem odd, but I believe in nurturing my own skills because they become part of who I am as a writer. I don’t need to rely on a machine to write; I can sit in a room with pen and paper and craft a story that will be enjoyable to read.