Human writing is not better than AI writing. And if it is, that's not the point

The debate over AI writing and human writing has become a battle of ideals, but the real question isn’t whether humans are better—it’s what makes writing matter in the first place

As someone with a history of researching authorship and technology, I have closely followed the debates surrounding AI and its impact on human creativity. There’s a lot of noise—some of it helpful, much of it not. The rise of AI writing tools has sparked heated discussions, often framed as a battle for the soul of creativity. But this moralizing oversimplifies the reality: AI is not taking over, but it is reshaping the way we write and the value we place on different kinds of writing.

The Sunday Times' list of autobiographies, 2024: can AI write a memoir?

Take, for example, a recent NiemanLab commentary that argued humans are more essential than ever in the age of AI writing. It’s an argument that leans on comforting ideas: creativity and depth are uniquely human traits that will distinguish us from machines. It’s a nice thought, but it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. AI tools are already eroding demand for certain types of writing. Freelancers, content creators, and even journalists are finding themselves competing with algorithms that can churn out acceptable copy in a fraction of the time. The impact on the job market is undeniable.

The real issue with advocates of human writing versus AI writing not their optimism but their misplaced focus. They frame the rise of AI as a moral problem, positioning technology as a dehumanizing force that must be resisted. Furthermore, they state that AI is a bad writer. It is, most of the time, yes. And for now. The fact is that a human writer using AI tools will outpace most writers without it. This framing distracts from the constructive conversations we should be having. 

One of the key misconceptions in these debates is that human writing will grow in importance because of AI’s rise. This is simply not true. What is growing in importance is not writing itself. The craft of writing is getting commodified. So a focus shift is needed: instead of the medium of writing, we need to address the message.

AI can replicate emotional depth. It can mimic creativity. It can even outperform humans in technical aspects of writing. But what it cannot do is provide a firsthand account of lived existence. 

So while AI would be capable of listening, structuring and adding emotional style to the writing of all memoirs published in 2024, AI doesn't have a human life to reminisce.

AI cannot tell you their personal account of losing a loved one, to struggle through a career, or to experience joy, fear, or doubt. That domain—the lived experience—is uniquely human, and it’s irreplaceable.

The challenge for writers isn’t to compete with AI in style, originality, or technical skill. Those are battles we’re unlikely to win, and frankly, they’re not worth fighting. Instead, writers should focus on what makes their work truly indispensable: the personal and the authentic. Investigative journalism, memoirs, and essays exploring the complexities of being human are not just important—they are essential. The value of “the testimony of one” has never been greater.

To adapt to this reality, we need to rethink what we celebrate in writing. It’s not enough to champion “creativity” or “depth” as vague ideals. Instead, we must emphasize writing that connects, illuminates, and bears witness to the human condition. These are the elements AI cannot replicate, no matter how advanced it becomes.

The NiemanLab piece, like many others, spends too much time tilting at windmills—bemoaning AI’s rise without offering a constructive path forward. This is a wasted effort. Instead of fearing the wind, we should be harnessing it. AI is here to stay, and it’s reshaping the way we write and consume content. That’s not a disaster; it’s an opportunity. But only if we stop moralizing and start focusing on what makes human writing truly irreplaceable.