Generative AI Is Not a Writer

But I am.

Em Dashes or Bust

I keep relatively quiet about the topic of em dashes on LinkedIn (where it’s way too prevalent), but let me tell you: If I have to read another post about how you can tell something is AI because of the em dashes, I’m going to scream. 😱

I’ve been using em dashes—correctly, I might add—since the late ‘80s/early ‘90s. Cell phones weren’t a thing. Few people knew what the Internet and email were. Many of my school essays were still written by hand.

And I used em dashes.

Because I was taught how to use them. In fact, most of my junior high and high school English education was focused on grammar and writing; my English teachers were sticklers for rules and formal academic writing.

People who know how to write—who have learned grammar, punctuation, etc.—use em dashes.

Regularly.

That’s because em dashes have their place in writing, just like semicolons, colons, and commas. If generative AI uses em dashes, it’s because AI steals from content that already exists—or, as some like to say, it “learns patterns.” Either way, the content is coming in some form from people who know what they’re doing. Hence, the em dashes.

But importantly: Just because AI uses em dashes the way real writers do doesn’t mean it knows how to write.

It doesn’t.

Generative AI is not a writer.

Generative AI Is Not a Creative Writer

Full transparency: I have very little use for AI mechanisms—such as ChatGPT—in my day-to-day life. It hasn’t affected my job or how I can do my job. The editing I do is highly skilled, and the writing I do is creative and literary—not formulaic. And AI is adept at neither. In the few times I’ve had to deal with AI-assisted work, it’s actually created more of a need for a skilled editor and writer, not less of one. Think of it like math or science; mathematicians/scientists would verify the accuracy of work, even if done by AI (or especially if done by AI since AI regularly makes up “facts”). Writing and editing are no different. And I would argue that because of the nuance in creative writing (particularly literary writing), AI is actually even less effective than it might be in the hard sciences. But that’s just my opinion.

At best, AI is a tool. Which means that it is not a replacement for actually doing work. And in the case of writing: it’s not a replacement for actual—skilled—writers. It’s not meant to do the work for you.

Why this sudden diatribe about generative AI?

Over the last couple of weeks, a few posts on LinkedIn have caught my eye. (And not the dull, fear-mongering ones about the em dash being a “surefire” sign that AI wrote something.)

One was a post by someone whose teenager was writing a book; the kid had gotten stuck, so the OP was encouraging them to use AI to get unstuck. Some of the comments lauded this use of AI. There were a few of us, though, who offered alternative approaches—ways to aid the kid in actually honing their writing and creativity skills, as well as critical thinking skills—skills that would be beneficial in the long run.

Naturally, the OP did not respond to the comments opposing their use of AI. But one commenter and I had a nice exchange about how we were glad we didn’t have generative AI as young writers. How we became the writers and editors we are today because by figuring things out on our own, we honed not just our problem-solving skills, but critical thinking and creative thinking skills as well.

Another post a few days later was someone stating that they were a writer and had written a book. With the assistance of AI. This time, it was heartening to see that very few people approved of this person’s use of AI. Most of the commenters were writers, like myself. I did not comment—there was no need—but I did read through a number of the comments. Most echoed my own thoughts. How can you say you’re a writer when you didn’t actually write anything? If you’re really a writer, why wouldn’t you do the work yourself?

And, of course, a lot of commenters made note of one of the biggest issues with people using AI to “write” fiction—the fact that AI is stealing from people who have actually already done the work. That is to say, using generative AI to write fiction is an affront to real writers—human writers. People like myself who have studied writing for 30+ years, who have honed our craft. I for one don’t want some lazy-ass “writer” stealing my work—or mimicking my work, if you will.

In a more recent LI post, a person related the story of someone who was struggling with depression and had “confided” in AI about how they were feeling. The AI said all the right things—at first. In the end, though, the person did not survive. The OP said that, although the AI said all the right things, the issue was that AI is not a person. So, the AI did not catch the warning signs and was unable to express compassion or alert anyone to the impending crisis because AI, again, is not a person. (I do not know if this is a true story, but it certainly seems plausible. And very sad if true.)

AI cannot replace a person.

AI is not a writer.

In sum, my own issues with generative AI include the following:

• AI doesn’t have the capacity for human compassion/empathy; it’s a “machine.” Creative writing, in its essence, is an empathic art dealing with personal truths that no machine can understand.

• Using AI for writing hinders critical thinking and creativity, as well as the potential for innovative writing.

• AI “steals” from actual writers who have done the work.

Generative AI is not a writer. And AI is not creative. Its “creativity” comes from other people’s work.

I get it. People want easy fixes. They have a problem, so they go to the doctor, and doctors give out medication like candy, usually not even suggesting lifestyle changes or any alternatives to the medication. Why? Because it’s easy and no one on either end has to do any analytical work or put much thought into it.

Of course, medication is often useful, don’t get me wrong. But there are many conditions that can be controlled through proper nutrition, proper exercise, etc. Or evidenced-based therapies such as DBT or exposure therapy for conditions such as anxiety and grief.

AI threatens to be the same “magic pill”: an easy fix for people unwilling to put time and effort into doing something. That’s not to say it can’t be used. Remember: It’s a tool (like medication, if I’m to continue the metaphor)—and may even be a valuable tool in some circumstances.

I pride myself in being an expert in what I do. That’s not to say I’m perfect or that I know everything in my field. Of course not! Being an “expert” means that I continue to learn, adjusting my mindset as I learn new things. I am not the same writer or editor/writing coach that I was even three years ago. The reason: I’ve continued to hone my craft. I’ve continued to learn. I’ve grown as both a writer and a person—as a human being.

If you value art, craft, and actual skill—don’t use generative AI for creative pursuits.

But if you don’t want to be good at something, if you don’t want to improve (e.g., at writing), use it.

(And if you want something to happen quick, don’t be a writer! 😉)

And for all of you non-AI writers, check out my new offerings below!

---

The Writing Coach Power Hour!

Over the last 20 years, I've worked with a wide variety of writers in a wide variety of contexts.

And I've noticed a few things.

The big one is this: Writers often have trouble gauging where they fit in. They may overestimate their skill level. They may underestimate their skill level.

Ten years ago, I had no idea how to assess my own writing. I had been writing and editing for years, had a master's degree in English, and had been told over and over that I was "such a good writer." But what did that mean? I had lots of questions in regards to how to proceed—did I need an MFA? Should I hire an editor? How can I get published?

For anyone struggling with similar questions, I’m now offering the Writing Coach Power Hour!

In your one-hour coaching session, we can address topics such as:

• Publication steps

• Writing goals

• Creative processes

• Writing processes

• Writing routine

• Self-editing vs. professional editing

The Writing Coach Power Hour is held on Zoom.

Cost: $200. Included in the cost: You may send a writing sample of up to 1000 words at least 24 hours before our scheduled call. While I won't be offering a full critique on the writing sample, it can help me determine where you're at as a writer and offer guidance as to what types of things you may want to work on. Don't have a writing sample? That's okay, too.

To set up your Writing Coach Power Hour, contact me!

Screenshot.

New Workshop—Registration Open!

I’m also excited to be offering a new workshop focused on the role of intuition in writing—how it can help you learn to better trust yourself as a writer. Check out the deets here: Hitting the Trail: Using Your Intuition for Writing and Self-Editing!

In this two-hour workshop, writers will learn more about what intuition is, how to tap into it/strengthen it, and, importantly, how to use it for writing and self-editing.

This workshop is for writers of all skill levels and is especially for writers who don't trust themselves, including those who may rely heavily on others' input.

Thursday, October 9, 2025, 5-7 p.m. EDT (on Zoom)

Learn more/register here. (Psst! Save 15% by using coupon code LostInWoods.)

New Video!

In this week’s video, I offer tips that can help you discern whether writing advice is bogus or beneficial. I hope you’ll check it out!

---