Rader 1

Josette Rader

Rustian Phelps

ENC 1101, 53405

10 August 2023

Examining Artificial Intelligence’s Potential for Creative Writers

and its Ethical Implications in the Entertainment Industry

Nearly every issue is controversial in discussions surrounding AI programs such as

ChatGPT. When we focus on its use for creative writing, some claim that it promotes lazy writers

and stunts our sociological growth. Others question its ethicality, predicting the overuse of AI

could ultimately displace humans by relieving professional creative writers of the jobs that pay

their salaries while simultaneously threatening the intellectual property of human authors as it

becomes challenging to determine who owns the rights to AI-generated creative works. Although

it may feel good, and true to ourselves historically, to demonize new technology that scares us,

we should try to look at this new tool as exactly that, a tool.

AI is a modern innovation that can help overcome common problems that creative writers

face, such as writer’s block, untangling a complicated plot, and formatting. This invigoration of

the often frustrating writing process allows for increased productivity, expanded opportunities for

paid work, and a focus on creation rather than formatting (sorry MLA). Many professional

writers view AI as a practical tool to speed up the writing process, similar to typewriters and

word processors. It can also offer suggestions for rewrites of challenging passages they may be

struggling with (Ippolito et al. 8,13). When we view this new technology as an instrument for

overcoming creative writing problems, we open ourselves up to improvement and innovation.

 Rader 2

By helping non-native English speakers to more effectively articulate themselves, AI

writing has the potential to boost their professional success in an increasingly English-speaking

world economy, especially one that tends to view syntax and grammatical errors as directly

equivalent to their level of intelligence (Korgen and Atkinson 238). In a Korean study of the use

of AI chatbots to facilitate natural English speaking, “The chatbot highly encouraged students to

engage in conversation, which rarely occurs in general EFL classes in Korea. The high task

success rates (88.3%) showed the … users’ successful understanding and completeness of the

given chatbot tasks” (Yang, Hyejin, et al. 327). Chatbots equipped with natural language AI

programs can assist English learners in having more meaningful conversations with greater ease

and comfort compared to traditional methods of learning. Providing an environment where

practicing a new language is free of embarrassment is a particular bonus to AI, which does not

inherently assign someone a perception of intellectual level in response to questions answered

correctly or incorrectly. Its natural language format allows for a more intuitive learning process

and absorption of the English language in a less formal way. It must be noted, this method of

language learning is new to comprehensive studies, so the full extent of Western bias in AI

trained solely on English materials is unknown. Still, its potential shortcomings do not negate the

usefulness of this new technology.

Perhaps the greatest and least addressed facet of all is the opportunity for artistic and

creative expression it affords those who aren’t naturally inclined writers but still enjoy the

medium. In Ippolito and company’s study, one writer used AI to “hone in on the appearance of

the Worm-Mothers, the god-like entities in their story. [The AI] suggested details such as the

Worm-Mothers swallowing birds whole” (8). Other authors cited AI’s use as a way to jar oneself

out of a creative slump, using the technology to discover new avenues of original and wholly
 Rader 3

unexpected stories (Ippolito et al. 8). This shows the idea-generative capabilities of AI feeding

creative brainstorming for professional or newbie authors as it provides suggestions ranging from

mundane to absurdist. AI has the impressive capabilities to act as a sounding board for ideas, or

even to generate completely new ones which have the potential to take the story in an exciting, if

unintended, direction. One of the greatest challenges for inexperienced writers is experiencing

writer's block, where they are unable to think of anything to write or have difficulty expressing

themselves. This often leads to unfinished work. Introducing AI to the writing process isn’t a fix-

all but certainly provides ample opportunity to trigger ideas within the human component. AI-

generated stories can serve as a source of inspiration for human writers and provoke creative

exploration. In fact, AI-generated ideas may occasionally result in surprising innovation or novel

approaches (AIContentfy Team). Because of its inherent flaws, AI's purpose in generating story

ideas and plotlines is to complement and elevate human creativity, rather than substitute it.

“Lazy writers” is the battle cry of the anti-AI frontrunners, who believe that ready access

to near-instant writing with minimal effort will cultivate a culture of indolent masses producing

derivative work. Many students are finding that Ghat GPT is capable of automatically producing

essays, which has led some to question the value of the traditional essay writing process. Instead

of spending time brainstorming, researching, and writing an essay, students can now simply input

their homework into AI and receive a complete essay in mere seconds (Bilton). It seems an easy

leap of logic to assume that once a capable AI is available, the sudden influx of its use will lead

to discovering the most efficient ways to use it in any aspect of human life. Especially in the

world of education, where the battle between educators and students willing to take the fastest

and easiest road to their diplomas appears to be in constant competition. Setting aside the

assumption that the majority of writers prefer easy to ethical. We truly do not need artificial
 Rader 4

intelligence to produce unoriginal writing, we do that all on our own already and have been for

decades. As Marche points out in his article, “We are currently in the most derivative period of

human creativity since the industrial revolution. Every one of the top-10 grossing films of 2022

was a sequel or reboot.” If the audience does not appreciate or want originality when offered

entertainment, then we hardly need to worry about AI suddenly providing repetitive work when

we clearly do so just fine on our own. However, a dedicated painter will always prefer brush and

canvas to typing a prompt on a screen (I know I do), and there will always be those who like to

produce intricate, quality, original creative writing even when access to shortcuts is readily

available. Realistically, there will be no real change in the amount of limited, recycled work and

there will always be a market for the original and groundbreaking.

A natural concern accompanying the increased productivity is that the influx of cheap

sub-par work will drive up the premium on human-created work. Everyone must now match this

level of productivity or fall behind. Post-industrialization proves that in the face of automation,

there will always be those willing to pay for specialized products and labor over high quantity

turnout. Already we are facing the consequences of AI in human displacement as the Writers

Guild of America (WGA) strikes against the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television

Producers’ (AMPTP) attempts to supplement human writers with screenwriting AI. The strikes

are about more than fear of being replaced by a computer, both sides recognize that AI in its

current and foreseeable form does not have the creative capacity of a human writer (Bilton). One

side (AMPTP), argues that they can use AI to form screenplays that are “good enough” to

minimize human interaction and subsequently pay fewer writers less money to produce an hour

of TV. The other side (WGA), contends the success and viability of doing so, asserting that

writing will not only suffer under those circumstances, but the writers themselves will suffer as
 Rader 5

they lose any means of reasonable income. In this late stage of capitalism, profiting off of cheap

labor for low-quality results and demanding a premium for higher-quality work is always going

to occur. The problem here does not lay in AI or its use in creative writing so much as it lies in its

intentionally unethical use to maximize producers’ revenue, practicing Reganomics in the

subeconomy of television. Like us, AI has to be taught how to write by consuming information

provided by humans who are biased, therefore the AI is also biased, but without the crucial

capability, humans have to change and better themselves (Ippolito et al. 12; Taecharungroj 2;

Aljanabi 16). We should not fear the fishing net for its role in paying fishermen less money for

their catch, instead, we should use this as an opportunity to spur ourselves into the kind of

economic legal reform we should have started decades ago. All ethical concerns we face

involving AI result from how the database is fed (what the AI learns from and how it uses that

information), and how we choose to use it. There is no situation that could not be appropriately

rectified or precluded through the thorough, thoughtful, and engaged work of those of us

participating in this culture.

We may be inclined to vilify unfamiliar technology that intimidates us, but it's important

to recognize its potential as a useful tool. Some fear transitioning to a state of being fully reliant

on AI for any aspect of creative writing invites sociological stagnation, and I agree. We can

capitalize on that fear and use it as a social mirror to more effectively examine ourselves and our

prejudices. After all, it is easier to acknowledge that the AI writing heteronormative novels from

the WASP worldview is limited and stifling than it is to feel we are cutting ourselves open and

honestly examining our contents. This allows us not only the opportunity for creative growth into

new realms made possible by AI but the personal and cultural growth that accompanies

introspection. Humanity should work collectively to mitigate the ethical risks while making the
 Rader 6

most of the new opportunities such an instrument provides. As a society, we must acknowledge

the potential social and economic challenges presented by AI, and strive to address them

collaboratively. While doing so, we can also embrace AI as an opportunity to learn and improve

ourselves in ways we have been newly afforded.

 Rader 7

Works Cited

AIContentfy Team. “The Future of Creative Writing with AI Technology.” AIContentfy, 27 July

2023, aicontentfy.com/en/blog/future-of-creative-writing-with-ai-technology.

Aljanabi, Mohammad. “Chatgpt: Future Directions and Open Possibilities.” Mesopotamian

Journal of Cybersecurity, vol. 2023, pp. 16–17, https://doi.org/10.58496/mjcs/2023/003.

Bilton, Nick. “Chatgpt Made Me Question What It Means to Be a Creative Human.” Vanity Fair,

9 Dec. 2022, www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/12/chatgpt-question-creative-human-robotos.

Ippolito, Daphne, et al. “Creative Writing with an AI-Powered Writing Assistant: Perspectives

from Professional Writers.” Cornell University, 9 Nov. 2022, arxiv.org/abs/2211.05030.

Korgen, Kathleen Odell, and Maxine P. Atkinson. Sociology in Action. Second Edition, pp. 231–

257

Marche, Stephen. “The Future of Writing Is a Lot Like Hip-Hop.” The Atlantic, 9 May 2023,

www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/05/generative-ai-novel-writing-

experiment-stephen-marche/673997/.

OpenAI. "ChatGPT." OpenAI, 2023, https://chat.openai.com/. Accessed 7 July 2023.

Taecharungroj, Viriya. “‘What Can ChatGPT Do?’ Analyzing Early Reactions to the Innovative

AI Chatbot on Twitter.” Big Data and Cognitive Computing, vol. 7, no. 1, Feb. 2023, p.

35. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc7010035.

Yang, Hyejin, et al. “Implementation of an AI Chatbot as an English Conversation Partner in

EFL Speaking Classes.” ReCALL, vol. 34, no. 3, 2022, pp. 327–343.,

doi:10.1017/S0958344022000039.