Why using AI could be hurting your writing

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ll know that AI is now part of many writers' workflows. After all, large language models like Claude and ChatGPT are no longer standalone platforms. They’re baked into software, productivity tools, email platforms and website builders. And the message is clear: adapt or get left behind.

That’s probably why I’m seeing more AI-assisted books hitting my inbox. Most are from authors who are self-publishing, but I’ve seen a few from publishers too. At best, the author has used AI tools to outline, rewrite or edit sections they were struggling with. At worst, they’ve cut and pasted large chunks, changing only a few details.

And I get it. Authors want to speed up the process and weed out niggly errors. But no matter how many prompts you use, or how much you try to hide the ‘evidence’, AI could be hurting your writing more than it’s strengthening it. Here are some of the pitfalls:

1. It makes you a lazy thinker and writer

The beauty of writing is that it helps you work through ideas: organising, discarding, clarifying, refining. As William Zinsser put it, ‘Writing is a tool that enables people in every discipline to wrestle with facts and ideas … It compels us by the repeated effort of language to go after those thoughts and to organize them and present them clearly’.

When you outsource this process, your thinking and writing become lazy. In fact, you fall prey to a phenomenon known as cognitive surrender, which means that you accept AI’s reasoning with minimal oversight or verification, believing it to be your own output. And the less you perform these tasks, the more your skills decay. (For a longer discussion of this topic, see The Silent Erosion: How AI’s Helping Hand Weakens Our Mental Grip.)

2. It flattens your voice

Generative AI uses predictive patterns, which means its output is generic and … boring. Sure, it may look polished and error-free, but it lacks that spark or soul found in human writing. Even if you feed it reams of your work and prompt it to replicate your voice, it’s still an approximation (or even a parody) of the real thing.

Think about your favourite writers. What makes their work memorable? Is it a distinctive voice and point of view, unusual sentence patterns, lived experiences? AI can’t replicate this. Without those vital ‘human’ components, you’ll end up sounding like everyone else – robotic.

3. It gives you the illusion of productivity

AI platforms promise speed and convenience. You can write an essay, a report or a novel in a fraction of the time. But more words don’t necessarily mean more progress. In fact, many studies argue that the productivity ‘promise’ is often a myth.

Sure, you can generate content within seconds, but you need the right prompts (often multiple) before you get something passable. Then you need to check the output. Is it too wordy? Are the sources correct? Has it made anything up?

In the end, after tweaking and cross-referencing and editing – and trying to make the final product not sound like AI – you’ve sunk hours into the task, possibly more than if you’d written the thing yourself.

4. It hides weaknesses in your argument

There’s one thing we can all agree on: AI output looks polished. But polished writing can make weak arguments look stronger than they actually are. This is particularly true if you’re using it to write about a topic you know little about. When you read the output, you may be unaware that its arguments are biased, clichéd, lacking in depth or even outdated.

Large language models are trained on publicly available datasets, so they won’t be making unexpected connections or introducing new ideas. While its output looks smooth and persuasive on the surface, it often falls apart under scrutiny. (To see how this plays out in the college classroom, check out this article by Professor Wendy Belcher: 10 Ways  AI is Ruining Your Students’ Writing.)

5. It repeats words and language patterns

The hottest talking point at the moment is how to identify AI-written content. Again, because large language models use publicly available datasets, usually from the internet (but also from pirated books), and because they predict language patterns, they tend to use the same words or structures over and over again.

This can make outputs boring, jarring or repetitive. And while these ‘tells’ change on an almost weekly basis, here are some repeat offenders:

• overuse of em (or en) dashes

• repetition of the rule of threes

• overuse of contrast framing (e.g. ‘It’s not X; it’s Y’)

• overuse of words or phrases like ‘delve’, ‘leverage’, ‘elevate’, ‘quietly’, ‘here’s the thing’, ‘in today’s fast-paced world’

• repetition of transitional words like ‘Furthermore’, ‘In addition’

• use of consecutive sentence fragments

• non-sensical metaphors or similes

• generic or abstract statements.

This list is by no means complete, or a sure indication that a piece of writing was assisted by generative AI. These language patterns existed long before large language models were even a twinkle in your tech bro’s eye. But I do know this: I don’t remember seeing them used as frequently before the rise of AI.

6. It makes up information or sources

Most people know that AI hallucinates. This happens when the system doesn’t understand information or a question, or when it can’t find an answer in its dataset. Because it’s designed to comply, it fills the gaps with incorrect information or cource.

Of course, if you’re an expert in your field, you’ll know if the facts presented are right or wrong. But even experts have been fooled by seemingly polished and persuasive arguments. So unless you fact-check the output, or at least run it by a professional, it has the potential to damage your credibility and reputation.

7. Readers hate it

If recent writing controversies are anything to go by, readers hate stories written by AI. Not convinced? Here are some recent examples.

In March 2026, Mia Ballard’s book Shy Girl was pulled from sale after allegations of AI use. Originally self-published, it was picked up by Hachette and then published commercially, only to be dismissed as AI slop by online reviewers.

In May 2026, the Commonwealth Short Story Prize attracted negative publicity when a regional winner was accused of using AI. In this case, the story wasn’t pulled or stripped of its prize. The organisers defended their choice, despite public backlash, but it’s still a source of debate.

In all these instances, online readers made it clear that they wouldn't tolerate AI slop. And that they had no qualms naming and shaming online.

8. Your work may not be protected by copyright law

Laws around copyright and AI-generated copy are hazy and constantly evolving, and they can vary depending on your country or region. In Australia, there is no copyright legislation for AI-generated content – yet. So if the output is mostly AI, it's not protected by copyright law (AI doesn't have legal status, so it can't assert any moral rights). This means it's not an infringement of copyright if you publish AI-generated content, or if that work is used by someone else.

Does that mean you're in the clear if you use unedited outputs? Not really. Since large language models have been trained on public datasets, they may borrow heavily from an existing source (possibly one that was pirated), which may result in copyright infringement. In fact, one study showed that ChatGPT had a 45 per cent plagiarism rate. Will you know which part was plagiarised? Sadly, no – at least not until the lawyers come knocking.

On the other hand, if there was substantial human input, such as using multiple prompts, rewriting, editing and reformatting, then you're more likely to be protected by Australian copyright law. But if queried, you may need to provide proof of human intervention, which can be tricky, particularly if you used a free version of the platform that doesn't save outputs.

Note: These days, tools like Grammarly and Microsoft Word Editor are powered by generative AI, which means that writers are unwittingly using it when they perform grammar or spell checks. At this stage, these tools are deemed acceptable because they don't do the bulk of the work and writers can either accept or reject flagged issues. That said, some publishers are strict about how much AI can be used in a published work – if any – so always check.

Takeaways: Why using AI could be hurting your writing

While it may be tempting to use AI to take the grunt work out of writing, the costs often outweigh the benefits. You bypass the very work that makes writing valuable and risk losing your voice, agency or audience.

If your aim is to churn out as many books as possible for a fast buck, then AI will help you do it. But if recent AI controversies have taught us anything, it’s that readers still want the insights and experience only a human can provide.

Got an AI-free manuscript ready for editing? Get in touch through my contact form or request a sample edit.