Why We Love to Hate AI (and Why We Keep Using It Anyway)
New tools feel like cheats, until they become skills. AI won’t replace your voice. But it will expose whether you have one.
We’ve always side-eyed shortcuts. When a tool shows up and makes hard things easier, we don’t throw a party. Instead, we clutch our craft. “Isn’t this cheating?” we ask.
The same drama played out for writing, the printing press, novels, calculators, and photography. The names change. The feeling doesn’t.
Plato once warned that writing would weaken memory and give only the appearance of wisdom. (He wasn’t tweeting; he put this warning into a dialogue about… the dangers of writing.) In Phaedrus, King Thamus tells Theuth (the god credited with inventing letters) that writing would make students forgetful and only remind, not teach. It’s a great line, and a classic panic.
A millennium and a half later, an abbot named Johannes Trithemius defended hand-copying and worried printing would flood the world with shoddy texts and lazy minds. Again: the end of quality, the death of craft.
Then came the 18th-century “reading mania.” Critics argued that novels would rot brains and morals. Even Goethe’s Werther got blamed for copycat acts. Media panic is not new; it’s a loop.
In schools, people fought over calculators. Should kids learn the steps by hand? Or use tech to free up thinking? The official line eventually landed on balance: learn when to use the tool and when to use your head.
Photography took its hits, too. Charles Baudelaire hated the idea of a “mechanical” art replacing imagination. He feared mass images would flatten taste. Sound familiar?
The original panic: when writing was the villain
Let’s sit with Plato for a second because the parallel is neat. In the Phaedrus, Theuth pitches writing as a miracle for memory. King Thamus counters: you’ve invented reminding, not remembering. Students will look smart without understanding.
He wasn’t totally wrong. Writing can create shallow “knowledge.” You can skim, quote, and bluff. But he missed the bigger picture: writing scales thought. It lets ideas persist, travel, and stack. Humanity didn’t become forgetful; it became cumulative.
Today’s AI debate is the same shape. Yes, it can make it easier to look smart. It can spit out a passable paragraph. But the upside is larger: it widens the raw material of thinking. It gives you angles you wouldn’t have considered. It compresses the grunt work. And like writing, it forces a harder question: what do you actually think?
Why we love to hate new tech
We don’t fear tools. We fear what they do to identity, status, and skill.
Identity threat. “I earned this the hard way.” When a model drafts in seconds what took you hours at 22, it hurts.
Cheating fear. If the tool helps, am I less? If I use it, is the work still mine?
Status anxiety. Who counts as a “writer” now?
Healthy skepticism also has a point. A majority of Americans say they’re more concerned than excited about AI’s growing role in daily life, and many worry it will make people worse at creative thinking. Translation: we’re afraid of losing muscles we value.
Contrarian take: AI raises the bar for human craft
AI speeds output; but you still have to supply the meaning.
That’s the twist. It makes first drafts cheap. Which means the bar moves. If everyone can produce a decent first pass, what wins?
Taste. Knowing what’s good and what’s fluff.
Story. Lived scenes, concrete detail, real stakes.
Proof. Sources, data, names, dates.
Voice. How you say it, not how a model says it.
We saw this movie before. Calculators shifted math instruction from long division to problem-solving. Photography changed painting from realism to impression, then expression. Same with writing: the skill moved from remembering lines to connecting them.
Inputs
Use AI as a tool, not a crutch. Check what you did yourself and how AI helped.
Results
Tool, not crutch: a 7-step human-first writing workflow
Let AI widen your thinking. You narrow it.
Thesis first (human). Write one sharp claim in one sentence. If the whole piece vanished, this line should survive.
Angle mining (AI assist). Ask: “List 10 counterintuitive ways to argue for or against this thesis. Include reasons I might be wrong.” Keep only the angles that feel true.
Source pass (human). Pull 3–5 credible sources that test your claim. Quote sparingly. Cite directly. (If you can’t find good sources, your thesis is foggy. Fix it.)
Write from life (human). Add scenes, numbers, and names from your own work. Specifics or it didn’t happen.
Structure, compress, clarify (AI assist). Ask: “Show three possible outlines—narrative, list, case-led.” Or, “Tighten this to a 3rd-grade reading level without dumbing it down.”
Voice + fact pass (human). Keep your phrasing. Swap any generic lines for concrete ones. Verify every claim. Add dates and attributions.
Red-team (AI assist). Prompt: “Argue the opposite. Where am I weak? What’s missing? Point to evidence.”
This flow keeps cognitive load where it belongs: you decide the truth and tone. The model helps you see more and say it cleaner.
Guardrails that keep you original
No outsourcing the core. Don’t hand the model your thesis, claims, or stories. If the piece could run under anyone’s byline, it’s not done.
Provenance beats polish. Keep bylines, dates, citations, and (when useful) a one-line note on how AI assisted (“ideation + outline; all claims verified; final wording by author”). Readers reward transparency. So do generative engines.
Voice lock. Use AI to clarify your sentences, not to overwrite your style. Keep your odd verbs. Keep your rhythm.
Evidence over vibes. Link out to credible sources in every section, especially where you make historical or social claims. (Yes, the same way we just did above.)
Five high-leverage, low-risk AI uses (with simple prompts)
Think “surgical, not sweeping.” The five moves below give you leverage without giving up authorship, idea expansion, outline remix, counterargument mapping, readability smoothing, and tight compression.
Each comes with a simple, paste-ready prompt. You own the thesis, sources, and stories; the model just widens your options and speeds the boring parts. Low risk. Big payoff.
Idea expansion. “Give 12 contrarian angles on: [topic]. For each, add the strongest counterargument and one example I could research.”
Outline remix. “Suggest 3 structures for this draft: narrative arc, numbered list, case-study-led. Note pros/cons for each.”
Counterargument map. “Steelman the opposing view. Assume the other side is smart and ethical. What evidence would they cite? Where am I weakest?”
Readability pass. “Rewrite this section at a 3rd-grade reading level. Keep the facts and tone.”
Compression. “Compress this 800-word section to 120 words for a newsletter. Preserve the thesis, one proof, and one example.”
Use these as tools. You still choose the path, the sources, and the voice.
When not to use AI
There are times the process matters more than the output.
Sensitive notes. Apologies, eulogies, vows—write those yourself.
Skills you’re building. If the learning is the point (like doing the math, not just getting the answer), skip the shortcut.
Claims beyond your expertise. Don’t generate your way into authority you don’t have.
That’s the lesson from the calculator wars: use tech to extend thinking, not replace it.
Mini case: develop thought with AI, don’t replace it
Let’s play it out.
Angle mining (AI): It returns: “AI kills the blank page; final drafts get judged harder.” “AI makes plagiarism easier; originality becomes proof-of-work.” “AI overproduces; curation becomes king.” You keep two.
Source pass (human): You pull Plato on writing panic, History Today on reading mania, EdWeek on calculators, Baudelaire on photography, and current Pew data on public concern. Now your claims have spine.
Scene (human): Add a moment from your workflow: the part where you stare at a cursor, then ask for three structures, then pick one and toss two. It’s real. It reads.
Structure (AI): You ask for a narrative arc vs. a list. You pick the arc because it suits your story.
Voice + fact pass (human): You keep your short sentences, your dry jokes, your stance. You verify dates and numbers. You add citations.
Before (flat): “AI helps writers a lot. It can save time and allow people to be more creative. But it also has risks.”
After (yours): “AI crushes the blank page. That means the first draft just got cheaper—and the final draft got more expensive. Your moat is judgment, scenes, and proof.”
It’s not the same paragraph. It’s the same idea, made specific.
FAQ
Is using AI lazy?
No. Lazy is skipping the thinking. Using AI to explore angles, stress-test a claim, or fix a messy structure is like using a whiteboard or a calculator—with judgment. Americans are cautious about AI for good reasons; treat the tool as a thought partner, not a ghostwriter.
Will AI kill creativity?
Bad prompts will. Good prompts widen your option set. Your job then is to choose, cut, and prove. Creativity is choices under constraints. AI just hands you more raw clay. You sculpt.
How do I disclose AI use?
A simple note is enough: “AI assisted with brainstorming and outlining. All claims verified and all final wording by the author.” It builds trust and models good practice for your team and your readers.
How do I keep my voice?
Lock your verbs and rhythm. Use the model to compress, reorder, or clarify—not to rewrite you. If a sentence reads like a brochure, it’s not your voice. Fix it.
Wrap up
We love to hate AI because we loved earning our scars. That’s fair. But we hated writing once, too. And printing. And novels. And calculators. And photographs. Each time, the tool re-sorted the work. It didn’t erase skill; it moved it.
Use AI to think better, not less. Put your conviction on the page. Let the model do the lifting you’d give an intern. Keep your judgment, your scenes, your sources, and your name.
References
Plato. Phaedrus (274c–275b) — Theuth and Thamus on writing.
Furedi, F. “The Media’s First Moral Panic.” History Today, 2015.
Baudelaire, C. “The Modern Public and Photography” (Salon of 1859).
Pew Research Center. “How Americans View AI and Its Impact on People and Society,” 2025.
Author: Noah Swanson
Noah Swanson is the founder and Chief Content Officer of Type and Tale.