AI Enabled Writing vs Traditional Writing: A Necessary & Disrupting Argument

Following the debate around AI and creative writing which has been recurrent the past two years, more or less and which has now resurfaced since one Jamir Nazir was announced the Caribbean Regional Winner of the Commonwealth Short Story Prize for his story, The Serpent in the Grove, here is what I think. Creative writing and writing in general is one of the most intellectually demanding endeavors in the world. To the reader, it might appear easy but to produce a good piece of literature that transports the reader from the known to the unknown world and vice-versa and make them fall in love with nonexistent characters and places, using seductive creative voice, unique and distinct, the writer must employ great focus, devote incredible amount of solitary time and research and read widely. If he keeps at this, he develops his craft over time, to the level his works are widely admired, then he is rewarded. It has been so since the existence of written words. Even in oral storytelling, the sage does not mature overnight, it takes years of telling and re-telling stories, traveling from one territory to another, exploring cultures and traditions and folklores, to develop to the level their stories are widely regarded and retold for generations. Now, what AI does is to eliminate this process. The writer who uses AI no longer concerns himself (at least to my understanding) with in-depth study, research, does not devote as much time to solitude as is required to concentrate to write and does not engage the machines of the mind to craft words in ways that they please the reader's senses. He does not rely on using perhaps his cultural and historic knowledge and experiences to build stories that are accepted to meet traditional standards of storytelling. Rather, works produced appear superficial or high-end or shiny or incredibly classic or ridiculously polished or a mix of two or all of these features. The reader is left with the feeling akin to eating say a plate of ice cream that has salt in it or palm wine with some saccharine, which insults the pallet. Now, we have come to a crossroads, where we have to accept that AI has come to stay. But as much as AI is important to our daily lives, we should make a distinction in its application. Do we need it in machine learning, economics and data generation, high-end technology, medical research and practice, engineering and technology? Yes. Definitely. Do we need it in creative practice such as in writing, painting, crafts etc? This is hard to answer. My take is that saying that a writer who engages his craft with the aid of AI tools should be taken as much seriously as the traditional writer, and the AI artist allowed to compete alongside traditional artists is like allowing a transgender compete in same sports event with traditional male or female athletes. That would be unfair and disturbing. As a writer of short stories and novels, it takes me a minimum of two weeks to craft and finish a short story. Another week or so to sit on it and revisit with fresh eyes, before the editor picks it up and I go back to implement the editor's suggestions. For novels, it takes me a minimum of 4 - 6 months (sometimes a year or more) to finish a first draft and another 4 months to research and re-write before they go to the editor. I presume that a writer using AI tools would knock off a short story in a day or two and a novel in days or weeks (I don't know). To award a prize to this AI enabled author against traditional writers in the same competition is not only disappointing but disrupting of the traditional storytelling ideas as we know it and a shame, to say the least. Perhaps what can be done is to have two classes of writers. The AI enabled writers should not be ashamed or afraid to identify as such and their works graded differently from traditional writers and those to whom these kind of writing appeal to, allowed to savor them. Obinna Udenwe 20/05/2026