Approximate Reading Time: 5 min.
A recent article by Rob Hart in Writer’s Digest opened with a bold and, frankly, dismissive claim: that artificial intelligence is “fast food” for writers, a cheap, unimaginative substitute for the real thing. It’s an interesting analogy, comparing a lovingly crafted French onion soup burger to a McDonald’s patty. Hart’s point is clear: one is art, the other is an assembly line product. He goes on to say that anyone who uses AI has “no right to call yourself an artist.”
I appreciate a good, old-fashioned hot take, but this one completely misses the point. It’s not a conversation about AI; it’s an emotional protest. Hart seems to be fighting a ghost, railing against a technology he misunderstands and appears to have had a bad personal experience with. The reality is far more nuanced. AI isn’t “fast food” for art; it’s a new kind of kitchen that, in the right hands, can help create culinary masterpieces.
________________________________________
The Environmental Impact: A Nuanced View
Hart’s first argument against AI is an environmental one, citing huge power consumption, massive water usage for data centers, and environmentally destructive mining for microchips. These are valid concerns, but they don’t tell the whole story.
The truth is, the tech industry is under increasing pressure to address these issues. Data centers are steadily becoming more energy-efficient, and companies are investing heavily in renewable energy sources. Many are now using waste heat from these centers to heat nearby homes and businesses. AI models are also becoming more efficient, requiring less energy and water over time. Furthermore, to say that we should put down AI for these reasons is to ignore the same issues with nearly all other modern technology. The entertainment streaming services Hart critiques and the computer on which he wrote his article are just as complicit in this consumption. This is not a reason to dismiss a tool; it’s a reason to hold ourselves and the tech industry to higher standards of sustainability.
________________________________________
Disruption and the Streaming Analogy
Hart claims that AI is disrupting something that didn’t need to be disrupted, drawing a parallel to the streaming platform revolution. He says that streaming was a bubble that burst, with commercials and expensive fees returning. But this is a disingenuous take.
Streaming platforms have revolutionized entertainment, offering more freedom, fewer ads (for a price), and more artistic nuance. It is no longer constrained by rigid time slots or television regulations. This gives storytellers more creative latitude, and viewers the freedom to curate their own schedules. The strikes from last year weren’t about a lack of revenue; they were about the distribution of that revenue—a crucial distinction. The creators and actors were fighting for fair compensation models in a new and evolving landscape, and that is a conversation we can and should have.
________________________________________
The “AI Bubble” Is Not Bursting
The article also predicts that the AI bubble is about to burst, just like cryptocurrency and NFTs. This is an incredible misread of the current landscape. While cryptocurrency and NFTs were niche technologies with limited real-world applications, AI is being integrated into almost every industry, from medicine to education to—yes—writing.
The incidents cited in Hart’s article—Microsoft’s scrapped leases or Google’s “AI Overview” gaffes—are not signs of a bursting bubble. They are classic growing pains. All new technology goes through awkward, embarrassing stages. Early cars were clunky and unreliable; early websites were visually incoherent and difficult to navigate. Blaming AI for its initial stumbles is like mocking a child for not being able to run before they can walk.
________________________________________
Writing Is Not Data—It’s Art
The most frustrating argument in the article is the idea that “writing is not data. Writing is art, and when you treat art like data, you devalue it.”
This is a dangerous and misguided premise. Hart seems to assume that the only way to use AI is to tell it to write a full story for you and then pass it off as your own. That is, indeed, a terrible and unethical misuse of the tool.
However, the real value of AI is in its capacity as a companion and a tool. It’s like a conversation partner, a research assistant, or a very fast beta reader. I use it to work through story ideas and get feedback that my human readers might have missed. No, it doesn’t write my stories; I do. It just helps me make them better, more polished, and more effective. This is not about being lazy. As the saying goes, “It’s a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”
The problem isn’t the AI; it’s the user. Influencers who promoted using AI to cheat the system are the issue, not the tool itself. The very fact that literary magazines like Clarkesworld were able to catch and close submissions shows that the human element is still paramount. AI cannot feel, suffer, or truly appreciate beauty—and that is precisely why a human must be the end user, the artist who makes the final decisions.
As for the argument that AI is “stealing from other people” because it’s trained on their work, the legal debate around this is ongoing. It’s a new and complex area of law, and arguments are being made for both sides—including the concept of “fair use,” which allows for copyrighted material to be used for research, teaching, and critique. It’s a valid concern, and we must demand that lawmakers develop fair copyright laws to protect creators without stifling innovation.
So, when Hart says you have no right to call yourself an artist if you use AI, I have to say, “Cry me a river.”
________________________________________
The Final Word
It is ironic that Rob Hart, a writer trying to prove AI’s worthlessness, actually proved its value instead. His article goes on to say that his cheeseburger analogy is far superior to the intro AI provided him, but he failed to give the AI the right prompt. AI, like any other tool, is only as good as the instructions it’s given. It’s not stupid, as Hart claims; it’s a tool that requires a skilled craftsman to get the best results.
This very blog post, a critique of an article written with a strong human voice, was assisted by AI. It helped me organize my thoughts, summarize my points, and write with more clarity and purpose—and it did so without ever taking the soul out of my work. The art, as always, came from the human.