The Writer's AI-Ism Dilemma

AI as Collaborator, Not Crutch

TLDR: After moderating 54,000 AI writers, I've learned that the future belongs to those who curate massive personal archives and use AI for macro-structure, not sentence generation. The real skill isn't prompt engineering, but rather the continuity of human intent while wielding the most sophisticated technology ever created.

Three months ago, a writer in our community asked why I choose Claude over Sudowrite or NovelCrafter. The answer reveals everything wrong with how we think about AI writing.

Those tools feel like operating software. I want to think in language.

This distinction matters more than most writers realize. After watching thousands struggle with AI, I've noticed a clear pattern: the ones who succeed treat AI like a musician treats a MIDI instrument, not like a gambler at a slot machine. The difference comes down to preparation, control, and intent.

The Archive Method

The successful approach starts with curation. I keep a 50,000-word NotebookLM manuscript of my own writing and journals. For any project, I prompt it: "choose uniquely human phrases from my manuscript relevant to [topic]." Then I feed these extracted phrases to commercial models alongside detailed article plans.

This method only works because I capture everything. I journal daily with speech-to-text. If something pops into my head anywhere, I record it. The non-linear approach succeeds because LLMs can search 50,000 words instantly to find perfect combinations that would take me hours to locate manually.

The key insight: I'm not generating content from nothing. I'm recombining my own authentic voice at statistical scale.

Where Most Writers Go Wrong

Here's what most people miss: AI writing requires even greater human intent, not less. Since AI lacks intent (a self-evident truth), every choice becomes yours. Those telltale "not X but Y" constructions, the em dashes, the academic indulgence that screams "machine-generated"—these happen when writers abdicate their role as decision-makers.

I spend an average of 5-10 minutes scrutinizing each AI output, giving critical feedback. I go blank scroll style: write most of the story myself, then zero-shot it with Claude's massive context window. The AI helps me think at greater statistical scale beyond the constraints of the human mind, but it never makes the creative decisions.

The Wrong Problems

This brings us to a deeper question that haunts me: Are we solving the right problems? Writer's block, efficiency, burnout—these aren't the struggles that matter for creating beautiful, true, and good work. Tolkien, Rowling, C.S. Lewis, Paul Graham were often incredibly inefficient, blocked, slow, and poor at multiple points in their careers. Yet they created work that endures.

What AI actually solves is different, and more valuable. It lets me debate my thoughts in ways I couldn't debate Google. It expands the multitudes of inquiry. In non-fiction especially, I use it to understand how my thinking differs from the masses.

The Unchanged Fundamentals

Despite all this technological sophistication, the fundamentals remain unchanged. You must be a good reader and writer first. The technology may be sophisticated beyond measure, but your will, your voice, and your interest define whether AI becomes a worthy collaborator or drags you into the content machine.

We're pioneers in a quiet revolution. The choice is simple: hold the reins and lead, or let "it" lead you.

The future of AI writing belongs to those who curate massive volumes of their own authentic work, then use AI for macro-structural purposes while maintaining granular control over every sentence.

After all, if the writing is good, the writing is good. The tool doesn't matter. The intent does.

Best,

Hunter Hudson-Hoff

Thanks for reading my letter! Subscribe for free to receive tips on writing, from the trenches of r/WritingWithAI