{"id":684780,"date":"2026-07-10T19:33:48","date_gmt":"2026-07-10T19:33:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/684780\/"},"modified":"2026-07-10T19:33:48","modified_gmt":"2026-07-10T19:33:48","slug":"when-ai-does-the-writing-whos-the-author","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/684780\/","title":{"rendered":"When AI Does the Writing, Who’s the Author?"},"content":{"rendered":"

It\u2019s happening more and more these days. I read an article that may or may not be interesting, but as I read it, something feels off, something is making me uncomfortable. Then, it hits me, I\u2019ll bet AI<\/a> wrote it. <\/p>\n

Researchers have begun examining how people perceive AI-generated writing and how reliably they can distinguish it from human writing. The evidence<\/a> suggests that people can sometimes detect differences in style and authenticity<\/a>, but they are far from infallible. At the same time, studies show that current AI-detection tools also produce substantial false positives<\/a> and false negatives. Taken together, the science suggests that neither our intuition<\/a> nor automated detectors should be viewed as definitive.<\/p>\n

How can I have reasonable suspicions when an article has been written by AI? Increasingly, I notice patterns that often suggest heavy AI involvement and produce what are for me some obvious \u201ctells:\u201d <\/p>\n

Writing created by humans is inherently imperfect. Grammar and sentence structure are inconsistent and lack uniformity. But AI written content? The prose tends to be perfect, the writing flawless, unless AI is prompted to write in a more human way.
\nThe rhythm and flow of the article feel robotic, often using the same phrases, transitions, and styles.
\nOne-sentence paragraphs and repeated three-word sentences.
\nThe overuse of em dashes. Rare is the human writer who uses em dashes so frequently, yet they are ubiquitous these days in AI writing.
\nWriting by AI often feels emotionally flat; there just isn\u2019t the feeling of a human behind it.
\nIf I have expertise in the subject of the article, I see the information as generic rather than a person\u2019s own unique ideas.
\nAI writing tends to be categorical and overly confident. There is often no uncertainty or hesitation or humility. No use of \u201cperhaps,\u201d \u201cmaybe,\u201d or \u201cmight be.\u201d
\nThere is an absence of personal insights, opinions, or self-critique.
\nAn AI generated article just feels soulless because there isn\u2019t a human\u2019s heart and mind behind it.<\/p>\n

Also, just to test my AI-detection acumen, I\u2019ll run an article through a few of the many AI detectors available online. Literally every single time, my suspicions are confirmed. <\/p>\n

Admittedly, an experienced writer who knows how to use AI can help it to generate writing that mitigates these tendencies. But many AI writers don\u2019t. The end result is that I feel like my time was wasted, even if the idea was good. Its value has been lessened because I\u2019m a real human being reading it, shouldn\u2019t a real human have written it?<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t get me wrong. AI is a powerful tool to help us research, brainstorm, edit, organize, and revise. But when it replaces the difficult work of thinking, questioning, synthesizing, and developing a unique perspective, it doesn’t just diminish the writing, it diminishes the writer. My criticism isn\u2019t about using AI; no doubt it can make us better thinkers and writers. But when we fully outsource our writing, we outsource our thinking. <\/p>\n

I see several significant problems with AI-generated writing that, surprisingly enough, hurt the person using AI to write more than the recipients of that writing.<\/p>\n

First, it\u2019s intellectually dishonest. When you put your name on an article indicating that you wrote the article when, in fact, AI generated it in its entirety (or close to it), you\u2019re just plain lying<\/a>. It may have been your idea, but authorship isn\u2019t just about who had the idea; rather, it\u2019s about who actually wrote the article, chapter, blog post, or book.<\/p>\n

A compelling perspective on this is that AI-generated content can\u2019t be copyrighted, meaning it can\u2019t be legally owned. Here\u2019s what the U.S. Copyright Office has to say:<\/p>\n

Typing a text prompt into an AI generator to create an image or text does not make you the author of the output.
\nYou can claim copyright over an AI output if you creatively adapt, modify, or significantly edit it. However, copyright only protects the specific elements you added or changed, not the base AI-generated portions.<\/p>\n

So, when you have AI write an article for you and put your name on it indicating that you are the author, you\u2019re being dishonest about the authorship. It\u2019s almost as bad as plagiarizing. The difference is that AI won\u2019t threaten legal action.<\/p>\n

Another concern is that heavy reliance on AI may discourage the kind of sustained cognitive effort through which people develop ideas. Writing isn\u2019t simply the expression of ideas. Rather, it is a powerful means of generating ideas. Decades of educational psychology research<\/a> have shown that writing is not merely a way of communicating ideas, but an important process for developing them<\/a>. The simple act of putting pen to paper (metaphorically these days) forces us to wrestle with ideas, challenge our assumptions and beliefs, and consider alternative views. It causes us to process, interpret, integrate, and structure ideas in a meaningful way. This demanding process results in new and different ideas, ideas that are uniquely yours. <\/p>\n

Good writing and all the benefits that accrue are based on original thinking, creative ideas, and sound writing skills, none of which come naturally or easily. More specifically and more powerfully, it comes from generating thoughts, ideas, theories, and frameworks that are an expression of who you are, what you know, and what you believe. It involves building your own intellectual and creative scaffolding and forging your own unique identity<\/a> (or brand, these days). In doing so, you develop a \u201cvoice\u201d that is yours alone. <\/p>\n

A final and ironic caveat. I tested this article with four leading AI detectors. All concluded it was predominantly or entirely human-written. All of the so-called red flags that were highlighted were, in fact, written by me (I\u2019ve noticed that my writing style has some of the same structural wording rules as AI). AI detectors aren\u2019t infallible judges of authorship (and there is research<\/a> to support that). If they cannot reliably identify genuinely human writing, then we should be cautious about relying on them to definitively distinguish authentic thought and writing from machine-generated prose. At the same time, as the saying goes, if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it\u2019s probably a duck.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"It\u2019s happening more and more these days. I read an article that may or may not be interesting,…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":684781,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[59,57,58,50,56,54,55],"class_list":["post-684780","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-united-kingdom","tag-gb","tag-great-britain","tag-greatbritain","tag-news","tag-uk","tag-united-kingdom","tag-unitedkingdom"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/684780","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=684780"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/684780\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/684781"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=684780"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=684780"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=684780"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}