A Writer's Argument for AI
This piece was written by a human, working with AI. Not to cut corners. Not because I can't write. Because the pace of new information outstrips what one person can read, verify, and connect in a reasonable time.
When Karen Armstrong wrote The Bible: A Biography, her subject wasn't shifting week to week. Centuries-old material gives you time. Current issues don't. AI doesn't replace thinking - it accelerates how fast I can surface what's worth thinking about.
Why AI belongs in the writing process
AI widens the research base beyond what I'd know to search. Land-use rules in Ethiopia, preemptive purchase rights in France, inheritance caps in Japan, allodial rules in Norway - niche facts that change how a story is framed. I still choose the frame. The tool expands the field of view.
Critics say AI makes mistakes. So do humans. Some of the most confident errors in public life arrive without a model anywhere near them. Tools don't erase responsibility; they raise the bar for verification.
The real risk isn't AI - it's shallow knowledge
Writers don't just tell stories; we set context. On topics like farm consolidation, land loss, and rural instability, sentiment isn't enough. These are structural issues moving faster than traditional workflows can track.
If AI helps more people see the big picture - policies, precedents, pressure points - that's not a threat to democracy. That's democracy catching up. For background on land tenure systems worldwide, start with this overview from the FAO.
How I use AI without losing my voice
- Scan wide, then verify: Use AI to surface sources and unknown angles. Confirm claims with primary documents, official data, and expert PDFs.
- Keep the argument human: I outline by hand. AI helps test counterpoints and fill blind spots, but the thesis and structure are mine.
- Show your work: Maintain a simple source log. If AI surfaces a claim, I pin it to a link I can stand behind.
- Time-box research: Set a window for expansion, then lock the scope. More inputs don't always mean a better piece.
- Write first drafts fast, edit slow: Let AI propose phrasing only after the core ideas are clear. Then edit for truth, tone, and flow.
A fast workflow you can adopt
- Define the question in one sentence. State your working thesis and what would change your mind.
- Ask AI for 10-15 cross-border policies, cases, or studies you wouldn't know to search. Tag each for relevance.
- Pull 3-5 primary sources and fact-check the key claims. Discard anything squishy.
- Draft the outline. Stress-test it with AI by asking for counterarguments and missing variables.
- Write the piece in your voice. Use AI for line-level clarity, then do a final pass offline.
About the fear of "cheating"
Most objections aren't about accuracy; they're about authority. AI lowers the barrier to wide research and clean synthesis. That threatens old gatekeeping. Good. More informed writers make a healthier public square.
Guardrails that keep standards high
- Transparency: Say when a tool helped, especially for research acceleration.
- Attribution: Credit and link to original reporting and data whenever possible.
- Limits: Never outsource core judgment, ethical calls, or the final edit.
What changes - and what doesn't
AI speeds the grunt work: discovery, synthesis, comparisons across borders and decades. It can suggest sources you'd miss and connections you'd take days to see. That's the advantage.
What stays the same: taste, judgment, and responsibility. The sentence still has to sing. The facts still have to hold. The argument still has to earn trust.
If you want to skill up
Explore practical tool lists built for writers here: AI tools for copywriting. Use them to extend your reach, not to replace your judgment.
Use the tool. Own the work. The point isn't to write faster for its own sake. It's to write truer, with more context, while there's still time to make it count.
Your membership also unlocks:
