One argument I see a lot is that AI is going to make writing worse.
And in one sense I think that's almost certainly true.
If you make it dramatically easier to produce a novel, you're going to get a huge amount of slop. People who couldn't previously produce 80,000 coherent words will suddenly be able to produce ten books a year.
But I've been wondering about the other side of that.
What happens when you dramatically increase the number of people who are capable of participating at all?
Think about football/soccer compared with Formula 1.
With football, the starting pool is enormous. Hundreds of millions of kids can kick a ball around from a young age. You don't need wealthy parents, expensive equipment or access to a specialist facility to discover that you're unusually talented.
By the time you get to the Champions League or World Cup, there's been this enormous selection funnel underneath it.
Formula 1 has historically been very different. The potential pool gets narrowed incredibly early because becoming a racing driver normally requires money, karting, equipment, tracks, travel, etc.
That doesn't mean F1 drivers aren't extraordinarily talented. Obviously they are.
It just means there could theoretically be some kid somewhere with freakish driving talent who never discovers it because he never gets near a kart.
I wonder if AI is going to do something similar to writing.
Not everyone who could be a great storyteller necessarily has all the other skills required to become a novelist.
Maybe English isn't their first language.
Maybe they're fantastic verbal storytellers but sentence-level prose has always been their weak point.
Maybe they have an incredible imagination and instinct for characters but struggle badly with spelling or grammar.
Maybe there's some other execution barrier that means they would never have attempted a novel in the first place.
AI lowers some of those barriers.
And I don't think that means the AI suddenly makes them a great storyteller. If anything, I think current AI is pretty terrible at some of the most important parts of fiction, particularly long-range plot. It can come up with premises and endless possibilities, but hand it control of an entire novel and it very quickly becomes generic and derivative.
The person still has to make the decisions.
What is the book actually about? Which ideas are worth pursuing? Which AI suggestion is garbage? Which character works? What needs setting up now? What needs paying off later? Is this twist predictable? Does this scene belong in the book at all?
Someone with poor storytelling instincts now has a machine that lets them produce bad fiction much faster.
But someone with exceptional storytelling instincts who previously lacked some other part of the traditional novelist skillset now has that machine too.
And that's the part I find interesting.
If AI expands the potential pool of writers by an order of magnitude, most of what comes out of that larger pool may be awful.
But statistically, shouldn't we also expect some genuinely exceptional storytellers to emerge from it who would otherwise never have written a book?
In other words, AI might lower the average while simultaneously raising the ceiling simply by allowing more people into the competition.
Ultimately readers still decide which books survive.
I'm curious whether people think that analogy holds up.