AI Has Young Writers Between a Rock and a Hard Place
As more professional writers turn to ChatGPT and other AI platforms to help produce stories, young people entering the field are beginning to lose faith in the writing industry as a whole.
Buzzwords, clichés, formulaic sentences, and, most notoriously, the em dash have become signals readers and writers use to identify whether something was written by AI. Authors and journalists have faced increasing scrutiny as AI becomes more normalized. Although AI-detection tools claim to identify machine-generated writing, they remain imperfect and unreliable.
Amid these accusations and the growing scrutiny of ordinary writing habits, young writers are beginning to lose motivation, even as their own use of AI varies. According to the Society of Authors, 20% of fiction writers and 25% of nonfiction writers reported using AI. Yet 65% of fiction writers and 57% of nonfiction writers believe AI will negatively affect their future income from creative work.
Alex Del Cueto, a recent college graduate and arts journalist at BroadwayWorld, says he is concerned about entering the workforce as AI reshapes the industry. “I feel like the rise of AI and its effects [have] made being a young journalist almost impossible,” he says. The technology has complicated an already difficult job market in an increasingly competitive field.
Young writers are now caught in a difficult position: They must decide whether to use AI to remain competitive or avoid it in order to preserve their credibility and maintain the trust of readers and editors.
AI Can Damage Reputation—and Mental Health
The publication of AI prompts in books and the use of fabricated AI-generated quotes in news stories have contributed to growing distrust between audiences and writers. In an environment where readers cannot always tell who—or what—is doing the writing, almost anything can trigger suspicion: an unfamiliar phrase, unusual punctuation, or even a particular style of writing.
The accusation “that’s AI” has increasingly become an insult rather than a substantiated claim. Books, photographs, videos, and articles can all be dismissed as AI-generated without evidence. For creators, these accusations can lead to harassment and reputational damage.
Writers who have been falsely accused of using AI have described feeling anxious and discouraged when they encounter such claims. Instead of engaging with the substance of their work, some readers simply label it as AI-generated and move on.
For younger writers, the consequences can extend beyond mental health. The fear of being associated with AI can affect professional opportunities and create anxiety about jobs they have not even secured yet.
Some writers have even begun avoiding words, sentence structures, and punctuation associated with AI. One example is the “X, not Y” construction, which has become a common pattern in large language model-generated text: “Using AI isn’t cheating. It’s leveraging resources.”
Rather than concentrating on developing their craft, writers can find themselves worrying about whether their work sounds like AI. Questions such as “Am I using the em dash too much?” or “Will people think I copied this word from a chatbot?” can overshadow the fundamentals of good writing.
Barb Kay, a student at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at the City University of New York, says AI use can carry a stigma among writers. She is particularly concerned about its use for research and story development.
“I feel discouraged by the implementation of AI in the newsroom and am skeptical of my colleagues who use it,” she says. “While I try to keep an open mind, the harm it does to the environment, and the risk of losing human connection and journalistic integrity, outweigh any benefit it might have.”
And Yet, Some Writers May Still Use It
Despite the controversy surrounding AI, the technology is unlikely to disappear from the writing profession. Many writers use it for different purposes, and that decision is not necessarily motivated by laziness or a lack of creativity. For some, it is simply a matter of necessity.
Authors accused of using AI have acknowledged turning to the technology to edit their work because of demanding schedules, parenting responsibilities, other jobs, or financial constraints. Independent writers may not have the money to hire a professional editor, making AI an inexpensive alternative.
This is not simply an individual problem. It is also a problem for the media industry. Traditional media organizations are under significant financial pressure, and understaffed newsrooms facing traffic and productivity demands may be tempted to prioritize output over quality.
Creative industries are already notoriously difficult to enter. For writers struggling to establish themselves, AI can therefore look less like a shortcut and more like a survival tool.
Platforms such as River AI, which offer AI-assisted editing and proofreading for large projects, including books, have become increasingly popular. At the same time, self-publishing has expanded, giving writers more opportunities to publish without traditional gatekeepers.
But where does this leave young writers?
Freelancers and independent authors without publishing contracts may have limited financial resources and face intense competition for attention. Even writers who oppose AI can feel pressure to use it to produce work faster, attract audiences, or compete for opportunities.
Natalie Tulloch, another graduate student journalist at Craig Newmark, says she has seen newsrooms and academic programs encourage the use of AI for research. She questions whether that is necessary when human journalists can often conduct the same work more effectively.
“I think it’s a scary thing, but the more I get [close] to entering the workforce, the more it makes me want to be even better, to prove that AI can’t replace me,” she says.
The Human Condition of Writing
AI will continue to reshape the writing profession, particularly for the generation now entering it.
Younger adults have generally expressed greater concern about the potential harms of AI, even as their use of the technology continues to rise. In response, some media organizations and publishers have begun experimenting with ways to disclose when AI has played a role in creative work.
In March 2026, the Authors Guild introduced its Human Authored Certification in the United States, allowing authors to certify that their books were written entirely by humans with minimal or no AI assistance. Thousands of authors have since used the certification to distinguish their work from AI-generated or AI-assisted writing.
Belle Martinelli, a member services coordinator at the Greater Olean Area Chamber of Commerce in New York who also works as a freelance journalist, says people sometimes react with disbelief when she tells them she does not use AI.
“I’m a writer. I love to write,” she says. “I go out, and I report, and I come back and I write.”
For Martinelli, writing is inseparable from the human experience of journalism. Reporting is not simply the act of putting words on a page. It involves observing people, understanding context, asking questions, building relationships, and communicating stories in ways that resonate with other human beings.
That distinction may become increasingly important as AI becomes more capable.
The challenge for young writers is not simply deciding whether to use AI. It is figuring out how to build a career in an industry where the boundaries between human and machine-generated work are becoming increasingly blurred.
AI can help with editing, research, and productivity, particularly for writers who lack time or financial resources. But relying on it too heavily risks weakening the very skills that make writing valuable.
Writing is ultimately an act of connection. Whether a journalist is telling a real person's story or an author is creating a fictional world, the work depends on human judgment, empathy, observation, and experience.
Technology may be able to produce sentences. It may even produce convincing stories.
But the ability to understand why a story matters—and to make another human being care about it—remains fundamentally human.