Buzzwords, clichéd phrases, formulaic sentences, and most notoriously—the use of the em dash. These are all signs readers and writers alike have learned to look out for when trying to spot whether something was written by AI.
Authors and journalists have faced the brunt of this trend, with accusations of AI use increasing as AI becomes more normalized. Tools can sniff out artificial intelligence, but they can be imperfect and unreliable.
Between discouraging allegations and increased scrutiny over common writing practices, young writers are beginning to lose motivation, even as their level of AI adoption may vary. According to the Society of Authors, 20% of fiction writers and 25% of nonfiction writers stated that they use AI. But 65% of fiction writers and 57% of nonfiction writers believe AI will hurt their future income from their creative work.
Alex Del Cueto, a recent college graduate who is an arts journalist at Broadway World, a theatre news website, says he’s concerned about entering the workforce during the rise of AI. “I feel like the rise of AI and its effects [have] made being a young journalist almost impossible,” he says. The growing use of the technology has complicated an already difficult job market in an already competitive field.
Thanks to AI, young writers are left in limbo. They’re simultaneously struggling to figure out if they need to use AI to keep up in today’s competitive industry—or eschew it altogether in order to maintain trust. (Em dashes and all.)
AI can damage reputation—and mental health
Amid prompts to chatbots being left behind in published books and AI creating fake quotes used in articles, distrust has grown between the audience and writers. In this new world where readers don’t know who (or what) is doing the writing, anything can set off alarm bells for the audience: a new word, offbeat punctuation, or even the content itself.
People have taken to calling anything they don’t like AI. Whether it’s a book, a photo or video, or an article, “that’s AI” is being used as an insult rather than a legitimate accusation. This can lead to harassment of the creator and a deleterious domino effect on creatives.
Writers who have been falsely accused of using AI in their writing, for example, have voiced anxiety and disappointment when they come across the negative review. Instead of critiquing nuanced parts of the writing, commenters just throw out the accusation and call it a day.
In addition to being bad for their mental health, this trend can be extremely harmful to people’s careers. Younger writers have voiced fears of losing a job they don’t even have yet to AI.
Some writers are now shying away from using language and punctuation that has become associated with AI, like saying something is “X, not Y,” an LLM go-to. For instance: “Using AI isn’t cheating. It’s leveraging resources.”
So instead of developing the fundamentals of their craft, writers can be left focusing on whether their work sounds like it could be written by a bot. “What if I use the em dash too much?” or “Will people believe that I really organically use that word?” start taking over.
Barb Kay, a student at Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at the City University of New York, says using AI can be a stigma for writers. And seeing it used in methods of research, or to help write a story, can feel discouraging for the writers themselves.
“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 stigma and risks, AI is here to stay—and many professionals, including writers, may use it for a variety of purposes. That decision isn’t always born out of laziness or lack of creativity. Sometimes it’s a last resort.
Some authors who have been accused of AI have admitted to using it to edit their work due to busy schedules, balancing parenting and other jobs, or important responsibilities. Others work independently, and don’t have the budget to pay a real editor to look over their work.
This isn’t only an individual issue, but a media issue; as the United Nations communications department points out, traditional media outlets are under financial strain. Newsrooms with smaller staffs under pressure to meet traffic targets may prioritize output over quality.
Creative fields are already hard to break into. So some writers feel the need to take matters into their own hands.
Platforms like River AI, where writers can use AI to edit and proofread big projects like books, have become more popular. As a result, the number of self-published books has increased for fictional titles in recent years.
Where does this leave young writers?
Freelancers or authors with no publishing deal to rely on may be short on money, putting them under intense competitive pressure in a competitive industry. Those who are anti-AI may feel a pull towards using it to vie for an audience, produce material quickly, or gain traffic.
Another graduate student journalist at Craig Newmark, Natalie Tulloch, says she’s seen newsrooms, both academically and professionally, suggest using AI to take on research tasks. And she wonders why. She feels confident that the research AI can conduct, a human could do better.
“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
The rise of AI will continue to affect up-and-coming writers.
Although younger generations report higher levels of skepticism when it comes to the harm AI may cause, the number of young adults using AI keeps increasing. Some media outlets and publishers have tried to combat growing misinformation and alert readers when AI has had a hand in work.
In March 2026, the Authors Guild allowed authors to add an official certification (the “Human Authored Certification”) to their books in the United States. This would be proof that a book was entirely written by a human, and that minimal to no AI writing tools were used for assistance. Since this option arrived, thousands of authors have employed it in an attempt to distance themselves as much as possible from potential accusations.
Belle Martinelli, who works as a member services coordinator at the Greater Olean Area Chamber of Commerce in New York while freelancing as a journalist, says the people around her “treat me like an alien” when she tells them she doesn’t 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. If you can’t do that without a robot you have no business being a journalist . . . because journalism is more than just pen-on-paper writing. It’s about telling stories, telling information, but it’s about moving people. You can’t move people as a robot.”
When we use AI for creative work that a human can do, we risk undermining the editing process. If human decisions are replaced by AI, the writing will feel more disconnected. The way a writer connects with their audience is crucially human. Only a person can tell another person’s story, fictional or factual, in a way others can relate to and understand.
That’s simply not something technology can replace.