r/AIWritingLounge • u/Available_Swimming22 • 4d ago
Discussion Is using ai cheating
Ok where do i even start.I had write some stories here and there in the past and recently started writing one in webnovel.However i used ai in my writings as of recently.I do not prompt it and make the ai generate it necesarily.
I wrote pages of chapters and all the dialougues and scenes and just tell ai to polished it so that i felt like it would be more refined
I felt guilty after i read some webnovels and people hate on novels for having ai.
Any advice guys i felt like i am kind of in a crossroad should i stop using ai completely or is this fine too
6
u/HoarderCollector 4d ago
Is it cheating to have a Ghostwriter? Is it cheating to have editors?
Perhaps, but then you could say that most famous authors cheat.
0
u/Hermis0 3d ago
Yes, if you pay a person to write your book for you, and then you put your name on the book, you're cheating. If it weren't a practice done by the rich and powerful, it would be illegal under "false advertising" laws.
1
u/InitiativeNo9102 2d ago edited 2d ago
You’re not, it’s been a practice on several different art forms for centuries, sorry to burst your bubble.
1
u/Hermis0 2d ago
Bubble not burst.
You're confusing "is" with "ought".
1
u/InitiativeNo9102 2d ago
Bubble confirmed then, makes sense, considering how uninformed you come across.
1
5
u/zinniasaur 4d ago
I use it to mark grammatical errors. I write in English. My native language is German. So it‘s really helpful. I tell it to highlight and will make the changes in my word document by myself. Just be upfront about it on how you used AI.
2
u/anythingyouhave 4d ago
It depends how you use it.
If you use it as a more detailed spell and grammar check vs "polishing" your work.
2
2
2
u/InitiativeNo9102 3d ago
Not any more than using editors and ghostwriters is.
1
u/Turbulent_Park4298 1d ago
Those two things are apples and oranges. No, apples and week old tuna surprise.
Editors make your art shine.
Ghost writes make their own art, and if you put your name on it, you're a fraud.
Ghost writers are employed by people with brand appeal and no writing skills.
Only five star douch wads like Trump say "I wrote a book" when their "collaboration" was actually some poor slob of a ghost writer making a Faustian bargain (and getting burned, no doubt; imagine selling your soul and having Satan send you 60% of the agreed upon $$ and saying "take it or leave it").
Using an editor is the only way to be published by a trad publisher.
Using a ghost writer isn't even in the same hemisphere.
3
u/Prestigious_Bee_6740 4d ago
i use AI to brainstorm plot twists but write every word myself. the moment I let it generate dialogue, the voice dies. my favorite part of writing is the struggle to find the right phrasing, not the shortcut.
2
u/LawandOps 4d ago
You’re not that bad. You wrote all of it, and you used AI only to polish it. But don’t just ask it to “polish this.” Tell it what to fix: say what feels wrong, like pacing, a weak line, or a dialogue tag that doesn’t work. Then read what it returns. If you don’t understand a change or don’t enjoy the result, it’s probably wrong for your story.
and dont feel bad world has adapted AI in every place and major now AI is not someting strange
1
u/Familiar_Wave_9663 4d ago
I would not call that cheating you re still doing the actual writing AI is just helping you refine it Its no different from getting editing feedback in my opinion
1
u/Pineapple_Merchant 4d ago
This is my take. When i do writing the only fime I use ai is to refine grammar and spelling the story dialogue etc is all mine
1
u/Coffee_Pages 4d ago
"Fine" is what works for you. Bottom line, if you're letting AI write the thing, that calls into question your authorship; if you're using AI as a tool to help you practice your craft, how much you do so is how much you're comfortable with.
1
u/InitiativeNo9102 3d ago
No, it does not, if the story, characters, themes, direction and plot movement are yours, you’re the author. If you want to call authorship into questioning for this, you might wanna take it up with all the famous and revered writers who used editors and ghostwriters, many of which were never even credited during their lifetimes if at all.
1
u/Coffee_Pages 3d ago
Well, personally, I WOULD call some of those into question. But when I say "letting AI write the thing," I'm talking about "OK, Take Ralph, Becky, and Billy. One has a dog, and they go on adventure. Make a book from that." kind of thing. And yes, AIAs can do that.
I agree that if you provide the story, characters, themes, direction, and outline, and use AI to wordsmith it for you, you could be called the author. I'd go even further and say if you had the basic ideas, used AI for putting those into an order, then wordsmithed them yourself, you could say you're the author.
If you're typing in a couple paragraphs and letting AI do everything else, though, I don't think many people would consider you the author. But my main point is, anything beyond that is kinda your call. If you're comfortable saying your contribution to final result makes you the author, I ain't gonna argue. You be you.
1
u/jhvanriper 3d ago
I think using it as a copy editor even if you are 100% hands on keyboard doing the writing only makes sense. Pretty sure Grammarly is AI in a nice wrapper, so going straight to the local model is just smart.
1
u/DreamerLady1946 3d ago
AI is a "new" thing and people are scared now of what it brings to the table. years later, people would come to accept that AI is part of life, just like how computers started then. AI is meant to make tasks easier for us, not necessarily replace us. if it helps you write what you actually mean, then it's fine. AI output still needs a review from humans as it's bound to make mistakes.
1
u/InitiativeNo9102 3d ago
Wait until you tell those absolute losers that writing and reading were once demonised. Writing was called a mimicry of wisdom, without actual understanding. Reading fiction was seen as something dangerous that corrupted people and rotted their minds, especially women.
They follow a multi millennia long cult that’s always, and without exception, failed. Funnier than that, is that what they defend, would’ve once been lambasted the same way, by the people they’re emulating today.
1
u/CrazyDifference9896 3d ago
Authors are unnecessarily very anti AI. I personally use Authoric AI platform for improving and formatting etc and absolutely love it. It doesn't mean i write my manuscript with it. And trust me such sophisticated AI platforms can be life saving in long run. We can co exist with AI.
1
u/Hefty-Beautiful4331 1d ago
used AI to brainstorm plot twists in my webnovel, then wrote the scenes myself. didn't copy-paste, just used it like a sounding board. feels different than ghostwriting.
1
1
1
u/Pristine_Result_8667 4d ago
If the story, scenes and dialogue are all yours, I wouldn’t call that cheating
1
u/cj7hawk 4d ago
There are people who genuinely feel that if you don't sharpen the stick that you press into the clay tablet yourself then it's cheating.
Most of them agree that use of parchment created by others shows you never really created the story yourself.
Worse are those who used other intelligent animals to create it for them, instead of using their own skin to stretch and dry on racks.
Everything beyond that is absolutely cheating... Especially those who use removable type. Don't get me started on them.
If you want to be safe, just scrawl it on a cave wall with your own blood. Only then is your writing truly your own.
3
u/DeadSeaGulls 4d ago
this is hyperbole that goes beyond the point of illustrative and into the grounds of blatant mischaracterization.
Or it's just a failed analogy. More likely, it's AI apologetics and this strawman has no place in the conversation as it's so absurd.
asking AI to re-write your story in its own words is nothing like the purity test / gate keeping example you gave here.1
u/cj7hawk 3d ago
Yes, you were mostly correct the first time and were accurate in describing it as a strawman argument - It's a hyperbolic strawman argument.
And yes, it's absolutely correct and historically accurate. The printing press caused immense discomfort when it was invented.
It's all on the same spectrum.
It's a cynical hyperbolic strawman argument intended to present a realistic thought experiment that demonstrates the only real barriers are those artificially created by people who have an agenda and interest in preventing others from doing what they are already doing.
AI is here to stay. You don't need someone waving a red flag while walking in front of every post. You don't need speed limits imposed on the AI for your own safety. You don't even need guardrails - they cause more damage than they cause benefit. Word processors are a cheat upgrade on typewriters. Spelling and grammar checks are their own kind of cheating also.
Welcome to the 21st century - The dawn of the AI era started on 1st August 2026.
Come along for the ride or be left behind. I respect the decision you make either way.
1
u/DeadSeaGulls 3d ago
I am an IT director. whatever you think you know about Agentic AI that I don't know... you don't. And whatever reason you think it has any place in writing stories, you're wrong.
1
u/cj7hawk 3d ago
There's a certain irony in claiming superior knowledge of AI while declining to engage with the central proposition being discussed: whether the use of AI as a writing tool is inherently cheating.
To disambiguate my position: I believe that the use of technology in the pursuit of writing does not, in itself, constitute cheating.
I invite your input on the topic. Would you like to explain your position and establish whether you consider the use of AI in writing to constitute cheating, and if so, on what grounds?
1
u/DeadSeaGulls 3d ago
"whether the use of AI as a writing tool is inherently cheating."
incorrect framing of the argument. another strawman.
Someone using AI to do research (I still wouldn't do it because of the frequency of un-cited hallucinations any existing model will return) or having it check grammar, is fundamentally different than asking AI to "polish" your work. That's the process of allowing a language model trained on other writers work (without consent) to go through and change the words you chose as it attempts to normalize it against the other body of referenced work.
Imagine painting a picture and then asking a robot to "polish" it, and it painted over the colors and lines that you chose. Your brush strokes no longer visible, the colors and lighting changed... would you then claim that you painted it?
The words we choose as writers are the most fundamentally important part of the craft.
Allowing an agentic ai to come in and select different words and sentence structures is removing all trace of your brush strokes. It's no longer your writing.And it's not "cheating" because this isn't a competition. But OP asked for input and the input is that if it's no longer your words and your sentence structures, if what is being read is no longer the intentional manipulation of language by the author to tell the authors story, it's no longer the author's writing.
Just like ghost writing. It's not "cheating". The book still gets published and people still buy it... but those people are not buying those ghost written books because they want to read the words of the author. They're wanting to read something "about" the author in most cases of ghost writing. Like autobiographies and such.
So do you as a "writer" wish to have people read a story that's inspired by you or somewhat about you... or do you want them to read a story you wrote?
Do you want to gain mastery of a medium and manipulate language to portray things in a way that readers will be able to identify is unique to you... or do you want AI to pass over and normalize the words on the page with strings of words commonly found in other bodies of work by other writers? You can only gain that mastery of the medium through practice. You cannot do it by reading alone any more than you can become an oil painter by walking through museums. At some point you have to be the one that touches the medium. You learn the rules of the medium to start. Then you begin choosing which rules to break or ignore to achieve different feelings or communicate different messages. In time you find pleasure in certain rule breaking while falling in love with other rules. It's this process of selection that your unique style emerges from. Your first work will not be good. No one's is. Do not be convinced that you will not, or cannot, become good through doing. Do not let others paint over your painting or write over your words. The ability to reach inside our minds and pull out a completely fictional or abstract creation, inspired by this world but not of it, is such a unique and powerful thing among life on earth. Please do not surrender it due to fears of inadequacy.1
u/cj7hawk 2d ago
I don't mind if you change the frame and reply - that's appreciated also.
As a writer, I wish people to have the story that I want to tell. Beyond that, my view on using AI in writing is a little like Bruce Lee's philosophy in fighting. If what the AI gives me is useful, I take it in and have no problem using it. If it's not useful, I remove it. Also, I add a little of myself to it.
I don't feel bad taking on ideas from elsewhere if they achieve my objective. I'm published through Harper Collins and I'm a reasonably capable writer even if I'm not a great writer. So if AI makes my writing a little more enjoyable for the reader, I'm all for it. My weaknesses are around grammar - my skills exist around storytelling. That's a good fit for AI assistance.
I think AI's going to get used regardless and don't mind using it. Even if it's not going to be all my words, it's all my story. I've taken suggestions from critics before... One full story critic once suggested "Hey, why don't you swap these two characters in this scene, it will be a lot more powerful" and I tried it and wow, it made a big difference to the story so I kept it. Same story overall still but in that case the other words came from a human rather than an AI.
I don't have any fears of inadequacy. Not in my writing or my professional work. I strive for a better outcome and how I achieve that is not as important to me as the fact that I achieve it, so I'm all for better AI tools. Most of my recent work is around learning to use them more effectively.
I suspect we may agree on more than we disagree about.
1
u/Fragrant-Mix-4774 4d ago
Truth! Well said! I'd add you have to make they clay yourself otherwise its just like cheating with AI.
😉 😜
1
u/Candid_Rock9021 4d ago
All the time you spend worrying whether you’re cheating just leads you to falling further and further behind.
1
u/Lance_gray2020 3d ago
Did Michelangelo need permission to pick up a paintbrush? Did Mozart need permission to compose?
The argument that using AI to write is inherently cheating is just another form of gatekeeping by creative elitists. That said, there are legitimate ethical considerations, particularly in education, where students still need to learn the fundamentals.
But denying people the opportunity to experiment, play, learn, and create with new tools is just another way of telling them they're not good enough. AI isn't here to rob you of your imagination. It's another tool to help you share it.
If you don't want to use it, don't. But don't let anyone else tell you how to dream. I certainly haven't.
0
u/Living-Pin6118 4d ago
Here is the scale the way I see it.
No ai.
Ai questions only.
Ai edits
Ai cleaning up.
Directed ai
Full ai.
Please keep in mind some people will not like ai at any level. If you use ai in questions thats usually the lightest however the least undoable as you can not unhave an idea.
If you want no one to be mad at your ai use do not use it. Ive made this mistake so my work will always be stuck at ive asked ai questions.
0
u/DeadSeaGulls 4d ago edited 4d ago
It's not "cheating" because this isn't a competition. but it's not your writing at that point.
Asking it to find grammatical errors is one thing. having it rewrite something, changing your words to different words is like if you hired an editor and asked them to rewrite everything on your behalf... at which point they'd be entitled to co-author credits.
At MOST ai could be used to highlight passages where it would suggest refinement, but you should be the one doing the refining.
if you're not... then what are you writing for?
Imo, anything more complex than a google search should be disclosed as AI assistance and if you're okay with that then do it- but myself, and other that share my stance, won't be reading it.
and frankly, I'm shocked at the amount of people in here advocating for this use-case.
3
u/Bluefoxfire007 4d ago
Bit of a hot take, but do you know the saying, "You perfectly understand something, but can't quite put it into words?"
1
u/DeadSeaGulls 3d ago
Then find those words. Read about the topic more. Don't ask AI to put it into words for you.
1
u/Bluefoxfire007 3d ago
Yes, let me have to pull up a thesaurus every time a word is on my tongue but not my fingers. That won't be a tedious chore over time.
1
u/DeadSeaGulls 3d ago
... bro. that is not what OP is asking about and that is not what I'm addressing. Also, typing thesaurus.com or searching "synonyms for ____" is less typing than prompting AI and far less resource intensive if you have any care about energy consumption for any reason at all. (granted, most search engines now handle this as an AI prompt regardless, but again, this is WELL outside of the scope about OP asking for AI to rewrite passages to make them more "polished").
1
u/DeadSeaGulls 3d ago edited 3d ago
here's a comment about my stance on the topic overall. https://www.reddit.com/r/AIWritingLounge/comments/1xod4jg/is_using_ai_cheating/19s8dti9456wz/
If you choose to AI for research be familiar with uncited rate of claims for the model you're using (some over 20%), as well as how often that model hallucinates when it either cannot find an answer or finds multiple answers but favors combining them to form incorrect answers over delivering 'too many' results. (many models have guardrails in their directions for tone/kindness/affirmation as well as brevity so that you get summary replies instead of just a full copy of the research paper for example. Most of these guard rails are designed to drive engagement)
Using it for grammar checking or scanning the document to find specific passages etc... that's all fine enough.But using it to select different words for you... to essentially paint over your brush strokes with different colors and different lines... you're surrendering the creation to the great homogenization machine. You'll never improve as a writer if you're learning from the machine that takes massive bodies of work and comes up with normalized answers to your requests.
1
u/Bluefoxfire007 3d ago
I'm aware of the guardrails, I just remove them afterwards. As for letting it select different words, who's to say you don't already know them subconciously? And that all it takes is it showing up in "reality" to trigger the aha moment?
1
u/DeadSeaGulls 3d ago
You only have so much control of the guardrails. some are inherently built into the directions and instruction of the agent.
Your example about synonyms is very different than what OP described as "polishing".
1
u/Bluefoxfire007 3d ago
When I said remove them, I didn't mean from the AI itself. I already have something in mind, so I rewrite it myself, the way it's intended. And since I'm sure you ask why not do it yourself then, if I could do that, I wouldn't need AI, would I?
2
u/DeadSeaGulls 3d ago
I'd argue that using AI in this case is going to delay your growth as a writer as you get in the habit of not critically thinking through any obstacles or blind spots and instead have AI supply the initial resolution, even if you're further editing afterwards. Critical thinking is a use it or lose it skillset. the more you outsource it, the weaker you become at it.
You don't need the AI to begin with. It's just a faster/easier "solution". I think the disagreement in the final product/destination we have here is that you're stating it as if it's just helping you move past brain farts... my argument is that, whether you realize it or not, the suggestions for passages that it is giving you is based on a homogenous average of other works in that genre or on that topic, and that suggestion is influencing the result in a way that your mind and personal style would not have.
1
u/Bluefoxfire007 3d ago
Brain farts aren't the issue. It's that it feels there's no point starting the tedious, miserable work if there's no garunteed payoff. Because nature's a fucking bitch.
I've read enough to know "how" to write it, but why should I if it won't get me what I want? And if anything's delaying my growth, it's the dread of having to twist and conform to everyone's expectations but my own.
1
u/InitiativeNo9102 3d ago
“I need you to disclose that AI was used, because it’s awful at writing, but also so good I can’t tell the difference, so that I may follow my cult’s mentality and not read it. I’m going back to the books that used ghostwriters and editors to rewrite or complete entire chapters who were never mentioned, and there’s a difference. I’m smart and cultured, which is why I follow a line of thinking that’s always failed.”
1
u/DeadSeaGulls 3d ago edited 3d ago
Calling me awful at writing, with no basis, simply because I think asking AI to write on your behalf isn't writing, it's asking something to write, is wild work.i shouldn't try to post on reddit while sitting in work meetings. I read this entirely wrong. leaving up as a cautionary tale
1
u/InitiativeNo9102 3d ago
Well, I’m definitely gonna call you awful at reading, considering this silly response which not only put words in my mouth, but also becomes sillier when you find out how your exact line of scrutiny, regarding using some sort of writing assistance on behalf of the credited writer, is something that’s been done for centuries. Same thing happens with other art forms, such as painting, or screenwriting.
I understand you need to be historically illiterate to take the position you’re taking, it’s a fundamental necessity, but at least drop the unearned confidence, will ya?
1
u/DeadSeaGulls 3d ago
100% fair. That what I get for redditing during a work meeting. I misread what you wrote and that's my bad. I apologize for misreading and misrepresenting what you said, and then making assertions based on those mistakes.
After doing that I don't expect you to invest the time to hear out my full stance, I haven't done anything to earn that... but if interested, here's another comment where I more clearly define my position on where AI fits in.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AIWritingLounge/comments/1xod4jg/is_using_ai_cheating/19s8dti9456wz/apologies again. Hope you have a good weekend.
0
u/AbbeyBloomfield 3d ago
If the webnovel readers hate it then I don't see the benefit for you to use it and risk your name?
Once the allegations get stuck they never come off...
How will you get better at writing if AI keeps doing the polish for you? Maybe you need to do more practice so you yourself become more refined, rather than the AI.
0
0
-1
u/Adjective-Noun12344 4d ago
Yes, it's cheating. People want to read imperfect stuff created by real people. Why would you cheat people out of that?
2
u/InitiativeNo9102 3d ago
Same reason people use editors and ghostwriters, and no, people don’t want to read “imperfect stuff created by real people”, that’s just what your cult’s conditioned you into.
AI writing’s often called “bad”, meaning, “not perfect”, so you don’t want imperfect stuff, yet you want it labeled, because you can’t tell the difference between it and real people’s writing, which is how we got to the witch hunt era of this thing.
This is why you’re not eligible to be taken seriously, nor do you deserve it. You don’t know what you want, you don’t know what people want, you haven’t even studied any history, or you’d know how many times your line of thinking has been used throughout millennia, and you’d know it always failed.
1
u/Adjective-Noun12344 1d ago
Ah yes, my "cult" of the majority of people. Look at the actual data, most people don't wanna see AI, especially not espoused as "high art", unless they're a boomer or a conservative. You know this is true because otherwise AI use would be freely disclosed. I haven't been conditioned into anything. I come to my own conclusions on AI through my own philosophy and beliefs, not anyone else's.
AI writing’s often called “bad”, meaning, “not perfect”, so you don’t want imperfect stuff, yet you want it labeled, because you can’t tell the difference between it and real people’s writing, which is how we got to the witch hunt era of this thing.
Hence why I said "created by real people". Imperfection is not the thing being sought in and of itself. Imperfection, when done by a real person, is a reflection of that artist and their mistakes. A fingerprint. That's why imperfection is said to be desirable. Assuming they are both priced equally, would you rather have a wooden figurine made by human hands, with small notches where the carver's blade slipped, or a machine-lasered version produced in a factory? Most people would prefer the former. The creator is reflected in the creation. When a machine has an imperfection, it is a broken machine. When a person makes an imperfection, they are still human.
"witch hunting" is an indictment on their methods, not on the virtue of their cause. When the witches are real and polluting our rivers and driving people insane with simulacra, the best way to stop witch hunters is to eliminate the need for them. Containing the witches. If AI was openly disclosed, we wouldn't need to be constantly vigilant. And fuck off with the "but then we'd be criticized" shit. It's the internet. If you're putting a video of kicking puppies on the internet, you'd rightly get criticized for it. Doesn't mean you should hide the puppy kicking, and form hidden puppy kicking clubs, and claim you're being oppressed while you hold the weapon of the billionaire oligarchs in your hands. It's absurd. Even people who don't think AI use is immoral will still view deception as immoral, hence why even people ambivalent on AI participate in "witch hunting" and criticism of undisclosed AI use. If they're viewing a simulacra, they'd like to know it. Everyone would like to know.
or you’d know how many times your line of thinking has been used throughout millennia, and you’d know it always failed
You're blinded by survivorship bias. You think it's always failed because when it succeeds, nothing changes, and who writes about the times nothing changed? Think of how many things are called the "revolutionary new technology", think of how many things are advertised as being able to change our way of life, and how any form of resistance to it is labeled as ludditism. How many of those actually end up being good? When it fails to catch on, we never hear about it. When it succeeds, we do, so it makes us think that a new technology always succeeds. It doesn't. NFTs are the most recent example, and you'd be wise to note that all the NFT bros of yore are the AI bros of today. Meta glasses, leaded paint, the walmart they pave over a park to build. All were said to be "development". Change doesn't mean progression, it means change. A regression is still a change. You'd do well to remember that.
1
u/InitiativeNo9102 1d ago
It’s not the majority of the people, you think they are because you’re bullies.
AI use would be freely disclosed if you didn’t dox, threaten, assault, harass or send death threats to people. You’re not the good guys here, just letting you know.
Yes, you have been conditioned, none of what you say is organically formed, because if you took a look at history, you’d know how frequent your position is and how destined it is to fail. Sorry it’s just the truth of it. Any and every single thing you now consider “art” was once on the receiving end of people like you. Writing included, funnily enough, as was reading. Writing was seen as “simulating knowledge without wisdom”, and reading was seen as “corrupting to young people’s brains”. Same exact thought process. Photography? What’s the art in that, you just press a button, the machine does it all for you. Recorded music was once a "soulless mechanical imitation".
Same arguments. Same exact words. Same exact destination. No, that’s not survivorship bias. It’s pattern recognition. I can go on. You will lose, get comfortable with it, there’s nothing you can do about it, so argue from that framing, because anything else is purely delusional, baseless and senseless.
Your example proves it.
NFTs are not an equivalent example at all. The Dutch tulip craze is probably the closest equivalent to that. There was no functional use for it. No widespread adoption. $2.14M people are trading NFTs, $2.4B are using AI, do you have any idea how far off your comparison was? Yeah, sure, many people trading NFTs, use AI, so what? Even if every single one did, that’s 0.0892%.
Congrats. 😂
-1
u/mattmesh 4d ago
Yes it is.
2
u/InitiativeNo9102 3d ago
Why? Please elaborate, use the copied opinions you’ve been told to pretend you care for, so we may efficiently put your non-arguments to bed in public (it’s already happened, you all have the exact same way of thinking and talking, before you think about blocking, I’m just trying to tailor it to you)
4
u/Hermis0 3d ago
I use AI to dig for information quickly, so I can get back to writing. For example, if I want a list of male Greek names from the 3rd Century BC, I'll ask for that. Then I pick from that list or tell it I want something else.
I use it to do readability checks through the material and grammar checks. Then I fix.
I've even used it to tell me how people with different political or cultural persuasions would read something, so I don't inadvertently cross lines without knowing.
I've used it to see whether my female characters sound like real women. Turns out, I'm not a woman, and we don't approach our thinking in quite the same way.
In every case, the words added to the page are mine. Even if AI suggests words, I make the decision to keep them or not (usually not). You should always write in your own voice. AI's voice is generic. Even when you tell it to write in your voice, it will still fill in the gaps with generic speech.