AI Double Standards and Public Criticism
Sometimes it seems virtually everyone is using Artificial Intelligence now—students, teachers, authors, even doctors. Recently, two college professors were caught red-handed using generative AI, leading to public and institutional criticism about transparency and double standards:
* A business professor at Northeastern University was nailed using ChatGPT to generate lecture notes and assignment feedback, even leaving clear AI prompts visible in the documents. He wasn’t fired, but it caused a public uproar, with one student demanding a refund of his tuition. The university didn’t pay up, but the professor had to publicly acknowledge the lack of transparency, and admit his mistake.
* The AI Grading Fiasco: An agricultural professor at Texas A&M gave all his students a failing grade (”X”) after using ChatGPT to assess their final essays. Shortly afterward, the professor’s own use of AI and the fairness of his grading tool was called into question.
The AI Writing Paradox: When the Tool Replaces the Thinker
Picture two writers, both using ChatGPT to draft an article about cardiac surgery techniques.
Writer A is a cardiologist with 15 years of operating room experience. When the AI confidently declares that “coronary bypass procedures typically require only 90 minutes of operative time,” she immediately catches the error—most bypass surgeries take 3-5 hours. She deletes the sentence, corrects the timeline, and moves on. The AI saved her an hour of drafting; her expertise saved her reputation.
Writer B is a freelance blogger who’s never set foot in a hospital beyond routine checkups. He reads the same 90-minute claim, thinks “that sounds efficient,” and publishes it. Three days later, an actual surgeon eviscerates him in the comments. His credibility evaporates.
The question facing every modern writer isn’t “Can I use AI to write?” It’s “Who holds the leash?”
The Verification Problem: Fluency Isn’t Accuracy
AI writes with the confidence of someone who’s never been wrong. It will declare, without hesitation, that the Battle of Hastings occurred in 1077 (it was 1066), or that Shakespeare wrote 42 plays (he wrote 37-38, depending on attribution). The prose flows beautifully. The facts might be garbage.
This is the hallucination problem, and it’s fatal if you can’t spot it.
Consider these real scenarios:
The History Professor uses AI to generate a rough timeline of the French Revolution. When it places the Reign of Terror in 1791 instead of 1793, she notices instantly and corrects it. She’s using AI as a research assistant whose work requires heavy editing—not as a primary source.
The High School Student copies the same AI-generated timeline for his essay. He doesn’t know the Reign of Terror date off the top of his head—that’s why he needed help. He submits the paper. His teacher marks it wrong. He learns nothing except that AI can make him fail.
Or perhaps, the AI tells you that pandas are carnivores even though you know they’re herbivores. (Well, maybe that’s a bad example. There are strong arguments on both sides.)
Better example: AI says Shakespeare wrote 42 plays (he wrote 37 or 38, depending on attribution).
The point is, without domain expertise, you’re flying blind. The AI sounds authoritative, whether it’s correct or not. You must possess an internal compass so you’ll know the difference.
Skill Level Determines Whether AI Helps or Hurts
The Professional Writer: Catalyst
Scenario: A veteran journalist needs to write a 2,000-word feature on urban housing policy.
She uses AI to:
* Generate a quick outline of standard talking points
* Summarize three 40-page policy reports into bullet points
* Draft transition sentences between sections
Then she spends her time where it matters: conducting original interviews, crafting a compelling lede, refining her argument’s logical flow, and injecting her distinctive voice. The AI handled the grunt work. She handled the thinking.
Result: She cuts her drafting time from 8 hours to 5 hours while maintaining her reputation for incisive, original analysis.
The Novice Writer: Crutch
Scenario: An aspiring blogger wants to write about urban housing policy but has never studied economics or city planning.
He uses AI to:
* Write the entire article from scratch
* Generate all the arguments and evidence
* Create the structure and conclusions
He edits for grammar but can’t evaluate whether the arguments make sense or the evidence is cherry-picked. He’s acting as a copy editor for a machine that doesn’t understand economics.
Result: He publishes 2,000 words that are grammatically perfect, structurally competent, and intellectually hollow. He’s developed zero writing skills and couldn’t write an equally good article without AI tomorrow.
The skilled writer uses AI to amplify mastery. The novice uses AI to bypass the hard cognitive work that builds mastery—and never develops the skill to write independently. (Essay continues below:)
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
The Creativity Code: Art and Innovation in the Age of AI
Author: Marcus Du Sautoy
Du Sautoy investigates how algorithms and AI are revolutionizing creative fields. The book raises profound questions about the nature of creativity itself and explores whether a machine can truly produce original, creative work, often referencing the famous Lovelace Test.
The Artist in the Machine: The World of AI-Powered Creativity
Author: Arthur I. Miller
This book explores whether computers are beginning to match, and will eventually surpass, human creativity. It delves into the creative possibilities that emerge when humans and machines collaborate across fields like art, music, and writing, challenging traditional notions of what it means to be a creator.
Genre Matters: Truth vs. Imagination
Non-Fiction: High-Stakes Verification
You’re writing a book about World War II aviation. AI generates this sentence:
“The P-51 Mustang could reach speeds of 450 mph and had a combat range of 2,000 miles, making it the fastest and longest-range fighter of the war.”
If you’re a military historian, alarm bells ring immediately. The P-51’s top speed was around 437 mph, and while it had excellent range (about 1,650 miles with drop tanks), calling it definitively “the fastest and longest-range” is debatable. You fix it.
If you’re not an expert, you trust it. Your book now contains errors that will get shredded by knowledgeable readers. One factual mistake erodes trust in everything else you wrote.
Fiction: Lower Stakes
You’re writing a fantasy novel and ask AI to draft a tavern brawl scene:
“Marcus ducked under the wild haymaker, grabbed a pewter mug from the bar, and swung it hard into his attacker’s temple. The man crumpled like a puppet with cut strings.”
Is this factually accurate? Who cares—it’s fiction. The question is: Does it feel visceral and match your character’s voice? That’s where your expertise as a storyteller matters. The AI gave you raw material; you refine it for emotional impact, pacing, and character consistency.
Fiction writing with AI is like sculpting with someone else’s clay. Non-fiction writing with AI is like editing a Wikipedia article written by someone who’s never fact-checked anything in their life.
Creative/Marketing Context: Reputational Damage
A thriller novelist’s fans discover she used AI to write entire chapters of her latest bestseller. The prose quality is fine, but readers feel cheated. They didn’t pay $16.99 for machine-generated fiction—they paid for her imagination and voice.
Sales of her next book crater. Not because AI wrote bad prose, but because the revelation broke the unspoken contract between author and reader: “This story came from a human mind.”
Lesson: Most commercial writers keep AI use quiet to avoid prejudice, but discovery can backfire. The safest approach: use AI only as a tool to enhance your own expertise and voice, not replace them.
The Effort Fallacy
Readers often value work based on perceived effort. If they learn you had AI write it in 20 minutes instead of laboring over it for 20 hours, they feel the work is less valuable—even if the quality is identical.
Fair? Maybe not. Real? Absolutely.
The Bottom Line: AI Amplifies What You Already Have
If you have expertise: AI is a time-saver that handles mechanical tasks while you focus on insight, verification, and craft.
If you lack expertise: AI becomes a dangerous liability that lets you publish bogus info, confidently, at scale.
The test: Could you write this without AI tomorrow? If not, you’re not using a tool—you’re being used by one.
AI can generate words, but only human expertise and judgment can guarantee those words ring true, are meaningful, and worth reading. Use AI to amplify your skills, not to replace the hard work of developing them in the first place.
Authors & Publishing: Reputational Risk
In the professional writing world, the consequences are more often reputational damage and legal action over copyright, rather than getting fired:
* Prompt Left in Book: Several authors publishing books on Amazon’s Kindle platform have been publicly called out and faced one-star reviews for sloppy use of AI, including one notorious case where the AI prompt itself was left embedded in the text of the published book, damaging the author’s credibility and perceived effort.
* Copyright Lawsuits: While not a disciplinary action, the largest consequence for established authors and publishers has been legal action. A collective of authors, including Michael Connelly, Jonathan Franzen, and John Grisham, are suing OpenAI for copyright infringement, arguing that their works were used to train AI models without permission, threatening the livelihood of creative professionals.
Key Patterns
The problem with AI detectors:
* Tools like Turnitin, GPTZero, and Copyleaks have high false positive rates
* They disproportionately flag:
* Non-native English speakers
* Neurodivergent students
* Students who write formally or use grammar checkers
* Well-written student work
Common defenses students use:
* Google Docs revision history showing every keystroke
* Drafts, outlines, and research notes
* Handwritten notes photographed as PDFs
The stakes:
* Expulsion (especially harsh for international students who lose visas)
* Academic probation
* Failed courses
* Permanent disciplinary records
* Barriers to graduate school admission
* Bar association disclosure requirements
The irony is rich: many false accusations happen because AI detectors themselves are unreliable, yet schools treat their output as definitive proof. Meanwhile, actual cheaters sometimes get away with it if they carefully cover their tracks.
The Final Obstacle: Fear, Ignorance, and Cultural Resistance
The ultimate hurdle for AI adoption isn’t technology, it’s you and me, real human beings. The current widespread hostility toward AI-assisted writing—the belief that it’s dangerous, inaccurate, plagiaristic, and lazy—is often less a measured ethical stance and more a reaction driven by two powerful human forces: fear of the unknown and reluctance to learn.
1. The Fear of the New: A Familiar Script
This uneasiness is a recurring script in history, echoing the moral panic that greeted the emergence of the internet, calculators in classrooms, and even the printing press. The fear is often less about the tool itself and more about:
* Job Displacement: The understandable worry that AI will devalue or eliminate human creative work.
* Loss of Control: The anxiety that the new technology is too complex and mysterious to be governed.
* Authenticity Crisis: The emotional attachment to the idea that effort equals value, making effortless AI-assisted output feel inherently fraudulent.
2. The Resistance to Learning: “Dug In” Attitudes
Many people who express the loudest hostility toward AI do not truly understand it and have not learned how to use it effectively.
For this group, AI is not a tool to be mastered, but a threat to be rejected. They’ve adopted a “dug-in” psychological position that offers the comfort of consistency over the discomfort of change.
* The Vicious Cycle: Because they reject the tool, they don’t engage with it. Because they don’t engage with it, their understanding remains limited, fueling their initial hostile opinion.
* The Immutability of Opinion: For those who have staked their professional or moral identity on rejecting AI, external arguments about its potential (its ability to enhance an expert’s work, for example) are ignored. Some minds cannot be changed by outsiders or by evidence; they must be changed internally, by a personal need or a genuine moment of curiosity.
Conclusion: Beyond the Culture Wars
By acknowledging this cultural resistance, maybe we can all move past technical policy and into, as I mentioned, human nature. Ultimately, the adoption of AI will be driven not by mandate, but by the generational shift where those who are currently rejecting the tool will either be forced to adapt by necessity or slowly replaced by those who see AI not as a threat to their intelligence, but as an amplifier of their existing expertise and creativity.
Is using AI lazy? It depends on the person. Someone I know who uses AI for almost everything told me they’ve never been busier, never been more productive in their life. Instead of working four hours a day and hating their life, now they’re working 10 hours a day and loving it. Maybe that’s what it all means: if you can use tools to focus your efforts, you might get more motivated than ever, and perhaps leave an even bigger mark in history.
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit essentialbookdrop.substack.com
