Human Writers Should Write with Dignity

Let me start with something obvious: All current AI large language models do not possess true “thinking” abilities, nor do they hold genuine values or beliefs.

Yesterday, I reposted an article written by a friend. A lot of readers commented that it “felt very AI-generated.” I actually went back and confirmed with the author: it was entirely human-written, just with a few typos I helped fix before reposting. So, I’m confident it was not AI-generated.

Still, I understand why people are wary of AI writing—it’s a bit like the way people are skeptical of processed food. The topic of “how to spot AI writing” is interesting. Can we really tell if an article was written or assisted by AI? Is it even important to distinguish AI writing from human writing? As a human author, I wanted to share my perspective.

1. Providing Verified, Objective Information

Whenever there’s a widely discussed issue—whether it’s vaccine safety, prescription drug controversies, or high-profile social events—there’s always an overwhelming mix of rumors and facts. As a professional writer, I invest time and years of experience in researching, fact-checking, and analyzing reliable information. I do the work of cutting through the noise and presenting readers with key, trustworthy facts.

Anyone could theoretically do this with enough time and experience, but most people are busy with work, school, or family. That’s why it makes sense to trust professionals with this heavy lifting.

Today’s AI tools, like ChatGPT, Gemini, can assist with information gathering. I sometimes use AI to collect resources during the research phase, mainly for comprehensiveness—not accuracy. Because of “AI hallucinations,” I never take AI-generated info at face value. Everything is double-checked by a human before it makes it into my work.

Sometimes, though, you can see clear signs that an article is AI-generated—like an abrupt, wildly inaccurate section. That’s what happens when someone copy-pastes straight from AI without any human review.

2. Offering Human Perspective and Values

When discussing public issues, everyone has their own stance. As a public writer, I try to take positions that favor the common good and support vulnerable groups. My aim is to apply the standards of a civilized society to current issues, so we can reach consensus and make progress.

Sometimes, you’ll find your views align with mine. In that case, sharing my article saves you the time of writing out your own thoughts. Other times, you might disagree with my opinions. That’s okay. The comment section is there for different perspectives (though I do moderate out the trolls), and you can always see if another person’s argument makes sense.

Some people now turn to AI for these value-based questions, hoping for a rational and balanced answer. They might, for example, ask ChatGPT to analyze a well-known Australian criminal case like the “Sydney nurse assault case.” Honestly, AI models can sometimes provide more nuanced, multi-perspective summaries than the average untrained internet user.

Here’s the thing: even when ChatGPT “analyzes” a complex event, it just compiles perspectives from the internet. The answer is broad and multi-angled, but it’s usually a list of conclusions with little actual argument or reasoning. Most importantly, AI has zero actual values, preferences, or sense of right and wrong. Any “value” in the answer is an echo of source materials and programming filters, not a reflection of real belief or lived experience. In fact, product managers and engineers go out of their way to keep their own values out of AI systems.

This is where real human writers make a difference. I have my own values, which may not always match yours, and they’re not necessarily better or higher. But the point is, we both have values—that’s what makes a real human conversation meaningful.

3. I Don’t Write to Please or Serve You

Let’s be honest: in many ways, I am less “convenient” than AI tools. You can tell an AI to write a paragraph, rewrite it 18 times, hunt down arguments to back your point, or even mimic your favorite author’s style. It’s obedient, tireless, and never charges overtime.

Try to tell me how to write in the comments, though, and I might block you. Why? Because I’m not your on-demand content machine.

But that’s exactly why human-written articles are valuable. Reading from real people exposes you to facts you might have missed, and to viewpoints outside your usual bubble. It’s the best way to deepen and broaden your thinking.

One fundamental difference between human writers and AI is dignity. Sadly, some bloggers fully hand over content creation to AI, just to please their followers and “give people the opinions they want.” In doing so, they lose their sense of dignity as creators. Using pptdetector.com, user can check out those ai contents.

So, How Do You Spot AI Writing?

Honestly, it’s not that hard to spot articles written completely by AI and left unedited—they often have a generic, mechanical feel, and sometimes include wild factual errors. But for articles where AI only helped with outlines, paragraphs, or editing, it’s much harder to tell—and it’s not always necessary to even try.

When following a writer or reading an article, ask yourself:

Is the information fact-checked and reliable?

Are the views backed by real values?

Has the author shown a consistent perspective over time?

As for AI, using it as a partial tool for research or editing is totally fine. Completely rejecting it is pointless, and bragging about “no AI ever” doesn’t really mean much in today’s world.

The important thing is this: human writers should write like actual humans.