As of now, it seems to be a runaway engine. Winners of literary prizes, ones who were highly praised by the judges, were found to have used AI to craft their work. Submissions are increasingly influenced by the works of artificial intelligence. How do you detect if someone has used AI to polish up their writing, or even ‘create’ large chunks of it?
The other day, in a discussion among writers AI was compared to an Olympic writer who won the prize because of being “doped up”. But maybe the issue is more complex than that. Passing off AI work as one’s own if theft. But what is the legitimate point of acceptability for an AI-influence in a world where everyone is coming to be touched by its long hand?
Is proofreading and spell-checking by AI acceptable? Would the use of Grammarly or Quill Bot (two tools used to improve a writer’s accuracy of language) also be seen as unacceptable?
Recently, a friend from Brazil shared some norms set by universities there. Students are allowed to depend on AI, but under special circumstances. They have to explain what exactly they made use of it for, and there is a line as to what is acceptable and what isn’t. This seems to be a more practical approach, as of now.
The Goa Government’s Draft Goa Artificial Intelligence Policy 2026 proposes regulations for the mainstream media “to ensure safety, accountability and transparency”. Under this, all accredited media will be required to “disclose any use of generative AI in their content production”. (AI traditionally analyses data, classifies information and makes predictions. Generative AI learns patterns to create new, original content—text, images or code).
If we are talking about unfair advantages then we also need to go beyond just AI. The Digital Divide and the Opportunity Divide has privileged some writers over others. In the past, this included superior internet access and expensive research databases. Today too, it includes paid editorial services (which some can afford more than others), access to agent services, residencies and fellowships which are accessible to a select few or can be purchased at a significant price, entry into the international festival circuits, and even access to globally dominant publishing networks. Publicity teams, easier travel and visa regimes, access to educational institutions, and attaining far wider global footprints that goes with writing in dominant languages like English are other factors that skew the field.
Sharing the knowledge of others is not unethical or wrong, but the credit one gives while sharing such information is crucial. Due credit given shows the willingness to share credit and praise with what is due, and also an acceptance that most of the knowledge we collate is picked up from ‘the giants upon whose shoulders we (often) stand’.
If the concern is over getting an unfair advantage from AI is real, then many other practices deserve scrutiny too. Like: (i) plagiarising or reverse-engineering the work, ideas, structures or approaches of other writers; (ii) appropriating professional contacts, links or mentors through another writer's generosity and then bad-mouthing their approaches; (iii) disparaging those who offered guidance when one was an inexperienced writer, especially to enhance one's own standing; (iv) withholding useful information, giving misleading advice or gatekeeping opportunities to reduce competition; (v) participating in networks primarily as platforms for relentless self-promotion while contributing little or nothing to building the community; (vi) leveraging connections to secure reviews, invites or publishing contracts; (vii) using ghostwriters, uncredited editors or extensive developmental assistance while presenting the work as entirely one's own; (viii) trading favourable endorsements within cliques; (ix) misrepresenting lived experiences to gain legitimacy and (x) mobilising followers to amplify one's profile disproportionately.
Yes, AI poses challenges in rewriting the rules of the game. In the 15th century, it was the printing press. Newspapers played their own role of how news could travel. The early news agencies have stories of ‘news’ being transported even via courier pigeons. In the 1990s, email changed the way we communicated; and before that, faxes.
When computers first entered the newspaper world, many of us bought the argument that it would cause widespread unemployment. Some did lose their jobs but it opened up opportunities for many too.
In a best-case scenario, AI could be a collaborative assistant to writers. Could it take on tedious research or editing tasks? The worst-case scenario could see oversaturation, and the uncompensated use of an author’s work for training AI models; but this would not be the first time when work was stolen. Writers like Gracia da Orta, who worked in Goa in another century, was widely plagiarised for his knowledge, all over Europe. Dutch spies stole the work of Portuguese travellers, and the Brits built their colonial empires based on those before them. AI could also degrade human creativity. Youtube tell us how the “AI trap” is killing novels, and AI is making us worse writers.
At the same time, AI is showing signs of corrective actions. It’s getting harder to fudge AI’s writing as one’s own… Let’s see where this ends up.
