Hao Jingfang has no problem writing books with AI. What we need to further inquire about are these three things.

Haojingfang said that she has been using AI for creation more and more frequently. The proportion of AI - created content in the novel "Galaxy Academy" has reached 50%.

This has sparked controversy. Some people say that the core of literature is humanity, and using AI for writing shows a lack of literary self - esteem and so on.

Readers should first be concerned about whether the book is well - written. In the end, it is humans who review and approve the work. If it's not good, people simply won't buy it. Instead of acting like writing police, carefully checking every word and sentence of human - written articles to see if they are "tainted" by robots.

Many well - known figures have their books ghost - written, either by a group of students or interns. No one asks if they wrote the books themselves, and it doesn't affect their ability to make money.

In fact, with the advancement of technology, it will become increasingly difficult to detect the "AI flavor". The so - called characteristics of AI, such as its preference for using "not... but...", quotation marks, and dashes, are all products of a certain stage and can be easily avoided. AI also likes to stitch many facts together with a seemingly logical structure, which is a bit more difficult to overcome. But it doesn't matter. After all, many articles written by real people are just for show, and it's enough to "look professional to the layman".

Liu Qing, a well - known scholar and professor at East China Normal University, had a discussion with Shao Yilei, the dean of the Shanghai AI Finance School of East China Normal University, about how university teachers should face AI. Shao Yilei said that she encourages students to use high - end AI because the information sources and reasoning abilities are completely different, resulting in completely different outcomes.

If you think some articles have a strong AI flavor and seem fake at first glance, it's because the author is too lazy. They don't consider the logic of the article or carefully choose the words, turning the human - machine collaboration into a direct copy of the AI's results.

Some people rarely use AI or only use it once or twice, perhaps using Doubao, and then start to comment that AI writing is useless and should not be used. This is really not objective.

Haojingfang said that she has been working on promoting the AI literacy of teenagers. It is definitely more beneficial than harmful for writers to embrace AI and explore human - machine collaboration.

From the perspective of the overall social level, the writing ability of many people is actually inferior to that of AI. With the help of technology, improving the writing and expression abilities of the whole society is of course a good thing.

A programmer once told me that he used to suffer from his poor writing skills. With the help of AI, he now feels that he can handle things that were previously restricted by liberal arts students on his own.

Of course, AI raises the lower limit of the overall social expression ability. The upper limit of writing still needs to be created by humans or through human - machine collaboration. Experienced users of AI can let AI help collect information, conduct divergent thinking, and even write parts of the content. However, the overall layout, fact - gathering, judgment of viewpoints, and some delicate expressions still need to be done by humans. Those who claim that AI can directly deliver professional - level and immediately usable results in all scenarios are either not telling the truth or have a very low standard for what a "usable result" is.

Haojingfang also said in an interview: "AI can reach a level of 90 points in various fields, but it cannot replace those who can achieve 99 points in certain fields."

90% of writing will be replaced by AI, leaving 10% for those who are truly good at it. To be qualified to control and train AI, one has to be in the top 10% or even 1% in a certain field to thrive. The same will be true for other industries. If you are only producing results that seem professional to the layman, AI can indeed do better than you.

Just as π is infinite, our understanding of the world should also be infinite. Humans are unlikely to stay idle but will constantly challenge new heights. This doesn't sound like a technological dividend but rather shows the cruelty of technological progress.

So, what should we really worry about in the face of the large - scale use of AI writing?

First, what we should be concerned about is not whether AI writing will become rampant, but whether we have the aesthetic and discriminatory ability to recognize good things. Human judgment determines the direction of a technology.

Many people seem to pursue "gourmet food" and expect soulful cooking, but they still spend their money in restaurants that are good at storytelling and packaging as internet celebrities. You can't blame the food industry's automated production for the rise of pre - made dishes. This is a choice made by humans themselves, and their sense of taste has been numbed to the point of losing judgment.

Of course, some people say that this is an involuntary choice, and the sense of taste can be trained. This is also true. The busy pace of life and consumer trends make it difficult for an ordinary person to stay unaffected.

I am optimistic about AI and believe that technological progress will bring more possibilities, allowing those who had no way out before to find a path to growth in new fields. However, the reality is that some people can be the bosses of AI, while others become data miners for AI. We must face the current helpless reality that good things still seem to be only accessible to a few people.

The ever - green vegetables in greenhouses and the efficiently - raised meat in farms support the chain restaurants on the streets. From the perspective of survival and species reproduction, this is progress because it can feed more people, and the safety and reliability of factory - produced food may even be higher than that of handmade food. A small number of wealthy people can support a group of artisans to provide organic food, or some people may choose to give up modern life and grow their own food, but they will have a hard time.

In the future, white - collar workers, or knowledge workers, will face the same challenges as farmers did when they heard the roar of machines a hundred years ago. Agriculture will not disappear, and knowledge workers will not disappear either, but their appearance will be completely different.

Second, in what ways is the use of AI unfair?

Back to the matter of writing a book, there is a controversy: if a book is written by AI, why should the author take most or even all of the credit? In fact, this is the norm in the workplace. Many achievements are mainly made by the team, but it is the leader who takes the credit to the boss and the board of directors because the leader is responsible for allocating resources and making key decisions. This is the current workplace ethics and distribution system; it's not always a case of distribution according to work.

Value is determined by scarcity, not by the amount of labor.

So, what should we really argue about? I think we should question the source of scarcity. Is the ability that leaders put into leading and training the team and making decisions truly scarce? Or is it some other kind of scarcity that allows them to take the leadership position?

If AI is only available to a small group of people, and those with money can use more capable AI, this will obviously bring new inequalities. Or, if someone uses AI to write a book of the same quality, can they sell it better than a well - known writer? A well - known writer may get certain privileges, such as better display positions, more sales channels, and endorsements from other celebrities. These unfair issues cause more harm to the purity of literature and art than using AI to write a book.

Third, is there a balance between rights and responsibilities?

While leaders enjoy the achievements, they are also the first responsible persons, including bearing the consequences of unfavorable results, the cost of the team, and its growth. If they only take the credit and don't take the responsibility, the workplace ethics will be disrupted.

Whether those who control AI will really take the consequences or "keep the benefits for themselves and push the bad consequences to society" is a question that deserves more in - depth exploration.

This article is from the WeChat public account "Workplace Anthropology", author: Zhao Wenyuan. Republished by 36Kr with permission.