They could use exactly the same “argument” for straight-up (traditional) plagiarism, and it would make as much sense. Hell, traditional plagiarism would be better, as at least you could pick sentences that are actually good, and you’d still be making aesthetic choices about everything that went into “your” book (that you’d completely cede to AI).
How classist! Not everyone can afford cabs, you know! (/s)
At some point the software that produces work is itself arguably the artwork. Which means whoever created the software is the artist, not the “user” (who is the equivalent of a tourist taking a picture of the Mona Lisa).
Yeah, if you don’t have the time or mental ability to write a book, then don’t write a book. Write a short story, write social media posts, write poetry, make (other) art. If a given form doesn’t work with your limitations, use a different form that does. Invent a form, if you have to. It’s not like financially the form makes a difference and anyone is being blocked from making a living if they can’t write books (there’s no money in writing books either).
They’re saying more than that, as their sponsor is a generative AI company that “helps” writers rephrase/expand on their text. Which is an absolutely terrible idea that doesn’t ultimately help writers at all. But “use Grammarly if you have to” also isn’t great. Terrible advice for a professional book, but also an amateur - they shouldn’t be telling authors (would-be or actual) to use software to smooth out their voice into some standardized English. They should be telling would-be writers to embrace their own voices, as imperfect as they are. That’s an important part of writing fiction. I mean, sure, if you’re “writing a book” but don’t intend anyone else to ever read it, then go ahead and “use whatever tools you need to” because it’s a completely masturbatory exercise and no one needs to see what you’re wanking with. If you want to involve other people at some point, then it does matter.
