I have to say that artificial intelligence is indeed very powerful nowadays. You can write a title, idea and requirement and you can write an article in a few seconds. The language is smooth and the logic is rigorous. It is widely quoted to make false and real. Therefore, many writers seem to have found the trick, as if they are looking forward to a savior, and they are fully entrusted with artificial intelligence to write on their behalf. And there are special tips for writing novelists how to make money using AI writing:

You can read the following article, which is written by AI itself, how to use AI to write articles. This is a real self-promotion:

Has anyone listened to these opinions and suggestions and put them into action? Too much. Recently, I browsed on the Toutiao account, and articles suspected of AI creation appear from time to time. In fact, articles written with AI are too obvious: its advantages are its disadvantages. Articles written by AI can recognize them at a glance, without personalization, no lifestyle, and serious programming. There are eye-catching and boxing, many repetitions, echoing the front and back, etc. In this way, AI has also suffered from writers with "AI style". Some authors will complain in the article: I clearly coded it word by word, but I was recognized as AI creation by the backend robot, and I will never die. Recommended.

What I want to tell you is: it seems that using artificial intelligence to help you write articles is a shortcut, but "the way is very unlucky, but the people are good at it." AI writing will harm you unknowingly. Why did it hurt you? We won’t talk about theory today, let’s give an example and make an analogy:

If you are a "leader", artificial intelligence is like your "secretary", and this metaphor is very appropriate. Should you, the leader, make your own decisions, or let your secretary make decisions for you? I don't have to answer this question. But the reality is that there are a large number of leaders, but the secretary actually makes the decision for him: the work plan is made by the secretary, the work arrangement plan is formulated by the secretary, the work summary is written by the secretary, and the leader must speak at a meeting. The secretary writes on his behalf. If the secretary writes, the leader will follow the speech and reads the subject according to the script. There was a joke before. When the secretary wrote the manuscript, he had to add a lot of words and couldn't write the blank space, so he attached a piece of paper, marking the place he wanted to add "Turn down to a certain page" and the leader said when he spoke. He said "Turn down to a certain page" intact. A leader like this is a leader? Or a puppet at the front desk?

If the writer asks AI to do it all, it is actually the relationship between the above-mentioned leader and the secretary: AI is the behind-the-scenes staff, and the author standing in the front is actually just a puppet.

In real life, are there puppet leaders? It's too much, maybe it's a little less now, but in the past I've caught a lot of them. Some leaders are questioned by superiors on the spot when reporting on their work, and there are many people who don’t know about it after asking or not. Leaders like this don’t have much room for improvement.

On the contrary, those leaders who have achievements, courage and huge room for development all have to explain what they say after they have figured out what they say before they will explain them clearly what they should write according to this idea and outline. Some leaders are even afraid that the secretary will not understand the original intention, so they personally take action and make changes. The secretary is just doing auxiliary work. Look at those great people, which speech was written by the secretary? We are now reading teacher selections, and the press releases are written by ourselves. Isn’t it a role model for us to learn from?

Remember this sentence: Technology is always the enemy of lazy people, incapable people, and outdated people, not friends. Every technological revolution will eliminate some people. So, artificial intelligence AI is not here to save us.

Therefore, AI creation can only make the author's creativity exhausted and his thinking rigid. Writing is a highly creative activity, which requires the author to have multiple abilities such as independent thinking, emotional expression, and logical reasoning. Although AI writing tools can generate articles with correct grammatical and complete structure, they often lack depth and soul. Relying on AI writing for a long time, people may gradually lose the ability to think independently and become accustomed to mechanically assemble and copy text.

Suppose an author uses AI writing tools for a long time to think and write for himself. At the beginning, he may think these tools are very convenient and can quickly generate articles that meet the requirements. However, over time, it will become increasingly difficult to think and express opinions independently. At critical moments, he may feel unable to start or even be able to organize a complete sentence. This is the creative exhaustion and rigid thinking caused by excessive reliance on AI writing.

If only the individual is harmed by AI writing, it would be fine, it will also affect the ecology and development of the entire platform. In the process of learning and imitating human language, AI writing tools tend to produce content that conforms to mainstream aesthetics and values. This may lead to homogeneity of cultural products and weaken the diversity of different cultures and languages. In the long run, this trend of homogeneity may threaten the richness and diversity of human culture.

So, let's say "no" to AI writing!

Of course, it is absolutely OK to use AI as your own "secretary" and use the author's own brain to direct AI to help complete auxiliary work, which is also the ultimate mission of AI.