Brent & Argus

Does AI Replace Writers?

Contents

David Perell interviews Tyler Cowen, a writer and economist, on how he uses AI in his work as a writer without losing the edge that makes his voice unique.

It’s an interesting take. We’re still at the early stages of this AI revolution. While many stress over whose job will be made redundant by this new tech, Tyler Cowen describes how we can use AI to make us better and more productive.

At one point in the interview, he describes how there are certain types of content that will be more and less useful for humans. It’s an interesting point. It’s hard to picture the time when AI replaces a quality food critic, but much easier to imagine little future for humans writing a science book.

I’m probably in the minority on this point, but I’m still quite skeptical that AI could ever be self-sufficient. But I think we’re already seeing the beginning of how AI could replace a lot of the painful legwork.

That opens up an unmatched opportunity for much greater creative output by humans.

AI: Read This for Me

Cowen happily admits that AI is his go-to research assistant.

Once upon a time, if you wanted to prep for an interview or write about Shakespeare, you’d do the old-fashioned thing: read a book. Maybe even several. But now? Why bother.

AI can give you a summary, provide context, and connect dots faster than and with greater precision than the best researcher.

It doesn’t mean we don’t need to have a knowledge of the topic or to read anything, but as Cowen suggests, AI can help us to narrow our focus and get to what is essential much faster.

AI Hallucinations Are No Big Deal

AI sometimes makes things up, but Cowen suggests this isn’t as big of a problem as we’ve so far made it out to be.

Just double-check everything, like you would with humans.

It’s a sensible point.

Yes, AI could be an excellent research assistant to write a history of medieval culture, but it’s only ever as good as the person asking the questions and checking the facts.

Smarter, Faster, Soulless

“Everything is a copy of a copy of a copy.”

Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club

Cowen insists that AI is helpful for research but refuses to let it write for him.

Why? Because writing is “his little baby.” Sweet, right? He doesn’t want AI making his words too clear or polished.

AI doesn’t have a writing voice. It’s purely academic. And any semblance of a voice is a copy of a copy of a copy, as Chuck Palahniuk might say.

But generic corporate writing is already going extinct.

The AI can churn out perfectly adequate reports, blog posts, and marketing copy faster than you can say “content strategy.”

Will anyone notice or care that human creativity and storytelling are being traded in for efficiency?

Maybe not.

After all, we live in a culture that prefers drive-thru theology and TikTok sermons over deep study and meaningful reflection. Why put in the effort when a machine can think for you?

Scott Adamas brings up a point about why AI art will never be valuable. Sure, it might paint better than Monet, but the value of a Monet isn’t that it’s the best possible painting. The value comes from it being painted by the hand of a man named Monet.

It’s hard to see that ever going away.

The AI Writing Apocalypse

So, what does the future hold?

Fewer books, for starters.

Instead of well-thought-out, carefully written tomes, we’ll have “question boxes”—AI models that answer any question you ask, as if wisdom were just a matter of querying the right dataset.

“Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.“

I’ve seen the future, and it is a giant Wikipedia-style blur of instantly accessible, but utterly disposable, information.

Solomon warns us in Ecclesiastes: “Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.” (Ecclesiastes 12:12).

Except now, it’s just endless AI-generated content regurgitated to keep the flesh occupied but never truly wise.

How We Learned to Love the Machine

Cowen seems positively giddy about the idea that AI will evolve into some kind of “Republic of Science,” where multiple AI models interact, correct, and improve each other.

I’m a little skeptical.

Every time humans think they’re on the brink of solving all the world’s problems through technology, we just end up proving Babel wasn’t such a unique event after all.

As for me, I would trade the Republic of Science for the Kingdom of God any day.

It’s a Tool

AI isn’t inherently evil. Tools are tools.

The printing press was revolutionary, but it didn’t replace pastors, scholars, or prophets.

AI can help us study, analyze texts, and visualize complex ideas—but it doesn’t replace the Holy Spirit.

It can process information, but it can’t impart wisdom.

And most importantly, it can’t make you more like Christ.

We needn’t panic. But let’s also not lose sight of what makes us human: the ability to think deeply, create meaningfully, and seek truth beyond what any algorithm can calculate.

Man does not live by AI alone.

Resources