MUST READ: Why Everyone Should Use AI for Writing, With Pride Without Shame By Abdulsalam Mahmud
For years, the debate around artificial intelligence and writing has been framed with suspicion, sometimes even hostility. Many call it intellectual laziness. Others dismiss it as a fraud against originality.
But I believe these fears are often exaggerated. The usefulness of AI in writing depends not on abstract fears, but on what the writing is about, how it is used, and whether its purpose truly requires originality in the strictest sense.
Take the ordinary person who writes for personal advancement—perhaps a job application, a scholarship essay, or a proposal to a potential partner. Must such a person spend sleepless nights sweating over perfect grammar, turns of phrase, or formatting, when a tool can refine their thoughts instantly?
If AI helps them express themselves better and gives them a fighting chance in a competitive world, then it is not fraud. It is empowerment. Business owners already know this truth. A small entrepreneur, with no budget for a copywriter, can use AI to draft business plans, proposals, and social media content.
This saves time and cost, while allowing them to focus on innovation. Should we deny them this efficiency just because purists cry “laziness”? If technology helps businesses grow, jobs multiply, and services improve, then society itself benefits.
The same is true for strategic communications, branding, and even political messaging. Organizations and leaders no longer need to depend on elite gatekeepers to craft their voice. With AI tools, they can experiment, refine, and present their ideas more clearly to the people.
If the ideas are false or manipulative, that is not the fault of AI—it is the fault of the humans behind it. AI is only a mirror, reflecting the intent of its user. Blogging is another clear example. Millions write blogs not to pass originality tests, but to share experiences, reviews, and reflections.
If AI can help them polish a story or arrange their thoughts coherently, that should not be condemned. The originality here lies in the lived experience of the writer, not in whether every sentence was typed from scratch.
A mother writing about parenting, a student writing about survival in campus hostels, a traveler describing Abuja traffic—all of them bring unique voices. AI only helps make their voice clearer.
Read Also:
Still, some writings must remain sacred. Academic research, peer-reviewed scholarship, or certain journalistic investigations cannot survive without originality. In such cases, AI must serve only as a support tool—helping with summaries, structures, or even citations—while the ideas remain the writer’s own.
But such cases are a minority. Most of the world’s writing is not research. Most of it is communication. This is why the argument against AI often collapses. People speak as though every act of writing is a PhD thesis, when in truth, the majority of our writing is not meant for originality contests.
It is meant for efficiency. We write to inform, persuade, sell, explain, comfort, and entertain. If AI reduces stress and saves hours of labour, why not use it? The fear of fraud can also be addressed by honesty. If a journalist, blogger, or student used AI, they can declare it openly at the point of publication or submission.
Transparency protects credibility. And in many cases, readers will not mind at all—as long as the final work is clear, insightful, and relevant. Honesty disarms criticism. What AI really does is democratize writing. Not everyone is gifted with polished English. Not everyone has the money to hire an editor.
AI gives voice to the silent, polish to the struggling, and dignity to those who fear their thoughts are not good enough. This is not theft; it is inclusion. Journalists, in particular, should see AI not as a threat but as a companion. It can generate story leads, test different angles, and even help with headlines.
It cannot replace the instinct of a human reporter who smells truth where others smell silence. But it can save that reporter time, allowing them to focus on the real work of digging, questioning, and connecting dots. A journalist who refuses to use AI risks being left behind.
Of course, like every tool, AI can be abused. But so can pens, typewriters, and cameras. No one banned them because of misuse. We learned instead to regulate, guide, and set ethical standards. AI deserves the same approach. Condemn misuse, not the tool itself.
In the end, we must embrace AI with courage and creativity. For the majority of our daily writing tasks, it is not a fraud but a gift. It saves costs, reduces stress, and opens doors for those who would otherwise remain voiceless. Let us use it boldly and responsibly.
Please, journalists and everyone should use AI for writings.
Mahmud, Deputy Editor of PRNigeria, wrote in via: [email protected].
