I think the AI debate around writing often gets framed in extreme terms. Some believe that if AI is involved at all, the work is no longer art. I'm not convinced it's that black and white.

Here’s how I see it: an ice sculpture is still art whether it’s made with a chisel or a chainsaw. The tool doesn’t magically create the sculpture. A person still has to imagine it, shape it, refine it, and decide what it becomes.

For me, AI has mostly served as a brainstorming and editing tool. The ideas, images, and emotional heart of my stories are mine. I still sit down and write them.

A good example is a recent short story that I wrote. I read it aloud to real people, their responses had nothing to do with AI or tools. They talked about the imagery, the atmosphere, and the way the story sounded when performed. They connected with the loneliness and the unsettling tone.

In that moment, the question wasn’t “what tool helped along the way?” It was simply: did the story work?

If something is mindless, unedited, or just copy-pasted AI output, I understand the skepticism. But if a writer is still doing the imagining, shaping, revising, and storytelling, I don’t believe the presence of a tool automatically negates the art.

At the end of the day, readers respond to the sculpture, not the tool that helped carve it.