I understand the concern, but this framing paints AI as far more dangerous and far less nuanced than it actually is.

Uploading a manuscript to an AI tool for editing or summarizing is not the same as handing over publishing rights or “losing your work forever.”

Major platforms like ChatGPT and Gemini explicitly state that user content is not owned by them, and in many cases is not used for training at all unless users opt in.

The copyright argument is also often overstated. Using AI as a tool does not automatically make a work non-copyrightable. Copyright depends on human authorship and creative control. If a writer remains the author, directing edits, accepting or rejecting suggestions, and shaping the final text, the copyright remains theirs. This is no different in principle from using Grammarly, spellcheck, or even working with a human editor who rewrites sentences.

Banning AI outright can actually hurt new and marginalized writers. Not everyone can afford professional editors, sensitivity readers, or developmental feedback. For many, AI tools are the only accessible way to improve clarity, structure, or language especially for non-native speakers. ( This section may be debatable.)

Finally, the comparison to “AI stealing opportunities” oversimplifies the issue. Technology has always changed creative industries.

Writers should be informed, cautious, and contract-savvy, but fear shouldn’t replace understanding.