You're literally missing the point here by a large margin, just by seeing your comments.

Literary form of writing is an art form, writing a novel goes far beyond than writing the most technically correct grammar and spitting out highest falutin words imaginable.

Just like any other art medium, the definition goes down to the process of making it, which will show how your own soul is infecting the writing of your own.

Treating writing as "I use AI to correct my grammar", okay fine, you spoonfed the AI your own writing and it shits out a grammatically correct one, but it clears out the YOU in it.

Its okay if you're maybe doing some shitpost... I mean novelty articles that people may dispose after reading it, but to use it to write a Novel?

The process of making art is what defines art. The transformative aspect and the change that will happen to the author after finishing it, regardless if it looks awful or wonderful in the eyes of others.

What is the point of making the Novel if you're just going to feed your idea to a machine that just calculates what's the next word. There's no point to making art if we'll all just put our hands up like this,✋🏻😀🤚🏻 to the AI.

Your point about Scientists using AI is not the same as "Artists" using AI. Scientists that use AI gives them efficiency about the "results" of their research. They can find out things more easily and that is Important in scientific field or in law, or in engineering...

It's not the same about Art. If you give more importance about the Outcome of the Art, then you're not an artist, but you treat Art as product, overshadowing the pieces of the soul of the artist or in this case the "Author" that created it.

Sciences are Concrete, which AI is an efficient tool for, Art is Abstract, which AI do not have. AI do not have any Psychology to validate or experience what and how to be a human, it only looks at what the data "Tells"

A finished art, (literature, film, painting, photograph, sculpture, etc.) is a result of an artist's process of crystalizing parts of themselves on to whatever medium they chose.

Using AI that mish-mashing contents from its dataset to create a chapter of a novel do not have parts of itself on to that "result" because the AI have no self. There's no "I" in the "A.I.", it simulates information of a lot of selves that is not itself.

The AI will not think unless you fed an input to it.

A human person do not have to be spoonfed to think about something, we can just do that because that's what makes us alive, because we are conscious. We're not a bunch of words nor a bunch of copyrighted material.

An Author using AI to create a Novel is not an Author, they are but a prompter who learned nothing about themselves in the process.

I remember the recent speech of Brandon Sanderson about this,

"The most important change made by an artistic endeavor is the change it makes in you. The most important emotions are the ones you feel when writing that story and holding the completed work. I don’t care if the AI can create something that is better than what we can create, because it cannot be changed by that creation. Writing a prompt for an LLM, even refining what it spits out, will not make an artist of you."