Why we let AI write for us. It’s not really about saving time

We’re all using generative AI to write now. Articles, LinkedIn posts, emails, even the comments under other people’s LinkedIn posts. The volume of auto-generated prose is so vast it’s drowning the channels and exhausting whatever attention we have left. And it’s boring us. We’ve all learned to spot the tells by now, the stock phrases, the hollow transitions, the syntactic patterns that sound machine-like.

So why do we keep doing it, at the risk of producing gray, flavorless mush that nobody actually wants to read? Why is it so hard to resist handing the machine a task we’re perfectly capable of doing ourselves?

The usual explanation is time and laziness. We outsource because it’s the path of least resistance. Our appetite for creativity and our taste for doing things ourselves keep losing to plain inertia. Naturally, it flatters us more to say we’re simply too busy and buying back precious hours. Important, productive people insist AI lets them get so much more done. (Though if what comes out is worse, are you really more productive? If “more” keeps getting less good, is there actually more value?)

{“blockType”:”mv-promo-block”,”data”:{“imageDesktopUrl”:”https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/PhotoLVitaud-169.jpg”,”imageMobileUrl”:”https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/PhotoLVitaud-11.jpg”,”eyebrow”:””,”headline”:”\u003Cstrong\u003ESubscribe to \u003Cem\u003ELaetitia@Work\u003C\/em\u003E\u003C\/strong\u003E”,”dek”:”Women power the world’s productivity. It’s time we talked more about it. Explore a woman-centered take on work, from hidden discrimination to cultural myths about aging and care. Don’t miss the next issue—subscribe to \u003Cem\u003ELaetitia@Work\u003C\/em\u003E.”,”subhed”:””,”description”:””,”ctaText”:”Learn More”,”ctaUrl”:”http:\/\/laetitiaatwork.substack.com”,”theme”:{“bg”:”#2b2d30″,”text”:”#ffffff”,”eyebrow”:”#9aa2aa”,”subhed”:”#ffffff”,”buttonBg”:”#3b3f46″,”buttonHoverBg”:”#3b3f46″,”buttonText”:”#ffffff”},”imageDesktopId”:91472264,”imageMobileId”:91472265,”shareable”:false,”slug”:””,”wpCssClasses”:””}}

For what it’s worth: I write every first draft myself, by hand, and then I usually run my draft through an AI to “improve” it. The improvement often isn’t one. It sands down my stranger, better phrasings. It occasionally makes me say things I wouldn’t have said. Reworking the text throws me into doubt. Plenty of the machine’s sentences irritate me, yet I hand myself over to it anyway, because I’m convinced that it’ll be “better.”

Which tells you that our use of AI has at least as much to do with self-confidence as with laziness or output.

Writing intimidates people; for anyone who’s felt shut out of it, AI is a release

I’ve been writing for a living for decades, and I’m not blind to this. Writing is a class marker. It’s the thing that exposes you to judgment, that keeps a record of every mistake. Schools sort kids by their prose: the graded essay, the SAT writing section, the whole apparatus that decides who “writes well” and who doesn’t.

Generations came out of that system convinced they had no business picking up a pen. For dyslexic kids, getting a diagnosis is partly the hope that years of corrections won’t leave a permanent complex. And still: “Correct” writing is a badge. It tracks with class and education, and for the people it excludes, it’s a source of insecurity. Spelling in particular induces a lot of anxiety.

Sociolinguists have a name for this. They call it linguistic insecurity, the anxiety and sense of illegitimacy felt by a speaker who’s convinced their own usage isn’t “proper.” William Labov tied it directly to social position back in the 1960s.

Seen that way, AI is a genuine liberation. It takes a few badly typed prompts and returns “correct” text of any length, for any purpose. If writing well is a toll gate, ChatGPT and its cousins let people slip barriers that went up in childhood. The typo-riddled prompt isn’t judged. It stays invisible. And if AI lets more people put their ideas and their creativity into the world with fewer barriers, good, right?

I’d like to believe that. But there’s a flip side: dependence, and the quiet destruction of originality. You don’t actually clear the block. You lean on the tool while the inhibition stays exactly where it was. Worse, you start outsourcing not just the labor of writing but the ideas themselves. And even strong writers reach for AI out of a lack of confidence, and let their originality get flattened in the process.

A few biases that push us toward the machine

We convince ourselves the machine did it better, and at least three things are working on us.

Conformity. Solomon Asch demonstrated it in the 1950s, in his famous line-length experiment: We tend to bring our judgment into line with the group’s, even when the group is plainly wrong. Popularity gets read as proof of validity.

Authority. We give more weight to a claim when it comes from a source that seems competent. AI answers fluently, confidently, in clean structure, almost instantly, so it reads like a superior intelligence. We tell ourselves the hallucinations are the exception.

Negativity toward our own work. We judge our own writing with a severity we’d never turn on anyone else’s. We know the effort, the false starts that got our sentences to exist, and from the machine we see only the finished product, clean and done. So we feel inadequate.

By now, we can tell

Machines and humans alike now catch the statistical fingerprints of AI text. Pangram, for one, does a decent job of “recognizing” AI by measuring statistical properties. And we’ve had plenty of practice ourselves. We know. We see the AI paragraphs coming. Which means the whole exercise misfires: Instead of being caught off guard or impressed, mostly I feel irritation and fatigue. Some feat, routing around your lack of confidence only to produce annoyance.

On the predictability of AI text, tools like GPTZero lean on two ideas.

Low perplexity: When a model picks each word by what’s most probable given its training, you get very predictable text, where the next word is the “expected” one. A human can surprise you more. A human can write that they eat a bowl of spiders for breakfast. (I eat sardines, but since that’s fashionable now, maybe sardines is already the expected word after breakfast.)

The other idea is burstiness. A human writes with a rhythm that varies like breathing: long sentences, then short ones. AI pours every sentence into the same mold. The sequences stay even. You can literally measure the variance in sentence length.

And some words are wildly overrepresented in AI text. You know the ones. There are rhetorical moves that show up constantly, too, like the antithesis, the “it’s not just X, it’s Y” or “the real question isn’t . . . but . . .,” a tic so ubiquitous it’s become the signature of the machine.

The other stock gestures: the rule of three (“clear, concise, and convincing”), the short stand-alone sentence deployed for drama (which “lands” in LinkedIn posts), the compulsive recap, the cautious neutrality that refuses to take a side, the little moralizing conclusion. No digressions. No shift in tone. No swearing.

(I was always told not to overdo the digressions or lean on parentheses, so, as you’ll have noticed, I’ve abused the parentheses throughout, the better to tell AI to get lost.)

If we can now recognize AI writing on sight, then the ability to write without it—typos, oddities, spiders-for-breakfast and all—becomes a source of distinction. So to hell with the confidence problem.

{“blockType”:”mv-promo-block”,”data”:{“imageDesktopUrl”:”https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/PhotoLVitaud-169.jpg”,”imageMobileUrl”:”https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/PhotoLVitaud-11.jpg”,”eyebrow”:””,”headline”:”\u003Cstrong\u003ESubscribe to \u003Cem\u003ELaetitia@Work\u003C\/em\u003E\u003C\/strong\u003E”,”dek”:”Women power the world’s productivity. It’s time we talked more about it. Explore a woman-centered take on work, from hidden discrimination to cultural myths about aging and care. Don’t miss the next issue—subscribe to \u003Cem\u003ELaetitia@Work\u003C\/em\u003E.”,”subhed”:””,”description”:””,”ctaText”:”Learn More”,”ctaUrl”:”http:\/\/laetitiaatwork.substack.com”,”theme”:{“bg”:”#2b2d30″,”text”:”#ffffff”,”eyebrow”:”#9aa2aa”,”subhed”:”#ffffff”,”buttonBg”:”#3b3f46″,”buttonHoverBg”:”#3b3f46″,”buttonText”:”#ffffff”},”imageDesktopId”:91472264,”imageMobileId”:91472265,”shareable”:false,”slug”:””,”wpCssClasses”:””}}

investment News