Module 1 · Section 2 of 5

The False Binary

There are two camps shouting at each other about generative AI, particularly about writing.

Camp 1 says AI writing is cheating, inauthentic, and fundamentally bad. Camp 2 says AI writes better than humans anyway, so just let it.

Both are wrong.

A better position: AI as an accessibility tool, a thinking partner, and a voice amplifier. The problem isn’t using AI. It’s using it lazily in ways that replace your voice instead of extending it.

Let’s be specific about what this means.

Accessibility and amplification looks like using AI to structure scattered thoughts, express complex ideas more clearly, maintain consistency across formats, overcome language barriers, and work around cognitive or physical limitations.

Laziness that destroys voice looks like using AI to sound more formal than you actually are, copy everyone else’s generic style, avoid doing your own thinking, or take shortcuts that make you indistinguishable from everyone else.

When people say “AI writing isn’t real writing,” they’re essentially saying “if you can’t express yourself perfectly in the traditional way, your ideas don’t count.”

That’s ableist, classist, and exclusionary.

Many people have brilliant ideas but struggle with formal expression. Many people communicate differently due to neurodivergence or disability. Many people are non-native speakers fighting an uphill battle with English academic and business conventions.

I once had a 10-year-old boy from Italy join the school I was teaching at, mid-year. He barely spoke a word of English. He certainly couldn’t write it, and he found things generally frustrating. But in my computer classes, where he had access to recording his own voice and translating his words? That was transformative for him.

Using AI falls right into the same category. If using AI can give someone a voice, that’s not cheating. That’s equity.