I doubt AI will replace writers who write solely to entertain. I’m not including those who write marketing and workshop material in this category. AI operates on reason and logic, but it fails to understand why readers seek out human flaws in the protagonist, or why they want to identify with or dislike the villain or the victim. Humans are familiar with daily routines like getting up in the morning, opening the fridge door, and falling into their car when their watch tells them to, so they love it when reason is subverted, or logic is dysfunctional.

My book is a memoir.

The manuscript analysis I received from a non-human was: ‘Nicola’s reasons for enduring seven years at boarding school, despite intense homesickness and unhappiness, are unconvincing. The narrative lacks a strong justification for her continued attendance, given her consistent misery.’ 

You see, Mr Robot, you remain unconvinced, but my readers will know otherwise. They will understand the lack of ownership many have in their daily lives. They will know why they have fallen short of someone’s expectations or whom they want to blame.

Only when AI can enjoy singing a nursery rhyme, like “Here we go looby loo, here we go looby la,” will we have a problem on our hands.

We say we will resist domination by machine intelligence, so it concerns me that, in the face of this competition with our brains, we are giving in. Pride and Prejudice is 125,000 words long. Writers are told that readers cannot face anything much more than 100,000 words. If I go long, I will be penalised by unquantified publishing costs and poor sales. AI also advises me not to use long sentences or difficult words, and human editors are going along with this. In my early years, I was encouraged to read to broaden my vocabulary. I was brought up to believe the reader should adapt to the story, but now it appears it is the other way round. What are we doing to ourselves?!

Visit my instagram for up-and-coming photos.