CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30Media, Communication, and EducationCybernetics and Technology in SocietyArtificial Intelligence in Education

Who Wrote This?: How AI and the Lure of Efficiency Threaten Human Writing

Baron, Naomi S.·2023·Stanford University Press eBooks
DOI 10.1515/9781503637900
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Would you read this book if a computer wrote it? Would you even know? And why would it matter? Today's eerily impressive artificial intelligence writing tools present us with a crucial challenge: As writers, do we unthinkingly adopt AI's time-saving advantages or do we stop to weigh what we gain and lose when heeding its siren call? To understand how AI is redefining what it means to write and think, linguist and educator Naomi S. Baron leads us on a journey connecting the dots between human literacy and today's technology. From nineteenth-century lessons in composition, to mathematician Alan Turing's work creating a machine for deciphering war-time messages, to contemporary engines like ChatGPT, Baron gives readers a spirited overview of the emergence of both literacy and AI, and a glimpse of their possible future. As the technology becomes increasingly sophisticated and fluent, it's tempting to take the easy way out and let AI do the work for us. Baron cautions that such efficiency isn't always in our interest. As AI plies us with suggestions or full-blown text, we risk losing not just our technical skills but the power of writing as a springboard for personal reflection and unique expression. Funny, informed, and conversational, Who Wrote This? urges us as individuals and as communities to make conscious choices about the extent to which we collaborate with AI. The technology is here to stay. Baron shows us how to work with AI and how to spot where it risks diminishing the valuable cognitive and social benefits of being literate.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/9781503637900

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Full authorship substitution, where AI generates most or all of the final text, leads to high-quality surface output with minimal effort and limited development of writing, reasoning, and conceptual understanding.

    “Full authorship substitution AI generates most or all of the final text High-quality surface output with minimal effort Limited development of writing, reasoning, and conceptual understanding [12,37]”

    From Fluency Illusion: A Review on Influence of ChatGPT in Classroom Settings (2026) · cites this paper as [37]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Baron, N. S.
Corresponding author
Baron, Naomi S.
ORCID
Baron, Naomi S.
Venue
Stanford University Press eBooks
Publisher
Stanford University Press
Published
2023-09-25
DOI
10.1515/9781503637900
OpenAlex
W4387140054
Cited by
30
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 18
FWCI
16.41
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Stanford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media, Communication, and Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
ChatGPT, human literacy, writing instruction, composition, Alan Turing, machine translation, authorship, human-AI collaboration, history of literacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review