Screenwriting : AI Rots Your Brain! by Preston Poulter

Using AI as an idea generator is a choice to remove yourself, your actual soul, from anything you write. If daily life observations are not inspiring enough, why do you want to be a writer? It's different than lazy, it's closeting whatever YOU can bring to a story that makes it special. Remember, an LLM seeks relationships of previously created ideas. Tough to call that original thought, and therein lay the difference between the wonderful flaws of the human brain and the fuzzy logic of a data scientist's algorithm that seeks a precision antithetical to creativity.

Preston Poulter Yes, that may be true if AI is used irresponsibly or as a shortcut to avoid thinking. But when used properly, it does the opposite: it amplifies the creative process, helps you organize your thoughts, and lets you iterate at scale. The key isn’t avoiding AI—it’s learning how to work with it intentionally.

Writers can absolutely out-create AI when they leverage it to identify their strengths and challenge their weaknesses. AI + human is always stronger than AI alone—and much stronger than a human trying to write in isolation without feedback or structure.

What these complaints highlight is the misuse of AI, not the tool itself. Just like a calculator doesn’t make someone bad at math unless they skip learning the fundamentals, AI doesn’t make you a worse writer unless you stop engaging critically with your work. Starting a chat with AI by saying "Please don't add any additional details—just review my responses" helps prevent the AI from inserting its own ideas into your work. Instead, it focuses purely on reviewing or giving feedback. This way, you stay in full creative control, using AI as a tool to refine your voice—not replace it. It’s a great method to sharpen your skills while still benefiting from constructive input.

Dwayne Williams 2 Saying “AI + human is better than AI or human alone” is obvious—of course a writer with no feedback or structure will struggle. A clearer comparison: spell check makes you better if you guide it. It learns your preferences. Claiming AI has “its own ideas” you must fend off makes it sound like a Magic Eight Ball, not a tool.

Robert Franklin Godwin III Thanks for the follow-up. Just to make sure I’m understanding your stance:

If you agree that AI + human is better than either alone—and you’re comparing it to something like spell check that improves with guidance—wouldn’t that mean collaborating with AI can be valuable?

That seems to conflict with your earlier framing, where using AI was described as removing your “soul” from the writing. If human + AI is clearly stronger, how can it also be brain-rotting or creatively hollow?

Not trying to play semantics—just genuinely trying to reconcile both parts of your argument.

Misspelling, which I do often, is not creative ideation. First, if you use any technology, you are likely relying on AI in some form. Depending on it for prompts or story development is a crutch. What would you be able to write if your laptop crashed? Without AI are you then rendered unable to produce creatively? Second, I reject the false equivalency of your proposition "AI + human is always stronger than AI alone—and much stronger than a human trying to write in isolation without feedback or structure." Would The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn have been improved with AI? Moby Dick? If you can't aspire to those levels of storytelling without AI, why bother?

This is an important point. AI can be a helpful tool for sparking ideas or organizing thoughts, but relying on it too heavily definitely risks weakening your creative Brain. Writing is more than just words on a page, it’s a process of thinking, feeling, and refining. If we skip that, we’re not really growing as writers.

Use it as a guide, not a crutch.

Robert Franklin Godwin III Also, just to respond to your “what if your laptop crashes” point—are we really arguing that a writer’s legitimacy depends on whether they can create without technology in the rare event of a blackout or nuclear blast?

That logic would disqualify almost every modern creative professional. We all rely on tech: laptops, cloud backups, digital tools, and collaborative platforms. If my laptop crashes, I log in on another device, because I saved my work responsibly. That’s not weakness. That’s how we work in 2025.

And when it comes to building pitch decks, generating concept art, and designing original monsters for film, AI gives me the ability to visualize my ideas without relying on stock photos or hiring a team for early drafts. Are you saying I also need to learn photorealistic drawing just to be a “real” storyteller? Should I also set type by hand and shoot on 8mm?

Because if not, then let’s acknowledge we all rely on tools. And unless you're writing these comments on a manual typewriter, you’re relying on the very tech you're criticizing. Including AI. It's in spell check, predictive text, content moderation, even how your comment appears.

Tools don’t kill creativity—denying them to others might.

Dwayne Williams 2 Regarding your question "Are you saying I also need to..." No, not saying that at all. Nowhere am I slamming the tech I use or witholding it from anyone else. Use all the tech you need and don't abandon your creativity by relying on it too much. I can write a book or a screenplay with either pen or laptop. Indeed, I use both (see pic). I suggest avoiding straw man arguments.

Hey Preston Poulter This is a fascinating and important discussion! That research highlighting the disconnect between AI-generated content and the "writer's" ability to engage with their own work is genuinely concerning for anyone serious about craft development.

The cognitive engagement issue you've raised is crucial. When we write, we're not just putting words on a page - we're making thousands of micro-decisions about character, tone, pacing, and meaning. That decision-making process is literally how we develop as writers. If AI handles those choices, we never build those creative muscles.

What I'm seeing in the industry:

1) Professionals can usually spot AI-generated material - it often lacks the authentic voice and specific choices that come from human experience

2) Executives are becoming increasingly skeptical of overly polished work from new writers

3) The writers who stand out are those with distinctive, authentic voices that clearly couldn't be replicated by AI

For emerging screenwriters specifically: Your unique perspective, life experience, and creative voice are literally your main competitive advantages. AI can't replicate your specific way of seeing the world or your personal connection to your stories.

The real concern: Writers using AI as a crutch may never develop the critical thinking skills needed to receive notes, collaborate with directors, or adapt their work - all essential professional abilities.

I agree that AI can very easily be used in the wrong way, if it is screenwriting one wants to learn. But ask the right questions, and it can help.

I have myself tried AI for help with writing scenes, with horrible result. Dialogue cliché. Characters cliché. Everything cliché.

But I can imagine using AI to help me find a coauthor. Or help me find a screenplay which contains scenes which would help me with those scenes which are problematical in my own script. Or help me find something else which makes it easier for me to write.