Raw LLM Responses

I'm a writer, I am disabled, English is also my second language. Yes, banning AI unilaterally is based on ableist and racist ideas in part maybe not in intent but in result. The goal is more often than not to gatekeep the profession to "serious writers". I've had this debate with over a hundred writers in the past 2 years and none of the anti-AI crowd had a clean conscience. It's a knee jerk reaction and based on a combination of a replacement theory variation, fear for their personal wealth and straight up complete ignorance of how the damn things work. They readily admited they never tried it for more than a few minutes if ever. I personally use AI to help me bridge the gap of my language knowledge (even after speaking English for 30 years I'll never be at a native level with perfect knowledge of the language, I've hit a ceiling) and attention disorder limitations. I do not use it to compose everything for me, I use it to do what traditional editors used to do, at a price I can afford. I don't know if you know but editors used to be 10 cent a word, when you write a novel, that amount is more often than not more than what you'll ever get selling it. It is therefore an unrealistic proposition. It gatekeeps the profession. Non native English speaker don't have a pool of readers big enough to survive nowadays, there is just so little money to be made it reach absurdist level. The only real option is writing in English if you want any form of clout, especially if you write in a niche genre. I do not use it to do anything more than planning and some surface level correction because it can't do more than that, truly. It could write a short story at best if it got lucky, it's a million monkey with typewriters at this point for anything longer than a few sentences. Now I'm perfectly fine to not allowing AI to write the whole book for contests, that's logical, no debate there, but let's be nuanced here, this discourse on AI is fraught with extreme viewpoints by uneductated people on both sides having a tantrum and it isn't healthy. I tried to let AI write a book a few times without intervention a and I can share a more realistic outlook on what it is about and how it works. Letting AI write everything creates horrendous results it can't plan it can't create any good plot twists for now. Anyone telling you otherwise is bald face lying to you. AI has a grain like wood, it won't do what you want, you need tons of itteration, you need to plan yourself the narrative you need to learn how it will buckle under pressure. AI is in its current form a medium not the artist and frankly for anything but brainstorming on a blank page block and minimal help for quick and dirty "good enough" editing, it's pretty useless to serious writers anyway. So let's stop throwing the baby with the bath water and stop with these unilateral zero sum game discourses and start having a more nuanced understanding of the damn thing. Wether we want it or not AI is here to stay, like Photoshop stayed. AI is a tool for now, not an artist, it is far from truly independant. It will get better for sure, no illusion on that, but we need to freak out like monkeys seeing fire for the first time. Yes fire burns, yes fire can cook food and keep you warm during winter... same thing with AI. Now let's start talking about coexistance instead of giving in to tribalistic and hateful instinctual responses.