Reality Checklist: “I Would Never Use AI.”

MORNING COFFEE | PONDERMANIA

Reality Checklist: “I Would Never Use AI.” By Neil S. Kohrn

As we head into the weekend, pour yourself a cup of coffee. Here’s something to ponder: when someone says, “I would never use AI,” do they recognize how much of it may already be assisting them?

I have been reading posts from writers who seem insulted that anyone would suggest they use AI to assist with their writing.

They point to their master’s degrees, doctorates, professional accomplishments, and decades of personal experience.

I respect those achievements. But having knowledge and experience does not prevent someone from using a tool to communicate them more effectively.

Before declaring, “I don’t use AI, and I never would,” perhaps we should pause for a reality checklist.

Have you used any of these?

☐ Grammarly: Its grammar, clarity, and tone suggestions use AI. Grammarly says it has used AI since its founding in 2009—well before today’s generative AI debate. Its content-generation features are a separate capability.

☐ Microsoft Editor in Word: Microsoft describes Editor as an AI-powered service that assists with spelling, grammar, and writing improvements.

☐ ProWritingAid: Its editing tools use AI to analyze grammar, style, and readability.

☐ Turnitin: Features within its similarity reports use machine learning, and its separate AI writing detector also uses AI. The software used to scrutinize academic work can itself employ the technology being debated.

☐ PERRLA: Primarily a formatting and citation tool, it now uses AI narrowly to help extract reference information from uploaded PDFs. That does not mean it writes the paper—or that earlier users necessarily used AI.

We need to be accurate here. Not every academic tool uses AI. Not every older spellchecker or autocorrect function qualifies. And we cannot assume that someone used AI while earning a degree simply because today’s version of a program includes it.

But someone may sincerely reject “AI” while routinely accepting assistance from software that uses it.

The label has become more emotionally charged than the function.

Do these same writers use computers? Word processors? Automated spelling corrections? Suggested punctuation?

Those questions do not make every writing tool equivalent. They ask us to explain where we draw the line—and why.

I remember attitudes suggesting that writing on a computer somehow diminished the authenticity of creative work, as though the pencil contributed the imagination.

“The keyboard did not supply the experience. Neither did the pencil.” — Neil S. Kohrn

A writer’s personal experience can remain the foundation of a piece while a tool helps improve its organization, grammar, or clarity. Those things can coexist.

I am not condoning plagiarism, fabricated sources, undisclosed assistance where disclosure is required, or passing off generated work as evidence of knowledge someone does not possess.

AI can generate entire drafts. That capability makes judgment and accountability more necessary. Used responsibly, it can also help us question assumptions, identify weaknesses, and express our own thinking more clearly.

A degree deserves respect. So does experience. Neither makes a first draft beyond improvement.

Before taking offense at the suggestion that you use AI, consider what assistance you already accept—and what, specifically, you object to.

Your experience gives you something to say. Your judgment determines how well you say it—and whether you stand behind it.