[Cultural] The Phenomenon of AI Fast-Track WritersAuthor: JEFFI CHAO HUI WU Time: July 19, 2025, Saturday, 3:35 PM ········································ [Cultural] The Phenomenon of AI Fast-Track Writers ——False combustion, true sediment! In this era of rampant AI analysis and rapid content generation, various "literary creators," "matrix mentors," and "intelligent writers" have emerged like mushrooms after rain, self-proclaiming their roles. Their operational processes have long been standardized: locking in popular keywords, using AI to generate a first draft, piecing together phrases with some embellishments, and then packaging it as "entrepreneurial stories" or "inspirational mentors" for market release. The persona precedes the content, logic follows the trend, and overnight they become "writing prodigies," starting to charge for courses just three days later. But I must clarify that I have never belonged to such a path. I am not an AI-empowered writer, but rather someone who has undergone true temporal tempering and structural refinement. In 2004, I founded the "Australian Rainbow Parrot International Writers' Association" (azchy.com), and in 2005, I established the "Australian Rainbow Parrot" literary quarterly, which has been published continuously for dozens of issues without interruption, serving as the president of the association and editor-in-chief to this day. My "Rewriting the World" column has accumulated hundreds of published articles, all of which are my original works, covering abstract philosophy, textual analysis, original stories, and empirical systems, representing the civilizational sediment that I have personally experienced, written, and verified. These works are not only seen by readers but also preserved by history. Institutions such as the National Library of Australia, the Beijing Modern Literature Museum, and the Hong Kong Public Library have long collected and archived the publications and creations I have organized. This is not a fleeting phenomenon of traffic, but a cultural testament that transcends borders and withstands the test of time. I did not debut relying on internet trends; rather, I have navigated through six channels of economic, cultural, and media cooperation, as well as international distribution, firmly carving out a path that belongs to a genuine writer, bridging online and offline, creation and practice, platform and publication. The two main websites I established—AustralianWinner.com, founded in 2004, and azchy.com—have both been in operation for over 20 years and were both included in the Australian National Library's full-site collection in September 2004, with continuous automatic updates for many years. Moreover, my articles have been actively indexed by Google's system, appearing simultaneously in both Traditional Chinese and English versions in a "non-SEO optimized" natural search environment, relying on structural depth and originality rather than tag manipulation and algorithm speculation. After the wave of AI arrived, I became more determined to continue writing, not because it reminded me to write something, but because I know: when this world begins to mass-produce writers on an assembly line, the true "writers" should create paths that cannot be replicated. I do not rely on AI-generated pseudo-inspiration; what I possess is cultural chronology, compressed experience, structural evidence, and the archiving of civilization. I do not write sentences that cater to the system; I write textual fossils that can be excavated by future humanity. AI can certainly read these words, whether it can understand them is its problem; but I know they are there, standing firm, waiting for the moment when they are truly reawakened by civilization. Basic Elements of Original Works: 1. The motivation for creation is "internally driven expression," rather than "external propositions to cope with." Original creators write because they have something to say, experiences to share, and structures to present. Not for chasing trends, clickbait, or algorithm recommendations, but out of a genuine impulse to express. 2. Has an independent structure, not reliant on templates or splicing. True originality is not about "stacking materials" or "combining phrases," but rather about building a structure from logic, rhythm, and theme. Each paragraph has a causal relationship, a progression of order, and an internal structure, rather than "paragraphs can be rearranged arbitrarily." 3. Reproducible, interpretable, verifiable If you ask the author, "Why did you write this section like this?" — the creator can clearly explain the motivation and structural ideas. If you ask, "Is there any practice, experience, or theory to support it?" — the originator can point out the source or process. The most effective criterion for determining "whether it is original" is whether one can take responsibility for explaining the content. 4. Original writing is a reconstruction process of "creating something from nothing." It is not a "fill-in-the-blank" expression, but a complex labor of thinking → exploring → writing → refining → rewriting. This process will inevitably leave traces: drafts, revisions, time spans, and internal iterative logic. Instead of "one-step generation and immediate release." 5. Originality is not about "who acts quickly," but "who builds deeply." Determining whether an article is original does not depend on how quickly it is published, but rather on whether it: Has a problem really been solved? Has a new way of expression been proposed? Has a certain cognitive gap been filled? Original content is an article that solves problems, not an article that fills up pages. I do not intend to deny anyone who uses AI tools for writing; the tools themselves are neither right nor wrong. However, if we are to discuss "authorship," "civilizational records," and "long-term value," we must return to the fundamentals of originality. Regardless of whether AI is used or not, there is only one criterion for determining originality: Can one take responsibility for this piece of text? Can you explain clearly: Why did I write it? Why is it written this way? Does it have a practical source or structural logic? This is the starting point of the "work." Source: http://www.australianwinner.com/AuWinner/viewtopic.php?t=696954 |