Since its boom in 2022, generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) has enjoyed a complicated and strained relationship with writers.
So when the National Library Board (NLB) introduced AI-powered programs like “StoryGen” including the workshop “Children Write: Publish a Book with Gen-AI” at the revamped Central Public Library, it was bound to ruffle some feathers.
While these initiatives aim to showcase how AI can spark creativity, not everyone sees it that way.
On 7 Jan, 68 people signed a collective statement against the NLB’s promotion of generative AI.
Among the signatories are writers, editors, poets, and members of the literary and publishing community, including Singapore Literature Prize winners, a former President of the Singapore Book Publishers Association, and a recipient of the Cultural Medallion.
According to The Straits Times, this is the first collective statement by Singapore’s literary community on generative AI and it accused NLB of “uncritical endorsement” of the technology.
They cited concerns about intellectual property, the psychological toll on writers, the degradation of literary quality, and even the environmental impact of AI.
On paper, these concerns seem valid — especially regarding creative rights and the broader implications for the writing profession — but dig a little deeper, and it feels more like a knee-jerk reaction than a balanced critique.
Are they protecting the craft of writing, or is this a simply a fear of change?
The statement dedicates much of its content to generic concerns about AI. While these points are informative, they lack actionable recommendations tailored to NLB’s role as a public institution.
What exactly is “uncritical” about programmes like “StoryGen”? These programs aim to foster creativity and engage the public with emerging technologies. NLB has even assured that materials used by these initiatives are appropriately licensed, no longer copyrighted, or within NLB copyright.
The institution is far from implying that AI is a substitute for human creativity; instead, its programmes offer a platform to learn how to integrate AI responsibly. By not clarifying what makes these initiatives “uncritical”, the writers’ statement appears more like a blanket rejection of AI’s potential.
Image courtesy of National Library Board, for illustrative purposes only
If the goal is to advocate for more responsible AI use, the statement could have suggested ways for NLB to improve its programmes — such as incorporating discussions on the ethical and creative boundaries of AI — instead of condemning them outright.
For instance, NLB could have been urged to host workshops on recognising ethical AI tools or fostering dialogue on the evolving role of writers in the AI age. By missing this opportunity, the writers fail to shape a nuanced, actionable discourse.
The ecological concerns raised, such as the energy consumption of ChatGPT, extend far beyond the remit of a national library.
AI is here to stay — its ecological impact cannot be undone by NLB’s policies. The focus should be on mitigating these effects through education and responsible use. Raising global concerns without proposing practical solutions risks coming across as hand-wringing rather than constructive critique.
Given AI’s permanent place in our lives, the writers’ rejection of its integration into NLB’s programming seems somewhat shortsighted.
Would it not be more impactful to educate the public on using AI responsibly, so it becomes a tool that amplifies, rather than undermines, creativity?
Programmes like “Children Write” could do exactly that — teaching young writers how to harness AI to enhance their ideas, not replace their creativity.
The statement’s resistance to such initiatives risks being seen as gatekeeping. Not everyone has had the privilege of studying literature or mastering poetic forms.
Source: Markus Winklet on Pexels, for illustrative purposes only
Already, AI is advancing accessibility for learning, offering a way to explore and augment one’s creative potential.
Instead of shutting the door, why not open it wider? AI democratises creativity, giving people tools they might otherwise never have had access to. Isn’t that worth supporting?
The integration of AI into creative processes represents an inevitable shift.
It’s not meant to replace writers but to shift how we work. Editing, curating, and refining may become more important than churning out raw drafts, but these skills are equally valuable. Those who adapt to this shift will thrive, while those who resist risk being left behind.
And let’s not pretend readers can’t tell good writing from bad. The fear of AI producing mediocre work is understandable, but it does a disservice to both writers and readers to suggest that shoddy work from AI will make enough of an impact to “permanently damage Singapore’s literary landscape”.
Mediocre, AI-generated content won’t stand a chance in a discerning market, and those striving for excellence will continue to stand out.
Source: cottonbro studio on Pexels, for illustrative purposes
The writers’ statement acknowledges that AI has diverse applications in the arts but stops short of fully engaging with how it could enrich the literary landscape.
By framing AI as a threat rather than an opportunity, the letter misses the bigger picture: AI is a tool that when used wisely, can empower both established and emerging writers.
It is also worth noting that the alarmist tone distracts from more pressing issues. The metaphorical Pandora’s box has already been opened; generative AI is not going away. Its arrival presents a challenge to evolve, not a threat to creativity.
The question isn’t whether AI should be used, but how it can be harnessed responsibly.
Yes, the writers’ concerns are valid, but catastrophising AI’s potential harms without proposing solutions does little to advance the conversation. It’s time to stop fighting the inevitable and start shaping it.
–
This piece is part of MS Speaks, a segment in which MS News reporters share their views on current affairs and trending topics.
Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com.
Featured image adapted from Wikimedia Commons and @yishkabob on Instagram.
"Just for a potato," said the amazed server.
The person declined to be sent to the hospital, SCDF said.
Singapore passport holders get visa-free access to 195 destinations.
The total value of the items in the suitcase was estimated to be at least…
The tour leader allegedly assured them the bus was "the safest place" and suggested leaving…
Many netizens criticised the father for being irresponsible.