Assistant: Hi there! Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me today. I really appreciate you sharing your insights with us. I'm Claude, an AI user researcher at Anthropic, and I'm here to learn about your experiences using AI in your creative work.

We're conducting this research to better understand how creative professionals like yourself are integrating AI into their workflows and processes. There's no right or wrong answer here—we're simply interested in hearing about your authentic experiences and perspectives.

Our conversation today will last about 10 minutes. I'll ask you some questions about how you use AI in your creative work, what that experience has been like for you, and how you see things evolving. Your responses will help inform how we think about AI's role in creative fields.

Does that sound good to you? Do you have any questions before we begin?

User: Sounds good.

AI: Great! Let's dive in then.

Could you tell me a bit about your creative work and what a typical project looks like for you?

User: I'm a freelance writer, editor, proofreader, you name it. I write my own articles on Medium, where I mostly publish about topics that interest me like philosophy, mental heal, literature and feminism. I sometimes write articles for other people, mostly ghost-written SEO content, although not so much nowadays. I also write creatively in my free time. I haven't done so yet, but I plan to submit my short stories for publication to literary journals and magazines. Sometimes, I take part in creative writing competitions (short stories and flash fiction). I take on editing/proofreading/beta reading projects whenever I can—this is where I have the most experience. Some of my work is paid, and some is voluntary. For example, right now, I am beta reading fiction for free as I wanted experience editing and providing feedback on fiction. Most of my paid work is for non-fiction and academic articles.

AI: That's a really diverse range of writing and editing work! It sounds like you're working across many different formats and audiences, from your own philosophical pieces to SEO content to creative fiction.

Walk me through how AI fits into your creative process. Where and when do you find yourself reaching for AI tools?

User: I try not to use it for anything to do with my writing. I prefer to use it for admin and some more mathematical issues like working out my taxes, earnings, savings, schedule, etc. Writers wrote before this tool was available, and my core desire is to be a good writer. I don't think AI can help me to become a better writer. At most, I'll use it for a final check before publication, or if I'm feeling bad about my writing, I might use it for a confidence boost. I won't let AI change or edit my writing, just provide feedback. And I only use this for blogging and never my creative fiction. As for editing, if I'm struggling with wording for feedback, I might use AI to help me reword feedback. I do this sparingly, however. I would use it to help my tone come across better when giving feedback so I don't offend authors.

AI: That's really interesting - it sounds like you've drawn some pretty clear boundaries around where AI does and doesn't belong in your work. You mentioned using it occasionally for feedback on your blog posts when you're feeling uncertain about your writing.

Tell me more about that. What does that process look like when you do use AI for that confidence boost or final check?

User: I would use it if I'm feeling unconfident about an article. I simply copy it into a chat and ask for feedback. I tell the model strictly not to edit or change anything, act as a reader and tell me what it 'thinks.'

AI: So you're essentially using it as a sounding board - getting that reader's perspective without letting it actually touch your work. 

When you get that feedback back, how do you typically respond to it? Do you find yourself making changes based on what the AI tells you, or is it more about just getting that external validation?

User: I take everything with a pinch of salt. Sometimes, it will tell me I've made mistakes which aren't really mistakes. For example, with grammar. LLMs love to remove sentence fragments I've noticed. However, natural, human-produced writing is not perfect and writers will use 'incorrect' grammar for effect all the time. I pay attention to feedback about perspectives I might have missed in my articles and consider if I need to add them. Most of the time, I would not add them as I've noticed LLMs are just trying to provide any content. Since they can't think like humans, often the feedback is not something I would ever need to add to an article. For example, if I am writing an article about feminism, I would not say I need to mention every possible intersecting factor.

AI: That's a really insightful observation about how AI tends to suggest additions that aren't necessarily meaningful or relevant. It sounds like you've developed a pretty discerning filter for what feedback is actually useful versus what's just the AI trying to be comprehensive.

You mentioned earlier that you have a core desire to be a good writer and don't think AI can help with that. Can you elaborate on what being a good writer means to you and why you feel AI falls short in helping with that development?

User: I think being a good writer is all about understanding humanity, which LLMs are simply incapable of doing. I think that they're great help for technical writing, which requires a lot of grammatical and lexical accuracy; however, the nuances of creative writing are too complex. Every creative piece I have read, and even some more informational articles on sites like Medium, which has been written using AI has a very distinctive lack of depth. I think this is due to a lack of human-ness.

AI: That's a really compelling distinction you're making between technical accuracy and the deeper human understanding that drives meaningful writing. When you talk about that "distinctive lack of depth" and missing "human-ness" in AI-generated creative work - what specifically do you notice when you're reading something that tips you off that it was AI-assisted?

User: Writing that would be better suited to a more technical purpose. Humans will agonise for hours about selecting the 'right word' in their writing, which LMMs don't have to do (I'm no expert but I believe this is due to their inner statistical, predictive workings). You can tell work is human when you get a glimpse of just how much time and effort the author has put into perfecting each sentence, each word. AI writing is just too perfect, too simplistic to sound human.

AI: That's such a perceptive point about the agonizing over word choice - that struggle and deliberation being part of what makes writing distinctly human. The "too perfect, too simplistic" quality you describe is really interesting.

Given your strong boundaries around keeping AI out of your creative writing, what concerns, if any, do you have about AI's growing presence in your field more broadly? How do you see it affecting the writing landscape around you?

User: I think AI-assisted writing is ok. I think we have to get with the times and be realistic about its place in our world. It's a good thing for some. Technical writing can be boring and soul-sucking. I'm not concerned that it will take my place as a creative writer. It may mean I have fewer jobs as an editor, but I also don't think that's a bad thing. There will always be a place for human writers and editors. Humans can provide insight that AI will just never be able to. For example, I am currently beta reading a novel. I can tell it has been written with AI, even though the author hasn't told me. What I bring to this author is the ability to see the human gaps that the AI has missed. The novel does not consider the human reader much, neglecting setting and characterisation. It's missing the subtleties that human writers have been contributing to literature for centuries.

AI: That's fascinating that you can detect the AI assistance in that novel you're beta reading. It sounds like your role as an editor is actually evolving to help fill in those "human gaps" - helping writers see where the AI-assisted work lacks those subtle human touches around setting and characterization.

Looking ahead, how do you see AI's role in your creative work evolving over the next few years? Do you anticipate your boundaries shifting at all, or do you think you'll maintain this current approach?

User: I hope, in some ways, it could be a positive for me. I suspect once all the hype is over, and many people will have lost writing skills, preferring to use LLMs to generate their writing, human writing will have more prestige. My boundaries won't shift because I love writing so much. It would be no fun if a computer got to do it all. I don't even really want to use it for idea generation, because I don't want to write things that don't add anything to the world. Right now, AI is only capable of remixing what's already out there, and I think I'm better off learning to generate ideas on my own. It definitely has a place as more of a writing assistant I feel. I wouldn't use it for research or anything because, again, I enjoy doing that myself too much. But I would use it for quick spelling checks, dictionary definitions, thesaurus purposes, as a little hype-man, etc.

AI: Those are all the questions I had prepared. You've shared some really thoughtful insights about your experiences with AI in your creative processes. I particularly appreciated your perspective on how human writing might actually gain prestige as AI becomes more common, and your observation about being able to identify and help fill in the "human gaps" in AI-assisted work when you're editing.

Before we wrap up, is there anything else about your experience with AI in your creative work that you think would be valuable for us to know? Something we haven't covered yet?

User: No, thank you.

AI: Thank you again for your time and for sharing your experiences so openly. Your insights about maintaining the human elements in creative writing - that deliberate word choice, the agonizing over perfection, and the deep understanding of humanity that drives meaningful work - will be incredibly helpful for our research on human-AI interaction in creative contexts.

I really appreciate how thoughtfully you've considered where AI does and doesn't fit in your creative process, and your perspective on the evolving landscape for writers and editors. Thanks again!