I've been reflecting more and more on the disruption AI is causing in our field. And what’s becoming increasingly clear is that this boat cannot be turned back. AI is here to stay. But that doesn’t mean writers must feel compelled to use it, though there are clear benefits for those who do. It does mean, at least in my view, that we have a responsibility to ensure it is used well. As I mentioned in a previous post, I would like to see writers lead this shift rather than stand aside and watch it unfold. But to do that, we need a proper understanding of both the capabilities and the limitations of these machines. While building my new course on AI writing mastery, which I'll tell you more about soon, I found myself returning to a simple idea: prompting is fast becoming a professional skill in its own right. Writers, more than anyone, are well placed to teach it. Across industries, people are already using tools like ChatGPT to draft emails, reports, and strategies. What began as experimentation has settled into daily workflow. Once a tool is embedded at that level within an organisation, it becomes part of the infrastructure. The question, then, is how well it will be used. This is where prompting, treated as a craft, separates itself from casual usage. What matters are literary vision, artistic sensibility, and editorial judgment. That is why writers are uniquely positioned at this moment. The core competencies we have always valued — clarity, structure, tone, proportion — map directly onto effective prompting. When those elements are absent, AI produces something merely competent. When they are present, the output becomes sharper, more purposeful, and often genuinely impressive. We are already seeing early signs of this divide. Two people can use the same tool, yet one consistently produces better work. The difference lies in how they think, frame, and articulate, grounded in writing craft. That gap will only widen. As more of the world’s writing becomes mediated through AI, the ability to guide that process with editorial discernment will become a decisive advantage. Not everyone will develop it, but those who do will shape the standards others follow.

“I was devastated. When I say devastated, I mean I could barely speak for months,” writes Britney in her memoir The Woman in Me. “I lay in my bed and stared at the ceiling.” When she turned to her family for support, she was disappointed. “I felt like I had no one to talk to.” In the above passage, the first sentence of the second para can be structured differently: She was disappointed to find even her family unsupportive. "I felt like I had no one to talk to." Which version is better? The first or the second? In the first version, while framing that sentence, I take into consideration the logical progression from her staring at the ceiling to her turning to her family. In the second version, I focus on that sentence in isolation to make it better. @Shani Raja Which approach is recommended? Working with sentences in isolation to make them better? Or paying more heed to what comes before or after? I grapple with this puzzle often. I hope u understood what I am saying :)

No sooner did he come of age than he left for Delhi to join the National School of Drama (NSD). I am placing 'NSD' in parenthesis, so that whenever I have to refer to this school of drama in the future, I can use NSD instead of the full name. Is this a good practice? Are there any alternative ways of doing this? @Shani Raja

Among the various things that may impede clarity, ambiguity is perhaps the hardest to detect. @Shani Raja I understand that the ability to detect ambiguity comes with practice. I was curious to know if there was any other technique.

Hey friends, Our recent conversations in this group got me thinking more deeply about AI and what it really means for us as writers. Soon after the live class with @Nicolas J on this very subject, I began exploring further—at first tentatively, and later, enthusiastically. The further I wandered into the mysterious world of AI, the more I realised I'd been missing a few important pieces of the puzzle. As for most writers, there was an underlying sense of fuzziness around the whole concept. Once the key ideas slotted into place, I began to sense there was a massive opportunity here for us in actually mastering AI. As the world gets flooded with mediocre AI content, those of us who already understand what great writing is will, indeed, have a huge advantage over others when using this technology. Now, as some of you already know, I’ve been working quietly behind the scenes on a book called, The Alchemy of Prompting: Writing With Flair in the Age of AI. It’s written specifically for writers. And it offers a radically different way of thinking about AI that, I hope, will bring both clarity and inspiration. It's part philosophy, part manifesto, and part practical guide. I’ve poured everything I’ve learned about AI into this book—and I honestly can’t wait to share more details with you. Feel free to tell me in the comments what you've been learning in your own experiments with AI. —Shani