Why fighting AI-generated text protects human mediocrity rather than intellectual depth.Lately, the media and writing platforms have developed a peculiar obsession: they have all started fiercely fighting texts created by artificial intelligence. The battle ranges from mandatory declarations in submission forms stating that AI had nothing to do with your text to special algorithms that analyze writing and deliver verdicts.This strange crusade finds massive support among authors and the general public, who are worried about the prospect of perishing under the iron heel of the Terminator.Unfortunately, this practice of an “AI witch hunt” is built on a false and, in my view, highly harmful premise: that everything written by a human is genius, while anything produced by AI is nonsense.Moreover, when declaring war on AI texts, people didn’t bother to examine all aspects of the problem. As usual, emotions prevailed over sober analysis.Meanwhile, we are faced with a striking paradox: for centuries, humanity has produced tons of empty, formulaic, template-driven texts - millions of worthless quasi-scientific papers, bureaucratic reports, and ideological noise. But as soon as an algorithm optimized this routine, everyone suddenly remembered the “sacred sincerity” of authorship.Harvard cognitive psychologist and linguist Professor Steven Pinker touched on this issue, noting that academic articles are written: “only so that scientists can enjoy them among themselves.” A text that cannot be understood without reading the same paragraph five or six times creates frustration and kills any joy of reading. He rightly criticized the complexity and verbosity of academic writing. One should add that many authors simply hide behind wordiness and an abundance of terminology for their inability to clearly formulate ideas - or the complete absence of any.You can also walk into the nearest bookstore and find a dozen titles like I Am a Blogger, How to Become a Writer, or How to Write a Bestseller in a Month. For fun, you might even buy one of these, then pull from your shelf Ray Bradbury’s brilliant essay collection Zen in the Art of Writing to see the difference between a muddy ditch and a living, fresh, sparkling stream.Because AI is capable of formulating ideas concisely, clearly, and precisely, the current war against its output often looks like an attempt to protect not the depth of thought, but a human’s right to keep producing banalities without competition.And this is not the only weak point of the “AI critics.”We are dealing with a severe logical flaw on the part of the “hunters.” The issue isn't who writes better, but that humans hypocritically and basely claim the AI’s work as their own, signing their name to it.Nothing new here - the urge to steal seems to be an ineradicable part of human nature. Add vanity and a knack for lying, and you have a "new author.”There is nothing wrong with texts written by AI. Often they are more engaging and cleaner than the muddy flood of human graphomania. I wouldn’t be put off by an article, news piece, or analytical review signed by Claude, Gemini, or Grok. (By the way, while working on this piece, I used Grok as a sparring partner and consultant - though the text itself and all decisions remained entirely mine.)This is far more honest than behaving like semi-literate students who submit AI-written assignments at college and take pride in it.I am not against the fight itself. It simply needs to be directed not at AI, but at the parasites who use it to mask their own mediocrity.I can already hear the critics’ objections: “The main problem is that people will forget how to formulate thoughts, responsibility will become blurred, and the information space will be flooded with uniform content.”Let’s pause for a moment and examine these claims.“Forget how to formulate thoughts”… This assumes that before encountering AI, people actually knew how to do this, and only now started feeding it primitive, poorly expressed prompts.No, that is not how it works. A fool will remain a fool even if served by ten AI models - only his self-importance will balloon, giving us a top-tier fool. That is the essence of the problem.As for "blurred responsibility" - it's even simpler. Whoever signs the text bears the responsibility. Nothing gets blurred.Another curious logical failure is that the stream of uniform content (which we all see, of course) is not created by the algorithm. Its author is a human. It is the human who chooses idleness instead of work, and it is the human who puts his name under the final text. Why be surprised if the output is primitive? It was generated from a primitive prompt by an unintelligent, vain person.The algorithm has merely accelerated what humanity was already mass-producing. Fighting the tool is one of the most irrational pursuits ever invented by humans.