Artificial intelligence, in its most familiar consumer-facing form, includes tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and other large language models. These systems are now used across a nearly limitless range of industries and individual contexts.
AI is already transforming work and everyday life in unprecedented ways. Some regard these changes as beneficial; others see them as deeply harmful. Both perspectives demand serious consideration.
The environmental costs are substantial. The rapid expansion of data centres consumes enormous quantities of energy and water, while the infrastructure and supply chains supporting them may bring further ecological damage and toxic effects to surrounding communities.
Effective regulation and legislation are urgently needed. AI companies should not be permitted to expand faster than the public’s ability to understand and govern their effects. People should press elected representatives at the local, regional, and national levels to regulate these companies and the spread of data centres in their communities. Decisions about energy, water, land use, environmental risk, and public infrastructure require meaningful public involvement rather than being left primarily to technology companies and private investors.
The consequences for employment and the workforce remain uncertain as businesses increasingly adopt AI and agentic systems. Education and academia may be especially vulnerable. These technologies challenge established ideas about learning, authorship, and assessment while entering university systems already burdened by well-documented institutional inefficiencies.
AI must also be understood within the wider context of surveillance capitalism. These systems can enable the collection, consolidation, and commercial exploitation of personal information on an unprecedented scale. As they become embedded in workplaces, schools, public services, and private life, they risk deepening systems of behavioural monitoring and control while concentrating still more power in the hands of a small number of corporations.
AI is especially detested in the writing and publishing worlds, where the works of authors and publishers have been scraped—including from pirate libraries—and used without permission or payment to build the very tools that now threaten their livelihoods. Writers have good reason to be angry and cautious. These concerns cannot be answered with vague promises about innovation.
Constant Resonance will not accept work written by AI, nor will AI be used to generate text or art for the work it edits, develops, or publishes. The creative work must come from people: from their imaginations, vocabularies, experiences, and choices.
This does not mean that AI has no place in the work surrounding creative practice. Constant Resonance uses AI tools, including custom-built tools, in its day-to-day operations and in the practical support it provides to authors. These tools may assist with administrative, organizational, and other supporting tasks. They are used to create more time and space for meaningful work with authors, not to replace the work of writing.
For now, some authors will object to any use of AI in or around creative writing. That position is understandable. The technology has been introduced with little transparency, weak consent, and too little regard for the people whose work made it possible.
At the same time, refusing to discuss how AI is already being used will not make it disappear. As these tools become more familiar, their practical benefits may become clearer. It is possible for AI to support writers and the people who work with them without allowing it to produce the writing itself.
The important questions are not simply whether AI is present, but where it is used, why it is used, and who controls its use.
Clearly articulated boundaries are therefore essential. They distinguish between a tool that supports an author and one that imitates or replaces them. They allow deliberate choices to be made instead of simply accepting whatever technology companies place in front of the public. They also give authors the information they need to decide whether a particular organization’s practices are consistent with their own.
The boundary at Constant Resonance is straightforward: AI may be used to support creative work, but it will not be used to make that work. Its use should remain transparent, limited, and open to reconsideration as the technology—and the understanding of its consequences—continues to change.
AI is a blunt and erring instrument compared to the human imagination and our ability to write what we think and feel with words that come from our own vocabularies and experience. The process of writing and crafting words is one of the truest human endeavors. Taking it further by allowing those words to be edited and crafted and published in ink on paper is a truly revolutionary act that is the foundation for our current civilisation.