The future, or lack thereof, of writing

It’s been a big week for the writers of words.

First, creatives banded together to demand the government not water down copyright laws in exchange for loadsa cash in datacentre investment. The combination of heavily acronymed industry bodies gave a rebel alliance vibe, except with Kylie Minogue and Midnight Oil.

Next, youth-focused digital title Punkee shut its doors after almost a decade in favour of a “creator-led model”. It doesn’t appear anyone knows what that means in practice. 

Then, Jamir Nazir’s The Serpent in the Grove won the overall Commonwealth short story prize, despite allegations that it was AI generated. Of course, there’s no way to know for sure. Except of course to read it, at which point it becomes obvious.

Reading these examples, you may come to the understandable conclusion that AI is starting to have a real impact on the jobs and livelihoods of people.

The data, however, disagrees. Research by Monash University economist Zac Gross found that while AI is potentially softening some parts of the job market, it hasn’t yet hit wages.

Try telling that to journalists. Medianet's most recent annual Australian Media Landscape Report found more than a fifth (22%) of journalists report having lost work or knowing someone who did due to the adoption of generative AI and LLMs. The freelancers and casual employees who keep many newsrooms running, as well as those working in podcasting and radio, were more highly affected.

More than half (52%) said their job or role had changed in some way in 2025, and with Nine’s deal with Microsoft freshly announced, that number is likely to grow this year.

We’re in a weird period between the lived experience of seeing AI change writing and creativity, in both form and function, and the data catching up to show its impact. It might make researchers shudder, but we should probably pay attention to those on the frontlines.