The first time I asked an AI to summarize a crime novel, it did so in about three seconds.
It took me three months to write mine.
As a crime writer, I spend an unreasonable amount of time thinking about human psychology. Motive is the engine of the genre. A body on the floor is the starting point; the real story begins with How and Why it’s there.
In my own case, the novel has false starts, rewrites, and long stretches spent staring at a paragraph that refuses to behave.
That small experiment captures the current argument about artificial intelligence. Depending on whom you ask, AI will either usher in a golden age of creativity or reduce writers to gig workers polishing prose generated by a machine that has never experienced heartbreak, homicide, or a missed deadline.
Both predictions are probably wrong. Historically, they almost always are.
New technologies tend to arrive with two publicists: one predicting paradise, the other predicting catastrophe. For more than a century we have been promised that machines would free us for higher pursuits. Washing machines spared us from scrubbing clothes by hand. Email replaced letters. Television was once expected to become the great educator of the masses, bringing Shakespeare, science, and world affairs into every living room.
The promise is always the same: remove the drudgery and humans will devote themselves to more meaningful work.
Sometimes the promise even holds.
Writers once worked on typewriters, producing pages that looked like minor crime scenes—crossed-out lines, correction fluid, and coffee rings as editorial commentary. When word processors arrived, they quietly eliminated one of the great mechanical burdens of writing: retyping entire pages just to fix a paragraph.
Spell-check followed. Then autocorrect, which introduced its own genre of accidental comedy.
And yet many of us, liberated from the tyranny of the typewriter, still struggle to produce a compelling sentence.
Artificial intelligence continues that same technological trajectory. It can summarize research, organize information, propose outlines, and imitate the statistical patterns of language with impressive speed.
But stories—especially crime stories—depend on something less mechanical.
Crime fiction is rarely about the crime itself. It is about human nature under pressure: the moment someone crosses a line they once swore they never would.
Greed. Fear. Loyalty. Betrayal.
These are the emotional forces that drive the story.
A machine can describe a murder. Understanding why someone commits one is another matter.
None of this means artificial intelligence is trivial. It may reshape publishing, accelerate research, and flood the world with more text than anyone can reasonably read. Writers will adapt, just as they adapted to typewriters, word processors, the internet, social media, and the curious modern expectation that authors should also function as marketers, podcasters, and amateur meteorologists of the publishing industry.
Storytelling has survived every technological shift thrown at it so far.
That is because the appetite for stories is older than any machine. Humans want to know what happened, why it happened, and whether justice—however imperfect—will prevail.
Crime fiction, especially, thrives on that ancient curiosity.
Which brings me back to the three-second summary.
Artificial intelligence can reduce a novel to a neat paragraph. It can identify the characters, the plot, and even the twist.
What it cannot easily summarize is the thing crime writers spend years trying to understand:
why someone crossed the line in the first place.
And as long as that question remains difficult, messy, and stubbornly human, there will still be work for crime writers.















