This is a powerful and well-articulated piece, but I respectfully disagree with its central premise that ghostwriting (or by extension, AI-assisted writing) is an intellectual debt that inevitably undermines credibility.
If that were true, history would have long corrected the record to acknowledge the invisible minds behind many great works. But it has not. Fanny Mendelssohn composed music attributed to her brother Felix. Rosalind Franklin’s X-ray work underpinned the discovery of DNA’s structure, yet Watson and Crick received the credit and the Nobel too. Mileva Marić, Einstein’s first wife, was rumored to be a collaborator on his early work. Hedy Lamarr co-invented frequency hopping but was long celebrated only for her beauty.
These women were not ghostwriters by choice, they were rendered invisible by systems that reward visibility, not authenticity.
Ghostwriting is not always a lie. Sometimes, it is survival. Sometimes, it is delegation and sometimes, it is strategy.
Your article likens ghostwriting to financial debt quiet, compounding, and ultimately destructive. But I would argue it is more like ghost infrastructure: the uncredited steel under someone else's skyscraper. You do not see it, but without it, nothing stands.
Yes, the misuse of ghostwriters, especially to fake expertise, can be dangerous. But the suggestion that every ghostwritten insight is unearned, or that real thinkers never need help, feels romantic and somewhat privileged. Many brilliant minds struggle with articulation. Others face linguistic, social, or emotional barriers. A ghostwriter in such cases is not erasing their voice but enabling it.
And now with AI we are simply evolving the medium. The question should not be “Did you write every word?” but rather “Did you stand behind the ideas?” Thought leadership is not just about authorship but it is about ownership.
Because sometimes, even ghosts speak the truth.
Swati, I ghost so others can shine, until it is time to speak for myself.
This is a powerful and well-articulated piece, but I respectfully disagree with its central premise that ghostwriting (or by extension, AI-assisted writing) is an intellectual debt that inevitably undermines credibility.
If that were true, history would have long corrected the record to acknowledge the invisible minds behind many great works. But it has not. Fanny Mendelssohn composed music attributed to her brother Felix. Rosalind Franklin’s X-ray work underpinned the discovery of DNA’s structure, yet Watson and Crick received the credit and the Nobel too. Mileva Marić, Einstein’s first wife, was rumored to be a collaborator on his early work. Hedy Lamarr co-invented frequency hopping but was long celebrated only for her beauty.
These women were not ghostwriters by choice, they were rendered invisible by systems that reward visibility, not authenticity.
Ghostwriting is not always a lie. Sometimes, it is survival. Sometimes, it is delegation and sometimes, it is strategy.
Your article likens ghostwriting to financial debt quiet, compounding, and ultimately destructive. But I would argue it is more like ghost infrastructure: the uncredited steel under someone else's skyscraper. You do not see it, but without it, nothing stands.
Yes, the misuse of ghostwriters, especially to fake expertise, can be dangerous. But the suggestion that every ghostwritten insight is unearned, or that real thinkers never need help, feels romantic and somewhat privileged. Many brilliant minds struggle with articulation. Others face linguistic, social, or emotional barriers. A ghostwriter in such cases is not erasing their voice but enabling it.
And now with AI we are simply evolving the medium. The question should not be “Did you write every word?” but rather “Did you stand behind the ideas?” Thought leadership is not just about authorship but it is about ownership.
Because sometimes, even ghosts speak the truth.
Swati, I ghost so others can shine, until it is time to speak for myself.