Oh goodness, that AI response about destroying the next generation is absolutely chilling - and it perfectly encapsulates all the things that keep me awake at 3am. I have three teenage girls and device use is hands-down the main point of contention in our house, as I expect it is in families with children of this age. I often say to my girls that in twenty years, they will turn around and accuse us of negligent parenting because of the 'freedom' we allowed them with their devices (note: we do have family boundaries - it's not a free-for-all) - a freedom they will not allow their own children. I believe (hope) the reckoning is coming.
As for your AI policy, Sara, I think it's terrific and a model that I would like to follow ie use AI to increase efficiency with the 'business' side of writing, but not the creative side. Transparency around AI use is a key issue and I have many questions. I believe we are starting to see author contracts with AI clauses, mostly so authors can ensure their work is not used to instruct LLMs. But there are other issues - will there be clauses that demand authors disclose the use of AI in the creation of their work? Will such disclaimers be included in books, so the reader knows if AI was used in its creation? As a reader, I would like to know if a robot has been used in any part of the creation - it wouldn't necessarily make me not read the work - but I would read it differently.
I take your point about the desire for human connection and self expression. AI does not stop us from writing and no 'bot' can fully replace the breadth of IRL human experience and its representation of such experience, via the written word. My question is more around - what publisher will want to pay authors for their work when they can generate content far more quickly and cheaply with AI? And if they edit the AI generated content a little they can probably claim some kind of copyright over it. Same goes for editing, design and marketing - there are significant efficiencies on offer by harnessing AI. Why wouldn't the publishers want to save on time and therefore money?
Society generally regards books as a social good, but the fact is that publishing is a business, predicated on a capitalist model of making money. One of the counter arguments to this is that AI generated work is crappy and readers won't cop the poor quality writing. But I would say this is a values-based judgement. Who judges what is 'good' writing? There's an audience out there for all types of writing. I wonder if we are actually heading towards the point where readers generate their own books, simply by inputting a few prompts to an LLM? These are the thoughts that are also keeping me awake at night.
Sorry for this really long-winded response but there are very few places where we can engage in a reasonable and rational manner about these issues. I'm really not a fan of the moral policing (particularly on social media) that casts AI as the devil and writers as cancellable sell-outs for using it in any way, shape or form. The tech is here. It's only going to improve in terms of output. It's going to disrupt things in publishing. This is the time for listening, learning and calmly discussing how to forge a path forward (even though it's a all a bit terrifying!).
Thanks for responding so thoroughly Cassie. I have two girls - 16 and 11 - so I'm right there with you - and we are having many a conversation around tech and how to navigate it. The stuff that goes on for them inside cyberspace (mainly 16yo - 11yo is on Pinterest but that's it) is everything from mind-numbing to shocking. When it just goes on a loop 24/7 I can't imagine what that does to their brains.
I'm glad the AI policy is useful. Yes the contracts situation will be really interesting, as we are having to sign contracts now without really knowing how this is going to unfold. And I should imagine many publishers will be having to prioritise the bottom line and cover themselves legally, so not sure where that leaves author welfare, but it leaves me very concerned.
Great questions around publishers themselves bypassing authors - that's scary but I totally see where you're coming from. And readers generating their own books - hadn't thought of that one! I can see all these things happening, although I'm not sure if I can envision them taking over completely (could be being totally optimistic here!!!).
Please don't apologise for long responses, I love them - and like you I so value this opportunity and this place for us to have interesting conversations. You have provided me with much more food for thought - thank you! And I agree we need to stay calm first and listen to a wide range of views before we can truly settle - because there's likely always exceptions to whatever rules we try to put in place too, whether for ourselves or others. So complicated and confusing at times!
Thanks for taking the time to write this great post. I like the idea of an AI policy. I think if people use generative AI to write, we'll be seeing more accusations of plagiarism.
Quick question on “I will not use AI to edit.” When working on personal projects, I have a Grammarly subscription and I’m struggling to understand what exactly is the difference. Should we treat these tools as mutually exclusive, or is there a great in-between we should be conscious of?
Or do we just ignore these spell check and grammar tools all together?
Hi Jake, great question. I think my reference to ‘editing’ is probably too vague and all encompassing (this was my first attempt at this policy) - and I would love to hear what you think as I don’t use Grammarly at the moment. Do you find it a wholly effective tool that supports your writing and editing process or do you feel there’s anything about it that crosses that line and might interfere with your own creativity and critical thinking? It doesn’t worry me if AI is supporting things like sentence structure, spelling etc (seems useful and is enhancing our work), I’m more concerned about what relying too much on generative AI might do to our industry/creative selves so this would refer more to bigger picture, wholesale restructuring and rewriting. Thanks for raising this, very interested in your thoughts.
Oh goodness, that AI response about destroying the next generation is absolutely chilling - and it perfectly encapsulates all the things that keep me awake at 3am. I have three teenage girls and device use is hands-down the main point of contention in our house, as I expect it is in families with children of this age. I often say to my girls that in twenty years, they will turn around and accuse us of negligent parenting because of the 'freedom' we allowed them with their devices (note: we do have family boundaries - it's not a free-for-all) - a freedom they will not allow their own children. I believe (hope) the reckoning is coming.
As for your AI policy, Sara, I think it's terrific and a model that I would like to follow ie use AI to increase efficiency with the 'business' side of writing, but not the creative side. Transparency around AI use is a key issue and I have many questions. I believe we are starting to see author contracts with AI clauses, mostly so authors can ensure their work is not used to instruct LLMs. But there are other issues - will there be clauses that demand authors disclose the use of AI in the creation of their work? Will such disclaimers be included in books, so the reader knows if AI was used in its creation? As a reader, I would like to know if a robot has been used in any part of the creation - it wouldn't necessarily make me not read the work - but I would read it differently.
I take your point about the desire for human connection and self expression. AI does not stop us from writing and no 'bot' can fully replace the breadth of IRL human experience and its representation of such experience, via the written word. My question is more around - what publisher will want to pay authors for their work when they can generate content far more quickly and cheaply with AI? And if they edit the AI generated content a little they can probably claim some kind of copyright over it. Same goes for editing, design and marketing - there are significant efficiencies on offer by harnessing AI. Why wouldn't the publishers want to save on time and therefore money?
Society generally regards books as a social good, but the fact is that publishing is a business, predicated on a capitalist model of making money. One of the counter arguments to this is that AI generated work is crappy and readers won't cop the poor quality writing. But I would say this is a values-based judgement. Who judges what is 'good' writing? There's an audience out there for all types of writing. I wonder if we are actually heading towards the point where readers generate their own books, simply by inputting a few prompts to an LLM? These are the thoughts that are also keeping me awake at night.
Sorry for this really long-winded response but there are very few places where we can engage in a reasonable and rational manner about these issues. I'm really not a fan of the moral policing (particularly on social media) that casts AI as the devil and writers as cancellable sell-outs for using it in any way, shape or form. The tech is here. It's only going to improve in terms of output. It's going to disrupt things in publishing. This is the time for listening, learning and calmly discussing how to forge a path forward (even though it's a all a bit terrifying!).
Thanks for responding so thoroughly Cassie. I have two girls - 16 and 11 - so I'm right there with you - and we are having many a conversation around tech and how to navigate it. The stuff that goes on for them inside cyberspace (mainly 16yo - 11yo is on Pinterest but that's it) is everything from mind-numbing to shocking. When it just goes on a loop 24/7 I can't imagine what that does to their brains.
I'm glad the AI policy is useful. Yes the contracts situation will be really interesting, as we are having to sign contracts now without really knowing how this is going to unfold. And I should imagine many publishers will be having to prioritise the bottom line and cover themselves legally, so not sure where that leaves author welfare, but it leaves me very concerned.
Great questions around publishers themselves bypassing authors - that's scary but I totally see where you're coming from. And readers generating their own books - hadn't thought of that one! I can see all these things happening, although I'm not sure if I can envision them taking over completely (could be being totally optimistic here!!!).
Please don't apologise for long responses, I love them - and like you I so value this opportunity and this place for us to have interesting conversations. You have provided me with much more food for thought - thank you! And I agree we need to stay calm first and listen to a wide range of views before we can truly settle - because there's likely always exceptions to whatever rules we try to put in place too, whether for ourselves or others. So complicated and confusing at times!
Thanks for taking the time to write this great post. I like the idea of an AI policy. I think if people use generative AI to write, we'll be seeing more accusations of plagiarism.
Thanks Rach - you're so right, that makes perfect sense!
Quick question on “I will not use AI to edit.” When working on personal projects, I have a Grammarly subscription and I’m struggling to understand what exactly is the difference. Should we treat these tools as mutually exclusive, or is there a great in-between we should be conscious of?
Or do we just ignore these spell check and grammar tools all together?
Hi Jake, great question. I think my reference to ‘editing’ is probably too vague and all encompassing (this was my first attempt at this policy) - and I would love to hear what you think as I don’t use Grammarly at the moment. Do you find it a wholly effective tool that supports your writing and editing process or do you feel there’s anything about it that crosses that line and might interfere with your own creativity and critical thinking? It doesn’t worry me if AI is supporting things like sentence structure, spelling etc (seems useful and is enhancing our work), I’m more concerned about what relying too much on generative AI might do to our industry/creative selves so this would refer more to bigger picture, wholesale restructuring and rewriting. Thanks for raising this, very interested in your thoughts.
I got chills reading that AI response. Utter chills
Same here Britt. AI doesn't pull any punches, does it?
Scott Pape’s AI response is BEYOND chilling. Who needs near-future dystopia when AI can frame the (eek - reality?!) that it’s already here.
Agreed. Except I still want to write Hush 2. ;)
LOL and I still want to read Hush 2 (y'know, me and thousands of readers)!!
And I thank you so much for spurring me on!!!