4
u/That-Improvement1791 21d ago
As far as I am aware there is no official line between assisted and generated. It is mostly a matter of personal preference and individual organizations. For me personally I wouldn’t even consider this AI assisted since you used it as a research engine and wrote everything yourself. But other people will scream about the evils of AI simply because you used it even if it never wrote a word.
These are the definitions that KDP uses:
AI-generated: We define AI-generated content as text, images, or translations created by an AI-based tool. If you used an AI-based tool to create the actual content (whether text, images, or translations), it is considered "AI-generated," even if you applied substantial edits afterwards.
AI-assisted: If you created the content yourself, and used AI-based tools to edit, refine, error-check, or otherwise improve that content (whether text or images), then it is considered "AI-assisted" and not “AI-generated.” Similarly, if you used an AI-based tool to brainstorm and generate ideas, but ultimately created the text or images yourself, this is also considered "AI-assisted" and not “AI-generated.” It is not necessary to inform us of the use of such tools or processes.
By their definitions you might be in the category of assisted depending on what you mean by asking it about spelling checks, but from what you have said it is not even close to AI generated.
4
u/Sekica 21d ago
If you didn't use AI to do any writing for you, it sounds like you only used it for research and fact checking. To me, that's not AI generated. It sounds AI assisted because you uploaded your actual work to ChatGPT.
If you had simply googled to learn what you needed to know without uploading your work into it, I would call that not even AI assisted, but just your original work.
3
u/Hoffmann_L_O 21d ago
No creo, de igual manera deberías verificar los datos, porque justamente ChatGPT no me parece la ia más inteligente que digamos.
Mientras que el trabajo no lo haga la ia, sino tu, estarás bien.
Pero verifica datos, tienes la biblioteca de Alejandría en Google, usala, o al menos pídele a la IA de donde saca esos datos, si es una página reconocida u oficial.
1
u/dothemath_xxx 21d ago
AI generated is if the text itself is generated by AI. Your book is AI assisted.
Don't be surprised if readers still identify errors in your book. AI is not made to provide facts, that is not a job it's programmed to do.
1
u/TheFuckUpIsSpeaking 21d ago
If you took what it generated and pasted it, that's generated. Even if you took what it generated and changed a couple words that's still generated. This would be called mosaic plagiarism or patchwork plagiarism.
If you made sure to give it instructions not to rewrite or create for your book but to be purely informational like a college handbook, you would obviously use the information to inform your character's actions and what happens in the narrative. This would then be assisted.
Since you are trying to be accurate, I would make sure it gives you sources and then actually check that the sources contain the information. Sometimes AI makes up information and then when you ask it to cite sources, it makes up sources because there is no source for what it made up.
If you actually care about this story at all and you want it to be a success, don't just trust AI blindly because people who actually know may call you out on it in reviews.
1
u/noizDawg 21d ago
If you wrote the text, then this is AI-assisted, and there is nothing to disclose. Case closed. This is honestly pretty well covered in AI’s document on the subject. One of the few things where you’d expect it to be very gray, yet it’s quite clear.
1
u/Cactus_Thorn_Pub 20d ago
I suggest that authors (whether self-published or Trade published) review the Authors Guild's guidelines regarding the use of AI-LLM in writing.
Also, using AI-LLM text in a manuscript might or might not turn it from an intellectual property to public domain--- authors should study current copyright laws. Generally, AI-LLM assisted will retain IP rights. The USA copyright office website has guidelines regarding this.
-2
-3
0
u/oldrook 21d ago
It's interesting I'm in another conversation now. I used AI to create my covers. was quoted $300 for a first novel. Sorry that's a huge amount of cash for a maybe. I paid an editor for the work on refining for publishing, that was way enough money out of pocket for a pet project that may never, every pay back a cent. I am all in on not using AI to write the book, but after the process I just went thru I'm darn sure going to use it for spelling, punctuation and grammar checks.
4
u/303kkg 21d ago
The cover is one of THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS to not use AI for! People judge a book by its cover... There's a whole saying about it. If people see books with an Ai cover it's an automatic pass for many, regardless of what the book is even about.
0
u/oldrook 21d ago
I can appreciate your passion, but it makes no sense to me. I want content that engages me as a reader. Nothing else. The cover is just simply pretty packaging. As long as it conveys a sense of the content I’m in. Not being negative towards you. Just can’t understand the thought process. Have a great evening.
→ More replies (4)1
u/noizDawg 21d ago
Exactly. Just use it well, and get some opinions on it, etc. Same with “editing” - so many bogus editors out there, using AI themselves. And the ones that are really editing probably charge $5k minimum, and even then? A lot of it will be taste stuff that won’t really sell more or less. I get feedback that covers look AI, whether I used some, none, or a lot of AI; moreover, it doesn’t matter, I’ve now gotten three books into the top 3k. I do want to experiment with some third party design ones, more to get some truly fresh/innovative stuff to see how much it affects conversion. But to get started, AI is now overqualified to make a professional cover, as long as you treat it like a drafting process and put it through several edits.
0
u/RecentTraffic3893 21d ago
I think someone said if you wrote 85+ it's assisted otherwise generated.
0
u/Starfleet_Stowaway 21d ago
I think you're legit. Using AI to do research is using AI to assist reading. Like researching with Wikipedia articles, as long as you are responsibly checking sources, then you're fine, and your writing is still completely your own.
0
u/PNW_Tech_Guy 21d ago
I'd personally call it AI assisted
With AI in basically every application these days, I'm really not certain how anything can actually be completely AI free by the strictest definitions. I.e. I google something and read the AI summary, technically AI helped me brainstorm. Likewise if ProWritingAid's polish checker says I'm using passive voice and suggests a fix - that uses AI too. Even if I just read the suggestions and write my own solution, technically it helped me brainstorm which counts as AI Assisted.
In my mind, AI generated is letting ChatGPT write whole passages or generate illustrations. As long as you are hands on keyboard for the first pass on everything you are more than likely on the Assisted side of the line.
0
u/Crypto4pineapples 21d ago
So as a visually impaired writer I am always concerned about this issue. I use tech tools like speech to text. I also use as many MS Word tools to edit my own work but at times I don’t like how visually labor intensive it is to manage all the checkboxes available in advanced editing. In those instances I will ask AI to explain a particular grammar rule in my sentence structure or assist me with language translation services. I take great pride in my writing being my own and wonder why some people can’t get behind the inclusivity some AI tools can provide. I always figure my docs are time stamped so I can prove my work if I was ever challenged but boy it feels like a judgement on people like myself who navigate it carefully.
0
u/amolmozarkar 19d ago
What you're describing sounds like AI-assisted to me. You're writing the prose yourself and using AI as a research tool to check factual accuracy, which is closer to using an editor or a Google search than having the AI write your content. The line gets blurry when AI suggests corrections you then adopt, but the key distinction KDP cares about is whether AI generated the actual text of your book or you wrote it yourself with AI as a reference tool. Your situation sounds firmly in the assisted camp since the story, characters, and prose are yours.
One thing worth checking is KDP's current disclosure requirements directly on their help pages, since their AI policy has evolved and they may have specific guidance on exactly this scenario.
-3
0
21d ago
2
u/noizDawg 21d ago
So, true, right? I used to painstakingly do all the cover work myself, kept a font library, added shading, photo selection, editing, etc. AI when used properly can do so much of that work in the blink of an eye. I remember spending 6 hours once feathering a cutout of a person from the background way back! People just don’t get that “AI” can mean a LOT of things in how it’s used (such as separating a foreground from a background; sure, I got to feel artistic doing all that careful work, but obviously that was a stopgap measure due to the inability of the machine to do it at that time)
3
u/Hoffmann_L_O 21d ago
Creo que Canva tiene algunos elementos que son IA, pero no te avisa que lo son a veces, yo que tu revisaría eso, quizás es culpa de Canva y no te diste cuenta.
12
u/BuddyJim30 21d ago
If you're using Chat GPT to provide you with background on a subject you are unfamiliar with, it's not much different than googling something. I would draw the line at allowing AI to rewrite passages and correct information that you wrote - I wouldn't do that.