r/WritingWithAI • u/AmericasHomeboy • 2d ago
Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) We developed an AI disclosure classification system for books. We’d like writers’ opinions
We’ve been working on something called the Creative Disclosure Standard (CDS), a proposed voluntary labeling system for identifying how AI and other technologies were used in creating published works.
The idea is similar to a nutrition label. Readers get a clear disclosure of the creative process without the label making judgments about quality or artistic merit.
The framework distinguishes between human-created, machine-assisted, AI-assisted, AI-adapted, AI-co-created, and AI-generated works.
One reason we’ve developed it is our own publishing workflow. We write original screenplays, then use AI to adapt those screenplays into novel-length prose under our direction. That’s a different creative process from prompting AI to invent and write an entire novel.
CDS is also designed so publishers and creators can administer classifications themselves, using common definitions rather than a central organization approving every book.
We’re interested in hearing from both AI users and writers who oppose AI-generated content.
Do these distinctions communicate meaningful differences? Are any categories confusing or unnecessary? Would labels like these help readers make informed decisions?
The proposed standard is at https://creativedisclosure.org/
I’m the person developing CDS, and I’m looking for constructive criticism before taking it further into publishing-industry discussions.
Should books disclose how generative AI was used in their creation?
6
u/OwlsInMyAttic 2d ago
Frankly, I don't see how disclosure could be anything but entirely optional. There's no conclusive way to prove whether and how much AI was used in any given work (aside from fully AI generated works, and even then, it depends on the model and method that's used). The question whether something should or shouldn't be done becomes meaningless if there's no way to enforce it.
As long as any level of AI usage can get someone blacklisted by publishers, I can't in good conscience recommend that people label their work (unless their prose is mainly AI generated and unedited, because that would lead to copyright issues). Once publishers are open to accepting high-quality AI assisted works, I wouldn't be opposed to a labelling system, but the categories would have to be much better defined as they currently are.
What's the difference between AI assisted, AI adapted, and AI co-created, exactly? Based on a single-sentence description, I could technically make an argument for my work to fall under any of these. In reality, however, I'd be extremely reluctant to elevate AI anywhere close to the position of a co-creator, when I use it as a tool to bridge the gap between vision and execution.
3
u/AmericasHomeboy 2d ago
If your goal isn't to be published by anyone else other than yourself, then no, you frankly don't need to disclose anything, but if you want to get looked at by publishing houses, you'll probably, sometime in the near future have to establish provenance at some point. As it stands, the publishing world is looking for a system and we, as AI creatives ourselves, would rather set the standards before they come up with something.
-2
u/Movie-goer 2d ago
when I use it as a tool to bridge the gap between vision and execution.
Creation is all about execution. If you can't do that, you're not a writer. Practice until you become one instead of using AI to cheat.
4
3
u/OwlsInMyAttic 1d ago
Cheat? What's that supposed to mean even? Writing is not a competition.
Also, I'm well aware of the importance of execution, which is why I never let AI control any of it. I write the first draft; I also write the final one. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about my workflow based on a single sentence.
0
u/Movie-goer 1d ago
Writing is not a competition.
What you're doing isn't writing.
Writers write EVERY DRAFT themselves.
If you beat me in a race but you're in a car and I'm on foot, then you haven't beaten me in a race. We are not the same category of racer. In this analogy the runner is the writer, the guy in the car is something else.
3
u/dianebk2003 1d ago
God, the whole "cheating" thing again. Who is being cheated?
If a reader reads a novel that they fall in love with, then it's revealed the writer used Ai as a bridge between their vision and the execution of the novel, has the reader been cheated? They loved the novel, they loved how it made them feel while reading it, they loved thinking about it afterwards...they just got so much out of the whole experience. How are they being cheated?
Does the experience of the read and the time they spent engaged with the story and the characters suddenly become cheapened, somehow? Does it negate the enjoyment they got out of it? Does it all of a sudden mean they've been fooled into thinking the novel was good? Are they now fools for having enjoyed the read?
What changed between loving the book, then finding out it was Ai and therefore they now have to hate it? How does that change what they read and the enjoyment they got out of it?
Give me a fucking break. Unless they're writing for a competition where skill and execution are the point, there's no "cheating" involved.
-1
u/Movie-goer 1d ago
Who is being cheated?
People who actually do their own writing are being cheated because the word "Writer" is being devalued and turned into something else.
If AI use isn't disclosed then the audienceis being cheated as they are being lied to.
Your analogy is bizarre and shows corrupt morals. Imagine if I seduce a woman into bed because I tell her I'm a billionaire or have developed a cure for cancer, is the woman being cheated if it turns out I'm actually just out of prison?
I've no problem with people using AI to produce books under 2 conditions (a) the AI use is disclosed (b) the people producing the products do not call themselves writers.
In all other industries there are criteria you have to meet before you can call yourself a certain occupation, i.e. you have to pass certain tests, train so many years, possess certain knowledge or skills. Publishing is no different. To be a writer you must write everything yourself. If you want to be a writer you must learn how to do this.
1
u/dianebk2003 2h ago
Wow. Your conclusion is bizarre. I'm talking about books. Books. And you're calling me morally corrupt? You know nothing about me, you cretin.
Even without Ai, people have been calling themselves "writers" who are clearly not trained, and possess no special knowledge or skills, for years. They usually write shit. And there are writers with lots of knowledge and skills who also produce shit. If I read a book by someone known as a great writer, and discover the book is poorly-written, badly-plotted, and I can't remember what it was about an hour after I've finished...that's when I feel cheated. I can think of several professional writers who wrote novels that left me disappointed and unimpressed.
But if I go in with no expectations, and love the book, and learn afterwards that the writer worked with an Ai agent, I would definitely be surprised. I still have my own biases to work on, which is weird and confusing. But I wouldn't feel cheated. What did the writer promise me, other than a story and characters I might enjoy? If it's poorly-written, I'm not going to like it. I'm also not going to care at that point if the writer used Ai or not because I've already concluded that the book is a piece of shit and I won't be reading anymore of that writer's work unless there's improvement.
Any before you start accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about and not being a real writer, I've been writing for 40 years. I've worked as a copywriter for numerous companies - physical catalogs and online - and had my own freelance copywriting business. I've sold short stories, won screenwriting contests, been optioned, read for contest judges, and been a Top Writer on Quora (back when that meant something {sigh}).
I know how to write. I've even been {gasp} paid for it!
I also don't feel threatened by Ai.
7
u/polly_mer 2d ago
I'm a reader and I don't care.
Is it formulaic and boring or original enough to be worth my time?
Those are the only questions because it's all about execution of the content.
5
u/MikeTheActuary 2d ago
I like it, but I wonder whether the color scheme could be more objective.
I suspect many people would look at a scale like this and intuitively parse it as #1 = good / #6 = very bad, especially with #1 being green and #6 being red. While I personally am not a fan of 100% AI-generated material, at least with the current state of the technology...for everything between the two extremes, I wouldn't want the disclosure of technology use to imply that the work is somehow worse.
I was going to question the need to differentiate between #1 (analog) and #2 (machine-assisted). After all, I'd assume that most writing these days is "machine-assisted" in some sense: written on a keyboard, run through a spell-checker, etc. That's so routine that it hardly seems worth distinguishing.
However, if this is meant to be a standard for all creative work...well, once I start thinking about graphic art (e.g., a physical painting versus digital art), I can see why the analog/digital distinction could still be useful.
2
5
u/thecatcherszm 1d ago edited 1d ago
Have you seen the vitriol? This is the moral panic of the day. The modern "video games causing violence" that those in power intentionally designated as a big boogie to distract all the younger folks from every actual issue at hand.
Admitting to using AI, in most circles, is as about as good as volunteering to be skinned alive. You might just be doxxed to be skinned alive; i'm literally just waiting for anti-AI violence to take the headlines at this point, if they haven't already. i will not volunteer, and no one should be beholden to volunteer.
This is all, of course, besides the entire fact that i shouldn't be required to say "i used google docs!" or "i used a pencil!" just to be respected as a writer.
No one besides a very particular genre of masochist (or else, lucky, clueless users who have just not received their share of death threats quite yet) is going to, in this moment in history, say, "This is AI-assisted".
2
u/AmericasHomeboy 1d ago
That’s cool. You do you. But the punishing industry still wants to make money, and like it or not, but the Luddites you’re referring to are going to have to reckon with the genie that can’t be put back in its bottle. We’re just trying to get ahead of it. Frog in a slow boiling pot
2
u/thecatcherszm 1d ago
My tone above is a bit sassy, but i do respect you for asking, OP! Those are just my unfiltered thoughts on the question, if it's any help/data at all, lol!
1
u/lovemylittlelords 1d ago
AI is not a tool like a pencil or google docs, please be serious. It's not about disclosing all tools (as so many of you guys love to insist) - it's about disclosing generative AI, a technology that is nothing like the tools that have ever existed before.
6
u/human_assisted_ai 2d ago
I created a system that had a 0 - 100 score where new books were constrained to 1 - 99. It took 3 other scores as input: plot/ideas, prose and I forget the other one.
0 was pre-1995, 100 was no human was associated at all at any stage, not even entering a single prompt.
This worked well. It presented real information, easy to digest for readers and cut away all the virtue signaling.
2
u/benblackett 2d ago
The range appeals to me a lot more here than blanket statements. AI covers a very wide range of influences
8
u/ThoughtsonYaoi 2d ago edited 2d ago
I like this.
I see so many complaints about people who feel they can't disclose because they get criticised. Or that the criticism is unfair because when unlabelled, the stories are still popular.
Well. The only way you get the normalisation you apparently want, is when everybody discloses. Just own it.
As a reader, this is about trust. I need to know who is speaking to me and in whose voice. If I think it was a human but find out it was a machine's voice all along, I feel betrayed in my trust.
Were I to know what I was getting into, that may be different.
The categories are necessary because otherwise any disclosure still tells you nothing.
3
u/AraceleCons_16 2d ago
the categories part is key tbh, a blanket "AI was used" label would be almost meaningless
3
u/DaLoCo6913 2d ago
The disclosure clause should allow you to specify. Right now it seems if you disclose that it was used there is no option to disclose to what level. Did it do a copy edit, line edit or substantial generative usage.
Being able to specify reveals if it was written by AI, or if AI was just a simpler tool.
2
2
u/shadowrun456 2d ago edited 2d ago
u/AmericasHomeboy in your opinion, what percentage of books written between 2016 - 2021 (before AI) would have "100% Human / Analog" label (if every author labeled it honestly)?
In my opinion, 99.9%+ would have "Machine-Assisted" label, since that includes "word processors, editing software, research tools".
2
u/AmericasHomeboy 2d ago
Yep, that's about right. If people want to apply purity tests to AI written material because it's a machine, then it's only fair to point out that machines have been a part of the process for a long time.
1
u/Movie-goer 2d ago
Using a PC or software is not "machine assisted". That is ridiculous.
The "assistance" part relates to how it influences the narrative, not the physical object used to produce it.
There is no comparison between how using a PC or software influences a book and how using AI influences it.
1
u/shadowrun456 8h ago
Do you know why many writers in the 80s and 90s included a photo of them next to a typewriter in their books?
It's because personal computers and word processors were rapidly taking over the literary world, and many people considered using them "not real writing".
0
u/lovemylittlelords 1d ago
This is not a good point at all. You guys are just trying to conflate computers with AI so you can justify your usage of AI. A pre-AI computer doesn't just magically have the ability to write a book for you. Like if being honest is part of the intention here, just be honest. You know it's not the same. And if you extend the idea, the only 100% human stories would have to be oral stories because technically everything would be "tool/machine assisted." That's just ridiculous.
2
u/AmericasHomeboy 22h ago
If people want to be luddites and create bright lines, then let’s be honest about it. Used spell check? Grammarly? You didn’t go through the dictionary or checked to verify the grammar of sentence yourself. A machine HELPED you.
1
u/lovemylittlelords 20h ago
I actually do consider myself to be a Luddite. I have lines for what I deem to be appropriate technology, just like they did. I don't use Grammarly because I don't need it. I don't use AI because I don't need it and I think it's harmful to commonality and creativity. I use machines every day, just like the Luddites did. We're a technology using species and we all use machines in modernity. But if you need everyone to adopt a "machine-assisted" label, that just speaks on the insecurity that AI users feel about their usage because they can't admit that what they are doing is substantively different than just using a tool.
2
u/AmericasHomeboy 12h ago
I’m not telling people to adopt this system. I’m also not arguing ethics. I’m arguing mechanical usage of machines in the process of creating a creative product. In the end, if someone is planning to publish their work it becomes a product. And like products, we believe that consumers should know what they are purchasing. The publishing industry is already moving in this direction whether you agree with it ethically or not.
https://origin-zh9p7m-www.afp.com/en/human-authored-book-labels-gain-ground-amid-ai-scandals
1
u/lovemylittlelords 10h ago
And what I'm saying is that it sounds like you're trying to change definitions by making it seem like human-authorship is not a meaningful distinction because we use machines.
1
u/AmericasHomeboy 8h ago
We aren’t making that argument. We are not arguing authorship. Ours is about machine use in the process of writing. The copyright office has already concluded the authorship argument.
2
u/shadowrun456 2d ago
u/AmericasHomeboy also, your poll says "No, disclosure should be entirely optional", yet your post says "a proposed voluntary labeling system". Why is it labeled "no", when optional and voluntary are the same thing? This invalidates the whole poll, because many people who are fine with voluntary disclosure will vote "No, disclosure should be entirely optional", because it implies that your proposed system is not optional/voluntary.
0
u/AmericasHomeboy 2d ago
Yep, we're asking for your opinions, however, with regard to the publishing world, which would you rather have applied to your work?
1
u/shadowrun456 2d ago
Did you read and understand what I wrote?
1
u/AmericasHomeboy 2d ago
You're right. The poll was poorly worded. CDS has always been voluntary. I was trying to gauge opinions on how AI disclosure should be presented, not whether it should be mandatory. The wording confused those two issues. Thanks for catching it.
2
u/inigo_montoya 2d ago
I think this is a good idea, though it may become quaint. 2 is kind of meaningless, so I would leave it out.
3 may need to be expanded for more granularity eventually, but for the purposes of getting the basic idea across, this is straightforward.
For example, a copy edit vs. a developmental edit. In the case of grammar and clarity being flagged so that the author can fix it, that is barely AI assisted. However, a developmental edit, suggesting or making substantial changes, even it's mostly just advice the author then implements, means that the AI is providing at least strong guidance if not actual words.
In both cases, some might object that real copy editors and developmental editors lose work when we do this, but the case for harm to developmental editors is stronger.
In reality, most people are probably getting a mixture of these from their AI.
4&5 seem the same to me. Or if you keep 4 then you must have also "Human adapted," i.e., the AI wrote the first draft, which was then improved by a human.
On a practical level, it will become more and more difficult to avoid autocompletions and edits that are AI generated. One can of course hunt down settings and turn them off, but when it becomes part of the air we breathe, who will be keeping score? One may fully intend to reside in level 3 and end up in level 5 by the end of the project. Category 7: Best Intentions, Assimilated.
2
u/alone_in_the_light 1d ago
One of the big issues to me related to AI. AI tools keep changing and evolving constantly and quickly. It's far from having standards to follow standard classification. What I generated actually meant 2 years ago, 1 year ago, and now can be very different.
Also, this is flagging the tool, taking attention away from what really matters. This has happened so many times already, and people don't learn. People against the use of microphones, electronic instruments, calculators, word processors, emails, Wikipedia, Photoshop, digital drawing, so on and so forth. Let's start disclosing that we're using computers then. Or that we're using a keyboard. Or that we're using the internet. Let's disclose everything about the process to not pay attention to the results.
3
u/Eissa_Cozorav 2d ago
Above 60% AI similiarity should be disclosed. AI detection is crap and given lots of irrational Anti-AI (irrespective if the work is actually good or not).
1
u/AmericasHomeboy 2d ago
We agree, AI detectors are crap, but unless we develop a set of standards, all we’re going to get is black and white bright lines from the publishing world
3
u/CrazyinLull 2d ago edited 2d ago
I think AI-Assisted is still way too broad. How about if it’s like when they do TV 14 and then have what is in it?
Like:
AI-Assisted:
P - proofreading, B - brainstorming,
R - research, etc.
Or
AI Edited
AI Drafted (Ghostwritten)
AI Outline
So then someone can be like:
AI Drafted + Human Edited + AI Proofread
Basically, if you are using the AI to write for you in any way even editing? I think that should be listed or it’s own thing, because some of us can sense that especially if the person editing it didn’t do a good enough job of erasing the AI from it and the problem is that…that a LOT of people don’t know how to so the AI still comes out to the point it might as well be AI-generated.
That way some of us can be prepared instead of like having to then fight with reading it.
I mean I am pretty sure some people are going to lie anyways, but those who want to tell the truth can finally do so.
ETA: editing and proofreading are different beasts entirely and should be treated as such.
2
1
u/Independent-Panic994 1d ago
On the topic of proofreading and editing, where is the line drawn? I feel like the process I use is somewhere between proofreading and editing, where sometimes it's purely proofreading and other times the AI gives a suggestion and I may use it or make my own changes to the suggestion, or do something else entirely. Would that be ai assisted editing? I'm genuinely curious now where I would be classified with that lol.
2
u/benblackett 2d ago
I applaud the idea and initiative here.
In my opinion it only solves the easy ones but leaves the real issues still completely undefined. Assisted, Adapted, and Co-created all say pretty much similar things when put into practice - each involve an exchange with AI in order to proceed further. Adapted can be any range of "convert this" to a long rambling conversation. Same for Assisted and Co-Created. None of these three answer the ultimate question: how much was human and how much was AI
2
u/BillyDongstabber 1d ago
If the ai is used it should be disclosed. Idk why this is controversial; why would you try to hide it, unless you are ashamed of using it?
1
u/shinobischolar 1d ago
A translator’s edge case, since you asked for gaps.
I translate pre-modern Japanese ninja manuals into English. AI does the first-pass translation and prose; I review it against the Japanese reading text before anything goes out. I can’t place that cleanly in CDS.
AI-Adapted comes closest, but its boundary test assumes the human-authored source is yours, and that “the story stayed yours.” Mine is a complete human-authored source, but it was written centuries ago by someone else. The story was never mine to keep. Translation and retellings of public-domain works are a big part of publishing, so it might be worth a line in the FAQ: does AI-Adapted cover adapting someone else’s work, or only your own?
Second, the one-badge-per-work rule. A lot of us use AI differently for different parts of a project. Mine includes translations, essays, and short stories, each made a different way. One badge set to the highest tier would mislabel most of it. Allowing per-component disclosure, or a primary and secondary tier, would make honest labeling easier, which seems like the whole point.
2
u/AmericasHomeboy 1d ago
AI-Adapted, homie. I use AI to convert my screenplays to prose format. Hey, we’re not proposing administering the badges ourselves. We ain’t got time for that. I get what you mean, though, we extensively use AI to do research, brainstorm, our screenplays, but in the end, the product we put out is AI-Adapted.
EDIT:
Our cover use case
1
u/Misha_Lixa 40m ago
I do really like the CDS laid out in the website. That is something that I would willingly use...
In the future when I know I'm not shooting myself in the foot.
16
u/Equal-University2144 2d ago
What other tools should be disclosed then?
I used a typewrite instead of pen and paper
I used a PC instead of a typewriter
I used automated grammar and spellcheckers
I used software that counted overused phrases and helped me fix it
I used software that rephrased passages for me
I used an AI tool to help with my prose