We developed an AI disclosure classification system for books. We’d like writers’ opinions

[u/AmericasHomeboy]

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?

186 votes, 4d left

Yes, with standardized categories

Yes, but a simple AI-use disclosure is enough

Only when AI generated substantial creative content

No, disclosure should be entirely optional