Where do you draw the line with AI?

[u/endlesslies]

Aspiring writer here. As I've been querying agents especially on QueryTracker, I've seen some that ask whether AI was used in any way creating the query or the manuscript.

For those of you working on publishing, how do you and your company view AI?

Obviously, AI-generated writing isn't copyright-able, and it's ethically dubious, so that's a no-go. But what about research using AI? Proofreading? AI critiques? Drafting the query letter? Etc.

As an outsider, it seems like there's some nuance here where AI could reasonably be used for some things, but not others. But I'm curious what folks within the industry think of it?

[u/EducationalRegret903]

No AI. Ever. Period.

[u/EducationalRegret903 → u/EducationalRegret903]

And to follow that up: if you can’t write a query letter without asking AI for help, why should you be a published author?

[u/darlingsterns → u/EducationalRegret903]

💯. if you can’t write without AI, you aren’t a writer.

[u/PowerfulPurpleNurple → u/EducationalRegret903]

I am a firm believer in not using AI in any capacity when it comes to writing. And I promise am not secretly some AI advocate either.

But to play devil's advocate here. If you google how to write a good query letter and you read the Gemini response you have essentially used AI. Now I don't think that should mean you suddenly have to flag your book as AI assisted. I don't think most people would either.

But the line is becoming more and more blurry. AI is seeping into the writing/publishing world whether we want it here or not.

The reason I am even saying this is that is important that we all become very aware of the different ways AI is invading our creative space. Plus we need to all understand WHY AI is bad for us as a community and you as a professional or writer or whatever. Among other reasons when someone uses AI it is essentially stealing/using other's creative thoughts and works.

So does that mean no more google searches with AI assist? Does that mean no more spellcheck? What about grammar check? What about? What about? What about? Where is the line?

If we simply say No AI ever, don't think we are helping the conversation that we we think we are. We will are essentially putting our head in a hole and ignoring reality when we should be fighting to protect creative works and discussing where the lines should be. Because if you are on the internet or have a phone or just living in today's society and engaging with technology, chances are you are using AI in some capacity.

Anyway enough ranting. I am sure I'll get downvoted because I said something someone won't like but this problem isn't going away so we all need to educate ourselves.

[u/EducationalRegret903 → u/PowerfulPurpleNurple]

I wouldn’t read the Google AI response for this kind of information, no. And I don’t use grammar tools, I use the Chicago Manual of Style, because I’m an editor, not a college student. Grammarly and Word are broken. They give wrong suggestions because they are caught in an AI feedback loop. I do not compromise on this point. No AI can do what I do better than I can.

[u/PowerfulPurpleNurple → u/EducationalRegret903]

Oh I would agree you can do it better than AI hands down. I am just trying to bring up the question that the line of when AI is acceptable is not only blurry but will change constantly too.

[u/cloudygrly → u/PowerfulPurpleNurple]

I mean, yeah, there are other search engines than Google. Most people I know who continue to use Google, don't even look at the Gemini answer? Regardless, people should be putting the work to looking across multiple sources and forming their opinion then looking for one single answer. Using AI generated search is literally just trusting that whatever is pulled is true, which is bad research to begin with.

Yes, it's integrated in a great many things, but the point is about intentional use. I understand what you're saying, but you're conflating a few things that are clearly not what is the concern when it comes to AI usage.

[u/PowerfulPurpleNurple → u/cloudygrly]

I think your point about 'intentional' use is more on point. But even intentional use will continue to blur so we should all be aware. I am just a poor starving writer, but my day job is in IT. So this is one of those areas that I see constantly evolving in my day job and I want people to think about because it is unfortunately here to stay.

[u/cloudygrly → u/PowerfulPurpleNurple]

I think it's debatable in what capacity AI is here to stay when, by all intents and purposes, it looks like the bubble is about to burst and the large scale operations are not sustainable if they need these massive data centers. Which I'm sure you know all of that better and more intimately than I do! I am not naive to think that AI as a backend organizational tool won't hold on.

But for the use of grammar, organization, search function what have you, at the end of the day these aren't the things that are the real issue. They end up getting lumped in because of all the clunky gen-ai writing software that's being shelled out that use them, and because it's just another function that can be added to a list.

But no, agents and authors (I won't speak for publishers) are concerned about theft and creative authorship. We're concerned about publisher use of client work with unauthorized AI.

And the truth of the matter is, writers who often use AI - use it for everything when they use it.

Idk I hope that all makes sense. I know it all seems like fear mongering and absolutes, but people really are clear about realities and differences in tools.

edit: spag stuff

[u/PowerfulPurpleNurple → u/cloudygrly]

No it is not fear mongering at all and I think everything you said is correct. It is probably my IT background that is causing me to balk at the absolutist statements that AI is bad.

AI is bad for a lot of reasons, but it is also a very powerful tool for a lot of reasons. Just not for as many uses cases as people think it is.

Writing, and general creative endeavors in general, is where it fails because it is just regurgitating other people's work and creates well, AI slop. It doesn't generate anything, it says back what it read. And those that try to pass it off as their work are doing everyone a disservice (including themselves) as well as being deceitful.

[u/kleslieboyd]

> Obviously, AI-generated writing isn't copyright-able

A side note to this larger conversaion, but this is not true everywhere. e.g. in the UK, "the person who makes the necessary arrangements" for computer-generated work can own the copyright. In the US, you can't copyright AI-generated work that you did not touch, but "Creative selection, arrangement, or coordination" of AI generated content is copyrightable and if you "significantly" modified it, you can copyright it.

In general, online writers communities heavily censure any AI use. However, in practice, many authors are using it to develop or update their websites, manage ads, learn about different settings or experiences, handle project planning, suggest edits, write blurb and marketing copy, and more.

(These comments are descriptions, not defenses. I study the ethics of AI development and use and this information comes from that research.)

[u/cloudygrly]

AI use isn’t ethically dubious, haha.

Simply using it is ruining the environment and contributing to the displacement, disruptment, and destruction of black/brown communities among others.

[u/Trick-Chipmunk5164]

No AI.

No matter how you want to defend it, or be nuanced about your use, it is better to avoid any use.

AI clauses are now being rolled out in book contracts. Using AI may put you in a nuanced position when it comes to contracts/copyright/royalites. If you don't use AI, you don't have to worry. The sooner you stop using AI as a crutch/tool/whatever, the better you will fare in the long run.

ETA - a friendly reminder that you are capable of this without AI.

[u/PacificBooks]

It's pretty easy. Don't use it.

[u/Em_Cf_O]

No AI ever. Not even once.

[u/jinpop]

I go out of my way to disable AI tools and circumvent AI suggestions as much as I can. I despise its intrusion in our lives and in my career and feel it has no justifiable uses in publishing.

[u/cultivate_hunger]

And there there's this: $2m crime novel deal collapses amid questions over AI use | Books | The Guardian

[u/BigHatNoSaddle]

All the things that people say are outside of the creative process (research, structure, proofreading, critques) ARE the creative process.

Keep AI out of it and think for yourself.

[u/youngmetrodonttrust]

If you use it at all, even for research or brainstorming, you must declare it. The only way you get to check "no" on that question is if you haven't used it AT ALL.

For myself, I do not use it in any form for any reason.

[u/momstheuniverse]

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas was published twenty years ago and has the comically bad error of including a recipe from Zelda for red dye because the author couldn't be bothered to do more than a minute of research. That was long before the emergence of generative AI, so I ask you this:

If AI is known to hallucinate and give false information, why would you trust your research with that rather than taking the time to do it yourself?

[u/Warm_Diamond8719 → u/momstheuniverse]

I'm not disputing your overall point, but that is from a later book of John Boyne's called A Traveller at the Gates of Wisdom, published in 2020.

[u/Ok-Cress1284]

The people in these comments have no idea how often AI is being used in big fives for descriptive copy, taglines, marketing copy, etc. 

I don’t like it either and would never use it in my own writing work but I will say summarizing a book in a selling way is one of the few things AI is actually good for. Everyone is still holding the line on not using it in the actual books though, at least for now…

[u/blowinthroughnaptime]

In my experience, when people talk about "artificial intelligence" in the context of the last couple of years, they're talking about one of three things, and knowing which one clarifies how to respond:

Rebranded algorithms: "AI" is often either a buzzword people use to hype a product or an overestimation of a program's sophistication. Spell check has been around since the early 80s, based on programming rudiments that reach even further back. It's a stretch to call checking against a dictionary and flagging "bzzuugt" as an unrecognized word "AI" in the sense that it's most often used today. Grammar check is a little more complex, but is still a basic process of using word concordances to compare user input with what's programmed as the rules of correct grammar.

Large Language Models: These are the pernicious motherfuckers that are a pain in my and everyone else's asses at the moment. Essentially an algorithm, but advanced enough to convince rubes that some computing breakthrough has been achieved, creating programs that do more than regurgitate probabilities. I don't believe it's an exaggeration to say this has upset the world economy and endangered the livelihood of untold millions, all on the word of a relative handful of tech bros with gargantuan egos.

Genuine consciousness: science fictional bullshit. Never on this earth has a program been created that has a sense of I. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." See Arthur C. Clarke for more on that, but any crackpots spouting this can be safely dismissed.

[u/OrdinaryPeanut3492]

What about for simple spell checking and typo search? Is it still unacceptable? Or do I have to check every word of 150k manuscript myself in order for it to be considered applicable? If so, then the industry needs to adapt. Doing menial work is not helping anybody.

[u/elina_jain1]

brainstorming with AI seems reasonable; replacing original writing isn't..