By Ali Shaw, Executive Editor
Image courtesy of Unsplash
These days, not a week goes by that I don’t hear an author talking about or asking about using AI to help them write their books. AI has become so pervasive, it’s the first thing we see when we run a search on the internet, it attempts to write our email for us, and sure, it’s appealing to see how it would write the same thing we’re trying to write. I often hear it described as fun and interesting and—more than anything else—easy.
While I certainly understand the temptation, I have some serious reservations about the use of generative artificial intelligence to write books. And so do the Authors Guild, the Northwest Writers Union, the Independent Book Publishers Association, and many other organizations and individuals.
It’s no doubt a complex issue, one that could take full research papers to delve into fully, but here’s a basic overview for anyone who’s curious about the hubbub and also short on time (which is probably why AI seems like such a tempting tool!).
1. Who Cares? Writers who are using AI will often ask me this question, specifically in terms of: Who’s policing whether writers are using AI, and what will they do about it? The governing entity in the United States is the US Copyright Office, and the laws are in flux. Previously, their stance was that they would only copyright materials that were wholly human created—both words and art (think book covers). Now the office says it’s a bit more complex than that: “The Office confirms that the use of AI to assist in the process of creation or the inclusion of AI-generated material in a larger human-generated work does not bar copyrightability.” And, “Extending protection to material whose expressive elements are determined by a machine, however, would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.” More on that here.
Basically: The goal is still to protect the work of human authors and artists, and also, if the work is human managed, but perhaps enhanced by AI, it may still qualify for copyright.
2. Can It Hurt Authors? This is where the impact seems to really hit. Yes, it can hurt authors. Stephanie Land, author of Maid and Class, has been the victim of more than a few AI piracy issues in which bots have used her books and then written new “biographies” of her, which sell for about half what her books sell for. Not only are they drastically inaccurate, but they also take profit out of Land’s rightful pocket and spread disinformation about her. More on Land’s struggles here.
Meanwhile, AI is being used so frequently to take the place of human translators that Kristen Hall-Geisler’s new translations of Celeste Mogador’s Memoirs of a French Courtesan were presumed AI-generated and denied copyright for ebook, meaning that even though she can prove she translated them without AI, she has copyright of the print books, and paid for the ebook conversion, her ebooks do not appear on any ebook vendor site. She cannot sell them. Which is disheartening! More on Hall-Geisler’s ebook woes here, and even more on her journalism AI-related woes here.
3. How Does Generative AI Generate Written Content? This is where I get most creeped out. Generative AI learns how to mimic human-created content through all the content that gets uploaded into it.
Yep. When an author is just playing around with ChatGPT, for instance, they upload their chapter or book or query letter, etc., into ChatGPT, and then ChatGPT generates a new version of it.
And then its neural network grows based on what you uploaded into it.
It uses the words that you uploaded to then generate words for other people. And it used other people’s words to generate the words it wrote for you.
For many copyright-conscious folks—people who are worried about even meeting in a coffee shop to talk about their books for fear someone will overhear and steal their idea—this concept of uploading their work into an online neural network for other writers doesn’t seem to equate to the same danger, though many would argue that it is actually much more of a danger.
4. Does That Mean All AI Is Bad? No, I don’t think so. I tend to take longer to embrace new technologies than most people do, so I’ll be transparent about that. I’ve seen some people use it to help with speed when it comes to putting numbers they’ve calculated into a table that is user-friendly, for example. Maybe the way publicity agencies use it for marketing copy is a good idea; I’ll admit I’m not really sure about these scenarios.
But I am sure that it’s a complex issue and that authors who are dedicating years to their creative pursuits and carefully chosen words should be able to protect their work and that machine-generated material does not merit the same level of protection
And when it comes to willfully submitting our words into a system that could upend the protection of author’s works, I am sure that I don’t recommend it.
Join the Authors Guild’s fight for sensible policies here.
Read about the NWU’s stance on creator compensation here.
As I said earlier, the laws are in flux, so keep an eye on the unfolding developments in the news and here.
And add your own thoughts in the comments.
Ali Shaw is the owner of Indigo: Editing, Design, and More as well as a co-owner of BOLD Coffee & Books. She’s been hosting Book Publishing Q&As for nearly a decade to help authors and new small presses navigate the intricacies of the publishing process. She lives near Portland, Oregon, where she enjoys hiking, spending time with her family, and reading, but never seems to have enough time for all of that.
Recent Comments