AI: 2BR Not 2B (Noted)

AI. Boy, those are two letters that solicit a lot of strong opinions. But, AI as a concept isn't what I want to talk about today. I want to know what writers think about crediting AI writing and art inside the books, and whether we still believe the assumption is that books are written by human creators alone. 

Should books that don't use AI for either writing, plotting, or art have such an announcement in the foreword or an afterword? 

Bishop O'Connell: Any AI use at all in the creation needs to flagged. Why would I bother reading something you couldn't be bothered to write?

Danielle Procter Piper: So many people are associating AI with poor quality products and services, a warning should definitely appear on any published work that states it was entirely or in part AI generated.

Ruth de Jauregui: No

Rachel Burda Taylor: No -- I started to put a funny version of "No Ai" on my Amazon Landing page and it felt mildly obnoxious and short-sighted. The AI problem is likely short-term, in the sense that the planet/authors are still working out the gray areas of how to use/not-use ethically, and so I decided to wait a few years until things have settled some and there is more of a standard.

Jen Mulvihill: We should not have to, but I guess it would not hurt.

Paul D Storrie: No, but I understand the impulse to reassure the reader.

Brittany Wilcox: AI should have to legally be marked as such. Marking a book as not AI is an optional, fantastic marketing option as many people are against it.

Lynn Miclea: Yes.

Kay Iscah: Wish this wasn't necessary, but probably a good idea at this point.

Bobby Nash: I try to remember to add a no AI used clause in my books.

Maya Preisler: I have started including this disclaimer in my work; as a member of multiple anti-gen-ai communities, I feel establishing and maintaining trust with my readers is invaluable.

Or should AI covers or written or plotted books be required to include such a note? 

Lynn Miclea: Yes.

Maya Preisler: In an ideal world, yes, the slop would all be labeled as slop.

Kay Iscah: Yes. The one who does the work should get the credit. If AI did the work for you, it deserves the credit. We don't have true AI yet. We have a plagiarism blender, but if we hit the point of true AI, then it deserves the same compensation and autonomy as any artist or writer.

Bobby Nash: I believe in credit where it's due so I always mention cover artist's name inside. If I didn't see it, I would probably assume it's AI. I mean, we can usually tell, right?

Ruth de Jauregui: Yes

Rachel Burda Taylor: Yes -- but not on the book itself. It should be front-and-center on the landing/sales pages. Readers have a right to know, and sellers (Amazon) have an obligation to make it clear when readers are considering purchasing. That said, this leaves the judgment on Yes/No AI up to either authors or Amazon, and I don't trust either one to either be right or honest. So much AI is already on Amazon without it being stated, and Amazon very clearly asks.

Paul D Storrie: They should have GARBAGE in big red letters across the cover and every interior page.

Jen Mulvihill: Yes, I think they should note it so the readers know what they are getting into.

Is the assumption automatically that a book without a note is 100 percent human-written and human art? Is such an assumption enough in today's market?

Elizabeth Donald: At the moment, distributors like Amazon require such a note to indicate AI-written content, and more and more everyone from publishers to conventions are requiring us to verify our work is 100-percent human-written in our contracts. Thus, my assumption is that no note = human authorship. AI is not so prevalent as the techbros want us to think, and the backlash is becoming extensive, especially in publishing. I personally think if someone is so high on the plagiarism machine and so proud of using it, they should declare it. Why hide it if they don't think there's anything wrong with it?

Ruth de Jauregui: So far, but people…

AI is a tool that can possibly be used responsibly, but some folks will not draw the line.

Example of using it as a tool: You’ve created the cover art, it’s lovely, but the author wants a vintage color, ie more amber toned, with one specific element enhanced. Fairly easy to use a filter to adjust the overall tone of the image, but changing a specific element can be tricky and time consuming. An artist using an AI tool to digitally enhance that specific element (which was originally created by that artist) is OK.

Changing that element to something in the AI program’s “library” (of stolen images) is NOT OK.

Note: I’m speaking from an artist’s POV. I do not use AI in my writing.

Maya Preisler: Among those who are actively avoiding AI? No, not at all. Between the flood of new “authors” who are pushing slop and the small group of veteran authors who have decided to start using it, many readers are investigating authors and books before they’ll even consider the book.

Bobby Nash: I try not to make assumptions. I'm not always successful, but I try.

Kay Iscah: I'm not sure about the current assumption. You would hope traditionally published books are AI free. Indies probably have more of an uphill to prove themselves, but liars don't announce that they're liars. Thieves don't announce something is stolen when they go to sell it. I think people trust their ability to spot human work more than what the cover says. I have a higher respect for transparency.

Lynn Miclea: No assumptions made. Good luck.

I now always include a statement about this in all my books, and it's on the copyright page, in its own paragraph:

No type of generative artificial intelligence (AI) or AI tools have been used in any way or in any form for the writing, creating text, or for the creation of any images or graphics in or for this book.

I think it's smart to do this and will hopefully avoid any problems down the road.

Rachel Burda Taylor: No - since most books don't have notes either way, it's not a great way to judge. Personally, I judge first on cover art. If the cover art is clearly AI, I generally give the book a hard pass right there. But this is me, and a lot of readers don't care or see cover art as an indicator. Then I look at reviews. Fully AI-written books are super obvious. Then I look at how many books the author is putting out a year. If it's more than two, I give another hard pass (which has more to do with quick-release authors than AI, but the redline stands - I don't find either to have high writing craft).

So my answer is really that a Yes/No AI tag is less important to me than doing my own research about the book/author. I don't trust the Yes/No AI tag to be telling the truth.

Seth Tucker: I don’t put a clause in mine, but I think if you use AI in any capacity, it should be declared.

Jeff Deischer: Books that do use AI should have a note. I do see some AI art like that now. I would *never* buy AI writing in any capacity. For me, the assumption is, no note, no AI. But you're probably right that that's no longer a valid opinion to have.

Jen Mulvihill: For now I am going to assume that if there is not a note is is 100% human-created. But I do not know for how long we can go on assuming that.

This AI thing is a whole new world that we should have been prepared for because we knew it was coming. I guess we just did not think it would happen so soon, and maybe we did not really realize the impact it would have on the arts.

Paul D Storrie: I don't trust the kind of 'writers' and 'artists' who use GenAI to be truthful, so I can't help but be dubious. It should be the default assumption, but I don't think we can be certain unless the person who made it has a solid reputation.

P.S. I can't say what I think should happen to people who foist GenAI on the audience. I fear it would run afoul of community guidelines.

Kevin L. Williams: I would assume no notification would be human-created, and anything artificial should have the note.