Author's Note: It's no secret that I'm against Gen-AI in any art or art-adjacent field. But the growing witch hunts, accusations, and hard-line blaming aren't helping. In fact, maybe you're contributing to the problem. Again, this is my opinion, but I want to talk about the harm it's doing and what we can do instead.
I have not been quiet or shy about my stance against generative AI. In fact, I've been pretty vocal about it from the beginning (see Internal Thoughts: AI Why?). And it's not just in writing that I have a problem with it. I don't care if it's writing, art, music, etc. I don't want it there, and I don't think it should be there. AI does not belong in creative fields. Period.
Why?
If you don't know already, then I'm not sure I can help you. This fight has been going on for literal years now. But for starters, the only way the Gen AI systems are able to function as they do is because they were fed mass amounts of creative works to pull and 'learn' from. And unsurprisingly, the people who developed those systems don't care that they didn't get permission to use them. They've blatantly admitted as much. And that's theft. Hands down. As a writer and artist, it's appalling that anyone is okay with that.
But even setting aside that angle, the environmental impact is devastating. The amount of water, energy, and land being used by the data centers is devastating our planet. But they don't care about that either. Yes, there are governments who are attempting to regulate this, and that should be happening everywhere, but it's not. And even if we do manage to completely zero out these impacts (actually impossible even with what places like Japan are experimenting with), they are still running on the theft of someone else's work.
And on top of all of that, which is bad enough, there are plenty of studies in just the few years we've had mass access to this tech that show how bad it is for your mind. You know, the thing you can't really easily get back once it degrades. People can't retain information learned, reading has taken a sharp dive, comprehension and critical thinking skills are vanishing, and no one values effort. None of these things are good.
And before you even go as far as to say, " Well, AI has been around forever. You use it for spell check and background removal and all sorts of other things, so that's pretty hypocritical of you." No, it's not! First of all, AI tools like spell check and grammar check are NOT the same thing as generative AI. They aren't. I've used them on every word processing software I've used since the early 90's. Art tools in programs that allow you to do things like remove backgrounds and sharpen images were around long before generative AI. They use pixel manipulation and matching to do what they do. Not only that, but I don't use those either. I do that shit the hard way, erasing layers of pixels with masks, like I was taught to do. It's not only possible, but people have been doing it for DECADES!
I will not touch Gen AI with a ten-foot pole. In fact, I wish it would go away. Pipe dream because it's freaking everywhere you turn. But I do everything I can to avoid it. I've turned it off in every program or tool that I can. I don't want it anywhere near anything I do. I'm meticulous about the images I use or source, and if it's even a question, I choose something else.
Let me be plain. I DO NOT SUPPORT THE USE OF GENERATIVE AI IN ANYTHING! I don't watch AI videos. I don't read books with AI-generated covers. I don't recommend books with them. I've distanced myself from people who use it in graphics or post them for content. Every single promotion I do, I have to weigh the potential income I make against the number of potential AI books involved. But even that is getting harder and harder to justify. Yes, it's that fucking deep for me.
If you use AI in your covers, or in your books, it tells me that not only do you not care about the things above, which are extremely important to me, but you don't care about your craft as a creative. You can write the best book I've ever read in my life, but if you don't care enough about the cover to source something other than AI slop, then I want nothing to do with it. There should be the same amount of passion for your cover as the words you put on the inside. In my opinion, you cannot say I won't use Gen AI in my writing, and then turn around and use it for a cover. That makes no sense. How do I know that you won't use it in your writing when you've already given in to the easy solution by using it for your cover? Make it make sense. The leap isn't that far.
But here's the crux of the problem and what creatives are terrified of. Just because something looks AI-generated doesn't mean it is. Art is a lot easier to tell. There are certain styles and things that generative AI systems do that give themselves away, especially as they learn more and more and are refined. There are styles developed, and commonalities that exist within the same systems. And when I see the same style of cover over and over again, or the same elements across multiple genres that are known to be AI (because people tell us they are), it's pretty obvious when those are used. But not always. So unless I know for sure, I'm never going to say anything. If it looks sus to me, I'm simply moving on and not interacting with that product.
The same is true for writing. Unless an author comes right out and says, "I used AI to generate this story," "I used AI to help me get this plot right," or they've left a prompt or prompt suggestion in the work, you don't know. And if you don't know FOR SURE, the worst thing you can do is accuse them of it. As stated above, Gen AI learned how to do what it does from others' work. The reason it uses em dashes, rules of three, specific language, etc., is that it was trained on writers' work who use those things. And accusing someone of using Gen AI when they didn't, has the potential to kill their career. And that's not okay. It's one thing if they lie about it and it comes out later. But you still shouldn't ever accuse someone unless you have proof.
And look, I'm tired of it all too. When the top 100 books on Amazon are almost 80% AI-generated slop, the hope of real authors everywhere plummets. There's no way we can compete with that. It's impossible to try. They are trying to curb the problem by limiting the number of publications per week. I'm not sure that's the answer. Sure, it will help cut down on the number. But the people who are only trying to game the system will continue to do so in other ways. I think this really hurts more legitimate authors than those bad actors. It's not really a great solution. Some people write incredibly fast. Others write a lot at once and rapid release. Some people do large numbers of translations. These are the big factors, but hardly all of them. There are also petitions circulating to ask places like Amazon to remove AI content entirely. Again, I would love this, but I'm not sure it'll ever happen. Zon still makes money on those books, and other publishers and retailers have already said they welcome the space for AI content. At the end of the day, as long as those CEO's are making a profit, they don't care.
So why fight it?
The simple and short-term answer is because it's the right thing to do. The long-term answer is that when it all comes crashing down (and it will), you'll have been on the right side. They don't have a solution for the rapid expansion. It's going to bubble until the balloon pops, as they can't keep up with demands. And the money this is going to cost? Astronomical. These things are already happening. It's only going to get worse.
It will be up to us, the readers and writers, to combat the problem on the book front. There will be writers who quit because they don't see the point when AI easily outscales their output. There will be artists who stop creating or will no longer be able to support their business because AI is the simpler, cheaper, faster option for a lot of people. And this goes all the way to the top.
If you want to combat AI generation in creative spaces, take a stand. But that can't be accusing people just because you think you know something. There are other options. What that can look like is boycotting AI generation companies. Stop following trends to get likes because you want to look cute from some AI slop images that everyone else is posting. That means scrolling past that book the author is telling you is AI-generated or used AI assistance in writing it. That means passing on books with AI covers. That means asking publishers to stop accepting AI-generated content and use artists who will not touch AI generation software. Skip the latest blockbuster movie that everyone is talking about because the gigantic studio that can pay graphic artists and chose to use AI instead doesn't deserve your money or business. That means stop asking ChatGPT what you should do, or where you should eat, or to summarize your emails for you. Use your brain, and learn a thing.
As long as people keep using this trash, and keep following these trends, and keep giving these people money, it's going to continue to get bigger. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
If you really care about art and creativity, take a stance against Gen-AI. Make choices for yourself that show you aren't in favor of it. And mean those choices. But leave the detective work to the professionals. Accusations make the problems worse, not better. For all our sakes, please just think before you spout off your opinions on someone else's work. Maybe they did use AI, maybe they didn't. But if they didn't and you say they did, you'll be doing more harm than good. And if it keeps happening, it might be the nail in the coffin that kills human creativity for good. Food for thought.
