AI Book Writing: How Unethical Is It?
The new year is always cited as a time of new beginnings, even though, seasonally, it bears no connection at all to starting something afresh. However, there is a lot of talk - and a lot of action - flying around in writer circles about the use of AI in book writing and how ethical is its use. For my part, I see this as the brink of something entirely new. The beginning of a world we are hard pushed to imagine, and that terrifies a lot of people. Now, I can't attest to how safely AI will impact society - that's for the tech industry to ascertain - but I have plenty of ideas on how it might impact the publishing industry. And it's not all doom and gloom.
There is a lot of opposition to the idea of using AI to write books, but - like it or not - AI is here and people are using it to assist them. Some are scamming; some are simply employing a new tool to speed up the tasks associated with writing. Before you get up in arms about any of it, though, I think it's important to understand exactly what that entails, for it's not as black and white as some people seem to think.
From the conversations I've had or lurked around online, it appears that many people believe it's simply a case of feed the basics to an AI - title, word count, genre and a character name or two - and it will write a whole book for them that they can flog on Amazon. I've experienced myself what these kinds of stories look like in the slush pile when I was working on the lit mag circuit. Believe me, these attempts will not get very far in the market. AI stories (and articles) are thin and have some obvious tells. Also, there's no replacing individual voice or tight characterisation or real-life insights - only real humans can currently achieve that. Yes, Chat GPT might pull off some very famous authors' voices reasonably well, but every time I've put in a sample of my own fiction to see how it fairs as an imitation, it failed abysmally. And without a paradigm to work to, AI is not going to have that zing that a well-cultivated author voice inherently owns.
The biggest hindrance to using AI in this way is copyright. In the US, there have been a couple of significant cases in regards to artwork, but that also apply to creative works in general. In the case of Kris Kashtanova, the court ruled against an author's legal capacity to claim copyright for the art work in her graphic novel (comic). It decided that the author did not have enough input to the design to warrant calling it her own, so only the text itself and the arrangement of it and the images could be copyrighted to her. In the Case of Stephen Thaler, the creator of the algorithm used in the AI, he was also denied any claim to the copyright.
"...the Office concludes that the images generated by Midjourney contained within the Work are not original works of authorship protected by copyright....(explaining that “the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author”) Though she claims to have “guided” the structure and content of each image, the process described in the Kashtanova Letter makes clear that it was Midjourney—not Kashtanova—that originated the “traditional elements of authorship” in the images.
They also rejected other arguments in her defence. In short, she consulted with someone else on how to write the text prompts, found images on the internet that would give that person a rough idea of what she wanted her images to resemble, and then fed that prompt into the AI to produce the images. This process was rejected as being "creative input or intervention from a human."
This is where the core of our article question comes into play, for, if the author has created the majority of the content, used an AI to assist them and can legally claim the copyright, can anyone truly claim they didn't put in the work, or that the work is not theirs?
Let's go through the process step-by-step, using the judgement text as a guide. The writer first creates their main characters. Let's say they use a character profile sheet to really get under the bonnet (or hood, as some say) of their character's personality and individual psyche, so those characters are fully their creation. This absolutely embraces the "creative input or intervention from a human" requirement. They are copyrighted creations. Just like Frodo, Harry Potter and Lestat (Anne Rice).
Next, the writer fully outlines their plot. Maybe by using a plot planner. Maybe by using the snowflake method, which is extremely detailed. Maybe by using my own plotter (available on Etsy - shameless plug LOL). Either way, by this point, all the major events and character growth will have been mapped out. Once it has been written into a physical form, it is a copyrighted story idea. In accordance with the judgement, this is substantial human input to the "...traditional elements of authorship." The writer created it. They own it. Then the writer feeds this outline to an AI and asks it to create a first draft in accordance with their desired word count. This is simply a more detailed outline of the author's story.
At this point, I must ask: how is this any different to any author who uses ghost writers? James Patterson writes his plot outlines and then commissions ghost writers to write the drafts in his style. That's how he produces so many books. I'll concede that using an AI might put ghost writers out of a job, but the average self-publishing writer can't afford to pay someone else to write it, anyway. And, if any of you out there have been using Grammarly, Prowritingaid, etc., to proofread your work prior to publishing, then you've already been putting proofreaders out of work without remorse. So, at this stage, I already struggle to see what's unethical about using AI to assist you in novel writing. And we haven't yet reached the second and most difficult stage of writing a book: the editing.
No matter the outcome of our AI written draft so far, the writer is going to want - and need - to make changes. Some of these might be big plot changes. Many will involve intensive line editing. The latter for two reasons. 1) AI is trained by scraping data from the internet to form its responses. This makes it prone to plagiarising. 2) Not only would the writer need to do a massive plagiarism check on the entire book, they would also likely want to change much of the text to inject their own style, voice and insights into the story. As any writer does on their own first drafts when revising. Early drafts get revised, rephrased, rewritten, sections deleted and replaced with a better, more exciting version. Any seasoned writer knows about the butterfly effect when writing a novel. This type of detailed editing will drastically change the Ai written draft outline, thus becoming a creative work unto itself.
In relation to the judgement text, this is a far cry from using an AI to create artwork. In Artwork, once you have fed it the text prompts, the human hand does not go in and make any adjustments to the art itself. Yes, it may need to type some adjustments to the prompt, but that doesn't count towards any real participation in the physical art itself. No one is using art editing software to make significant changes to the form or colours, for instance. Or paint brushes. Unlike writing a story, where the author must work on every single sentence to ensure it works to maximum effect to produce the desired end result.
Once the writer is happy with the story, they need to go through both copyediting and proofreading. AI can help with the latter. It would take possibly just a few hours to ensure the complete book adhered to British grammar over American, for instance. Yes, again, editors might lose work from this, but I make the same argument in regards to Grammarly and Prowritingaid. AI is simply the next ramped-up version of those softwares. Those companies should be worried about their products becoming obsolete. Though, at least with those two softwares, it offers the author the choice whether to change the text or not. Using an AI to proofread a whole book bypasses that. The text would be changed automatically, to the AI's best judgement without bringing it to the author's attention.
AI isn't currently capable of doing a full copy edit, either, as that involves a lot of fact checking, consistencies and colloquial usage checks that AI isn't currently programmed to perform. The writer would still benefit from handing their finished MS to an editor for copy editing. An AI might be able to smooth out and perfect grammar, but what the text gained in perfection it risks losing in style, voice and fluidity, so a good line editor is still required. At this time, maybe it can perfom some rudimentary developmental editing, but it still won't beat a trained and experienced human. Even the best written books might be flawed. An experienced editor will know about genre, concept value, hackneyed ideas, over saturated markets - insights into story, concept, style, voice, individuality that an AI won't be able to judge or advise upon. They are not trained for this task and, even if they were, human judgement still reigns superior. We write books for the entertainment of humans, not robots, so it stands to reason that a human editor will need to cast their eye over the MS.
A good editor will help to strengthen your story in ways you will have overlooked, either because that's just the nature of the writing beast (you can't think of everything on your own), or because they have experience and knowledge that you lack. So, in my view, editors won't be losing out, but they might need to adjust their skill set into an editing field that relies on human judgement rather than a technical one in the future. This is simply a matter of leverage and is prevalent in any industry: do you present the skills required to succeed in the modern industry? If not, skill-up. The more you learn and can do, the more leverage you possess.
The beauty of AI, as I see it, is it can help a writer with skills they do not possess. One, inparticular, makes them quake in their boots. Yes, the dreaded marketing. An AI can outline a marketing plan for you in seconds. A social media plan, too. SEO optimisation for your blog? Once generative AI becomes the mainstream (that's where you ask the AI a question and it provides the answer to you. Unlike the current search engines where you must read through numerous articles to find the answer yourself, generative AI will serve up the answer for you, with referenced source materials) you should, in theory, have it populate a list of potential markets, publishers or agents to submit your work. Now, I can't wait for that, because the one thing I absolutely hate about being a writer is the submissions process. I hate it with a vengeance, even though I understand why it exists, why it's useful and why it's necessary. As someone who is admin averse, to the point almost of phobia (yes, I know: drama queen!), the submissions process is a mountain I find harder to climb than anything else. The idea that with generative AI it could short list publishers across the world that fit my story criteria, write cover letters that fit specifically for each publication and maybe - and this might be a little too Star Trek - even be able to submit my work for me through a vocal command when AI PAs become a thing, fills me with excitement.
Ok, you could be right. I might just be fantasising over that last bit. (Am I?)
Overall, huge industry changes are heading our way we have likely not seen since the industrial revolution and the printed press. And didn't they all holler back then that the machines would take over? Well, they were right, but people still adjusted, obtained new skills and found new types of industries to work within, or modernised tradition industries.
.
Within these upcoming changes, I see hope. I see indy authors empowered by the ability to do more in less time. To finally be able to compete with the big five who churn out thousands of books each year, pay a pittance to the average author, produce high volumes of work simply due to the sheer number or authors and staff they have, and whose loyalties lean towards (often unrealistic) safe market whims and trends rather than talent and actual diverstity. These corporations - as all corporations inevitably do to art or anything decent - have sucked out the joy of literary art, smacked it over the head with its profit-margin-laced boots and beaten it into the soil of conformity. I believe that the more vibrant the artisitic landscape is in society, the more stimulating it is for creative thinking in all industries.
Without sounding too political or revolutionary, there is a growing global feeling of discontent with our political systems and leaders. People are sick of big business, a disingenuous media class, and the corruption that goes with it all. And this is good for the self-publishing author. More and more people are looking to support independent businesses, and that includes creators of arts and entertainments. Publishing, Hollywood, corporate power - these are all falling out of favour. They are dinosaurs stomping around, unknown to them they are taking their last meals on this earth before the meteor strikes.
And from the ashes, I do believe, will rise the independent authors, film makers, song writers and other creatives to new heights. Authors will be able to do more in less time and at a lower cost. For example, produce translated works. Something that has been gatekept by publishers because the budget is out of reach for most people. They might even be able to produce their own films through AI in the coming years. No more hoping your book will be noticed by Hollywood. You can take matters into your own hands. Collaborate with other creators and be in control of your own writing, publishing and maybe film-producing career. With so many online video platforms around these days, there's no one to gatekeep your audience reach. It's already in motion.
It's really up to the individual. I, personally, couldn't envisage myself using an AI to draft my stories as I love the process of discovering the story myself, but who knows? I might try it out one day, just to see what it turns out like. In the meantime, I'm not going to judge others for speeding up the whole process if they wish to. The industry is already tough enough.
To me, the arrival of AI feels promising. It feels like people are taking back their lives from a suffocating, multi-tentacled creature that's starved the world of oxygen for a very long time. Maybe I'm too much of a dreamer, an idealist, but I think it's better to go through life optimistically, rather than allow the nagativity to grind us into a husk of hopelessness.
I'm raising a glass. To you. To possiblity. To a bloodless revolution, driven by grassroots change for the empowerment of all those who dare to dream, but who have never been given the opportunity to flourish.
Too the future and an entirely new beginning!
For more information on ongoing legal disputes in publishing regarding the use of AI and copyright, read this article in Publisher's Weekly.
