Authors vs AI: Who Wrote Your Favorite Book?
Imagine discovering that your latest favorite read was mostly written by artificial intelligence. The words that brought tears to your eyes or the characters you fell in love with were just part of a computer-generated algorithm. You wouldn’t believe it, would you? With the advancement of artificial intelligence, it is quite possible that some of your favorite books may have been written—whether in part or in whole—by AI. How far are we willing to let AI infiltrate the books or articles we read without our knowledge or consent?
The joy and beauty of literature—any kind of art, really—is the connection between creator and consumer, the conversation the artist brings about. Literature has a way of saying this is how I view the world, please tell me I’m not alone. AI-generated writing lacks the self-awareness, experience, and emotional depth humans possess to craft that kind of material.
It is important to emphasize that not all writers succumb to the use of AI. Most of them stretch their minds and creativity past its potential to create original content. Stephen King’s ten pages per day method takes him three months to complete a novel while The Goldfinch by Donna Tartt took her nearly ten years. With the help of AI, a book can be produced in a matter of hours, along with many dangers.
There is a risk of misinformation or misrepresentation. AI may spread harmful, racial, and stereotypical ideologies because it is working off a formula. In fact, it was proven so in a court of law. After a man was injured by a serving cart on Avianca Airlines, his lawyer, Steven A. Schwartz, used ChatGPT to prepare the case. The legal precedents provided by Schwartz could not be found by the “airline’s lawyers, not even the judge himself.” It was discovered that ChatGPT invented the information, after Schwartz admitted to using the software.
Like fabricating information, plagiarism is also at stake. I cannot publish, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness…” as my own, for example, without the proper citation from A Tale of Two Cities. It infringes on the author’s copyright. AI might not be a person to infringe upon—yet—but there is risk for the algorithm itself to unintentionally copy already existing work.
There is also the devaluation of classic literature and human creativity. The Crucible by Arthur Miller was written with the intent to call out political persecution in the 1950s. Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 called out censorship. While writing can be for all things such as entertainment and musings, it is also to bring awareness and a call-to-action. AI lacks the experience, culture, trauma, the ability to think or vacillate opinions to bring forth truthful and accurate depictions. With the ease of AI software, young writers may lose the ability to write such powerful pieces, such as The Crucible, because AI is doing the work to draw these parallels. AI is doing the thinking for them.
These major concerns beg the question, why does someone who does not want to write…write and publish?
Author Tim Boucher stated he has made thousands using AI to write books. He credits the success of repeated buyers and readers to the “interconnected narratives across [his] books, which spark curiosity and keep readers engaged.” Since August 2022, he has published ninety-seven books using AI. His goal is obvious: making thousands of dollars.
As an author, AI-generated books worry me for this very reason. I write to provide entertainment, characters to connect with, and worlds where readers can get lost in—not solely for financial gain.
The ethics in question do not just lie on the writer, but the publishers as well. A letter entitled “Against AI: An Open Letter From Writers to Publishers” was written and signed by ninety-seven authors from R.F. Kuang to Veronica Roth to Emily Henry asking publishers to “stand with us.” They wrote, “make a pledge that [publishers] will never release books that were created by machines. To pledge that they will not replace their human staff with AI tools or degrade their positions to AI monitors.”
Writers can self-publish their work through various platforms, like Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing, making it trickier to spot. KDP’s guideline page, for example, states, “We require you to inform us of AI-generated content (text, images, or translations) when you publish a new book or make edits to and republish an existing book through KDP,” but neither Amazon nor the author are required to disclose that to the consumers.
It is also true that humans can make the same errors as AI-generated content: a lack of research, plagiarism, laziness when it comes to plotting and character development. If we are to use these features, then we must learn to work with it in ethical and holistic ways.
Using AI as a modern tool for research, for example, can be beneficial. The conversational style could help a writer needing a detailed comparison between laws of different countries or the process of how something is grown.
It can also be a tool for those who lack the financial means to hire an editor or take a master class. Grammar checks can be challenging, even for skillful writers, which adds another great benefit: platforms like Grammarly can help with smooth writing, sentence structure, and those small mistakes we may miss—maybe you meant write “an” but wrote “and.” Tools like Microsoft Word have been correcting spelling and punction for a decade longer than AI assistant applications, so adapting a Grammar tool isn’t unlike something we have already been accustomed to. So long as folks are not plagiarizing AI, it can be useful for editing and receiving feedback.
AI can also be inclusive for those with disabilities. It can help with learning, organization, and tasking—brain-storming ideas, outlines, or to-do lists—like an assistant, and voice-control features can support those with less mobility.
If AI is here to stay, we must have it support us, not replace us. Publishers and authors should clearly state whether a book uses AI or not. The AuthorsGuild suggests writers “disclose to the reader whether you incorporated any AI-generated content in the book. They have a right to know as many will feel duped if they are not advised.” Should is not a must. You must ask yourself: Do I want to be duped?
Viewers have pushed back on seeing AI-generated digital art, like commercials, for example. Volvo released a car commercial with no car, with AI features. Many felt dissuaded and questioned the readability aspect, which is ironic considering the aim of a commercial to persuade and sell. Books, articles, essays, are part of the same creative family.
It may be more complicated than simply rejecting books with AI-generated content to control the mass production of them. Authors are already taking initiative by writing formal, public letters to their publishers, and as readers, we can do the same. Using our voices to make pledges, using social media to spread the word, and even smaller steps like researching authors and publishers to learn if they align with AI or no AI values. Readers can act by researching authors and publishing companies, as well as writing letters to publishers demanding transparency about the use of AI in publishing.
We may need more time to find a common ground between authenticity and the inclusion of AI in our work—which may be no inclusion—but it is up to decide if we want to take control over AI or let AI take control over us.