AI & AI: Author Interactions and Artificial Intelligence
The speed at which artificial intelligence is advancing is nothing short of impressive, but not everyone is eager to welcome its capabilities into their lives. A new ethical conundrum is emerging in the literary world regarding how AI bears a striking resemblance to the way editors and authors critique work with little information. In the form of LLMs (large language models), AI usage in its infancy has been advertised as a fun and creative tool to let imagination run wild through instantly generated images, texts, content, and countless other prompts—all made in the blink of an eye. However, such use cases have caused widespread skepticism about how AI can benefit authors and editors. The art of writing is at the core of their work, cultivated through a much more gratifying and lengthier process than any AI training. To gain more insight on the question of literary ethics and admirability of artificial intelligence, we reached out to three authors. They share their opinions and experiences on whether the elegance of language and expression has been tarnished by artificial intelligence.
***
Sally Kilpatrick is a commercial women’s fiction author who, like many authors, feels great skepticism toward OpenAI and its product ChatGPT. While she has kept herself familiar with the technology through the Author’s Guild, she has never used AI to write anything.
“The best writing has voice and nuance, and these are qualities that AI lacks,” she told us.
For this reason, she is against the prospect of OpenAI being used to “correct” texts of varying dialects. In her writing, she often must advocate for her usage of idiomatic expressions that are not as well known. “Words that indicate a different dialect or syntax can only add to the richness of a published piece,” she said. “If we use AI to ‘correct’ such things, then we will end up with a very generic, very boring way of life. I don’t think AI will actually replace authors, but we already have a glut of work that makes discoverability a huge issue, and I’m afraid AI will only compound that problem.”
Although her concerns are quite serious, she cannot help but make light of the reality and accept the newfound technological landscape we live in. “Of course, I’ve also watched Terminator, so I don’t think this whole AI thing is going to work out well for humanity in the end.”
***
Author and technical editor Sara Omer is another AI observer who has yet to use OpenAI and its tools for her writing and editing. She feels concerned about its presence in the writing world, specifically as it pertains to contracts. Within her circle of peers, she has many colleagues who share her fear of predatory language in their contracts as it pertains to AI, which leaves them vulnerable to the exploitation of their writing. Omer also highlighted the danger of bias in technological tools. She believes that it would be dangerous for editors or agents to use AI to vet submissions–especially for marginalized identities. “Editors would need to be sure that this particular use of AI would not eliminate the unique quality of an individual’s poetry and prose. [These biases] could determine whose writing is deemed ‘appropriate’ or ‘correct,’ harming diversity. Strict policies would need to be enforced to ensure that LLMs aren’t farming content from submissions.”
Despite her concerns, Omer recognizes some positive uses of AI, particularly in enhancing accessibility. She suggests that AI could be used to complete forms and manage logistical tasks, making these processes easier for individuals who might otherwise find them challenging. However, creating accessible forms and processes would probably be preferable to prevent inherent risks relating to biases and potential theft of work.
***
Makaylah J. Chambers is an aspiring fiction author who plans to pursue publication for her novels within the contemporary romance, fantasy, mafia, and science fiction genres. She is also a master’s student at Kennesaw State University pursuing a degree in Professional Writing. She is firmly against OpenAI when it comes to her own writing and does not plan to use it at all. While she is not outwardly against editors using AI for vetting manuscripts, she would not work with an editor or submit somewhere that uses AI. Chambers also has a firm opinion on the use of AI to “correct” dialect. “It would be wrong for editors to use AI to ‘correct’ someone else’s dialect,” Chambers said, “Every person has a right to have their dialect recognized and not changed by a machine.”
For this reason, among other commonly held convictions about AI’s drawbacks, Chambers plans to stay away from this technology entirely and avoid it in all aspects of her publishing journey.
***
For such publicly advertised and (controversially) encouraged use, LLMs like ChatGPT, Bard, and Gemini seem largely to be frowned upon among authors, editors, and other linguists. Authors like Kilpatrick, Omer, and Chambers suggest that the amount of risk and ethical conflict that comes with using AI during select publishing processes offers more problems than solutions concerning how AI authorship should be credited, how writing submissions are vetted, how dialectical charm disappears when edited by AI, and the amount of accessibility AI offers to writers.
The advent of any new technology often comes with some skepticism, and the idea that the world could be taken over by humanity’s own creations is a story that has been circulating repeatedly for decades. Ultimately, technology cannot replace creative stories, as life flows with each word, each syllable, and each inflection. It is going to take a lot more than ChatGPT to convince writers that AI is here to stay, but like the labyrinth that is the creative mind and the gems it yearns to create, to authors, AI is just a different story.
