The AI Panic Is Not About AI

The fear of AI has created a seismic reverberation in the indie writer community.

Publishers are rescinding deals with authors simply on the basis of accusations of AI use, and without any proof of generative writing.

Readers are just buying books.

Self-publishing was once heralded as nothing more than a hobbyist endeavour.

Kindle was going to kill actual books.

Amazon would reduce bookstores to nothing more than a nostalgic memory.

Pitchforks at the ready.

We’ve been here before.

The panic is real. Writers are scared. They are concerned their work will be labelled ‘AI Slop’ when it really isn’t.

Cancelling or blacklisting writers based on whether they have used AI in any shape or form is simply fear-mongering. Right now, it’s Salem, 1692.

To suggest that an author’s work in any way, shape, or form is invalid because they used a tool to be better as writers, marketers, designers or independent business people is just mind-boggling to me.

AI witch-hunting is now a sport. That person or this person is using AI. Hang them from the nearest lampost!

So what?

AI cannot threaten good writing, but it can reduce the barrier to entry.

AI cannot replicate the nuance of the human condition, but it can save you thousands on fees for editing and design services.

Yes, generative AI slop exists. It is a byproduct of technology, but that does not mean everything that has interacted with AI should be instantly tainted as such.

I want to be a better writer. A more commercial writer. Pacing. Characterisation. Story arcs. I use AI to help. It’s a coach. A tool. I make no apologies for using tools to improve as a writer. As a designer. As an editor.

Prepare the fire now and throw me on it.

Imagine asking Picasso not to use a paintbrush? If these literary purists are so committed to this belief system, we would never have progressed beyond finger painting buffalo in caves.

I use AI to create my video trailers. It is a tool.

I use AI to analyse my marketing performance data. It is a tool.

I use AI for line editing, spelling and grammar. It is a tool.

I use AI to help develop story arcs. It is a tool.

Does AI write my dialogue? No.

Does it write my prose? No.

Does it understand the nuance of character I want to get across? No.

Does it write in my voice? No.

‘Generative AI Slop’ is its own thing.

Let me be very clear on what ‘generative AI Slop’ actually is.

If someone is magically publishing 50 books in a year, there is a good argument that this is not of the highest artistic quality. This has a high chance of being AI Slop.

If someone releases a ‘biography’ of a celebrity within a day of their death, there is a high chance it is AI Slop.

Readers will dictate what is successful and what is not. If you believe your readers cannot tell the difference between what is written by a human versus what is simply pattern regurgitation, then you have very little faith in your own readers. Or even your own writing.

Human recognsies human.

The publishing industry is built on what sells.

The best and most talented writers are not always the most commercially successful, but that was never the point. The publishing industry has never been meritocratic in the purest sense anyway, so this false virtue signalling posturing over the use of AI is rather contradictory. Big publishers are definitely using AI themselves. They just don’t want you to have it.

If readers believe that how I use AI somehow degrades the quality of my end product, they will not buy it.

If you want meritocracy, then it does not get much better than that.

Do not fear the tech.

Fear the motives of those who don’t want you to use the tech.

I believe 99.9% of independent authors who use AI in any form do not have any motive other than to become better writers.

I say that is ultimately a good thing.

Let’s end this ridiculous witch-hunt.