No, I didn't use AI... but AI used me!

A few weeks ago, I attended an annual luncheon for former faculty and staff at a school where I used to teach. It’s a nice way to honor us, they claim, for the time we gave to the institution, and get us up to speed on what’s happening at the school these days.

As I was making my way around the room, shooting the breeze, a current employee asked how my books were going and how many I’ve written. Usually, when I tell someone I’ve written 12 books in four years, people say things like “Oh wow, that’s great,” or “I’m so impressed.” Don’t be, I tell them, because lots of authors are churning out more than I am. A lot more.

Imagine my surprise when this person said, “Wow. So, does AI write your books?”

He was joking. Maybe?  But after what happened at Hachette with its cancellation of Mia Ballard’s horror novel due to AI allegations, I can assure you, that was no joke to me, and I certainly did not feel honored. I’m here to tell you it’s never funny to accuse someone of plagiarism or cheating or being dishonest, and if I had to do it over again, my response to this person would be different.

Most of all, I was disappointed in myself. Instead of telling him how insulting his comment was, I started to trip over my words, justifying myself for being so prolific:

I wrote four books before generative AI even existed.

I’m a fast writer.

My books are not that long.

Speech-to-text has made people faster.

Why did I do this? Was it because I still suffer from imposter syndrome? Was it because any time a school administrator accuses you of cheating, you feel twelve years old again? Was it because we all fear we’ll be unfairly accused at some point, that someone will run our work through an AI filter and ruin our lives with a false positive result and a false allegation?

But here’s where it really sticks in the gullet.

I didn’t use AI, but AI used me. A number of my books were in the database that was used to train AI, but I didn’t file for copyright protection so I wasn’t included in the Anthropic settlement.

Whatever. I don’t care too much about the money. I make more off my books than I would’ve made off the settlement, so thanks to any of you who buy them.  I care about the principle, though, but I feel that maybe it’s too late for that. The settlement did not establish case law. Our works can be used to train AI whether we like it or not. Even Hachette admits to using generative AI for “operational” tasks.

Maybe it’s inevitable that we will accept generative AI as a part of the creative process. If readers like the book, should it even matter? Amazon requires that authors disclose if they used AI, but as far as I know, it doesn't block you from publishing a book. What do you think about generative AI and the creative process?

 For more info on the Hachette story: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/100037-while-ai-discourse-rages-publishing-has-more-questions-than-answers.html