Do I HAVE to put up my “AI is going to destroy the novel market” decorations already? I still have my “AI is going to ruin science decorations” up.
Some X-brainiac last week — same brainiac who keeps banging the little drum for “you’re all contributing to the death of culture by not paying enough to artists” (Buyers and sellers, how does that work, even?) — said if a writer used AI for covers, obviously he/she was also using it for novels and “their entire catalogue is suspect.”
Head. Desk. Repeat. See that dent? That’s how many times head went against desk.
This is the sort of argument that’s so wrong it would need to be several miles towards “right” to be merely “Wrong.”
First, notice novel writers using AI for covers. Most of us — with a few notable exceptions, and those people do their own covers — are not artists. Even those like me who took 3 years of art, are not at the level where drawing a cover from scratch is feasible time-wise. I could do it, but it would take me almost as long to do as to write the novel. It’s simply not feasible, from a business point of view.
Second, again always with a few exceptions who are artists and writers and who go extra on the covers, while covers can be works of art, they don’t NEED to be. While people pay attention to covers, they treat it more as a billboard for advertising the novel. The cover in itself doesn’t need to be achingly beautiful or filled with soul searching, or whatever. Sure, if it is, it’s to the good, but if it’s the most beautiful, artistic cover you’ve ever seen and doesn’t signal genre, subgenre and pacing of novel correctly? It fails as a cover.
Would most of us still pay top dollar for a great artist if we could afford it? We definitely would. But the problem is even I — who earn semi-decently — can’t afford that.
Also, the artists I can afford will likely use AI to the same extent I do. Keep in mind every single cover takes at least three and sometimes as many as 10 pieces of render “stitched together” and then having the lighting, etc. fixed, and often the whole is overpainted. it’s just that takes a week, not the year it would take me to paint a cover.
Anyway, does this mean that my novels are “suspicious”. (We’ll leave for later a friend’s opinion that AI is going to overtake the indie market in a tsunami of crap.) Meanwhile let’s discuss my catalogue, most of which has been out for over 10 years.
First let’s get something out of the way: My husband says they advertise AI that can “write novels.” This might be true. The AI might even be able to write novels, who knows. What it doesn’t do, if the state of the art I see in Jane Austen fanfic is accurate, is write DECENT novels. It can’t follow a line of experience and emotion. Someone forgives someone else, then starts looking for an apology AGAIN over and over and over. The best thing about those novels are the reviews.
But let’s suppose some LLM can write a coherent, enjoyable novel? Does this mean I’m going to use it to write my novels?
Why on EARTH would I? I want to write my novels. I mean, I came here to write novels and chew gum, and I’m all out of gum.
No, seriously. The best instance of AI written novels would still need extensive edits. That’s the part I don’t like to do. It would be like when I paid someone to watch my kids so I could clean the house. Completely the wrong way around.
However, let’s suppose AI can write a novel, and a decent passable novel.
So, what is the problem? There are more novels to read, right?
Okay, I can hear the Reeing from here. Please, keep it down to a dull roar.
Objection number one: But the stories will be soulless, and people will be churning them out a million an hour. Right?
Maybe. But if they are soulless, and — let’s face it, Artificial Intelligence is just a Large Language Model — they do tend to be prejudiced towards a certain uniformity and non-originality, then why are you bothered that people will churn them out by the hundreds? There might be some problems with search, mind, but people will rapidly learn to route around AI novels. In JAFF reading the first couple of pages will do. Or the comments. (Oh, the comments.)
Look, there are tons of soulless novels being written by alleged humans. They dot every i and cross every t of the “thing to say” and “the in thing”. They don’t seem to be doing great, honestly, judging by the ever diminishing print runs.
You can’t simultaneously say that AI written novels will be very bad, and that they will steal all our jobs.
Making a lot of money as a writer is never a big chance. But if you miss it, it’s not likely to be because of AI.
Maybe in the future AI will write with the verve and passion of a Dumas and challenging ideas of Heinlein, but — looks meaningfully at midjourney, which is the best of the lot imho — it won’t be the near future. And I suspect it will have as much trouble with emotions as with hands. (For the same reason. Most artists/writers have problems with that area, too.)
Until then, it can write beginner novels, or highly formulaic novels. With a ton of editing. Novelists will be fine. We compete with better every day from Eastern European authors who also seem to churn them out by the dozen.
In fact, what my friend was complaining about with indie being overwhelmed by a tsunami of AI is the same old argument as the tsunami of crap.
Was there a tsunami of crap published. Well, kind of. Except most people realize it’s still a lot of work, even just getting a cover on it and publishing it. But up front there were a million deep-trunk novels published, and they were wretched. (Around 2012 Dan used to do dramatic readings of the worst he found. My favorite was the one that explained what a robot was. And an alien. And…. Like he’d just invented science fiction or something.)
But again, those didn’t overwhelm anything. They didn’t find readers, and sank without a trace. When a book has one review, and it’s one star…. well. Again we’ll be fine.
Is anyone still reeing? Oh, yeah, that guy in the back is reeing about plagiarism. To him I’ll say “be your age.”
Plagiarism has a very exact definition, and LLMs are not engaging in it. (Unlike ivy league college presidents.)
Look, there are a couple of people out there who have bestselling novels taking the general idea of one of mine. In one case, it’s probably coincidence, in the other we shared an agent, and it probably came up in a talk with her, particularly since I refused to do what he wanted with the book.
So, I can sue and take all her money, right?
No. When you hear of J. K. Rowling paying someone 100k because this person also had a character named Harry Potter and had sent her the manuscript, it’s not plagiarism. it’s someone very rich paying a nuisance to go away.
Ideas aren’t copyrightable. Character names aren’t copyrightable. Heck, even plot lines aren’t copyrightable.
Do you know what plagiarism is? Taking large CHUNKS OF TEXT. The LLMs don’t do that, or not in any provable way. I mean, some of the sentences are banal and everyone uses them, but a sentence of two ALSO doesn’t rise to the level of plagiarism.
So no. The LLMs are not committing plagiarism.
They are in fact taking plot lines and ideas, but you can rest easy. Because having seen people run brainstorming experiments, nine out of ten of the ideas they give you are “movie of the week” or a recent tv-series.
You have nothing to worry about.
And by you I mean YOU. You who are actually trying to write what you love in the best way you can. YOU have nothing to worry about.
The precious mavens of churned out politically correct prose? My husband gives me to understand they could be replaced to advantage by a small perl script, no AI needed.
But that’s not your concern. Your concern is your novels.
No artist who is highly original, no writer who is highly original, probably no musician who is highly original needs to worry.
Except with competing with themselves. They do need to worry about that. And it will be a b*tch.
AI? I’m mildly worried about people assuming/running on the idea it is actually sentient. But only mildly.
Yes, they want to entrust medical diagnostics to AI. You know guys, highly distracted, extremely overworked doctor vs. AI. It’s going to be gruesome either way, and sometimes the AI gets the hands right. By a miracle!
AI is in fact a fad. Oh, not the real technology. That’s still buggy as all get out, and will need to have the bugs shaken out. And will. And it is very promising.
But the things/ideas/capabilities people attribute to AI? That’s a fad.
Remember the Radio Flyer? Little red wagon for kids. Nothing Radio about it. But Radio was the new, new thing. So everyone did it. There was also a time when Atomic as the in things and everything was atomic.
AI is like that now. Everything is “AI” even when it isn’t.
So, chill. Let things shake out. Neither Radio nor Atomic finished us off. And this won’t either.
All I want (for Christmas) is for King Harv to put out the Radio Atomic AI coffee! I’ll not only buy a few lbs. I’ll buy mugs and T-shirts with the description!
Now forget AI and go do what you do. And do it well. AI will hold no fears for you.