
I want to start this by being very clear: You are entirely entitled to not like stuff produced by AI. You’re even allowed to not like stuff you SUSPECT was produced by AI even if the “markers” you think you are seeing are completely insane. Because of course taste can’t be argued.
But I hope to get you to think about what you think you’re seeing, and what is happening right now in the culture re: AI.
Because you can do whatever you want and, frankly, with the readership of this blog, there is no point trying to get you to act any way you don’t want to, but I’d prefer you do it after careful examination of why you’re doing things and consider some stuff.
First of all, my position on AI: If AI is to be used, in science or art or whatever the heck you want to use it at, it should be used by people who are already somewhat above merely “competent.” Or to quote my husband, “Don’t treat AI like an infallible expert, treat it as a trainee who is a little naive and very unsure about the real world.” I.e. Ai is great for doing what I call the “donkey work” — whatever portion of the work it is you’re least fond of — and it should be extensively checked.
This is why I will not use AI to write: That’s the part I enjoy. The part I don’t enjoy? Well, I’m not using AI for that either because I’m not going to upload my entire novel up and ask it to edit and make sure I have all the ages right and all that. (I have an Amy B. for that!) Because no. I could maybe if I spun up a private instance of AI, but I’m about as likely to do that as I am to fly.
That said… If I could do it, and had, you know, copious spare time to do it in, that’s what I would use AI for. “Normalize every time character x is referred to so that his name is spelled with an N not an xyz.” “Highlight every use of the word “primarily” in my novel. That type of thing. The donkey work. The kind of thing that has me going through page after page after page looking for a needle in a haystack and falling asleep. The kind of work I’d give a trainee, if I had a trainee.
Now, yes, I am somewhat aware that I am weird for a writer. Most people at least in traditional publishing prefer having written to writing. Would it be possible for a writer in that position to have AI write a first draft and then they go over it with a fine tooth comb which is the part they like. Sure. Provided they REALLY like writing prompts, because I’ve never tried it, but if writing AI is like art AI it will do truly bizarre things if your prompt is scientifically clear. (Like yesterday, instead of “woman dancing with her shadow” for the MGC post, I typoed “woman dancing with her sharow.” Look, act of cat. He jumped on my boobs, fingers went wrong. The results were…. weird enough that I looked at the prompt. really looked.) But ALSO the prompt, at least for, say, animating images, needs to be so specific that it’s like making a contract with the fey. You know what I mean. “Does this word have more than one meaning, no matter how far fetched the second? How do I disambiguate?” I’m sure it’s possible to do it. In fact I suspect some fanficcers in JAFF are already doing it, and some are good enough even I don’t detect it. But quite frankly I’m breaking into a sweat just thinking about writing something clear for writing an entire chapter, say.
And then you’d need to edit edit edit. Which presumes you know what good writing is, and can edit it so that you make the story GOOD. Not my favorite part of the writing life.
Anyway, that’s my position on AI right now. If I were ever to use AI it would be in the way I’d use a trainee, if I could hire one at $2 an hour without breaking the law. That’s me.
But obviously there are people who are better at it, or have a better relationship with detail editing.
Which brings us to AI, the identifying of, and liking or not liking.
Lately I’ve become very afraid that I’m an AI. Look, if I read one more Facebook post, confidently identifying “AI trash” and the “markers” are stuff like “uses m dashes or semi-colons” I am going to do that end of story that goes “Then I too must be–” (My brain has gone blank on what the story is, but I’m sure one of you will know.) Heck, Heinlein must be, and he wrote before AI was invented. That’s how ahead of his time he was. I always wonder how to explain to people that AI uses those because they were trained on writers who use those.
Yes, there are tells, but those are usually things like: it doesn’t work like that in the real world, and couldn’t work like that in the real world. Yes, this means you’re at risk of identifying college students as being AI. But some of the mistakes hinge on being written by something that doesn’t have a body. One of the most disturbing mistakes I’ve found on JAFF is people moving miles away suddenly and inexplicably without even a wave at “they readied the carriage.” Even I in a fugue state of coffee and lack of sleep am not that bad at remembering where last I left my character. Also, there is a tendency to repeat a crucial plot point over and over, as though the writer has Alzheimers.
Still, what upsets me most about the “oh this is AI” missidentification and stuff like “Prove you wrote it” is the immediate “Oh, this is AI trash” followed by many, may intimations that they hate it, hate it, hate it. Then there are the people hiring artists who demand the artists draw in front of them.
And what that does is make the back of my head go “Why?”
Look, I know the songs produced by Suno, say, lack a certain expression, and it makes perfect sense for people like my younger DIL to dislike it. They will point out at various issues with it, but as I told her “I’m not that sophisticated a listener” and as a song writer, I’m mostly in awe of the fact I can bring the lyrics to life as songs even as lame at it as I am. Would a real singer/music writer be better? Yes. They’d also be better at using Suno. I know this, because I know people who do use it, then revise it and fix it, and sing over it. People who actually know how to be musicians. Which I don’t. For them, it’s a tool And they use it well. But yeah, pure AI songs can’t compete with real artists. They can however compete with most amateurs and can allow people like me to self-filk. (which is probably illegal in several states.)
So if you are an expert and can catch things and can tell me why you dislike this or that, I’ll respect that.
But if you need to see the artist draw to make sure it’s not AI? You don’t have that kind of expertise. If you need to see the musician play the music to make sure it’s not AI, why are you even doing this? If AI is that good that it can fool you, why are you bothering?
But Sarah, you’ll say, AI will steal all the jobs of all the artists, and then all we’ll have is slop?
1- No it won’t. The really good artists already using AI just take the whole thing higher and make it better.
2- If it’s good enough that unless you see it being made you’re not sure it’s AI? It’s not slop. (and at current state of the art it must have been edited expertly, at least for novels, otherwise it’s obvious.)
3- This type of pitiful “I hate x because it could steal jobs” never works. This is mostly nonsense. And attempts to preserve jobs by driving a new alternative down never work. EVER. The market seeks the cheapest and easiest solutions. Every time.
3a) as one of the writers who might have her job stolen by AI? If it happens, I’ll find something else to do. Probably using AI to tell my stories in another way. In my opinion that’s what artists do. There will always be really good old form — painters didn’t vanish when photography became a thing — and there will also be good new form (like photography done artistically.)
What worries me is that “I hate AI because it’s AI” is “I hate x because of who made it.”
Now, there is even some valid point to that. For instance I could see a lot of you refusing to read anyone else’s book about a newly discovered colony of hermaphrodites because “What horrors might this contain?” Only you knew me, and knew I’m the chick who often forgets to have her characters kiss, even when they’re about to get married. And then there’s “Trust the writer not to hurt you by killing your darlings.” There are writers I trust, and writers I don’t.
In that sense TRYING something — or not — because of who wrote it makes perfect sense. But LIKING it because of who wrote it is bokum.
I experience another side of this, because I write under my real name. (Or variations thereof.) Which means I don’t hide the fact I’m a woman. Look, I always wrote, and if I’d tried to write professionally in Portugal, I probably would have used a male name, way back. But when I started trying to publish seriously, it was the nineties, which I’m now starting to think was a weird cultural island. Because it lulled me into a sense that it was okay to write science fiction and fantasy under my own name.
After all there had been women science fiction writers under female names since the thirties, so–
So, I didn’t antecipate having a lot of crazy women writing things where the whole point was “men bad” and poisoning the field. And before you tell me this didn’t happen — yes it did, to the point I myself am sometimes afraid of reading a book with a female name on the cover.
What I mean is I do understand that. But I don’t understand reading it looking for reasons to hate it because I have a female name. (And yes some people do.) Or because of my political opinions which aren’t part of my books. (And yes, some people do.)
What I see people do with AI is more like reading the book looking for reasons to hate it, because you suspect it MIGHT have been written by AI.
And that’s a) stupid. And b) Depriving yourself of fun.
Because at the bottom of this, why do you read? To make yourself seem intellectual and important? Really? If that were the reason, you wouldn’t be hanging out with us wrong fun lot.
So, you read for fun and enjoyment right?
Which means the ONLY acceptable metric is “did you have fun?”
I mean, every work — human or AI — has flaws. And — much as I hate to admit this — some of the stuff I’ve enjoyed has had more flaws than not. (Look, the economics chick now has more story in her JAFF, but she still has massive amounts of investing and in-time economics than are reasonable. BUT her characters have heart and aren’t weird non JA constructs. So…. I enjoy her.)
But in the end, with fiction, the only thing that counts, as you close the book is “DID YOU ENJOY IT?”
Yes, values of enjoying it can include bawling your eyes out, or wanting to shake the characters. But…. if you’d do it again– you enjoyed it.
And that’s the only standard writing (or music, or art) SHOULD rationally be judged on: the ludic standard.
Did you enjoy it? If you did, why would it matter if the writer has an innie, an outie, is a human, a clanker, an exquisitely trained small white cat, or an alien from the Ort cloud?
(As a side reach you could hold Did you enjoy it AND was it uplifting? But that’s muddying the waters, as what I consider uplifting is not universal and I know it.)
If you suddenly turn around and denounce something because you suspect it might be AI? That has nothing to do with it being good or bad, enjoyable or not.
That’s social signaling signifying “I’m important, and all the best people say AI is slop. So, as an intellectual, I’m going to condemn potential/denounced as AI.”
You’re entitled to do, that of course. But if you’re doing it you should be aware you’re playing dumb positioning Monkey games, and be honest with yourself.
At least so your world doesn’t shatter when you find out you completely misidentified AI-produced.

































































































































