On Writing : As Creatives - How Should We Respond to AI? by Nancy Golden

Whoever said " There's power in a name was dead right. Nancy Golden, your golden perspective on AI is so succinctly executed that I strongly feel I should breathe a word or two on this provocative niche.

Luckily for you, Nancy, I subscribe to your viewpoint. Hats off to James Cameron's Terminator franchise, a prophetic story, that shows the folly of mortals in a fast- changing world now silently spawned under the shadow of the tyranny of AI.

There more we embrace AI as a panacea or elixir of our weaknesses as writers, the more our sparkling creativity makes way for a dependency syndrome on AI. Such a culture stifles our creative juices, leaving us parched beyond the scale of the dryness the Sahara desert.

Real writers are not made or churned out by AI by are born with a flair for writing, writing, writing and writing as a way of honing their literary prowess. It's about time every serious writer kissed AI goodbye.

Extremely well said, Nancy Golden! Sorry to hear you were laid off.

I know everyone doesn't share my opinion, but as creatives, we shouldn't use AI to make art and we should stand against AI in the arts. AI is a shortcut that cuts out the creative process. It allows screenwriters to brainstorm ideas and write loglines, synopses, outlines, and scripts without putting in the work (the same thing for authors, directors, etc.). I hear the "AI is just like CGI" argument a lot. No, it's not. It takes work to make CGI. It doesn't take work to use AI. It's an incredible feeling when a screenwriter, author, director, composer, etc. figures out an issue with a project because they worked and worked to figure it out. A creative doesn't get that feeling when they turn to AI to solve a problem.

AI is also theft. And people are losing their jobs to AI (and not just in the film industry and TV industry). In a time when things are really rough for people and their families financially, that's a huge deal!

I'll never use AI to brainstorm or write loglines, synopses, outlines, and scripts. I'll keep working with producers and directors who don't use AI and who don't require me to use it.

To me, the problem with AI is that the computer industry is selling everyone on the "AI can do anything" pipe dream. It takes so many iterations of prompting and it never gets anything right, that it's quicker to just draw the picture yourself or write the story yourself. Will it ever get to the point where it can generate complete works of art that aren't wonky? I doubt it, because AI is built on math and probability, so there's always going to be that random variable that pops in.

I have played with these tools to see what they're really capable of -- as far as generating complete works, they are terrible. But if you use it for automated tasks, or ChatGPT as a way to help you brainstorm, image generators to build patterns or quick concept art that I then use my own skills to make my own creation, then it can really be helpful.

But I agree that you shouldn't be writing text prompts and calling the generated content "art".

As a filmmaker, the AI tools that DaVinci Resolve Studio has have helped me with audio, rotoscoping and VFX -- elements that would be too expensive for me to outsource and very labor intensive to do myself.

I am against any use of AI to replace artists -- it's a tool that can be helpful, but everything needs to originate with the artist.

William Joseph Hill You make some great points. I am also a software developer and write code to automate tasks, take measurements, etc. The difference is that the code executes what I have written and does not draw from a larger dataset that contains images, text, etc. that has been created by artists and is being used without their permission. As an engineer, I appreciate the potential for AI applications, but I very much appreciate your final statement, "I am against any use of AI to replace artists -- it's a tool that can be helpful, but everything needs to originate with the artist."

The conundrum we face is - where is the line? And another part of the problem is, programs like Grammarly utilize AI and are very fallible. A friend uses Grammarly quite often and recently published his novel where the word "tomb" was used instead of his intended "tome." I caught the error for him, and he republished with the correction. The context is so different, one wonders how Grammarly can be trusted at all. I hire an editor to copy edit/proofread my work. As an Indie author, going through the process and doing the hard work is what I believe adds to my credibility, especially when the market is being inundated with AI generated books (echhhh) or books where authors are taking shortcuts.

As you mentioned, there are some tools that are tremendously helpful. If they are part of the development process (as opposed to the artistic process) I think that warrants a different conversation. How do we define AI? Is using a noise reduction tool AI? While some AI has been around for decades (voice to text, think Dragon Naturally Speaking), we are so young in this technology now being utilized to augment or replace the artistic process - yet people are moving forward at an unprecedented rate of adoption. And it is the creatives that stand the most to lose.

I was shocked when I went onto Adobe Stock recently - I often purchase commercial licenses for images that one of my graphic designers may utilize as an element in one of my book covers. The artist who has created the image uploads it to Adobe and gets compensated when I purchase a commercial license to use it in my work. I was so surprised that Adobe is allowing AI images into their library (they are disclosed on the image when you hover over it) and they have overtaken those that are not AI. I am grateful they have a filter that allows you to search for images that are not AI generated. Sadly, I can usually identify an AI generated image without any designation. I think images made by an artist without AI assistance speaks to our souls in ways an AI image can't. That goes for text as well.

I guess my point is, AI is being forced upon us everywhere we turn. Google is now touting Gemini, Microsoft Bing embraced AI long ago, Meta is now forcing it down out throats, Canva is trying to tempt us with it. In the words of Mr. Wonderful of Shark Tank, "Stop the madness!!" As creatives, lets stand firm against the uninhibited use of AI and call for intelligent standards that both protect artists from having their work plagiarized and prevents AI garbage being spewed out into the market. We can define AI tools that make sense (computer programs that help humanity - think robots dismantling bombs or investigating dangerous terrain) but leave AI out of the creative sphere.

Jabulani mentioned the Terminator franchise in his response to this post. I'll end with this chilling clip as a cautionary tale. It may be over the top regarding our topic, but I always find it very powerful - it speaks to human nature, and why we need to guard against blindly accepting what many entities in our world today are trying to normalize: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpEDSvaP_-8

I do not see AI as the enemy but only the fear of it. Robots are programmed by humans who obviously have own agenda whether political, social or economic. AI has been over taking our jobs for years outside of the entertainment industry from offices to supermarkets. I’m not in disagreement with original point of this thread, yes it does suck software increasingly has value over artistic uniqueness. However, we need to dodge the AI bullet cos it will never go away. Shakespeare had a feather quill pen, escaped black death & is still one of the masters of the game. Times change. Art lives on.

IMHO, Educate yourself about all forms of AI in the TV/film industry, not just from a writing perspective. It's here to stay. Know your enemy to win the war.

Debbie Croysdale, thank you for your comment although I humbly disagree. As an engineer, I am not afraid of any technology, but rather, the people that wield it. Utilizing AI in the creative spheres in many cases amounts to theft. General purpose robots may become ubiquitous and in fact have been around for quite a while, and they certainly can be beneficial. I used to be a grocery checker when I was younger, and we always thought our jobs would be secure because everyone would always have to buy groceries. We had not imagined the self-checkouts you referenced. But what a blessing they were during COVID - providing less risk both for shoppers and employees. And yes, we adapted and other jobs have been created as new industries are birthed. AI and robotics have their place.

But we can't dismiss the danger to artists that has been unleashed. If we do, I believe we will regret it. Is art, corrupted by AI, still art? Does it still possess that intangible quality of springing from the artistic soul? That may be questions we can only answer for ourselves as individuals, but we ignore the potential for disrupting all forms of creative expression at our own peril. It is also important to understand the nature of AI - it takes data in the form of text or images from a data set containing data that is often incorporated into the data set without permission from those who created it. That is plagiarism and copyright infringement. The only way we can dodge the "AI bullet" as you put it, is to stand together and be a part of the conversation that shapes its use.

@Matt Watters - I agree! The conversation extends to all creative endeavors!!

Hi @ Nancy I did mention each person who creates AI has their own agenda which obviously includes nefarious purposes. I do not disagree with you the humans behind the robots can cause problems but how are we ever going to police them? I do not dismiss negatives but AI's firmly here to stay & doubt anything/anyone will eradicate it. Although I only use AI as a cross checker to sift through piles of scripts to quickly find a certain remit, I also studied it simply to assess any threats. Seems it's in its infancy, too long a story now, I need consolidate my notes first. It does not "live sweep" the net as I thought but relies on pre 2021 data which as you say contains the work of others. LOL The bots have their off days too. QUOTE "I'm having a hallucination."

AI uses copyrighted material (which presumably includes published books, produced screenplays, etc.) to "train" its generators, without the knowledge or permission of their authors. Whether this is "Fair Use" or not under U.S. copyright law is being challenged. It's important for writers to know how AI content is generated, that it is not currently copyrightable (even though it "harvests" from copyrighted works), and that if you use AI to generate more than just a logline, you will have no idea how many other writers may also have generated the same story from that platform, using the same or similar prompts. While I'm sure AI is here to stay and I can understand why it might be helpful for research, I truly can't fathom why any writer who calls themselves a writer would think they need help coming up with stories. After all, that's the job description of a writer. For those who are interested, here is a link to the WGA's latest agreement, which has provisions providing certain protections for its members with regard to producers' use of AI, and this page also takes note of some bills to regulate AI that the WGA is advocating for in Congress-- including one that, if passed, would force companies to disclose the copyrighted works they used to train their AI generators. It should be noted that these new WGA rules apply only to WGA members and the WGA-signatory producers they work for. But pre-WGA writers who are seemingly eager to embrace AI might consider what WGA members fought and struck over, and why it was so important to them-- and, potentially, to all screenwriters. https://www.wga.org/contracts/know-your-rights/artificial-intelligence

Nancy Golden, I played with Amazon's voice AI. If you're doing corporate drivel it's fine. The second you need nuance or shading it goes to hell in a handbasket. As to AI graphics, others have noted how the results are built on existing art. If you, like me, writes original sci-fi, you're better off handing money to a trained adult. AI will make hash of everything.

Staton Rabin thanks for elaborating - the Authors Guild is also involved in protecting the rights of authors and has a lawsuit in progress: https://authorsguild.org/news/ag-and-authors-file-class-action-suit-agai... and here's a disturbing article about eBooks being pirated to create data sets: https://aicopyright.substack.com/p/has-your-book-been-used-to-train

Bill McCormick I certainly agree! When I was in the process of writing Alien Neighbors, I hired a graphic artist that specialized in sci-fi to develop a concept of my alien protagonist, which I used for writing inspiration and later as part of my book cover. I shudder to think of what midjourney would have done with it. I don't know if you read my post about the cover for Book One of my fantasy series and that when I found out my graphic designer had used AI - I paid a second time for a cover that did not. Check out this link - the curriculum cover has the first AI generated cover - and you can see the new cover on the left. No comparison as to the quality of the book covers - the one on the left far surpasses the curriculum cover: https://nancygoldenbooks.com/gallery/

I work in IT/Cybersecurity, retired U.S Army, while acting and modeling is what I do on side on weekends. Yes AI certainly has ethical concerns. Unfortunately, AI has taken off at lightening speed and there is no stopping it. But everyone should reject anything that would have AI in the mix. Hopefully the lawsuit will favor the creators, Big tech (Such as OpenAI and Apple) have a huge stake in this with very skilled lawyers working for them sadly, We can avoid from using AI but AI is not avoiding us. It's impacting everyone. It's becoming every part of our lives akin to the .com era when it debuted in the early 90's. We must still protect the right of our authors! Absolutely 110%. It can impact everyone in the A&E industry too, which it has already. I am very concerned and raising the " Red Flag. Let me know how I can help?

Glenn Axelrod Great analogy regarding the .com era and AI. I believe we embraced the advent of the internet without understanding the ramifications and potential for harm, just as we are doing with AI. Having worked in Cybersecurity, you know the potential threats which have grown in sophistication, but even simple ones can cause great harm. Remember those emails from a Nigerian prince that offers the recipient a million dollars? One would think - how silly and how could anyone fall for it... I have a friend whose employer suffered from dementia. He fell for that email scam and lost his entire life savings.

I think the best thing we can do is add our voices to the conversation and to educate other artists. Many don't understand how AI actually works and why it not only is being used to replace human creations, it is also stealing through data sets created from pirated text/images.

Nancy Golden I had read your post about the AI cover. I would have been pissed.

Bill McCormick It was frustrating to be sure. And that experience brings home the point that we must educate our fellow creatives on what AI is and the potential it has for harming the creative arts industry.

I had no idea what Midjourney was when the cover artist created it. I am always careful to have the proper licensing in place for my work and when I inquired as to whether there were any elements of the book cover I needed to obtain a commercial license for (in case they used part or all of a stock photo which is common practice with some designers and is perfectly acceptable - those artists that created the stock images get compensated when I purchase the commercial license, and you can specify to your designer not to use any stock images generated with AI), they replied that I already owned the licensing because it was done through Midjourney. I had no idea at the time what that was!

From https://ec-pr.com/using-midjourney-ai-images-commercially-what-you-need-... "So far, AI tools are ‘trained’ by accessing images on the web free of charge, including data-mining images that may have already been created and copyrighted painstakingly by the artists." I don't own the copyright or commercial license to the work of those artists (I wouldn't even know how to find them). So, I truly do not own the rights to that cover. It may be regarded as in the public domain right now - but who knows what court rulings will be in the future?

We are so young in this technology and so many of us are focused on our art in whatever form, that we may be unaware of what is going on around us regarding AI. I didn't understand what Midjourney was until later - after I paid for a cover and published it. So, I think it's really important to have these conversations to raise awareness. AI has its uses - but not as a tool to replace human creations. Only work that is created by human authors is copyrightable - not AI - which brings a whole other level to the impact of AI on the artist using it, and their audience.

Nancy Golden what kills me is that people are charging for AI art. It's like being in an an alley and some dude says, "I got hot radios, catalytic converters, and AI art." You are literally paying someone to steal on your behalf. I did use AI to create part of my pitch deck, but am very clear in the credits as to what came from where. For things like a pitch deck AI's a convenient tool. But, once people start charging for it, it feels like they're making me pay to watch them use Grammarly.

https://billmcscifi.com/tbr6.pdf

Bill McCormick I tried to open your pdf, but it wouldn't load. I was using MS Edge - it may be a browser issue. I did enjoy checking out your webpage - congrats on your many accomplishments! I wound up on your Goodreads page and read about your Kirkus review and just had to pause and celebrate with you. I just received my Kirkus Review for Alien Neighbors and it's wonderful - with a recommendation to "Get It"! I always have to explain to people that Kirkus is one of the most reputable names in the book reviewing sector, so it's super cool to share with you since you already understand the significance (and how hard it is to get a positive Kirkus review!!). From my Kirkus review: "The rare SF yarn that emphasizes the positive." https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/nancy-golden/alien-neighbors/

Yeah, Nancy Golden, Edge isn't really the best thing going. Try Chrome or Firefox. I'm glad you enjoyed the site and congrats on your Kirkus review as well. This was my second and it still gives me the warm fuzzies.

Nancy Golden Yes, you're right that the Authors Guild has been heavily involved in challenging AI companies' use of authors' copyrighted works to "train" their generators.

I've worked in tech, specifically hardware marketing and sales, for nearly a decade. I am disgusted by how flagrantly my industry is willing to cast the creatives they've leveraged over the years for AI tools to save a buck, but I am in no way surprised. Because I can tell you that they've always felt that the human component of the industry was a burden to work towards removing rather than a feature that adds character. And this is especially true for how they feel about the creative/marketing teams. Marketing doesn't generate a direct measurable ROI, so it's always the first thing people complain about when looking at profit and loss numbers. I once worked for a company where the engineering and sales teams literally called for dismantlement of the company's entire marketing team of about 40 people, believing that marketing was required to generate profits. I have been blessed to not lose my employment to AI, but I can absolutely say that AI has encroached on my work responsibilities over the last couple years, leading me to worry considerably about my future job prospects.

Amen Terrence Sellers - follow the breadcrumbs. AI has been created and released into the world by the elite for two reasons: money & power. We'll see how it all ends up.

I was at a writer's conference last month where the schedule included a panel on using AI to generate prose chapters for novels. It struck me as brazen beyond belief that the planners would endorse it, that the panelists would feel comfortable telling people how AI helps them write faster and produce more, as though that's the end goal. What was really scary is how matter of fact the whole thing was presented, as though anyone who would tell them what they were doing didn't count as creative writing was the bonkers person.

Jaye Viner I was in an online group that had the same take. By any means necessary was the motto. These people sadden me.

I stand firmly with Miyazaki: https://youtu.be/7EvnKYOuvWo?si=M3YPY9S0SbYF5sEO and Uta Hagen's rant https://www.andrewwoodla.com/uta-hagens-righteous-rant-on-the-state-of-a... Please DONT EVER call yourself an artist if you create with AI. If you call yourself something else, I'm Ok with it.

Oh my farking Gorbachev, look at this shite.

https://x.com/Nicolascole77/status/1809212033461629310

Jaye Viner Which is exactly why we need to add our voices to the conversation. A lot of creatives are young in their craft and don't understand the ramifications. If these people are allowed to normalize AI, then not only creatives, but all of humanity will suffer.