AI Discrimination

Controversy over the use of artificial intelligence has taken deep root in the writing industry lately, largely in those who lack the ability to identify themselves except in situations where they can pick polar opposites. As a middle school English teacher, I’m conflicted over its use. On one hand, I’m horrified that my students may never learn to articulate their own thoughts and thus, lose the ability to communicate with those around them. On the other, AI holds far too much financial potential to ever be allowed to fade away. Furthermore, its ability to free up the time we’d normally spend in tedious activities has proven to be a lure far too tempting to pass up.

I’ve been writing for a long time. As is sick kid back when cable television had not yet given us an endless stream of children’s programing, I spent an awful lot of time reading. This, of course, led to writing in what was previously the most natural way to learn the craft. I mention this because I’ve used quite a few word processors during the decades that I’ve written. From PFS professional to Microsoft Word, and from there to Google Docs, I’ve come to a deep understanding at what these tools can do. About two years ago, I noticed a change in Docs. Not only was the quality of its suggested corrections becoming better, but the predictive text started to become context relevant. Needless to say, this creeped me out. As far as I could tell, there were only two possible explanations for these changes. Either someone at Google was monitoring the writing of my third novel and actively interjecting suggestions, or they were testing AI.

I bring this up because I think we should all realize that unless you’re one of the outliers who still types on a typewriter, you’ve likely used AI without realizing it. Once again, as an English teacher, a part of me is horrified by the thought that AI might eventually take the place of authentic writing. But is it really a bad thing to let it suggest corrections in your grammar? I’ve got a degree in Literary Studies as well as three decades in the classroom, and I still miss mistakes when editing. It’s one thing to proofread five-hundred-word essay, and quite another to do the same with a five-hundred-page novel. I don’t know about you guys, but I inevitably get caught up in the story when I’m reading a novel, and the switch in my head moves from editor to reader. AI never suffers from that problem.

But we can all sense that there is something inherently wrong about using AI to write, and here I’d suggest that like any tool, the morality of the act lies not in the use of the tool itself, but in how it is used. Is it wrong to let it help correct your grammar when writing in what is undoubtedly the most messed-up language in the world? Probably not. Is it wrong to give AI a story prompt and have it write the whole story for you? Absolutely.

Now consider the issue of using an AI to illustrate a book cover or possibly to illustrate scenes within the book itself. The only place I’ve ever had someone criticize my work is for my use of Midjourney AI to illustrate my books. My own actions suggest that I don’t have a problem with it. However, the issue isn’t as simple as it seems at first glance.

One of the greatest roadblocks to publishing for independent writers has been the creation of book covers. In spite of the old adage that we shouldn’t judge books by their covers, we still do exactly that. No one is going to pick up a book with the intention to buy if the cover looks like it was made during a third-grade art class. Before AI, this meant hiring an artist to create one.

Now I don’t want anyone to walk away from this blog with the belief that I don’t think artists deserve to be paid well for their services. What I am saying is that it may not be realistic to expect an indie author to pay three times as much as they’re ever likely to earn in book sales on an attractive cover. For example, I’ve written four novels. Each of them represents well over a thousand hours of my time in the form of researching, brainstorming, outlining, writing, editing, formatting and marketing. Even if an artist spends a solid two weeks on my cover, their contribution makes up only a tiny portion of the work that went into the book. Why should they deserve more than 100% of the profits?

Should established writers who make hundreds of thousands a year from their writing use the economical shortcut of AI? Probably not. At that point, it would be greed more than necessity. But for someone who still has to have a day job to survive? Perhaps we should all cut them a little slack.

In closing, I’d like for you to think about something. What we’re seeing now isn’t new. The same thing happened to painters when the camera was invented. Everyone thought it would replace what came before it, and that it was unfair that an amateur could capture an image far more realistic than an artist with the mere push of a button. But as time went on, people came to appreciate both art forms for their own subtle nuances. Who knows, perhaps that will happen here. As the Terminator, HAL 9000 and WOPR have shown us, AI could do far worse than make pretty pictures or clean up our grammar.