Perhaps inspired by last week’s two court rulings that were somewhat in favor of AI companies and not the author-plaintiffs, a group of authors has published an open letter decrying the use of AI and asking all publishers to pledge not to do the following:
- release books created by AI (openly or secretly)
- replace human staff with AI tools or “degrade their positions into AI monitors”
- use AI to design books
- use AI narrators
This letter arrives late in the game. AI-narrated audiobooks have been in the marketplace for nearly two years, mostly for deep backlist titles or for work that would not be narrated otherwise. The same goes for AI-supported translation and some types of editing. Marketing and promotion departments avidly use AI, although I’m not hearing anyone describe such use as “AI monitor.” Regarding book design, major publishers aren’t using AI for covers (not openly, anyway), but can they know for sure whether their freelancers are using AI? The Adobe Creative software that most professionals use has AI tools built right in.
Hybrid works—in which the author or publisher has been assisted or supported by AI in any number of ways—are all around us. Even if that weren’t the case, publishers don’t have any sure-fire way to detect hybrid efforts delivered by authors or freelancers other than their own gut instinct and familiarity with their styles and processes. I find that people less familiar with AI believe there’s a clear line between AI work and human work, but that doesn’t reflect the reality of how these tools are being used by creative professionals.
The letter emphasizes throughout that authors’ work was stolen for AI model training, even though licensing has been ongoing since 2023 and numerous lawsuits will ultimately create a clear and legal pathway for AI models to exist. The more authors lean on the argument of copyright infringement to make their demands, the weaker their case will become over time, leaving only a moral argument that writing and publishing work should be reserved for humans. I think we all know how that will end.
The authors state in their letter that AI is “an enormously powerful tool, here to stay, with the capacity for real societal benefits.” But I don’t believe it’s possible to stop use you find objectionable while only your desired use moves forward. Regardless, it’s never been more important for the publishing community to commit to open discussion and transparency about AI use and its implications for the future. But blanket prohibitions aren’t going to save authors or the publishing industry, nor do I think they will be adopted—at least not by the biggest publishers. Someone I respect commented on a listserv that AI use should not be presented as a binary choice. There is a middle way, and there is a developing spectrum of ethical use.
Jane Friedman has spent her entire career working in the publishing industry, with a focus on business reporting and author education. Established in 2015, her newsletter The Bottom Line provides nuanced market intelligence to thousands of authors and industry professionals; in 2023, she was named Publishing Commentator of the Year by Digital Book World.
Jane’s expertise regularly features in major media outlets such as The New York Times, The Atlantic, NPR, The Today Show, Wired, The Guardian, Fox News, and BBC. Her book, The Business of Being a Writer, Second Edition (The University of Chicago Press), is used as a classroom text by many writing and publishing degree programs. She reaches thousands through speaking engagements and workshops at diverse venues worldwide, including NYU’s Advanced Publishing Institute, Frankfurt Book Fair, and numerous MFA programs.
