IMHO: AI and the Trough of Despair

I’ve had multiple authors writing in about the latest AI-in-publishing news story, asking for my thoughts, so here we go.

Last week in New Zealand, two books by esteemed authors were disqualified from competing for a national book award—comparable to the US National Book Award—because of AI artwork on the covers. The publisher was fully cognizant of the AI use, but the award’s rules for eligibility changed to exclude work incorporating AI, in any form, only recently. The publisher, Quentin Wilson, says he wasn’t able to take the new rule into account because he learned of it too late. Meanwhile, the authors of the books did not know that AI was involved in their covers until disqualification. (Learn more in the New York Times, gift link.)

Sometimes when I give talks on AI, I call our current moment a trough of despair: AI is considered both the devil and the promised land, confusion reigns, and you can’t escape either moral superiority or moral outrage. It happens with all kinds of transformative technologies. Take the advent of word processing, for instance. In 1982, a New York Times columnist feared, “If the logic of technology wins out, it soon will no longer be possible for millions of women to make a living by specializing in typing someone else’s text.” She admits, “[Some] tend to be optimistic that enough new and better jobs will be created. If, however, women have to move into even worse jobs at even lower pay, and if there is a severe overall shortage of jobs, then the spread of word processing will increase the burden of poverty and dependency among women.”

I realize the risk of false equivalency here, but I find this a helpful reminder of how society reacts to technology and how bad we are at predicting outcomes in either the short term or long term. Right now, no one knows anything, but everyone has an incontrovertible opinion about AI. That, to me, is the trough of despair.

People who believe in punishing authors or publishers for AI use have been smug about the recent news; some even equate these book covers to AI-generated slop on Amazon—an awful thing to say that only proves how much hyperbole accompanies conversations about AI. These books did have design briefs and human designers; the design studio responsible for both covers told the New York Times that they see AI “not as a replacement for creativity but as a natural extension of our craft, a new way to explore ideas and enhance our process.”

In the context of this news, I see reasons to be hopeful and reasons to be less hopeful.

Reasons to be hopeful: I’m not going to argue that these book covers are the greatest things I’ve ever seen, but human beings are taking responsibility for and ownership of the result. They’re not pretending it was an accident. I find that a change from earlier situations in which a publisher was more likely to express shock and dismay that AI could have ever touched the precious publishing process. I also appreciate what the design studio has said, which acknowledges a reality we cannot ignore or dismiss: Human art and design will be increasingly augmented by AI tools.

Recently I read an interview with the Grammys chief discussing how AI will change music, and I appreciated his words of wisdom when asked whether there would be separate Grammys for AI-created music: “I know at some point music is music. We’ve never had a category for synthesized music versus organic-instrument music. We’ve always tried to just celebrate music in all its creativity and all its excellence. We’ll have to see how this all blends together and how technology permeates the creative process.  … You’re going to see a new generation of people who make music, and people who make music to me are considered musicians.” (The full interview is worth your time; the chief is not without concerns.)

Reasons to be less hopeful: Apparently the authors didn’t know that AI was used as part of the cover design process. This can sow distrust between authors and publishers and create anxieties for authors that this technology will be used without their knowledge or consent. However, at least one of the authors is not all that upset about AI use; she told the Times, “It is [the designers] I am most concerned about: that their meticulous work … is being disrespected.”

I hear from agents and authors alike that it’s possible to add contract language that prohibits AI from being used as part of the cover design process as well as in other areas. Among big publishers, at least, I don’t see much enthusiasm for or adoption of AI as part of cover design. But I do see AI readily employed by self-publishing authors and smaller publishers striving to keep costs to a bare minimum—which brings me to the one strong (but not incontrovertible) opinion I have about this situation, or the bottom line.

Bottom line: I believe it’s unsustainable for the industry to exclude, prohibit, or otherwise shame books that have somehow been augmented or aided by AI. Such policies will increasingly sideline worthy work as the technology becomes accepted and widespread. I fear we’re headed toward greater class bifurcation, where those with the means can pay for human attention and support and those without must rely on AI. Just consider last week’s review of ManuscriptReport: An author with means or with a sufficiently engaged publisher can hire or collaborate with human marketer or publicist, but those without means may have to resort to the best AI can provide them. Such may become the case in all aspects of life, not just publishing.