On Dec. 19, the Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America issued new guidelines for the Nebula Awards that stated works wholly written using generative large language model (LLM) tools are not eligible. Further, the guidelines mandated disclosure of works that used LLMs at any point during the writing process, adding, “The nature of the technology’s use will be made clear to voters on the final ballot.”
This change sparked predictable outrage in the SFWA community that any kind of AI-assisted work would be allowed to qualify for the ballot in the first place (example).
And so the SFWA predictably and quickly backtracked. The new guidelines state, “Works that are written, either wholly or partially, by generative large language model (LLM) tools are not eligible. Works that used LLMs at any point during the writing process must disclose this upon acceptance of the nomination, and those works will be disqualified.”
I’ve started describing these policies as punitive transparency; they ultimately invite writers to lie about using LLMs if they believe their own use can’t be detected. How the SFWA (or anyone) might prove or disprove LLM use during the writing process is a mystery, especially in the case of assistance (researching, brainstorming, outlining, editing), plus I doubt anyone at the SFWA is prepared to conduct such forensic analysis on nominated works. If someone doesn’t like the Nebula nominations or winners, will we see accusations of LLM involvement? Jason Sanford, who reports on the SFF community, notes the evident dangers: “We also have to be careful about not turning this into a witch hunt against writers, dissecting their every story to see if there is any LLM usage, no matter how minor.” I wish I could say I’m optimistic. Hang on to your em dashes, my friends, it’s going to be a wild ride.
Update (Dec. 31, 2025): community discussion
Writer Erin Underwood has published an open letter to the SFWA about their newly announced rules, which prohibit LLM use for works considered for the Nebula Awards. The comment thread has already reached nearly 150 responses. The crux of her argument: “Some uses of AI should have no bearing on whether a work is eligible for an award. Other uses should be decisive. Determining where those lines belong is important, and it can’t be done through rigid, binary rules that treat all AI involvement as equivalent.” Read at File 770.
While digging through the comments, I ran across NINC’s president, Kevin McLaughlin, offering his two cents: “Since there is no way to determine if a work used AI in the drafting process or not, there is no way to enforce the new Nebula rules, which mean they’re purely performative, rather than effective. I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that there have already been AI-drafted books published by traditional publishers. The authors who did this didn’t disclose to the publisher (that might have resulted in the rights not being bought), so odds are very, very high they won’t voluntarily disclose to SFWA, either. Most people publishing indie books using AI are not disclosing that, either. Since there’s literally no possible way to tell if something was drafted by AI or not, what’s SFWA intending to do to enforce this rule? Nothing. Because there’s nothing that can be done. All someone has to do is say they didn’t use AI, and their work has to remain on the ballot.”
This echoes my comment earlier about whether the SFWA is prepared to conduct a forensic analysis on nominations and what tools they would use to do so. (None of today’s tools can offer 100 percent certainty on whether AI was used during the writing process, only probabilities.) Right now I’m working on an article for January 2026 about AI detection software, so I hope to shed more light on this soon. Read McLaughlin’s full comment.
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.
