AI-Generated vs AI-Assisted: Where I draw the line

If you aren't sure what I'm talking about when I say ChatGPT… What rock have you been living under?

Writers around the world (novelists, screenwriters, poets, short story writers, etc.) became concerned when ChatGPT exploded onto the scene in late 2022. No one really knew what it could do or how far it would go. And the market became flooded with AI-generated stories—most of which were not worth the 1s and 0s used to create them. But ChatGPT evolved… and so did the concerns.

In 2023, it came to light the copyright nightmare that was ChatGPT, and we're still trying to deal with that as an industry. Amazon added tags to their KDP system, requiring that publishers specify if a body of work was created using artificial intelligence (AI). Lines were being drawn about the ethical usage of the technology, and lawsuits were filed against OpenAI (and other AI developers) regarding their abuse of copyright laws in sourcing the materials used for training of the algorithms.

We are now in 2024, and there is still so much we don't know or can't agree on regarding the usage of AI within publishing. There is only one thing that is certain: AI is here to stay.

As writers and editors, we are now being forced to make decisions about how we will conduct business. It's about drawing a line between AI-generated works and AI-assisted works.

This is one of my longer posts, folks, but it is what is it.

We all use AI in some form

Even if you don't realize it, the moment you start using a smart device or hop onto the internet with your favorite browser, you are using AI in some form.

The Google search engine (and every other search engine out there) are based on AI technologies. They are learning algorithms, which is the definition of AI.

If you are using Alexa or Suri (or Bixby or the Google equivalent), you are also using AI. Those voice activated systems are learning to recognize your voice and your commands, and they are interpreting them to perform certain actions. But they are learning… and that learning component is the defining characteristic of AI.

In writing-related activities, if you are using dictation software, you are using AI. If you are using text-to-speech software, you are using AI. If you are using Grammarly or ProWritingAid, then you using AI. If you are using autocorrect or autocomplete, you are using AI. Even MS Word has AI built into it now.

AI is everywhere. You can't get away from it.

Any computer system that will take a variable input and learn how to use that input in different ways, generating possible different outcomes, is an AI system. But how sophisticated they become will depend on the level of training used in the system, among other things.

Within the publishing industry, no one is complaining about our use of Google, Alexa, Grammarly, autocorrect, MS Word, or anything like that. Because all of these are AI tools that assist us during our creative process. They don't do the creating for us.

And simply put, that's where the line falls.

Can ChatGPT have ethical uses?

When ChatGPT came on the scene, there was a rush to use the technology to write whole chapters, stories, or novels. The market became flooded. I've written about the chaos that ensued over on my personal blog, highlighting that it wasn't the technology that was at fault, but rather the humans who were seeking to abuse the technology. And now, it's because of the abuse that there are court cases waiting to be heard regarding the copyright mess.

As a writer and an editor, I'm refuse to go anywhere near that mess while it's still a legal nightmare. So, for the remainder of this post, I'm just going to ignore the full story creation aspects of the technology.

But are there any ethical uses of the technology that don't involve creation?

I think there are.

AI aids in research

Let's say that you want to know what life would have been like in the 1600s, and let's say you are particularly interested in Greece. You could let your fingers do the walking and piece together the information from various sources on the internet, doing the fact checking along the way… or you could ask ChatGPT to help you. You will still need to do your fact checking, but at least you have a list of the buzz words needed to help you refine your search.

Or let's say you want to know what type of plane you could use in your story that is able to hold a passenger and crew compliment of ten people, complete with luggage and gear, with a certain flying distance, and some additional special maneuvering capabilities. Again, you could let your finger do the walking on the internet, but ChatGPT could help you narrow that research down in a faction of the time.

Research is still research, and in this scenario, ChatGPT is a tool that could aid in that research.

Prompt generation and visual aids

Ideas and inspiration can come from anywhere. Exactly how you get those prompts that spark the imagination is irrelevant, because you still have to take that idea and turn it into a story.

We have been using copyrighted material to spark our imaginations for generations. Why should that change now? But it is unethical to outright copy another person's work and call it your own. (Which is the entire argument behind the current AI-generation court cases.)

I've been known to use a song for inspiration in my writing. There is something about the words and the rhythms that spark a scene, and while writing that scene, that song is playing in the background on repeat. Dreams by The Cranberries is one of these songs, where I often envision my characters riding on horseback through the fields—smiling. I have been known to pace out a scene based on how the song paces. Bring Me to Life by Evanescence was the basis for a mind reader's race to save someone's life, and the pacing of the scene matches the song perfectly. When reading the scene aloud with the music playing in the background, the transitions in the music (from soft to rock) line up with the transitions from the sensual visions that the mind reader was seeing to the realization that the visions are of death on the other side of the village.

And I know many writers who will hunt out images to give them a visual reference for their characters. As long as they aren't intending to use those images for anything other than private use (i.e., inspiration), it doesn't matter where those images come from.

This is where ChatGPT (and other programs like it) could be of great help. Maybe you have a few images that are close to what you envision, but they aren't quite right. Those AI algorithms could be used to combine the images and create the perfect inspirational image. As long as those images remain private (inspiration only), you aren't crossing any copyright lines.

There is another type of prompt generated by AI programs that some might see as a gray area, but I don't. I'm talking about the long-form prompt that gives you all the beat points of your story. I wouldn't do this myself, because I enjoy that entire creative process, but there are many writers who write stories to a pre-determined beat structure. All you have to do is look at the books in the catalogs for Harlequin (Mills & Boon).

All category romances are written to a formulaic structure. But that doesn't mean that all Harlequin books are the same, because they're not—not by a long shot. Instead, they are all using the same prompt… and that prompt just happens to be an detailed plot outline. Following a detailed plot structure generated by an AI program wouldn't be any different.

Using AI to help with the prompts or inspiration is no different than reading or watching a movie and getting inspired by that. The creating is still 100% you.

And remember that you can't copyright an idea.

Promo generation based on your own work

There used to be a program that would take your own publish-ready manuscript and scan it for the perfect quotes. You could then use these quotes for generating promo materials. The program was GoatQuote.co, but it seems to have been restricted to established users only.

For those writing non-fiction, being able to quickly scan your manuscript for the perfect quote would be a massive time-saver.

GoatQuote was a closed-loop system, meaning that you load your manuscript for a onetime use, and the program dumps its memory after you close the session. But GoatQuote was an expensive program to use. I'm guessing that it was not cost viable, hence why it seems to have disappeared.

There are other programs that will create ad copy for your social media content, or even writing your book blurbs for you. Exactly how reliable these programs are is questionable, and the outputs might need rewriting to impart your own writing personality on them. But if you've ever written a book blurb on your own, you'll know how much of a nightmare they are to get right. Taking that 100,000-word manuscript and writing a 200-word blurb on it? I shall start the screaming now. (It's my most hated part of writing.)

Even though you might use AI to do the donkey work associated with all of this, it could be a starting point that makes the process less stressful.

AI as an editing tool

Automated editing software has been around for a long time. In a previous post on this blog, I commented on how AI will never be able to replace a human editor, not completely.

There will always be a need for the human eye on writing—because of the human element involved with the subjectivity of writing. For some things, mathematics and formulas can be used, making them perfect for an AI-assisted editing program. But so much of what I do as a developmental editor is about gut feeling. You can take the same passage (identical action and core beats), but when written in one way, it feels stilted. Write it another way, and it comes to life. And it's not something that you can put a formula to. You can take the same writing styles and apply them to another passage, but the opposite style reads better.

For the basic punctuation and grammar stuff, even I use AI. There are so many rules involved that I would do my head in trying to keep it all straight. To be completely honest here, the red squiggly line is my friend. US vs UK English does my head in at the best of times. I would be foolish if I didn't take advantage of the tools available to help with the simple stuff (which isn't that simple).

But a writer should never blindly accept the changes during any editorial process—even changes from a human. Your voice still needs to be present in the final body of work.

Where I draw the line

I use AI-assisted tools heavily, primarily Google and ProWritingAid. However, I don't use AI-generative tools of any description for any purpose. We'll ignore the copyright nightmare associated with using such tools. For me, the desire just isn't there.

I don't need fancy prompts to spark my imagination. My imagination is out of control on its own. As I mentioned before, just a song can be all I need to see that scene. Watching a TV show is enough to solve issues I'm having with a fight scene.

I don't use ChatGPT or anything like it for my research, because I find the research rabbit-hole fun. It's part of the process, and why would I deny myself that fun? Besides, when I'm doing my research, I often find something minor, seemingly irrelevant, that is the solution of a major plot hole in another story. If I was using some AI program for my research, I might miss the other gems along the way.

And why would I use AI-generative tools to write a passage for me of any description? The writing part is the fun part: barfing up something, then rewriting and editing it to make it sparkle and shine.

As an editor, I edit my client's work by hand, but this is because developmental editing is highly subjective. It's about understanding how a reader might react, and no computer program can accurately predict how a "human" will react in all situations. Emotional responses are something that can't be programmed. Morality is something that can't be programmed. Using AI for my editorial work would be a complete waste of time.

Even my editorial reports are written entirely by me. I will admit that I use templates that I've generated long ago (because I felt like a broken record when it came to certain issues that I was seeing time and time again), but that's not an AI.

I edit the work of "humans"

I want to help writers gain the confidence in their writing to get their stories out into the world. As such, I focus on works by human writers—not works by machines.

If you are using AI to assist you in your writing, i.e., helping you with your research, giving you a prompt or description detail, or even assisting with your editorial process, then I'm happy to help you along your path. As mentioned above, I use AI tools within the editing of my own works. I would be foolish not to. But I don't use AI for creating, and I don't think you should either.

Use AI to give yourself a prompt if need be. But enjoy the process that comes from allowing your imagination to take over. Feel the emotions and let them bleed onto the page.

It's an odd phenomenon, but the crying writer during the initial draft often results in a crying reader of the final edited version. And that's a magic the AI can never hope to replicate.

If you have used AI to generate your story for you, then please respect my decision to not work with AI-generated works. There are plenty of other editors out there who will happily work with you regardless of how that story came into being. But keep in mind that Amazon and other publishers and distributors might insist that you declare that you work was AI-generated.

Did you use AI during your writing or editing of your story? Are you still not sure if you have an AI-generated or AI-assisted story? Then drop me a line and let's have a chat. I can help you get it straight in your mind, so you know what checkboxes to check moving forward.