AI isn't going anywhere, and I find it amazingly useful.
I use it to proofread. It finds many more mistakes than spellcheck and grammarcheck on MS Word.
I use it for research. I've found Wikipedia increasingly unreliable and on a downward trend, and I can ask Grok detailed, specific questions and get tailored responses.
I use it for philosophy. I spend too much time thinking about stuff like reality and consciousness, and Grok can help me pressure-check ideas that bore the shit out of my family and friends when I attempt to discuss why there is no objective truth; only agreed-upon comparisons of subjective reality entangled with consciousness.
I used it to translate some of my books into foreign languages, though I am using human translators to proofread/edit/rewrite.
I use it for recipes. For complicated math. For home improvement and repair advice. For mental hygiene. For health advice. For understanding legalese. For fact-checking (which is getting harder to do because some sources Grok draws from aren't known for their integrity, and almost everything we see, hear, and read is being manipulated to some degree).
I am not a good plumber. So I hire one when needed. If AI could fix my sump pump, I'd be okay with that. No hits to my homeowner pride, no regret that I am hastening the death of a profession. I've blogged about buggy whip manufacturers before; I wrote this 13 years ago.
But I think Grok is great, and a good deal at 400 bucks a year.
So why don't I let AI write my fiction?
Grok is a pretty good fiction writer. I blogged about this previously. And while Grok can't quite do my style and tone, it can get pretty close. Plus it sticks to story structure better than I do, and doesn't add the fluff and filler that I always add.
Some of the dumb stuff I put in my stories isn't necessary. But I believe the dumb stuff is what makes my stories mine.
I took a ten page detour in my book THE NINE for an extended joke about a clone of Abraham Lincoln refusing to open his hotel door.
Necessary? Hell no. But I found it funny. Some readers agreed. Some did not.
An editor would have cut it. Maybe I should have cut it.
But Grok never would have written that scene. Unless Grok was specifically prompted to troll the reader, it would stick to a tight, economical story structure, and get to the point faster than I did.
My books, even as they have become increasingly unhinged and personal over the last ten years, are still deliberate. I know why I wrote that chapter, that paragraph, that sentence. I am aware of why I put those words in the book, and I can defend them (most of the time).
Maybe I'm wrong. But I'm adamant, not lazy.
I'm a professional writer, and it is my main source of income. I don't want or need help there, even if AI is better than I am at my job.
When I say I "use AI" I am not saying I "rely on AI." I rely on people, on professionals, on multiple sources, on opposing viewpoints, before I reach a point of believing or trusting something. And, to be honest, I really don't believe or trust very much (circling back to my "no objective truth" comment above.)
But I think Grok is great, and a good deal at 400 bucks a year.
So why don't I let AI write my fiction?
Grok is a pretty good fiction writer. I blogged about this previously. And while Grok can't quite do my style and tone, it can get pretty close. Plus it sticks to story structure better than I do, and doesn't add the fluff and filler that I always add.
Some of the dumb stuff I put in my stories isn't necessary. But I believe the dumb stuff is what makes my stories mine.
I took a ten page detour in my book THE NINE for an extended joke about a clone of Abraham Lincoln refusing to open his hotel door.
Necessary? Hell no. But I found it funny. Some readers agreed. Some did not.
An editor would have cut it. Maybe I should have cut it.
But Grok never would have written that scene. Unless Grok was specifically prompted to troll the reader, it would stick to a tight, economical story structure, and get to the point faster than I did.
My books, even as they have become increasingly unhinged and personal over the last ten years, are still deliberate. I know why I wrote that chapter, that paragraph, that sentence. I am aware of why I put those words in the book, and I can defend them (most of the time).
Maybe I'm wrong. But I'm adamant, not lazy.
Plus, I have major disadvantages as a writer. I have aphantasia, which means I can't visualize anything. I have no mind's eye. I cannot imagine myself on a beach, or relive memories like movies in my head, or even picture my wife's face.
If you read my books, you know they are heavy on action and dialog, very light on setting and description. My mind can't do it.
But Grok can do it extremely well.
If I wrote a book with major AI assistance, I could do it in 1/5 the time it normally takes. And it would be tighter, with better prose, and far more enriched by detail than I am capable of.
But I won't do that. And it is worth exploring why I won't.
If I wrote a book with major AI assistance, I could do it in 1/5 the time it normally takes. And it would be tighter, with better prose, and far more enriched by detail than I am capable of.
But I won't do that. And it is worth exploring why I won't.
I'm a professional writer, and it is my main source of income. I don't want or need help there, even if AI is better than I am at my job.
Maybe it is pride. Maybe it is stubbornness. Maybe it is because I think it is cheating. Maybe it has something to do with the satisfaction of a job well done.
Recently, I've begun making my own dough. Bread dough. Pizza dough. I've reached the point where I am almost as good as bakeries and pizzerias.
I'm not doing it for the outcome. I'm doing it for the journey. That's why I've brewed my own beer for over twenty years. I can buy great beer. And there are beer kits that allow you to make beer with extracts and cheap equipment. But I like to mill my own grain, create my own yeast starter, do the mash and the sparge and the boil and the kegging.
The process is the part of the purpose, and I like the process.
But there are other reasons.
We all know what happens when someone takes over intellectual property from an original creator; things go downhill. In the mystery writing world, dead writers get replaced by other writers who continue the series, but it is never as good as it once was.
We all know what happens when someone takes over intellectual property from an original creator; things go downhill. In the mystery writing world, dead writers get replaced by other writers who continue the series, but it is never as good as it once was.
It's like when a craft brewery gets taken over by one of the big brewing companies. Or when a single restaurant scales to become a chain. The product always suffers.
There are a few writers that I have trusted to write for my characters, and a few writers that have trusted me to write for their characters. (Huge shout out to F. Paul Wilson for letting me include Repairman Jack in Enraged.)
There are a few writers that I have trusted to write for my characters, and a few writers that have trusted me to write for their characters. (Huge shout out to F. Paul Wilson for letting me include Repairman Jack in Enraged.)
But I don't do RJ as well as Paul does. And I don't think anyone, including AI, could write the particular kind of goofy insanity that I write.
Maybe it is my raging narcissisms. Maybe it's a control thing. Maybe I don't trust another parent to raise and nurture my literary children.
Maybe I don't want to disappoint readers more than I already do.
If I disappoint a reader, I know that I did it. I have full responsibility.
If AI were writing my books, I would abdicating responsibility. Lying to my readers. Taking a short cut.
Maybe it is my raging narcissisms. Maybe it's a control thing. Maybe I don't trust another parent to raise and nurture my literary children.
Maybe I don't want to disappoint readers more than I already do.
If I disappoint a reader, I know that I did it. I have full responsibility.
If AI were writing my books, I would abdicating responsibility. Lying to my readers. Taking a short cut.
My promise to readers is that their money and time will be well-spent. While perfection is the enemy of good, short-cuts also are an enemy.
But I am aware how slippery this slope is.
AI art--I call it airt--has gotten pretty incredible. Very soon I'll be able to create movies out of my books, using just AI.
Is that cheating?
There is a trillion-dollar industry centered around making media. This industry is guarded by gatekeepers, very much like the publishing industry was pre-Kindle. For me to sell a movie or TV show requires a lot of ducks to line up, a lot of people to jump on board, and a lot of money.
But I am aware how slippery this slope is.
AI art--I call it airt--has gotten pretty incredible. Very soon I'll be able to create movies out of my books, using just AI.
Is that cheating?
There is a trillion-dollar industry centered around making media. This industry is guarded by gatekeepers, very much like the publishing industry was pre-Kindle. For me to sell a movie or TV show requires a lot of ducks to line up, a lot of people to jump on board, and a lot of money.
The odds are against me. So why not do it on my own?
I know this is hypocrisy. I am okay with publishing without the publishing industry, and I am okay with filmmaking without Hollywood, so why shouldn't I use AI to help me write? Isn't it just a tool? A means to an end?
I've blogged about Anthropic, and why I consider training LLMs on my work to be a licensing violation, above and beyond the piracy issue.
It's mind theft. Artists need to fight against this. Not just writers. AI can write a Beatles song that sounds exactly like the Beatles. Create a cubist print in the style of Picasso.
So if I really believe my mind was stolen, why not use the tool that stole it to increase my output and ability?
It's a tough one.
I know this blog post is ambiguous, because my feelings are ambiguous. I don't know if I'm actually trying to defend my stance of not using AI-assists in my fiction, or if I'm trying to talk myself into trying it.
But still... it just feels wrong.
Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing specifically asks if AI was used in the writing of the submitted work. It has been asking this for years. Failure to disclose violates the terms of service.
I thought it had to do with weeding out AI-generated slop from actual human-created work.
I've blogged about Anthropic, and why I consider training LLMs on my work to be a licensing violation, above and beyond the piracy issue.
It's mind theft. Artists need to fight against this. Not just writers. AI can write a Beatles song that sounds exactly like the Beatles. Create a cubist print in the style of Picasso.
So if I really believe my mind was stolen, why not use the tool that stole it to increase my output and ability?
It's a tough one.
I know this blog post is ambiguous, because my feelings are ambiguous. I don't know if I'm actually trying to defend my stance of not using AI-assists in my fiction, or if I'm trying to talk myself into trying it.
But still... it just feels wrong.
Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing specifically asks if AI was used in the writing of the submitted work. It has been asking this for years. Failure to disclose violates the terms of service.
I thought it had to do with weeding out AI-generated slop from actual human-created work.
But, honestly, humans also create slop.
Then I thought it might eventually come down to Amazon labeling works that have been AI-generated to warn readers. Not a bad idea for the sake of transparency and allowing buyers to make an informed choice.
But Amazon hasn't done this. So far they seem to be asking for internal tracking purposes. And if Amazon did implement some sort of warning on product listings, innocent people would get caught in the mix.
Eleven years ago, Amazon did a "fake review" purge, because the review system was being abused. I lost dozens of legitimate reviews during this purge, of books I read and loved, because of the perceived conflict of interest (I was a writer reviewing my peers). I disagreed with Amazon's decision.
Maybe it is a panopticon effect to keep authors honest. But we all know locks are for mostly-honest people, the same as gun laws. All the laws in the world won't stop a bad actor.
But Amazon hasn't done this. So far they seem to be asking for internal tracking purposes. And if Amazon did implement some sort of warning on product listings, innocent people would get caught in the mix.
Eleven years ago, Amazon did a "fake review" purge, because the review system was being abused. I lost dozens of legitimate reviews during this purge, of books I read and loved, because of the perceived conflict of interest (I was a writer reviewing my peers). I disagreed with Amazon's decision.
Maybe it is a panopticon effect to keep authors honest. But we all know locks are for mostly-honest people, the same as gun laws. All the laws in the world won't stop a bad actor.
So if I ever did use AI to help me with a book, would I check that box admitting it to KDP?
I wouldn't feel good about checking that box. And I wouldn't feel good about using AI to help me write a book.
Giving an AI a prompt doesn't create art. It creates airt. There has to be a difference.
Right?
I consider myself an artist. Not an airtist.
So I am against using AI to assist in writing fiction.
There will come a time--hopefully after I am dead--when my entire brain can be reproduced as a digital simulation. If my simulation writes a Jack Daniels novel, is it actually me?
We're living in interesting times...
I did not use AI in writing this blog. If I did, it would be shorter, clearer, and more purposeful.
But writing it helped me to understand myself.
Maybe that's the whole point of media.
Yes, it is a job. Yes, tools could be used to increase output, and even quality.
But media is also a means of expression.
And why would I ever let anyone--human or AI--express themselves on my behalf?
I consider myself an artist. Not an airtist.
So I am against using AI to assist in writing fiction.
There will come a time--hopefully after I am dead--when my entire brain can be reproduced as a digital simulation. If my simulation writes a Jack Daniels novel, is it actually me?
We're living in interesting times...
I did not use AI in writing this blog. If I did, it would be shorter, clearer, and more purposeful.
But writing it helped me to understand myself.
Maybe that's the whole point of media.
Yes, it is a job. Yes, tools could be used to increase output, and even quality.
But media is also a means of expression.
And why would I ever let anyone--human or AI--express themselves on my behalf?
