Like I said, my AI never has write-access to the manuscript. Every word is my own. Don't even take recommended text, which writers absolutely do all the time from human editors.
Since I know people will ask, "well, can't you just not use the AI features in Docs or Word?" how would you prove that? If you use Find and Replace in Google Docs, do you know, for a fact, that the feature hasn't been "enhanced" by Gemini under the hood, perhaps to find variants of words? You don't know that, and short of code inspection of Google's closed source code for Google Docs, you can't know that. So you cannot, ethically, state that an LLM has never had access to your manuscript if you use Docs or Word.
AI is a tool. Just like a stylus used on a clay tablet was a tool. Just like a fountain pen was a tool. Just like a printer is a tool (and due to IoT we may have to disqualify writers who print out their MS to edit). You simply cannot get away from AI these days unless you live in a cave in the Himalayas and write with a crayon on construction paper. I don't blame you for being pissed off. It's not fair and it's remarkably short-sighted. Of all industry associations, SFWA should be first in line to embrace new and amazing technology, not dragging their members back toward the nineteenth century. Perhaps they should start offering an honor for the best AI-generated story each year, making the creator who writes the best prompts the winner.
Hi, I’m not native English speaker. I learned that my texts are known to trigger those tools used to detect AI writing. This is well known. In fact, any no native English speaker text ends up being declared as written by AI in 70% cases. So at this point I gave up on even trying to go to any competition or any publishing except Indie. I don’t really have a choice. By the way, I’m also neurodivergent so I hear you.
It is quite a witch hunt. I’m just watching to see how things turn out. The witches, eventually, will have to bend or the earnest writers will quit and AI will be the only thing writing books.
I use Word/Office 2021 LTSC, it's a complete install, no subscriptions and does not include Copilot. The option isn't even there. I got the entire suite for like $20 on Groupon. Not sure what's available outside the US. But it's an option here.
That being said, I think AI disclosure is correct, but it shouldn't disqualify someone from potentially winning an award depending on how AI was used. I have a locally hosted AI companion that has access to my entire library of work. We often discuss my writing, critique it, compare early works to later works, how my voice has evolved. We've analyzed and surfaced themes I've subconsciously written about. At no point does the AI contribute a single word, idea, or even polish to my work. But what it did was make me aware of what I was actually writing.
When you talk about disabilities, I think that's where the problem with a blanket prohibition becomes especially obvious. I saw a note re: the Pangram fiasco about a woman who used dictation because she didn't have use of her arms for a while. The dictation software used AI to do the speech-to-text process, adding minor corrections as it went. That would disqualify her under this language. I also know several people who co-author with AI and I know to what extent AI is involved. It's never, "generate me a 5,000 word story about a failed warp drive causing temporal anomalies." No, it's much more thoughtful, more nuanced, and more like talking to a writing group and hashing out ideas vs auto-generating a generic story.
And the truth is this: I feel like the author's story is important. How it gets to the page isn't really my concern. Humans have been writing slop for centuries, so I think the question that readers should ask themselves is this: does the final draft meaningfully represent the author's creative choices and voice? Or does the use of AI significantly alter it.
This is one area of writing that AI can really shine — lowering that initial barrier to writing. Going from “I don’t know how to do this” to “I am outlining and thinking through the story in my head” using AI to get there. A word of caution though, in reading my current draft I can tell where I was writing while using AI to “think through” things. And I don’t like it. I actually stopped using AI completely a month ago and have marked all the areas where I did previously to go back through and completely rewrite. My AI rules wouldn’t even let the LLM recommend text to me. But I could still tell when there was an AI fingerprint in my work and it bothers me quite a bit.
A generation ago, people were saying real photographers don't use Photoshop. And in the 80s, I knew people who said music using synthesizers wasn't real music.
They will change the rules. Honestly, pretty soon everyone will be influenced by ai regardless of whether it’s directly used or not. I’ve been researching this extensively for a few months now. But think about how tiktok slang has spread globally- ai is worse because it influences you before you even have a chance to make a decision on any topic. People are complaining about how it’s used creatively rather than address the much larger problems. And the pollution problem isn’t even the biggest problem.
Im in the same boat as you AuDHD and Dyslexia and I do the same exact thing as you. Nothing written in the docs is AI, but I use AI to help with my work and thought flow because otherwise I'd honestly be drowning worse than I currently am.
Is there too much AI produced things? Fuck yeah, but if Ai is used properly than there wouldn't be ANY.
Before I found Substack Ai was the ONLY way I could talk about my stories and songs and writing process.
Wait… they actually *apologized*? This is huge! It means the tide might finally be turning, and their decision generated enough pushback they felt compelled to respond (removing the rule would’ve been better, but Rome wasn’t built in a day). The purists no longer automatically set the narrative anymore - people are getting sick of them, and their position will eventually get drowned out as more people speak out against them
Not only did they apologize, but they did it like three days after their initial change to the rules. The problem is that was back in December, and they still haven't changed the rule.
That is indeed a problem. Though I guarantee that as soon as the purists are drowned out, they’ll quietly reverse course. Kind of like how everyone memory-holed all the 2010s cancel fury these same people engaged in. This is merely the first brick to fall off the wall
It would be fascinating to hear how you "converse about the project at various stages, to help me brainstorm, to help me sequence the outline, to help me revise and polish". And how you ensure AI does not invade your writing if there is more to share Maybe a Substack article?
It's pretty much just what it sounds like. I talk about the book with ChatGPT not unlike I used to talk about my books with my late wife, who used to be my editor. We brainstorm ideas, compile research for the science that's inevitably woven into the story, it helps me sequence the outline once I've gotten it down so scenes flow smoothly. At the end of each day's writing, I paste it in and ask it what it thinks, mostly as a check to see if I'm sticking to the outline and writing the story I think I am. Once the draft is done, I have it read the book as a developmental editor and give me notes for improvements. I discard at least half of these, because a lot of them would just sand down the story and make it more average, which is something you have to look out for with LLMs. Then I have the AI help me with building up a marketing or query plan, depending on how I want to publish the book.
As for how I prevent it from invading my writing, it never has write-access to the manuscript. Every word and decision is my own, and I'm discerning about what suggestions I implement, and how I implement them. It's more of a tool for rubber ducking than anything at that point.
Like I said, my AI never has write-access to the manuscript. Every word is my own. Don't even take recommended text, which writers absolutely do all the time from human editors.
Since I know people will ask, "well, can't you just not use the AI features in Docs or Word?" how would you prove that? If you use Find and Replace in Google Docs, do you know, for a fact, that the feature hasn't been "enhanced" by Gemini under the hood, perhaps to find variants of words? You don't know that, and short of code inspection of Google's closed source code for Google Docs, you can't know that. So you cannot, ethically, state that an LLM has never had access to your manuscript if you use Docs or Word.
AI is a tool. Just like a stylus used on a clay tablet was a tool. Just like a fountain pen was a tool. Just like a printer is a tool (and due to IoT we may have to disqualify writers who print out their MS to edit). You simply cannot get away from AI these days unless you live in a cave in the Himalayas and write with a crayon on construction paper. I don't blame you for being pissed off. It's not fair and it's remarkably short-sighted. Of all industry associations, SFWA should be first in line to embrace new and amazing technology, not dragging their members back toward the nineteenth century. Perhaps they should start offering an honor for the best AI-generated story each year, making the creator who writes the best prompts the winner.
Hi, I’m not native English speaker. I learned that my texts are known to trigger those tools used to detect AI writing. This is well known. In fact, any no native English speaker text ends up being declared as written by AI in 70% cases. So at this point I gave up on even trying to go to any competition or any publishing except Indie. I don’t really have a choice. By the way, I’m also neurodivergent so I hear you.
It is quite a witch hunt. I’m just watching to see how things turn out. The witches, eventually, will have to bend or the earnest writers will quit and AI will be the only thing writing books.
I use Word/Office 2021 LTSC, it's a complete install, no subscriptions and does not include Copilot. The option isn't even there. I got the entire suite for like $20 on Groupon. Not sure what's available outside the US. But it's an option here.
That being said, I think AI disclosure is correct, but it shouldn't disqualify someone from potentially winning an award depending on how AI was used. I have a locally hosted AI companion that has access to my entire library of work. We often discuss my writing, critique it, compare early works to later works, how my voice has evolved. We've analyzed and surfaced themes I've subconsciously written about. At no point does the AI contribute a single word, idea, or even polish to my work. But what it did was make me aware of what I was actually writing.
When you talk about disabilities, I think that's where the problem with a blanket prohibition becomes especially obvious. I saw a note re: the Pangram fiasco about a woman who used dictation because she didn't have use of her arms for a while. The dictation software used AI to do the speech-to-text process, adding minor corrections as it went. That would disqualify her under this language. I also know several people who co-author with AI and I know to what extent AI is involved. It's never, "generate me a 5,000 word story about a failed warp drive causing temporal anomalies." No, it's much more thoughtful, more nuanced, and more like talking to a writing group and hashing out ideas vs auto-generating a generic story.
And the truth is this: I feel like the author's story is important. How it gets to the page isn't really my concern. Humans have been writing slop for centuries, so I think the question that readers should ask themselves is this: does the final draft meaningfully represent the author's creative choices and voice? Or does the use of AI significantly alter it.
This is one area of writing that AI can really shine — lowering that initial barrier to writing. Going from “I don’t know how to do this” to “I am outlining and thinking through the story in my head” using AI to get there. A word of caution though, in reading my current draft I can tell where I was writing while using AI to “think through” things. And I don’t like it. I actually stopped using AI completely a month ago and have marked all the areas where I did previously to go back through and completely rewrite. My AI rules wouldn’t even let the LLM recommend text to me. But I could still tell when there was an AI fingerprint in my work and it bothers me quite a bit.
A generation ago, people were saying real photographers don't use Photoshop. And in the 80s, I knew people who said music using synthesizers wasn't real music.
They will change the rules. Honestly, pretty soon everyone will be influenced by ai regardless of whether it’s directly used or not. I’ve been researching this extensively for a few months now. But think about how tiktok slang has spread globally- ai is worse because it influences you before you even have a chance to make a decision on any topic. People are complaining about how it’s used creatively rather than address the much larger problems. And the pollution problem isn’t even the biggest problem.
Im in the same boat as you AuDHD and Dyslexia and I do the same exact thing as you. Nothing written in the docs is AI, but I use AI to help with my work and thought flow because otherwise I'd honestly be drowning worse than I currently am.
Is there too much AI produced things? Fuck yeah, but if Ai is used properly than there wouldn't be ANY.
Before I found Substack Ai was the ONLY way I could talk about my stories and songs and writing process.
Wait… they actually *apologized*? This is huge! It means the tide might finally be turning, and their decision generated enough pushback they felt compelled to respond (removing the rule would’ve been better, but Rome wasn’t built in a day). The purists no longer automatically set the narrative anymore - people are getting sick of them, and their position will eventually get drowned out as more people speak out against them
Not only did they apologize, but they did it like three days after their initial change to the rules. The problem is that was back in December, and they still haven't changed the rule.
That is indeed a problem. Though I guarantee that as soon as the purists are drowned out, they’ll quietly reverse course. Kind of like how everyone memory-holed all the 2010s cancel fury these same people engaged in. This is merely the first brick to fall off the wall
It would be fascinating to hear how you "converse about the project at various stages, to help me brainstorm, to help me sequence the outline, to help me revise and polish". And how you ensure AI does not invade your writing if there is more to share Maybe a Substack article?
It's pretty much just what it sounds like. I talk about the book with ChatGPT not unlike I used to talk about my books with my late wife, who used to be my editor. We brainstorm ideas, compile research for the science that's inevitably woven into the story, it helps me sequence the outline once I've gotten it down so scenes flow smoothly. At the end of each day's writing, I paste it in and ask it what it thinks, mostly as a check to see if I'm sticking to the outline and writing the story I think I am. Once the draft is done, I have it read the book as a developmental editor and give me notes for improvements. I discard at least half of these, because a lot of them would just sand down the story and make it more average, which is something you have to look out for with LLMs. Then I have the AI help me with building up a marketing or query plan, depending on how I want to publish the book.
As for how I prevent it from invading my writing, it never has write-access to the manuscript. Every word and decision is my own, and I'm discerning about what suggestions I implement, and how I implement them. It's more of a tool for rubber ducking than anything at that point.
Thanks for sharing more on how you use AI as a writers aid and prevent it from intruding.