Regarding AI, Part One
by Evan Braun
The Elephant in the Room
Increasingly, it seems as though you can’t get out of bed in the morning without being confronted with various iterations of AI. The technology is encroaching into every nook and cranny of our daily lives—in some ways, positively.
And in other ways, more problematically. It’s a mixed bag.
Open Facebook or Instagram and you’ll be inundated with a steady stream of AI-generated pictures and slop videos, often accompanied by long-winded dissertations algorithmically designed to bait you. They could be political rants packed with culture-war talking points, human interest stories built around emotional hooks, or inspirational anecdotes that feel too good to be true. They’re not necessarily there to sway you, but to reinforce your pre-existing beliefs. The apparent goal is to maximize engagement.
From my perspective, generative AI is kind of a misnomer, in that there’s no actual intelligence at work. That’s not a values statement; it’s an objective assessment of the technology. And whether you’re using ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, or some other variation—there are almost too many to name, now that every platform has rushed to integrate chatbots—our exposure to AI is making us aware of its distinctive rhythms.
In my next couple of posts, I’ll delve into those signatures that give away the game. For now let it suffice to say that many people are getting very good at detecting AI.
Regardless, the point I’m building towards is that AI text follows recognizable patterns because the models aren’t built to synthesize ideas so much as language. They’re predictive, always trying to determine the next likely word, the next sentence, the next paragraph. They’re stringing together language in ways that sound intelligent but are, in truth, only mimicking intelligence. Chatbots come across as conversational because they’re programmed to be engaging, not because they have something original to say.
It’s all pattern recognition. And as we open a new browser window to ask our chatbot of choice for its perspective on everything from the latest chapter of the book we’re writing to the complexities of our love life, it can feel like we’re talking to a friend or (gulp) a therapist.
We need to remind ourselves that this isn’t what’s happening.
To an untrained reader, AI-generated text may seem indistinguishable from the output of a human mind, but it’s fundamentally inhuman.
And here at Word Alive Press, we’ve been noticing it in our book submissions.
We’re not anti-AI, and we recognize its value as a tool. But we are concerned that it’s steadily flattening the voices of our authors, some of whom appear to be developing an overreliance on it. The result is a spectrum of manuscripts that sound alike, the authors’ quirks and nuances gradually being paved over by smooth, homogenous language that lacks personality and impetus.
This isn’t good for authors, who are losing something fundamental in their own work. It isn’t good for us as a publisher, because we got into this business to platform the unique stories that define us as individuals. And of course it isn’t good for our readers, who are so often subliminally aware that something is just a little bit off about the words on the page.
So what exactly is being lost?
First of all, we’re realizing more than ever that it’s not just the underlying message or theme of a piece of writing that makes it powerful. That power comes from the human fingerprint behind it, and the diminution of that fingerprint is catastrophic.
Indeed, the very imperfections and idiosyncrasies of original human composition are a huge part of what readers connect with. Do you really want to take that distinctive piece of proverbial driftwood and scrape it down into a standard two-by-four, indistinguishable from any other mass-produced two-by-four?
That’s the artistic argument, but there are also practical considerations. The distributors with whom Word Alive Press works have increasingly taken a dim view of AI use, requiring an explanation of AI use and noting they may flag or refuse to carry such books in future. A consequence is that an AI-assisted book may not be able to make it into bookstores, limiting an author’s ability to find readers.
Everyone in publishing is preoccupied with these large, rather existential questions these days. We are certainly not alone.
Over the course of the next few blog posts, we will undertake a deep dive into the subject of AI use and its consequences, intended or otherwise. At the other side of this big conversation, we will emerge with new tools and understanding.
The simple reality is that AI has become an unavoidable consideration, and here at Word Alive Press we are committed to helping you navigate it with grace and wisdom.
* * *
Did you enjoy this post? Discover more helpful advice from Evan Braun here or read the entire series on AI as posts become available.
About this Contributor:
Evan Braun is a full-time author and editor. He has authored three novels, the first of which, The Book of Creation, was shortlisted in two categories at the 2012 Word Awards. He has released two sequels, The City of Darkness (2013) and The Law of Radiance (2015), completing the series. Braun is an experienced professional editor, and has worked with Word Alive Press authors since 2006. He is also a regular contributor at The Fictorians, a popular writing blog.
I am writing to say that AI may appear to threaten the future of gifted writers as has been indicated in the comment below. But, what about the hidden damages caused by publishers like Word Alive?
From my experience with word alive, the publisher that Evan works for, have done damage to my writing by failing to register the material that I entrusted to them to manage, in moments of my in-experience. In other words, another company read my material and offered to reprint my work. In their research they contacted the Library of Archives, were advised that my material has not been copywrited and anyone in the world could used my material as their own. I am still devastated.
I paid word alive to manage the processes required to do the right thing and they failed me.
The book was published by word alive over 10 years ago. I paid thousand of dollars to word alive. Was that my responsibility? I was not advised. I’m not the publisher.
To date, the royalties I received have been less than 100$, over the 10-year period. My attempts to contact word alive have not been positive.
One question, Which Editor should I rely on for the future of my writings Evan or AI?
I agree AI is everywhere. And it’s getting easier to spot. What I find frustrating, however, is the idea that soon many will think that any thing good that’s been written was done by AI. I am afraid that the value of gifted writing will be diminished.