A.I. and Crime Writing

Writers organizations need a clear and strong policy on the use of AI

A few weeks ago I wrote to a crime writers association which I belong to, asking them to condemn the use of A.I. to write and improve texts. To make the same stand that the Hollywood screenwriters (and now actors) are making.

The response was that this was a ‘political’ issue, that the group didn’t weight in on political issues, and that there were far too many ins and outs to the topic to roundly condemn it.

The use of AI—software trained on thousands of copyrighted stories, used to churn out ‘stories’ of its own—is a frightening prospect to working authors. Not out of technophobia, but because this technology will cripple an already fragile publishing industry. Editors have already seen their slush piles double, flooded with junk stories.

I put my thoughts on AI into my response, reprinted below. I took out the Org’s name because they’re reconsidering their stance, and because EVERY organization should have a strong and clear policy about the acceptance of AI-written work. That includes the Crime Writers of Canada, Mystery Writers of America, Private Eye Writers of America, International Thriller Writers, Friends of Mystery, Writers Union of Canada…all of them.

This is the fight to have now, and that any bullshitting around is only going to make it harder to speak out later.

---

To me, the use of AI to generate and 'fix' prose is pretty straightforward. I see it less as a political issue than a moral and financial one. 

Financial because this will devalue the work of writers and make compensation more difficult. It's bad business for us. 

Moral, because it's unethical to cheat writers out of their compensation, and to present oneself as a creator of something generated in that way. It's wrong. 

If [the Org] isn't alarmed by these issues--if it adopts a wait-and-see approach to something both costly and wrong--then I think the consequences will be dire. 

How can we possibly say "we're on the fence about companies taking our work and letting others amalgamate it and pretend it's theirs?"

There are angles to this which I'm not expert in, and which are definitely worth debate…The prospect of relinquishing my membership over this issue would cause me great sadness, but I feel very strongly about it. I trust that you'll come to a similar conclusion. 

I won’t support a writers group that doesn’t condemn the use of AI as a replacement for writers.

Some writers depend on income from writing, and others write as a pastime. Some authors choose to self-publish. I’ve never bought into a hierarchy of publishing, and I believe all of these routes are valid. But I suspect this issue will hit younger, traditionally published, less financially stable authors harder, especially in the longterm.

However much the writing business may have disappointed or alienated you, if you’re like me, writing itself has proven far more of a blessing. AI is a danger to writing. Letting the kind of “disruptive entrepreneur” mindset that builds a death-trap submarine determine the ethics around writing and publishing is not desirable to anybody.

In the words of the late Cormac McCarthy, “The things that I loved were very frail. Very fragile. I didn't know that. I thought they were indestructible. They weren't.” 

Thanks for reading this.

Further Reading:

"Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut it All Down” (the most frightening text I’ve read this year, not including Helpmeet or The Marigold)

"Hollywood Studios Want to Scan Background Actors for One Day's Pay, Use Likenesses for 'Rest of Eternity,' SAG Claims”

"OpenAI will use Associated Press news stories to train its models”

"Sarah Silverman Sues OpenAI and Meta Over Copyright Infringement”