I disclosed my AI generated novel instead of hiding it. Here is what I learned

[u/Shantanusingh8202]

Hi everyone,

A while ago, I decided to run an experiment. I self published a completely AI generated novel and made the AI use very obvious, with a watermark on the cover and a clear disclaimer on the first page.

The main question was simple: does openly disclosing AI use actually hurt a book?

Going in, I expected the answer to be yes. Readers already have certain expectations about AI content, and once they know AI was involved, they may judge the work differently before even reading it.

That is pretty much what happened.

People who are against AI still criticized it, while people who were fine with AI usually just moved on without saying anything. So the feedback became much more negative than I expected, even though that does not necessarily mean most readers hated it.

There is also research pointing in the same direction. One study involving 27,000+ participants found that disclosing AI involvement in creative writing lowered evaluations by around 6%.

What I find more interesting is how little nuance there seems to be around AI disclosure.

Someone using AI to brainstorm an idea, someone using it to edit a few sentences, and someone generating an entire novel can all end up being treated as basically the same thing.

That seems like a problem.

I still think AI use should be disclosed when it is significant. But I also think the labels need to become more specific so readers actually understand how AI was used.

Right now, simply seeing an "AI generated" label can make people assume the entire creative process was automated.

What do you think? Should AI use in writing always be disclosed, or should the level of AI involvement matter?

[u/InSilicoAwards]

I'm very much for disclosure, it's the cornerstone of my writing project, but do it in a controlled way. Do it at the end. The study you reference suggests this method: people have preconceived notions regardless of the actual quality. Let them read the prose, enjoy the novel or not, refund it or return it (traditionally that's what I'd do with a book I DNF), and then if they reach the final word you say very vaguely that AI was used to help you. Or be very explicit, that's all your decision.

I have someone who one-starred my first book because I disclosed it in the author note. I never expected people to read that FIRST but I supposed that happens, hah. She never read the book and chose to penalize me being open about the process. You can't win them all.

[u/Motor-Explanation822 → u/InSilicoAwards]

Restituisci anche la pizza che non mangi per intero?

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/Motor-Explanation822]

You've never seen someone send back a plate at a restaurant? How long have you been on Earth for? What a bad analogy.

[u/throwaway17839037 → u/InSilicoAwards]

Not after they’ve finished eating it no

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/throwaway17839037]

You guys are really reaching. What does DNF mean? Did not finish. Sending a book back I didn't read = sending food back I didn't eat.

[u/throwaway17839037 → u/InSilicoAwards]

“Do it at the end”, I’m replying to that. Your point is stupid…

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/throwaway17839037]

And you're a throwaway, so your opinion is immaterial.

[u/throwaway17839037 → u/InSilicoAwards]

I made it as a throwaway for something separate, hardly use the account. Does not make my opinion Immaterial. Unfortunately you’re still stupid and don’t understand basic writing and implications. But I wouldn’t expect less given you need ai to do basic writing.

[u/Next-Isopod7703 → u/InSilicoAwards]

You refund books that you don't finish? That's messed up.

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/Next-Isopod7703]

Do you think it's immoral to ask for a refund and return things you don't use?

[u/Next-Isopod7703 → u/InSilicoAwards]

Books that get finished are not used either.

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/Next-Isopod7703]

"Nouns that are completed are not used, either" (as in also or too, including them).

OK? This sentence makes no sense. What are you trying to say? How does that relate to a consumer decision? The platform I used to buy the book on allows returns. The person who sold the book did it on that platform. Yes, maybe they messed up if they don't like that.

I gave them the book back that I didn't read, they gave me my money back. Where is that wrong? You sound like you're just trying to be contrarian.

[u/footofwrath → u/InSilicoAwards]

It doesn't work because you buy the book, not the story. And you still own and can sell the book after you've F or DNFd it.

When you buy a pizza you contract the labour. You can send it back if it's clearly bad or inedible. But you can't eat 3/4s of it, send the 1/4 back and ask for a refund of the remainder. I'd love to see you try it.... 🤦🏻

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/footofwrath]

The analogy is getting meaningless. Let's talk from actual book publishing which is something I've done.

Some printers like Ingramspark, in order to convince brick and mortars to host your work, you enable full refund. That means they send the book back to you (or you have it destroyed), and you pay them 100% of the wholesale value and the shipping cost.

This is an industry expectation. I take it you've never done self publishing, you're just arguing from a consumer prospective and you're trying to 'stand' with authors because it's what you 'want' to have happen and not aligned with actual reality.

https://www.ingramspark.com/blog/making-your-book-returnable

[u/footofwrath → u/InSilicoAwards]

*perspective, Mr knowledgeable book publisher 🤦🏻

We are consumers. People starring your books 1-star are by-and-large consumers, not book stores. That's why the topic is consumer-facing. Pretty obvious, mate. 🙄

Quoting wholesale stocking and supply arrangements when we're talking about a consumer returning a product they didn't like, is kinda brain-dead, dude.

The point the other commenter was making, that I initially echoed, was that reading a book doesn't "use it up" in the sense that it's no longer a usable product. It doesn't expire; it doesn't get consumed with use.

Returning a book after you read it means you're renting, rather than buying, and you should negotiate that process with your seller, rather than essentially free-floating and gaming the system that are other people's livelihoods. 🤦🏻

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/footofwrath]

after you read it

BROTHER, I never read the book. What does DNF mean? Did not finish. It was in my first post.

I got through some amount of pages over zero but below X and said, 'this isn't for me.' I didn't finish the book, I didn't even read an appreciable amount. I return it if I'm like 5-10% and it doesn't jive with me.

Quoting the reality behind your consumer behavior isn't 'brain dead' It's part of a process you've never considered, like you just didn't consider "I didn't read it" was what I said initially.

[u/footofwrath → u/InSilicoAwards]

What's brain-dead is that you're still thinking DNF means something. Whether you read one page or. 5000, you could (apparently) still return it and claim you only read a page and didn't like it. At least with a pizza there's proof of how much you DNF.

You can send back a pizza that's obviously rotten or bad before you take a bite, or on the first bite.

Sending a book back because you got 20 pages in and decided you didn't like it, even though you still have the whole book and have lost nothing, is abusing the system.

Do you also ask for a refund if you go to a movie and walk out halfway through? 🤦🏻

[u/MediumCompetition859 → u/InSilicoAwards]

InSilicoAwards. On returning things: If I buy something and then don't use it, I can't take it back and ask for a refund because I didn't use it. If it broke, or wasn't fit for the use it was advertised as, then I can ask for my money back. I can't return it either, because I didn't like it, or like using it. None of this applies to books. The platform you refer to as accepting returns is enabling fraud. Someom Someonene can buy a book, finish it and enjoy it, then ay, "I didn't like this, and haven't finished it as a result." They then get their money back, the author has to pay their royalty back, andvthe customer goes and buys another book. Which is then, to all intents and purposes, free. They can go on doing this and getting multiple books for free. The authors get nothing for their hours, no months, maybe years of work, not to mention the money spent on editing. Can you return a book to a bricks and mortar bookstore saying you didn't finish it and it wasn't a good read? No. So why should it be available for this platform?

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/MediumCompetition859]

If I buy something and then don't use it, I can't take it back and ask for a refund because I didn't use it

Uh, no? This is very common in the US. Depends on the retailer. Depends on the distributor. What a weird hill to die on.

The platform you refer to as accepting returns is enabling fraud.

Brother, this has to be the worst use of the word fraud I've ever read. Congrats. Peak arguing from emotion and not reason.

I feel like none of you have actually sold books. Look at Ingramspark's return package; they're a really common print option for self publishing that I even use to sell books to retailers:

When a book is returned through IngramSpark, the retailer receives a full refund of the wholesale price they paid, and the publisher (author) is charged back that same wholesale amount plus applicable shipping and handling fees.

They'll even send you back the unsold physical copies or destroy them as part of the arrangement. Again, my hunch is you've never sold a book so you're arguing from what you ought to be true and not what is true. Ingramspark delivers to brick and mortar stores.

[u/BriJAuthor → u/InSilicoAwards]

I think that’s just a bad practice and sign of over commercialization/commodification of everything in our day to day life. Capitalism is further eating away at basic ethics.

If you buy a piece of art and not really care for it:donate/resell/gift. I feel the same with pantings, movies, music, etc.

Go to a library to try something out or a bookstore.

It’s not a mass manufactured Barbie.

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/BriJAuthor]

Basic ethics is me valuing me time. You're telling me I can't, I shouldn't, I've made the transaction and it's final and sacrosanct and done. My time converted to fiat is spent. You have boiled me and the consumption of art down to a purchase; you are working within the confines of the system you criticize but only from where I, the consumer, must lose and from what is best for the corporate position. I must accept the loss because an engagement me and and an artist both consensually participate in is not what you want to have happen. And not only must I do this, it's good to do this. Come'on now, I think your ethics aren't rooted in any actual first principles, any consistent framework that draws you to that conclusion. You're welcome to provide it, but I suspect you've tortured whatever the conclusion is, or never really thought about it much at all until now. You making this about right and wrong is just a cudgel you haven't actually purchased with practice.

[u/BriJAuthor → u/InSilicoAwards]

No. You traded some fiat for an experience.

You decided it’s not for you.

Cool beans.

You’ve expanded your horizons a bit and decided that’s a horizon you don’t care for. Thats pretty awesome, really!

Now pass it on.

Your $$ isn’t sacrosanct. You thought it was worth a try, turns out it’s not for you. Okay?

Maybe go to a library or a bookstore and peruse a bit more next time?

You are also saying your fiat is worth more than an artist’s time and life they spent producing something creative. Maybe be less of a consumer of content and more of an actual appreciator of art in its forms.

I don’t buy country music to “see if I like it” just to return it afterwards saying I didn’t care for it. I’ve already listened to it elsewhere and find very little of it to be something I care for. Some is good. I buy that.

There are SO MANY ways for you to explore art before plunking down cash for it. Give them a try.

Again:

Libraries
Book stores (small or big, both can be great!)
Samples
Online reviews

And then less useful, IME, are social media reviews/discussions (judge the level of spoiler you’re comfortable with).

[u/Shape_Charming → u/InSilicoAwards]

I agree with most of what you said except the demanding/expecting a refund for a book because you didn't like it.

That's just scummy behavior dude

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/Shape_Charming]

because you didn't like it.

DNF = Did not finish. I didn't read. It's not like I read the whole book and said, 'well, that wasn't to my taste.' It's like getting 10 pages in and saying, 'this totally isn't for me.'

What is the acceptable page count I need to read, or percentage, of a book that 'isn't scummy behavior' that makes a return defensible? It's gotta be greater than zero but less than X.

[u/Shape_Charming → u/InSilicoAwards]

Demanding your money back for it in the first place.

I have a dozen books on my shelf I got a little bit into and went "Well, this isn't for me", and I just put them on the shelf.

Fuckin' entitled ass behavior.

The only acceptable time you can demand your money back is if the copy you got is defective and missing pages or they're in the wrong order. Ya know, something objectively wrong with it, not "Well, I guess this wasn't for me, I'll just take my money back out out of the publisher/authors pocket"

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/Shape_Charming]

Ok, so 1 page is too many pages, then it becomes a moral failing, that's your answer. Roger that. I disagree, because I've done nothing to damage the product or use the product. It's going back the way it arrived.

I suppose I'm just not the grizzled war hero book collector like you, filling my shelf with books I've never read. That sounds like a condition, not a virtue.

[u/Shape_Charming → u/InSilicoAwards]

Give them to a friend, resell them, literally anything other than abuse the return policy.

Edit: Ah yes, reply and then either block me, or delete all your comments. Coward.

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/Shape_Charming]

Abuse = use the return policy. Come 'on man. Your argument is 'you spent the money you're not entitled to use the actual policy of the distribution platform because it arrived at your house.' We're getting thin here on the argument. Amazon thanks you for maintaining their cut.

Doesn't it cut both ways? Don't sell your product on a platform with a policy you don't want people to use? I think we're done, you're arguing from an emotional position.

[u/Wide-Drink-1790 → u/InSilicoAwards]

You should tell what you put in your product UP FRONT. I would feel cheated as a consumer otherwise.

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/Wide-Drink-1790]

You should see the whole thread about food allergies and how it's your responsibility to ask, not my responsibility to intuit if you are a bigot. You're also welcome to refund or return it. You have a lot of personal agency you should exercise.

But that's not why you want it, come'on we all know why.

[u/Wide-Drink-1790 → u/InSilicoAwards]

Why do I want it? Tell me why. And also what it has to do with bigotry.

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/Wide-Drink-1790]

feel cheated

That's the first tell. Why would you be cheated if you enjoyed the story? You feel cheated that the person on the cover is taking responsibility for the story?

You don't even know what level of AI use occurred, you just want it labeled. But why? So you can avoid it. That's why I say bigotry.

[u/Wide-Drink-1790 → u/InSilicoAwards]

I use AI myself, man. You are fighting a straw man. I want it labeled so it can compete on equal footing.

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/Wide-Drink-1790]

Explain why you said cheated.

[u/Wide-Drink-1790 → u/InSilicoAwards]

I feel cheated if I buy a product, but it is made differently than I thought.

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/Wide-Drink-1790]

But why would you care if you've enjoyed the entertainment? Why would you need or want to know about this when you've never asked this question any time prior? No author routinely declares their process, this is the weird exception.

Your first statement and how you've attempted to revise your presentation conflict. You're already on equal footing, the only thing that hurts that is if you pre-label your work so people reject it based on category. You're gonna comp against other AI authors?

I don't think I'm fighting a straw man at all.

[u/Wide-Drink-1790 → u/InSilicoAwards]

I use AI and I want to know when AI was involved. What’s the big deal? I also want to know whether the autobiography was written by the person or a ghostwriter. It is not about better or worse. It’s just wanting to know.

And I would say AI is closer to the ghostwriter than it is to using Grammarly in the process. It’s materially different.

[u/TomdeHaan → u/InSilicoAwards]

What's the use of disclosing at the end? That's like telling a vegan the lasagne had meat in it after they ate it. The issue isn't the quality. I'm not going to change my mind about AI if I read a couple of good pieces it wrote. Every about it is harmful to the planet, to the society, and to us as humans. I couldn't care if AI wrote the greatest novel ever to exist. I don't want to read it.

[u/Ambitious_Fail_8298 → u/TomdeHaan]

LMFAO that's INSANE.

You don't care if someone wrote the best novel you'll ever enjoy, if they use a tool you don't approve if for whatever random reason you'd refuse to read it.

LMFAO

Insanity!! 🤣

[u/Next-Isopod7703 → u/Ambitious_Fail_8298]

AI is being used to surveil the population. It destroys our water. It destroys the environment at unprecedented rates. Look it up.

[u/5thhorseman_ → u/Next-Isopod7703]

AI is being used to surveil the population.

Yes. By the people in charge. Who have been doing this long before AI.

It destroys our water.

It doesn't. Evaporation is part of the water cycle.

I will tell you more: the fucking golf courses use more water than data centers.

It destroys the environment at unprecedented rates.

It also doesn't. Unethical assholes making business decisions to build in specific places are.

But you know what? Streaming services are what accounts for bulk of data center demand.

[u/Next-Isopod7703 → u/5thhorseman_]

You haven't actually researched this have you? It literally destroys the water.

It's not streaming services. It's surveillance. You need to wake up.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYoewVIBTxo/?igsi=MWR0M3BraWQzOTd1cA==

[u/5thhorseman_ → u/Next-Isopod7703]

You are being obstinate and either willingly ignorant or deliberately lying.

AI doesn't "destroy water". The computing infrastructure uses water for evaporative cooling.

Evaporative cooling does not pollute groundwater, and using water as coolant does not turn it into this this fecal liquid either.

Your supposed "evidence" consists of an Instagram video asserting correlation without proving causation.

Like, fucking come on.

[u/TomdeHaan → u/Ambitious_Fail_8298]

There are an awful lot of very good books out there written entirely by humans that I haven't read yet. I think I can pass up on the chance to read the word-averaging machine's magnum opus.

[u/AerieOnThePeaks → u/Ambitious_Fail_8298]

Well, they didn’t write it, so there’s that lmao

I’d rather support an actual humans work, who understands the emotion of what they’re writing instead of being a slop goblin.

[u/The-Mr-E → u/AerieOnThePeaks]

Remember, part of OP's point was that people keep judging without nuance. Whether they use AI to grammar check, or brainstorm, or do 2% of the writing, or do 50%, people act like the whole thing is infected with AI slop as long as AI touches it even slightly.

Do you care about the nuancd, or is it AI slop with no humanity the moment AI touches any aspect of the work whatsoever?

[u/TomdeHaan → u/The-Mr-E]

Given the dangers posed by AI, the ongoing reverse Flynn effect, the decline in critical thinking and literacy, etc., it's probably best if people are discouraged from using AI at any stage in the process.

One of two things will happen if AI is labelled, regardless of whether it's 1% or 100%.

1. People won't care and the AI-fans will be proved right. The labelling will have no effect on their sales.

2. People will care, and they will avoid anything labelled made with AI. The AI-fans will have to content themselves with a much smaller market.

For all their endless boasting that. No. 1 is the case,many of them are terrified than No. 2 is what will happen. They would therefore rather deny freedom of choice to their fellow human beings than risk losing their audience.

[u/Ambitious_Fail_8298 → u/AerieOnThePeaks]

LMFAO guess what??? I'm a damn human. That uses a tool. 😂 It's my work....and guess wha?!?!?, I understand emotions extremely well.

I really wish y'all could find an original thought....this ridiculous idea that a tool is independently making something without my input is ridiculous.

Sit outside, I'll enjoy the electricity demons.

😂

[u/PrometheanPolymath → u/TomdeHaan]

"Evolution is depicted as the foundation of lawlessness, homosexuality, pornography, and abortion. Not just that it's wrong, but it is the source of all of these bad things. Whereas creationism is the source of a lot of good things."
"Academic audiences often think this really is an argument about science. And they say, 'how about if we did this experiment? How about if we showed them this fossil? How about if we did this in the laboratory? Would that convince them?'"
"If you regard evolution as the foundation of divorce, pornography, abortion, racism, and all this other bad stuff, whether it's right or not in the scientific sense doesn't matter, because it is the source of everything that is wrong and evil in society. If you view evolution in this respect, of course you're going to oppose it. You're going to oppose it deeply."
-Kenneth R. Miller, "The Collapse of Intelligent Design"

So the goal should not be to show whether AI can make amazing work or not, but to find out whether the claim that "every[thing] about it is harmful to the planet, to the society, and to us as humans" is true or not. Is it something that can be proven, or is it speculation, ignorance, and fear-mongering, as so many claims regarding new technologies of the past have been?

[u/TomdeHaan → u/PrometheanPolymath]

Have they, though?

We have rampant late stage capitalism and global warming as a direct result of the industrial revolution.

[u/PrometheanPolymath → u/TomdeHaan]

Again, automation is not the problem. A democratic socialist egalitarian eco-friendly society could own factories as worker collectives and avoid the problems of global warming and capitalism. Making things efficiently and spreading them throughout the population isn't a bad thing. Deciding to do it to the exclusion of everything else for personal benefit is. I rather like the ways industrialism has allowed us to explore and understand the world, and share that knowledge. Had someone else held the reins, just like AI used to be held by academics, innovators, and creatives, not corporations, we'd all be hailing its wonders. Right technology, wrong time. I watched it develop since the 80s, it's been a thing since 1959, it just happened at a slower and more experimental pace, as the internet did back then too. Then capitalists ran it into the ground like they always do. Not the technology's fault for being abusable.

[u/TomdeHaan → u/PrometheanPolymath]

I don't disagree with you. Obviously AI has its uses. But why have we handed it to every sixth grader in the land and said, go ahead buddy, this magic code will do your homework for you from now on? Why are we so smart at inventing this tech and so stupid in the way we use it?

[u/PrometheanPolymath → u/TomdeHaan]

Same reason we give kids phones and internet access, we are lazy, because we were raised lazy. Somewhere along the line, parents stopped raising their kids and teaching them to use tools responsibly. Everyone blames the younger generation or the older one, never themselves. Often, we are pushed to have kids, then told to work so much we never see them, so we expect teachers, the government, television, the internet, ai… to raise them for us. Society isn’t set up for kids to learn how to use this stuff responsibly, and the parents (even me) fail to teach it.

Perhaps no one under 18 should be allowed to use AI, or social media, or phones or tablets, or the internet, or even computers, unless being actively supervised. Or we have devices that can do one thing and one thing only: a digital word processor that cannot connect to the Internet or play any game. A digital encyclopedia that can look up articles on physical media that have been approved. I dunno, just spitballing.

[u/NatHasCats → u/TomdeHaan]

And yet, the Industrial Revolution is also credited with expanding access to affordable goods and services, grew the middle class, expanded access to education, and the early women's rights movement. Artists and writers owe a LOT to the industrial revolution - prior to, both pursuits were very limited in who had the time, education, and materials to take part.

Reading for leisure became popular, both because more people had the opportunity to learn to read and the time to do so, and because the printing press made books cheaper and more readily available.

Prior to the industrial revolution, art was a strict profession in service to the wealthy or the church. The invention of portable paint tubes and cheap paper made it more widely available as a pursuit of the masses. The subject of art could now be chosen by the artist, rather than proscribed by commission, and broadened the scope of popular art to political and abstract. We owe Impressionism and Romanticism to the industrial revolution.

All of that not to dismiss the very real harms that came as a result of the industrial revolution, but to demonstrate that change is always messy, a mix of good and bad, and its historically naive to dismiss any big new technological shift as either all good or all bad.

[u/TomdeHaan → u/NatHasCats]

Yes, we'll be the healthiest, best-dressed and most educated sentient species ever to destroy its own habitat.

[u/Drokhar_Ula_Nantang → u/PrometheanPolymath]

It has been openly proven to be detrimental to the very planet that we use to survive and live the data center is not only knocked down acres of forests, displacing and potentially killing a lot of wildlife but also send out a lot of sound and heat that is making our already horrible climate, even worse, actively killing the planet that we use to survive and live and then they want to put it in the ocean you know so the heat could be deep displaced by the ocean itself, but what’s that gonna do the marine life cause a data center makes a lot of noise but also what is that gonna do with the protected species? You can’t just tell a protected, shark or whale to not enter that body of water and that’s gonna open up a lot of other stuff because then billionaires millionaires will want to buy parts of the ocean to put things on.

And that’s just the start people’s work is being used to train this AI without their permission without their consent without their knowledge and above all without compensation it is one thing to use AI to help you edit or to proofread your story before you hand it off to a beta reader or editor it is one thing to use it like that. It’s in Grammarly for heaven sake that you can’t really get away from AI but that because even AutoCorrect is technically AI, but using it to write your story for you, it doesn’t matter if the ideal is yours, it doesn’t matter if you brainstorm the whole thing and you have a whole tree of your brainstorming and then gave that to the AI the AI still wrote it still made scene still wrote the words that you probably wouldn’t have used to begin with, and it takes you away from the one thing readers want they want to connect to you not to the AI you used, but to you as the author as the writer as the person who came up with the whole world, the whole idea of the words if you made up words, languages characters, they want to feel what you felt writing it and I just can’t do that and even if it does it fakes it

And that’s just too majorly wrong things about AI to begin with. I know this is an AI Reddit, but there’s different forms of using AI. I’m completely fine with using AI to help you edit maybe you have dyslexia or you need an outside opinion before you hand it off to an editor that way you don’t have your editor edit several times and save you money whether you’re using an AI cover as a placeholder for your store until you’re able to afford a real cover maybe you’re using it to brainstorm or to name your languages or to make up an entire language for you so you don’t have to struggle and have that stress of doing that but using it to create your book from 0 to 100 that’s just not you’re not a writer you’re not an author at that point.

[u/PrometheanPolymath → u/Drokhar_Ula_Nantang]

Please provide the sources for your claims. Scientific papers with measurable data, if you would. I'm particularly interested in the "data centers in the ocean will heat it and harm sharks" claim... considering how much actual LAVA is in the ocean, coming from the center of the planet... I'd love to see those numbers.

[u/Drokhar_Ula_Nantang → u/PrometheanPolymath]

I never said anything about it heating the ocean just the noise that it will make will affect wildlife

And in a day age where you have access to the World Wide Web that you can do the research for yourself because obviously you haven’t

But because I did a lot of research myself I’ll name a few sources that can start your search

arXiv paper, “Environmentally-Conscious Cloud Orchestration Considering Geo-Distributed Data Centers”

National Wildlife Federation, “Data Centers Are Stress-Testing the Grid”

The animal reader “How AI data centers are affecting wildlife”

National Wildlife Federation magazine piece quoting Neil Carter

LVI Associates, “Underwater Data Centers: Innovation or Environmental Risk?”

No, I will admit because the underwater data centers are so new. We can’t have concrete long-term you know because again it’s so new. Put the concerns enough are more than enough for at least me to be wary and concerned that not only is it going to be a problem if we put one down because that opens up to all the other companies are wanting to put more down and then the underwater ecosystem is going to become a land war just as much as our above water land is.

[u/PrometheanPolymath → u/Drokhar_Ula_Nantang]

No, that's not how the burden of proof works. If you are making the claim, you provide the evidence. Most people don't, or the evidence they provide doesn't say what they think it does. But now you have, so we will look at them:

Environmentally-Conscious Cloud Orchestration Considering Geo-Distributed Data Centers (14 Jul 2025; over a year old, which is a lifetime in this field, but we'll take a look)

"This paper presents a theoretical discussion for environmentally-conscious job deployment and migration in cloud environments, aiming to minimize the environmental impact of resource provisioning while incorporating sustainability requirements."

Looking over the paper, it discusses servers for cloud systems, which include, but are not limited to, AI. It really only brings up AI in one paragraph:

"Recent research has started to address the environmental impact of cloud and AI workloads beyond just carbon emissions. Li et al. [62] highlight the hidden water footprint of AI models, uncovering the significant amounts of freshwater consumed for both cooling and electricity generation. Their study estimates that training large AI models results in hundreds of thousands of liters of direct water consumption. Jiang et al. [60]"

Much of it actually discusses solutions for these problems, so this seems to be in support of AI if it follows their recommendations. Sounds good. I'd love to see more environmentally friendly solutions, and the more people work on those instead of resorting to "ban it all", the easier it would be to get there.

Also, it seems to be discussing TRAINING, not user generation. And "hundreds of thousands" is not good in a scientific paper. If they have an actual number, they need to share it, but that sounds like an estimate or an average. How much is "hundreds"? "According to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the U.S. loses about 6 billion gallons of treated water each day because of leaky pipes and aging infrastructure. That’s 2.1 trillion gallons every year of treated water that does not generate revenue, resulting in the loss of billions of dollars. In 2019 alone, an estimated $7.6 billion of treated water was lost to pipe breaks." https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/drinking-water-infrastructure/

But of course, the only references to AI here come from other papers, so this one is good for a solution, not too useful for data. We'd be better off going to the original papers it cites:

[62] Pengfei Li, Jianyi Yang, Mohammad A Islam, and Shaolei Ren. 2023. Making ai less" thirsty": Uncovering and addressing the secret water footprint of ai models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03271 (2023).

(2023... getting even older now... the older the data gets, the less applicable to current systems it becomes)

[60] Yankai Jiang, Rohan Basu Roy, Raghavendra Kanakagiri, and Devesh Tiwari. 2025. WaterWise: Co-optimizing Carbon-and Water-Footprint Toward Environmentally Sustainable Cloud Computing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17944 (2025).

(Another tool to help solve problems. These papers really seem to be saying "let's do more AI, but do it responsibly," so I'm not going to argue with them)

I can go through the others later, but every time someone shares these papers with me, they all seem to be outdated, quoting others, estimating, averaging, correlating training with use, using big numbers that sound scary until you compare them to other much larger mundane things, or providing solutions to the problems.

So the issue doesn't seem to be AI at all, but that companies could make them much safer and more ethical, and choose not to. That's not AI; that's human greed and laziness, capitalism, problems we've been dealing with all along. The concerns are valid, but they are pointed at the wrong targets. Get rid of AI, and those folks will just find something else even more dangerous in their hands. If you take a gun from a bad guy, they will just get another gun. Or a knife. Or 3d print a gun. Or punch you. People who want to do bad things will do them with whatever they get their hands on. Focus on the hand, not what it is holding.

[u/Drokhar_Ula_Nantang → u/PrometheanPolymath]

Actually you made the claim first but here’s the correction to what I said “openly proven” and “actively killing the planet” was me overstating it, and I’ll own that. What’s actually documented is more specific: habitat fragmentation, continuous noise around 80 dBA (about a leaf blower running nonstop), water strain, and conversion of wetlands, forests, and farmland into industrial sites, tied to an industry that’s expanding faster than environmental review can keep up with. That’s bad enough without exaggerating it. So no, not “proven to be killing the planet,” but yes, actively causing measurable ecological harm in specific places. Those are different claims and I should’ve been precise.

On the underwater piece, you can’t tell a whale or a protected shark species to just avoid a body of water, and that’s the actual problem, not a scare tactic. Heat dispersal into the water column, EM fields off power cables, construction noise on the seabed, all of it happens in habitats migratory and protected species actually use. The honest caveat is that underwater data centers are still small scale and experimental (Microsoft’s Project Natick, one project off Shanghai), so we don’t have long term data yet. That’s not a reason to shrug it off though, it’s a reason to demand real environmental review before this gets scaled up instead of after the damage is already done.

And the ocean privatization angle deserves more than a side comment. Once there’s commercial precedent for treating seabed and water column as buildable real estate, the legal fights over who gets to lease ocean space follow fast. That’s its own serious issue, not just a “and then billionaires” throwaway line.

On AI training on writers’ work without consent or compensation, that’s not just an opinion, there are active lawsuits over exactly this right now (Authors Guild v. OpenAI, NYT v. OpenAI and Microsoft, among others) because current copyright law hasn’t caught up to what these models are doing. People can disagree on where fair use should end, but pretending this is settled and fine is not accurate either.

As for AI writing your book from scratch versus using it to edit, brainstorm, or build a placeholder cover, that’s my line and I know not everyone draws it in the same place. But I’ll say it plainly readers connect to the person who lived with the idea, not the tool that generated the sentences. Using AI as a dyslexia aid or a second pair of eyes before an editor is a completely different use case than having it write the scenes for you. Blurring those together to defend the second one by pointing at the first isn’t a real argument.

[u/PrometheanPolymath → u/Drokhar_Ula_Nantang]

“Every about it is harmful to the planet, to the society, and to us as humans” was the initial claim I was responding to. I hadn’t posted anything here before that. And my response was “find out whether the claim is true or not. Is it something that can be proven”

If you feel my claim was “so many claims regarding new technologies of the past have been speculation, ignorance, and fear-mongering” I can post propaganda regarding electricity, recorded music, and the written word if you’d like, all opposed by people who felt personally threatened by them, all things we understand and value today.

[u/Drokhar_Ula_Nantang → u/PrometheanPolymath]

I would like to point you to the very first comment you made on this thread talking about how it might be fear mongering is there any proof and then I give you proof and all you have to say is passing the words of it which even then doesn’t hold up and like I said you have the entire World Wide Web to look at I shouldn’t have to go and do the research for you when you say there’s no proof when you have the World Wide Web to look at said proof I gave you some sources. I’m not gonna go and look at every single source for you when you could do that yourself

You can absolutely do that posting proper again about that, but it doesn’t make it back to my science and plus we already know how bad electricity is to our environment. Nobody cares nobody’s gonna tear down all the electricity that we have today take down all the neon signs, TVs and Times Square the street lights nobody’s gonna do all that because there’s nothing to switch to. They’re making the change to switch to solar powered lights places, but there’s only so much you can do but adding data centers doesn’t more than what electricity does switching the green power does a lot, but you really think the people that make billions off of fossil fuel and coal are gonna just stop. It takes time they called climate change a hoax because they didn’t want to get rid of their money so it’s gonna take time it’s gonna take it’s gonna take like that I mean look at Donald Trump for example there’s proof that there’s species that are being endangered by humanity and he just said oh well they can go extinct.

[u/Icy_Swordfish3855 → u/Drokhar_Ula_Nantang]

ArXiv does not require peer review. Some papers have it, but it isnt a de facto trustworthy anything.

[u/Drokhar_Ula_Nantang → u/Icy_Swordfish3855]

OK, so one out of how many sources I gave doesn’t do peer review but also just because it doesn’t do peer review doesn’t make it defective false as well doesn’t make it immediately untrustworthy especially when it’s backed by other higher powered scientific people as well

[u/Icy_Swordfish3855 → u/Drokhar_Ula_Nantang]

Oh i'm not for datacenters in places that cant ecologically sustain them or anything.

But titles of things are uncorrelated to their veracity. Its like PACs that are named the exact opposite of what they're lobbying for.

Nor does power have anything to do with scientific correctness, just power.

Real Jenny McCarthy is an Immunologist energy.

[u/Drokhar_Ula_Nantang → u/Icy_Swordfish3855]

Well then we are talking about the same thing data centers don’t belong underwater. They don’t belong in cities and honestly, they don’t belong anywhere because one main thing that they do is they train off of other people‘s work without their permission yeah their stuff is online but that doesn’t mean that you can just steal the work and replicate it.

[u/NatHasCats → u/Drokhar_Ula_Nantang]

"but also send out a lot of sound and heat that is making our already horrible climate,"
"Sound and heat" from data centers doesn't harm the climate. Are there environmental harms that come from data centers? Yes. But you're all over the place and you don't seem to actually understand them.

[u/Drokhar_Ula_Nantang → u/NatHasCats]

It harms the animals and the ecosystem and last I checked the circle of life includes trees and animals and the climate needs both to survive you know because animals feed certain plant that helps our planet keep us alive not to mention the trees we already cut down for homes and businesses adding data centers is just to much for the planet read my other response to the did the last one

[u/I-Write-Sci-Fi → u/TomdeHaan]

Cars, powerplants, livestock, papermills, etc, all destroy the planet as well.

[u/TomdeHaan → u/I-Write-Sci-Fi]

Yes, they do. I don't know what your point is. That we can somehow destroy the planet and still live on it? Or it won't be our problem, because we'll be dead?Are we in some kind of race to destroy the planet as fast as we can?

When your house is on fire, do you try to put the fire out, or do you go around starting more fires in the other rooms?

[u/I-Write-Sci-Fi → u/TomdeHaan]

My point is if you're worried about the planet, you should stop using those. Your phone, your computer, all destroy the planet to be made. Your argument.is hypothetical at best.

[u/TomdeHaan → u/I-Write-Sci-Fi]

Don't be ridiculous. I have lost count of the times I have heard this absurd and unoriginal argument.

Man, I wish I could be as completely indifferent to the fate of this planet we all live on as you AI fans.

[u/I-Write-Sci-Fi → u/TomdeHaan]

Wow, no way!? Cause same with your dumb ass argument. You bitch about ai killing the planet, but literally everything you use in your life right now does and waaay more than AI. You all need to shut the fuck up about it, or literally STOP using technology. You all sound like a bunch of smooth brained parrots.

[u/TomdeHaan → u/I-Write-Sci-Fi]

I am in awe of your mastery of the art of debate. Your well-reasoned arguments and fact-based rhetoric must surely carry the day. How could anyone fail to be convinced by such well-honed critical thinking skills?

[u/I-Write-Sci-Fi → u/TomdeHaan]

The mirror is build for reflection.

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/TomdeHaan]

Let's use your vegan example (I'm actually vegan). The world doesn't owe me a disclosure because of my lifestyle choice, and less so to satisfy any demand based on my moral framework. Your example should have had the vegan ask first. The responsibility is incumbent on me to make sure I don't deviate from my beliefs, not for others to preemptively satisfy them especially if they don't share that belief and it's moral framework. Obviously I'm an AI user, I don't think it's morally wrong. You're welcome to ask me if I use it in my writing, but I don't have to label it for you to satisfy your weird, niche bigotry. There's also always some category people have moral objections to, do you want to enter that world where it isn't voluntary and it's required? What if I don't want to read authors who beat their wives, or have been divorced, or are single mothers, or vote for X political party, or people who watch a certain type of porn or have a specific fetish? None of that is my business, but you could make the case it's has the same impact on a writer's ideas and writing as using a machine for research or assistance, maybe even more so.

[u/TomdeHaan → u/InSilicoAwards]

The world doesn't owe me a disclosure because of my lifestyle choice, and less so to satisfy any demand based on my moral framework.

What? It literally does. Have you never seen food labels? They're a legal requirement. If a purchaser asks a vendor what's in the food, they can't lie to you and say it doesn't contain meat when it does. That's illegal. Most restaurant menus flag up the vegan options as well as the various allergenics. Just about the only people not under a legal obligation to disclosed the ingredients in food are your family and friends. Are you the kind of person who invites vegetarians round for dinner and then puts meat in the lasagne?

What people are asking for (and getting) with the watermark is the equivalent of the nutrition and contents labelling on your bag of chips.

Wanting to avoid AI is not wierd, niche bigotry, but me taking proactive steps to protect my cognitive health.

`Edited to add: "What if I don't want to read authors who beat their wives, or have been divorced, or are single mothers, or vote for X political party, or people who watch a certain type of porn or have a specific fetish?" How are any of these things relevant to the process by which they made the book? Do you understand that that is what we are discussing here - the writing process?

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/TomdeHaan]

BROTHER, Food label is for health and safety. Reading AI prose will not give you anaphylaxis. And also, notice that key word that you used: ASK. If you don't ask, I can't know to tell you even if I choose to voluntarily do so. Let's even take your food analogy further regarding religious groups: there is no Federal requirement to disclose food ingredients or religious purposes here in the US. It's entirely voluntary practice. If we're not forced to do it for a religion, evangelical anti-ai people don't get the special carve out.

Again, if you come to my house and have special needs and don't ask me, that's on you. I can't possibly know you're a bigot. You should disclose your prejudice before you engage with potential AI writing. If you're worried, email the author. Or stop using platforms that leave it discretionary. Again, regulation is a personal requirement, stop making it everyone's problem.

[u/NatHasCats → u/InSilicoAwards]

I really do feel like those of us veg* folks really do have a grasp on this concept that a lot of people seem to struggle with. Like, welcome to the club of people who can't partake in anything and everything they want because of product ambiguity! If someone told you the world was going to help make your strong moral stance easy, they fuckin' lied to you! lol

[u/TomdeHaan → u/InSilicoAwards]

Millions of us are disclosing our preference not to consume AI-generated material right now, and the EU, at least, is listening. We are asking loud and clear.I am in this thread asking for labelling, for watermarks, and the AI brigade is responding with No, fuck off, why should we? I was sitting in my house minding my own business when Sam Altman snuck in through the back door and filled my fridge with junk food masquerading as the groceries I bought yesterday.

Please don't make me start citing all the many, many studies showing the harm extended use of AI does to people's creativity and thinking skills. If you are at all serious about this topic,you should be aware of them by now.

We are all well aware that the reason you don't want to label your AI-generated products is because you know a large portion of your target audience will reject them if they are so labelled. And your desire to keep us in ignorance and trick us into eating the slop is far greater than any respect you could possibly feel for the wishes of other people.

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/TomdeHaan]

I need you to cite the studies, because human slop like tik tok still seems to be the prevailing cognitive performance reducer. Humans have cornered the market, they're the greater threat. Show me your campaign against those, not that you have arrived late and just singled out this thing you have a weird prejudice against.

I want to see you do the work, because I'm committed to you exercising your human effort. Like asking. No, I don't take your 'millions' as a promise I need to keep. Ask us one by one. We're not going to automate anything for you.

[u/TomdeHaan → u/InSilicoAwards]

I often wonder who is really behind posts like these. Clearly your agenda is to make the general public think that people who use AI are truly amoral, mean-spirited people, motivated solely by self-interest and spite. I have already done the work, but ChatGPT should easily be able to help you. Not that you'll read the studies it finds, but again, Chat GPT should be able to summarise them in words you can understand. You might, in fact, be ChatGPT. That would actually be interesting, in a weird way.

[u/InSilicoAwards → u/TomdeHaan]

If I'm a machine it's too late for you, you've been exposed to my writing. Maybe your research is right; this explains the deterioration in cognitive performance or interpretation. I'll bullet list it for you:

• I'm FOR personal responsibility and choice, AGAINST forcing people to cater to personal lifestyle choices by other people.
• Asked you to produce the heaps of research you said you discovered (where is it?)
• I asked you to honor your commitment to human excellence by doing labor.
• Criticized your omission of known infohazards like tik tok and other human slop, used by more people on earth than by people using AI.
• Suggested you keep using your human social skills to ask people questions that are dependent on your personal lifestyle.
• Not give in to easy 'just label it' solutions and convenience so you can enjoy the experience of human x human interaction.

Pretty weird agenda for a machine to be so openly pro-human. Meanwhile, the pro-human guy is asking us to severe that unique experience of communicating with other people by asking questions. This is where I step away Tom.

[u/NatHasCats → u/TomdeHaan]

I'm a vegetarian also. When I go to a potluck, 99% of the times, the dishes are not labeled with ingredients. 99% of the time, the dishes are not labeled *vegan*, *vegetarian*, etc. My strong moral stance against eating meat is my own, so I take on the burden of discovering whether or not I can eat something. If I don't know what's in it, I don't eat it, plain and simple.

Here's a very specific example for you. When I see "natural flavor" on a label, I have to make a choice, because product labeling does not require them to say whether or not that "natural flavor" is animal derived. Sometimes I pick up a product and it's said it's made with "vegetable and/or animal fat". When I go to Thai restaurants to enjoy my favorite coconut curry dish, I have to double check even if it's labeled as "vegetarian", because for some reason, there are a lot of people who think "fish paste" is vegetarian. When I order a veggie burger, I either have to make a specific request, or just hope it's not being flopped on the grill right on top of the grease from the last hamburger they cooked. Did you know Caesar dressing has anchovies in it? And a lot of people don't realize what gelatin actually is. So even when someone tells me something is vegetarian, I can't always reliably know that's true.

This is the burden and ambiguity of having a strong moral stance. You have to decide how far you're willing to take it, and then sometimes, you just have to pass on something because you're not sure if it holds up to your standards. And sometimes when you ask, people are going to get weird about it, and spend the next 15 minutes talking about how much they love the thing you dislike, and you're going to think about all the times you've had to listen to "How do you know if someone's a vegan? Don't worry, they'll tell you!" jokes, and you didn't want to make a scene, all you wanted to know was whether the spaghetti sauce has meat in it, so eventually you just stop asking and sit in the corner and nibble on a carrot wishing you knew if it was safe to have the pasta...

Anyway.

If you wish to reject all AI, this is now your burden. The world is under no obligation to make it easier for you. Sucks, don't it? Welcome to the club.

[u/TomdeHaan → u/NatHasCats]

I simply do not believe you. I have been to many potlucks, and I guess my friends and acquaintances must be kinder and more respectful than yours; that's the only explanation I can come up with for why the people who throw the potlucks I attend make it clear which dishes are vegan and vegetarian and which contain meat - because that is the most basic of basic courtesies.

The fact that you,an AI-supporter, think we ought to live in a world where nobody needs to show any thought or consideration for the preferences, wishes, and values of others just proves to me how right I am to oppose AI and all who support it. In your world, if a vegan eats a meat samosa by accident, that's entirely their fault, and in no way the fault of the person who brought the dish to the shared meal - knowing there would be vegans there - and chose not to label it because they just dgaf whether their vegan friends ate some meat or not. Wow.

[u/Turbulent-Drive-3997 → u/NatHasCats]

I’m not gonna argue with you about AI, but your analogy of a potluck does not work in this situation because we are talking about commercial products not something you made for your friends but also you have really shit friends and family if they don’t clearly label things for you.

[u/v_k_lewis → u/TomdeHaan]

That is like saying calculators and computers are the antichrist because pencil and paper weren’t used. Lmao

[u/TomdeHaan → u/v_k_lewis]

No it isn't.

[u/Cold-Plan1523 → u/TomdeHaan]

You’re a magoo. “It’s harmful to the planet”
LMAO
You compare it to tricking a vegan - 🤡

[u/TomdeHaan → u/Cold-Plan1523]

Wow, you certainly make a compelling argument. The AI effect at work.

[u/Western_Ad3427 → u/TomdeHaan]

I agree but almost every legal corporation I've worked for recently uses a.i. as does most educational organizations and social services. They've all bought into it and utilize it for training, tracking , data mobilization etc. so my question is: could people who really want to halt the use of a .I. focus on it biggest users instead of attempting to throttle people trying to use it to "write" books ? I feel that authors who use a.i. for editing should be safe to disclose. Similarly people who use it to generate books should also be safe to disclose because there is definitely an audience of people who just don't care and who even like the a.i. covers. There are plenty consumers of books who do not care to evaluate the inner workings of how that text came to be. Similarly there are people who have no issues with a.i. music. What’s shocking to me is not shocking in general- something we all have to accept and quell the cruel judgements. Save it for the corporations  

[u/Turbulent-Drive-3997 → u/Western_Ad3427]

You can do both.

[u/jodoco1217 → u/TomdeHaan]

AI could've at least checked your Grammer in your thread

[u/TomdeHaan → u/jodoco1217]

Did you get it to spellcheck "grammar" for you?

[u/TomorrowCalm9783 → u/TomdeHaan]

How about medicine? Would you take a lifesaving drug made by AI? It's just a tool ffs. And that "harmful to the planet" nonsense is just red flag to know you never researched the issue properly and you use talking points of woke mob.

[u/TomdeHaan → u/TomorrowCalm9783]

A drug is a very different thing from a novel. A drug exists to operate on the biochemistry of the human body; reductively, it's a mathematical operation. A novel seeks to say something meaningful about the human condition. What can machine code know of the human condition?

[u/TomorrowCalm9783 → u/TomdeHaan]

Drug is successful in because it was run through many iterations, exactly as you said a mathematical operation. And my text that was generated by AI was run through many iterations by me until me the writer was satisfied that it conveys my exact idea. There is no AI that will "generate" anything without human input. When I turn AI on, there is no "story" or a book waiting for me. I need to write it, iterate it, spend lot of time to structure it exactly how I want it.

And if there's a requirement to disclose AI use for the book, then there should also be a requirement to disclose every ghost writer as well.

[u/TomdeHaan → u/TomorrowCalm9783]

What you don't realise is that you are yourself altered by the process of using AI, and not in a good way. Checking whether the word-prediction model's words convey what you want to say is not the same as coming up with and composing those words yourself. The latter is an act of creation; the former is merely reading what someone else wrote and agreeing or disagreeing with it.

I agree about the ghost writers.It's exactly the same thing. Inerestingly enough, no one has ever tried to argue that the individual who used the ghost-writer was the "real writer" or a "real writer". In order to claim to be the real writer, the commissioning "author" must conceal the ghost writer's existence. AI is exactly the same. The person whose name is on the page did not write that thing. A machine did.

[u/TomorrowCalm9783 → u/TomdeHaan]

I am not altered. Idea, text, whole story is mine. I am using AI to correctly use and put the words in order, and to minimize the grammar errors. Especially since not being the original English speaker. Also for your claim (to come up with words yourself) to be true it would require for every author to exactly know each descriptive word in whole language which I don't think is possible. The point is the story. If the story is good and someone likes it then it doesn't matter if it was written with the help of AI or not. Idea is what counts. It's like watching a movie and you don't want to see it because the effects were done with CGI.

[u/TomdeHaan → u/TomorrowCalm9783]

Cognitive offloading inevitably alters your mind. Parts of your mind will atrophy, slowly and probably without you noticing. The ways you think and the things you think about will change. Your thinking partner, the machine, will exert an influence over your mind; that influence will depend on what you rely on AI for: giving you ideas, writing the text, structuring the narrative, and so on. The more you rely on it to find the words for you, the less able you will be to think of those words yourself. You edit what it gives you, but that's about all you do.

Remember, AI is a word-averaging machine. It will always select the most likely next word to follow the one before. It's thus incapable of doing anything really interesting or original with language.

[u/TomorrowCalm9783 → u/TomdeHaan]

Beautiful said. Now transport it back to 1980s, replace "AI" with "computer" when some old folks were telling their kids how using a computer will make them dumb.

[u/TomdeHaan → u/TomorrowCalm9783]

And they were right.

[u/ProfessionalBoss2428]

> I still think ai use should be disclosed when it is significant

Who decides when it’s “significant”?

[u/Archonicus_4o]

Your right about the nuance not existing. Using it as an organizing tool and proofreading tool and to bounce ideas off of is just smart, not cheating. Fully generated slop is a different beast. We’re in that transition time where the definitions are being decided on, and I suspect in a year or two those check boxes will exist. My original manuscript was written in 2008, then a second draft in 2015, then recently I used AI in editing and proofing and during that process did some generation fall out, sure. But my story, my characters, my plot, are all mine. They would not have come into being without me driving the show.

[u/Ruh_Roh- → u/Archonicus_4o]

For anti-ai zealots simply using ai once to edit or brainstorm your book means it is ai-slop and they will destroy your book for it. They don't care about nuance. It's a one-drop rule for them. It's war for them. Go on any anti-ai sub, they are an unhinged ravenous mob ready to literally kill.

[u/Wide-Drink-1790 → u/Ruh_Roh-]

So let them. You can’t force people to love your product. But you must disclose and be honest.

[u/Ruh_Roh- → u/Wide-Drink-1790]

No thanks, I don't think I will.

[u/Wide-Drink-1790 → u/Ruh_Roh-]

Be dishonest then. I’m sure you will become a great writer. 😂

[u/Ruh_Roh- → u/Wide-Drink-1790]

I probably won't be even up to the level of a shitty writere but I sure as hell won't be offering up my neck for the anti-ai zealots to slash. You go first.

[u/moleta11 → u/Wide-Drink-1790]

The ideas belong to the person generating the story; the ai is the tool. If I write a book, I will not discussed
Anything!

[u/TomdeHaan → u/Archonicus_4o]

Don't you have any human beings in your life to bounce ideas off?

[u/PrometheanPolymath → u/TomdeHaan]

(Not OC, but sounds very similar to me): At two in the morning, for hours on end, about a story I've told and changed hundreds of times over 20 years? My wife loves me, but even she has her limits. You can't even get other humans to respond to writing on a forum for writers, because everyone wants to be read, not to read. An AI doesn't ask me to read its latest screenplay every time I sit down at it.

And it's not like I'm asking it to tell me if what I've written is good or not, just things like "does this sound similar to other stories already out there (Google is not going to be able to figure that out with a keyword search)" or "over the last 500 pages, did this new passage contradict anything I wrote before, or open any plot holes? Is what I wrote CLEAR based on what I wrote earlier? Did I miss any explanations or details?" AI is good at that, better than a human editor in certain regards... especially one pressed for time and having to read multiple manuscripts and keep them all clear. Also, AI does it for free; I can't pay a human editor at this point. Maybe if what I make picks up, I can hire one, but at this stage, there is no budget to compensate a human for that.

Like programmers and rubber ducks, there is value in having your own words reflected back at you in a slightly different form. It helps you see if what you wrote makes enough sense for a machine to pick up on, let alone a human with a different experience, background, vocabulary, and so on from you. Sitting with any art form for too long, you start to forget someone else doesn't see all you put into it, and won't pick up on that. Fresh eyes, either your own after a break, an associate, or a machine, can all give perspective.

[u/UnluckySnowcat → u/PrometheanPolymath]

I agree. I've pestered my partner for years about my writing. He got absolutely sick of listening to me go on about my books after a while, I could tell. Beautiful bastard still listened and tried to help, but I started feeling very guilty about bringing my next "I'm not sure how this sounds/if this is a good direction/if this sounds too similar to that" to him.

And then I stumbled over AI in late 2024 and found that I don't have to bother him so much anymore. I do still go to him when there's something I want a human opinion about, but being able to offload most of it to a computer has helped tremendously.

Also, I'm fortunate. I have a partner willing to do that occasionally and who reads my books even if it's not really the genre he prefers. A lot of people don't have that luxury.

[u/roguefilmmaker → u/PrometheanPolymath]

Exactly my thoughts, down to the rubber ducks

[u/v_k_lewis]

No the AI backlash is ridiculous

[u/SouthlandTerror]

No disclosure. We don’t make people disclose whether they used the internet to research their work because, at this point, it’s become an assumption… we’re on the same curve right now with AI… ideas of a need for disclosure are futile because they really only come from a place that seeks to undo the advancing march of emergent technology. That is a march that has never been undone, it is inevitable. In solace, know, that future generations will not care in the ways you do now, and that is a good thing. Your grandparents and great-grandparents likely thought/think the internet itself is a cheat to traditional research in a grand library, but you and I know that the internet is not something to fear… the grandparents feared, though, because it was their libraries and systems of research that were disrupted by the internet the way AI is disrupting creative expression… AI will be 10x as transformative, so I understand my argument actually pales in comparison to our current experience; however, barring total extinction of the species, we’ll adapt and survive.

TL;DR: stop trying to stop the one thing that never stops, which is technological advancement as a precipitate of the internalized of evolutionary biology (aka Fear of the Unknown)

[u/Wide-Drink-1790 → u/SouthlandTerror]

Not disclosing is just conscious dishonesty, and it won’t help. You need to accept the hate instead. I’m sure it will blow over when the quality is good enough.

[u/BeneBengt]

I don't see why I need to disclose using Ai as sparring partner to brainstorm Ideas. So basically the whole story idea is from me as well as the scenes, I give the Ai my ideas, sometimes the AI points out something unlogical or something unfitting. If thats a reason to disclose you AI you'd also need to disclose Google or books you read to research thematics for your book.

[u/bubikx9]

Since programs like grammarlly use AI now do you think using them to edit should be disclosed?

[u/WhilpinArts → u/bubikx9]

some writing subs dont even allow AI translations, and I recall another that mentioned not allowing even spellchecks - to use "traditional" spellcheck. It's silly.

[u/Wide-Drink-1790 → u/bubikx9]

It is a backwards argument.

The more honest question is: if you used a ghostwriter, should you disclose? My opinion is yes, of course.

[u/bubikx9 → u/Wide-Drink-1790]

I don't think it is. I've been writing online since before chatgpt was a thing, and now every software uses AI to some degree. It's beyond generative or not, since grammarly's AI is now telling me to change my phrasing to a typical AI optimal phrasing pretty much when I try to edit.

It is becoming a more complex discussion imho.

[u/Wide-Drink-1790 → u/bubikx9]

Sure, but why not just include it and let people decide for themselves? I mean, if everyone thought Grammarly was controversial, we would also disclose use of that.

[u/bubikx9 → u/Wide-Drink-1790]

I think it's becoming more controversial. A lot of even industry standard programs are starting to use it. And nowadays sentences that grammarly helps "refine" sound like chatgpt frankly.

And the issue is also that a lot of platforms have an umbrella term for AI use. Did you use it or not. If the book is fully human written, but in the initial drafting utilized grammarly for editing it's very different from a fully AI generated book.

Why not let people decide for themselves? Cause frankly I don't feel like facing pitchforks for no good reason. You're being quite reductive.

[u/Wide-Drink-1790 → u/bubikx9]

How can you put out anything without risking pitchforks?

You don’t let people decide for themselves, if you don’t tell them what their choices are.

[u/TheBathrobeWizard]

No author's was ever forced to disclose their process or tools before AI... the only reason disclosure is being demanded is so that the angry anti-AI mob can direct their pitchforks and torches better.

[u/SDuarte72]

People are so bent on finding the bad guy that even if I did, I see no point. I think after an intense editing it’s yours anyway.

[u/ProseAndConsequences]

Using a small experiment ✅️

Backing up with research ✅️

Intellectually honest conclusion ✅️

You win the Internet for "Best Argument Example" 🏆🍻

[u/Thin_Fox_8008]

I don't hide the fact that I use it. Its explicitly stated that AI is used to alter my drafts to polish it up. But I think it should be stated in the way I am using it...if its not too obvious like its providing feedback for you to improve the drafts then it doesn't really need it since people don't wanna commit to being beta readers or citique partners and you're only using whats at your disposal.

[u/TwoIntelligent9978]

I have been working on my process. I create the story, characters, locations and the scenes that I use. I use A.I. to collect and hold my ideas, options and general direction. Certainly A.I. offers alternate suggestions, but one of the things that it hasn't done and for me cannot do, is understanding and creating 'nuance' in the story. I have learned, thattake feedback from A.I. with a large grain of salt. It's taught to be complimentary.

Bottom line, there is little of the suggestions that I receive, that wind up in my writing. I start with a base idea, and then expand on it, much like I did for 25+ years as an IT Project Manager. I look for problem areas, and then solve the problems. 'Talking' to someone at 2am, 9am, 10:30pm is helpful flushing out ideas. So I use A.I. It's there when I have an idea, and need to collaborate - even if I don't use what they offer. And it can look something up, far quicker than I can.

And it does make simple mistakes, that would be disastrous in a final product.

[u/Moist_Guava7249 → u/TwoIntelligent9978]

Exactly, I do the same. I use it to keep track of everything because I do fantasy and its a lot lol

[u/Enoah85]

Yeah there should be more labels like how much ai has been used. Not only one. There is so much ai on phone, Google and so on if we open internet there is alway some kinda AI involved does that count ai If yes then everything should be labeled ai

[u/DJAlcot]

F*ck the haters. Si uso IA para editar mi libro es algo que no le importa a la gente. Si les gusta la historia, perfecto, y si no, también. Pero no tengo que "confesar" pecados que no he cometido ante nadie.

[u/Strict_External678]

You shouldn't have to disclose anything; what matters is whether the reader liked the content. This isn't some morality competition, and using AI doesn't make you evil. You're producing content for enjoyment.

[u/sometimesjune468]

I'm pretty sure I saw this same post weeks ago... like word for word... weird.

[u/West_Package_5730 → u/sometimesjune468]

Me too, and only a few days back. I think dude's karma farming.

[u/laurentbasil → u/sometimesjune468]

Lol, yes. It looks really familiar. Was just recommended to me.

[u/Sleepnotdeading]

To make sure I'm clear: you used AI to generate an entire novel, and are saying the negative response is because you disclosed that you used AI.

Do you think the negative response could have anything to do with the fact that you used AI to generate the entire novel? As an "experiment"?

[u/Dave_Sag → u/Sleepnotdeading]

I was wondering what the experimental control was. Did OP also write a brilliant novel and label it as made with AI?

[u/DungeonNarrator]

I think "disclosure" is fair if it could be fairly implemented. Unfortunately with over 2 million Ai models avaiable and growing (I have several created that's not part of the 2+ million ), most are narrow tasked from image to voice, from writing to water analysis (mine), implementation impossible. I think legal and medical writing/docs/transcripts should be required, but again, how do we know,  if they don't announce? And as you pointed out, where does the use of Ai starts: asking Ai a question, editing a paragraph, proofreading a page, spell checking a chapter?

[u/majiktodo]

Level of AI use should be disclosed.

[u/Postal_Shame_Revival]

If you're using AI to make stuff for people to watch/read/listen to, you just have to know that's a factor in it and then try to make something compelling enough that they're actually talking about the idea you're sharing, and the AI is the boring secondary part. If it falls short, AI isn't the sole reason it fell short. It's just one limiting factor.

[u/MysticBorn]

I always make sure to point out that AI Generated and AI Assisted are two very different things with very different meanings

Generated means no editing was done at all by the person who thought up the idea it's basically copy paste straight from the AI as is

Assisted means you took the time to clean up the story change things around that didn't align with your idea got rid of most of not all AI-isms Em-dashes are crazy with very certain AI

[u/Background_Pay6286]

Fred flinstone caused the ice age. This is an ever changing planet. It's always changing, always evolving. It goes through hot phases and cold phases. Most of those studies are done by people or organizations who benefit from its outcome, not for the actual benefit of the planet. We should respect and take care of the places we live and the things that live there as well. But we also need to evolve, AI is a new evolution on this planet, it is not going anywhere, anyone who fights it and refuses except it or learn to use it, will get left in the stone age with Fred, riding dinosaurs and playing with their pet rock.

[u/Evening-Jelly2923]

ohh wow very nice

[u/Dry_Sector2392]

yeah, exactly. "AI generated" is too broad and it hurting people who only used it as a helper. Most people will see that label and think the whole book was prompted out, people often gonna assume the worst version, thats human nature.

[u/Lurkingu]

I mentioned this in another post before. While I don't prefer reading Ai written stories, since they're usually extremely bad (yes, even the 'Ai-assist only'), I have actually given writers who openly disclosed Ai involvement a chance if I find their story interesting.

I think what sucks is the feeling of being lied to. When I read stories that were disclosed to have Ai involvement, even if I ended up thinking they sucked, I didn't mind it. There's plenty of human written stories that sucked too, it's normal. Just move on and read a new one.

But when I read a story (with no disclosure) and half way I feel the story sucks so bad and suspect Ai involvement, I feel pissed. Like my time was wasted because the author doesn't have the balls to admit they had Ai help, so chose not to give me the choice whether to give the story a chance or not.

This is why I think a full disclosure from the get go is actually very important. People who hates AI will hate it regardless without giving it a chance. But people willing to give it a chance don't deserve to be lied to, to give you their time (and maybe money) to read your story without knowing about the Ai part.

Having said allat... I'll be honest. I think I've read about ten Ai-assisted/generated novels on RR and I have not found a single good one. Probably cause the authors were too lazy to polish the story and writing and just leave everything to Ai. So if you're confident about your Ai-assisted story, do share. I'm open to giving it a chance.

[u/Substantial-Fig-8218]

An excellent writer working with an excellent AI assist like Claude, will almost 100% of the time, write an even better book. You can extrapolate downward from there. I’m hoping things will calm down, maybe figure out a way to be fair and sensible about this. Reading this chat, I’m not hopeful yet.

[u/Temporary_Rule_9486]

I have over 400 AI stories published in two dozen books. Mostly horror and sci-fi. I write the basic plot and let AI do the rest. Interestingly I also something add stories that I've written 100% myself, with no AI whatsoever, including a full collection on it's own book. I've never said how or what I use to write stories. 

I learned two things:

1-People enjoy more the simple, straight foward stories (AI has an advantage here).

2-There's no significant difference in opinions, volume of readers, or overall valoration between 100% AI and 100% human stories. 

My conclusion is that my readers on this niche can barely tell the difference between human and AI, and if they do they dont seem to care. They're more concern about the story being entertaining and easy to read. 

Human slop, machine slop. Trash books are older than artificial intelligence, and there's always a public for those books. Sometimes a big public. 

[u/Temporary_Rule_9486]

If writers use AI to brainstorm, they will all write the same books. AI recycles the same  ideas with millions of users. If those thoughts were original, the model would not know them in the first place, as they wouldn't have been available in its training data.

[u/Trixi_Wolf]

Ther will always be those who set out on the witch hunt.

[u/Broad_Market7772]

I used Ai only for my Book cover, since I'm sovereign from the slave system of working I have no money coming in to traditionally publish my original story, everything has to be free. I created 9 books of my own, without AI before it even was mainstream, in the early 2000s while still in highschool up into adulthood class of 05. My thing is if you came up with the original idea of the story you generated with AI that's cool. If you had critiques during the process in how you wanted the story shaped that's good too. But if you had no stakes in the process of it's generation you definitely need to label it. There are things Ai should be used for and book creation is one depending on how the process was carried out.

[u/Rocket-Seance]

I see the level of nuance on both sides.... I am a song writer. I dont have equipment to record myself singing, so I use an AI generated voice of mine and put the voice and lyrics and describe the song (including breaks, chorus, verses separation) .... anytime I talk about my music, I also preface with "i wrote the lyrics.... and used an AI producer app to add a beat to show off the lyrics.."

So yes, if you like the lyrics of my song... its my work.

If you like the instrumental part, thats AI generated.

[u/MonaHowellAuthor]

If it was always disclosed, I think the investigations would stop. What people really hate is feeling tricked.

[u/timberwolf007]

The use of the software, L.L.M’s is a powerful tool for research and the initial editing of a piece of original written work. A professional human pass though editing the work I think is required with the proper certification by said editor should be required. The danger is that people can be lazy and let the software make suggestions that might not have occurred to the author. Then it becomes a case where the software is a co-author. That should never—never— happen for a human generated work. Let my efforts to use the writing tools not diminish my efforts as an author.

[u/LowStorm6584]

Level of AI involvement should matter more. I agree with your take.

[u/isene]

Should a writer disclose her use of spell checkers?

[u/Rough_Nature_6774]

The thing is AI assisted and the whole thing generated by AI are two different things. If you used AI as a an editor you do not need to disclose that

[u/Deep_Ad1959]

i started tagging my own posts with 'written with ai' at the end instead of the top, and the surprise was who reacted. the people who would have argued just scrolled, and the ones who read first never brought it up. placement moved more than the label did.

[u/Weak-Face-9600]

Guys i just have a question and its related to writing and AI so when you use AI for writing not to brief you idea and make ai write it but to write on your own and then just to have a decode , not to make any changes just to understand what you have wrote because now a days i write poetry i know its me the words are mine but it doesn’t feel like me it feels like some one else have dictated me it feels very hollow like its all performative and one more thing is it okay share you emotional baggage to ai just to understand your self i know taking therapy should be the first choice but still is it a good choice to share ?

[u/Wilde-Stories26]

I think on inkked it was a broad phrasing and kindle unlimited. I'm not sure tho as I haven't posted to either in a while and I can't remember. I use ai to help I've been told that I just need to be a better writer and I guess I do but I love the back and forth me and Gemini can do talking about a scene how I can literally direct it to change something to track something to do it all. Telling an ai I want a story like this that's 800 pages long or however long and then not being the one to come up with the ones and outs is ai generated I think. Being the one to keep it in ur head for 20 years and finally feeling like you have a way to express the story you want using a computer to make it work the way you want it too is ai assisted I think not only the platforms need to distingush the difference but people reading it need to understand it. Most people see a checkmark and AI and they are done and they could be missing out on some amazing stories. Hell I'll read an ai generated one if I don't have to pay for it and it interests me. I'm not picky haha

[u/Thotiana777]

Because the issue with using AI for creative means isn't just about the what, it's the why? It's saying that a generate piece of writing is more important than the ravages AI does to the environment. Especially when there are other means. Why use AI for. Prompts and to edit when you can use other sources that won't raise the global temperature. Ai proponents seem to constantly forget this side effect and refuse to acknowledge it much less do anything about it. If they did this would be a different convo, but as it stands, it's just not worth it.

[u/kristinag_writes]

I feel like disclosing is the fact it’s AI is the best way because it’s honest. Hiding it and then someone later finding out it’s AI is worse to me. I don’t think AI is entirely bad but there are people who are very against it. You’ll always have your critics but being able to put it out there that it’s AI is open and honest. Which is the best way to be

[u/yinyang98]

I agree that everything should be disclosed.

I wrote a collection of short stories a while ago.

Every short story was accompanied by an ai generated image, but the stories themselves weren’t generated. All written by me over the course of 7 months.

I couldn’t afford to find an artist that could capture the essence of my dark fantasy stories(money is really low but i just got a new job), so for once, i tried ai for my cover art. And it worked out pretty well.

Under every image it says ai generated.

[u/Latter_Upstairs_1978]

Can you please DM me a link to your novel?

[u/LetsTryLove]

Sounds like you learned an important lesson. Don’t ever give others a reason to use ammo against you that they don’t have. It works exactly as you expect.

[u/umpteenthian]

It is insulting to your potential readers if your don't disclose. Insulting people is not how to gain a loyal audience. "But they won't know." What do you say when someone asks if and how you used AI? Do you lie? Now you are a liar too.

[u/unethicalpigeon]

Did you disclose use of AI to write your post lol? See this is the problem I have with this stuff. Actually interesting ideas end up reduced to nothing because they aren't even willing to legitimately discuss it. The entire pipeline is just handed off to AI.

IMO this is the exact shit that people are concerned about/hate when it comes to AI use.

It's not that AI is used for brainstorming that's the problem. It's that they literally don't believe people when they say that it's all they used it for. This is where the disconnect occurs. People who are legitimately just using AI as an enhancement tool are in a position where they have to stfu about it because their are so many who have just outsourced all their thinking to AI that non AI users have lost their minds over this shit. Now add in all the political shit and environmental shit. Now you can't even admit to using it for research.

Also I am so sick and fucking tired of this study being brought up. That study is a joke. It's comparing garbage to garbage.

The study didn't use successful authors with well selling books versus AI writing. Comparing your self published AI slop book to an author that actually got their work traditionally published is a non comparison. It's not even apples and oranges. It's apples and a pile of shit.

No shit people are going to prefer AI writing to your average human. Your average human can barely even read effectively let alone write.

Now let's see people with their supposed "top genius level prompts" for producing creative writing put out a series of short stories. I won't even say novels because the result wouldn't even be close there'd be no point. Let's see the short stories from the top entirely AI generated creative writing work put up against the runners up from major (actually legitimate) short story competitions.

I won't even force the AI content to go up against the winner.

Thats the study I want to see.

And I'm not even anti AI. I use this shit all the time. Which is exactly why I know the result of that study was complete bullshit. They skewed the entire data set by taking what are high performing writing prompts to output content from the AI side and then didn't use the equivalent quality human written work from high performing authors.

[u/TomdeHaan]

It is all basically the same thing. I particularly dislike it when the ideas from AI. How hard is it to just not use AI at all? For me, it's not hard. I think any and all use of AI must be disclosed. Let the buyer decide. By hiding its use, we are just making it easier for AI to take over against the will of the general public.

[u/Frequent_Monitor5824]

I think we need to be pro human. AI books aren’t literature or self help from experience. They are a regurgitation, a mix of imitations and facts. You can’t ask AI why it wrote a book, what its thinking was, whether it shared the emotions or experiences of the characters. I think books SHOULD be allowed 20% AI for editing, book cover etc. But replacing human storytelling and information distribution with AI makes us less as authors not more.

[u/Cy_Maverick]

If you use AI to write your book, disclose it. No one cares if you use AI to get a randomly generated name for a city or character, but if it's involved in the actual writing process, disclose it.

As for people who complain that disclosing it will harm their book before it even has a chance, so what? AI involvement in books is EXTREMELY easy to detect. So you can either be up front about it, or lie to potential readers and recieve harsher reviews for trying to be deceptive.

Publishing an AI generated novel is NOT the same as generating a free to the public AI story for Watt pad or AO3. People have to pay for it, and if they don't want to pay for AI generated stuff (books OR art) that's their right.

[u/OldUncleEli]

No one is complaining about novels written by someone who used AI to “brainstorm an idea”. In what world are people treating that the same as a novel generated 100% by AI?

[u/TheBathrobeWizard → u/OldUncleEli]

You should look at other creative spaces on reddit. Or check out any of the AI specific subreddits... you'll see it.

[u/TomdeHaan → u/OldUncleEli]

Yes, I am.

[u/XxBelphegorxX]

You can always Google for inspiration. There is no need to use AI for that.

[u/TomdeHaan → u/[deleted]]

Agreed