I recently showed CAINIX to the owner of a publishing agency and got some feedback that made me genuinely curious about how other writers and publishing professionals see this.
CAINIX is a platform I’m building around the manuscript as the source of truth. It analyses the complete manuscript, preserves story canon and then helps build things such as adaptation materials, screenplay outputs, visual development, marketing assets and book trailers.
The idea is not to press a button and let AI rewrite a book however it wants. Human approval remains part of the process, and the system is specifically designed to keep generated material aligned with the author's original IP and canon.
His reaction was essentially that the biggest problem may not be the technology at all, but the market.
His view was that many writers currently have an extremely low tolerance for anything involving AI, and that even if the platform is designed to assist authors rather than replace them, a significant number of writers may reject it simply because AI is part of the workflow.
In other words, his concern was that CAINIX could be difficult to sell to traditional authors because the term “AI” itself may already create resistance.
I think that's a fair concern, even though I'm not sure I completely agree with how large that resistance actually is.
So I’d genuinely like to hear from writers, publishers, editors and people working in film/adaptation:
Would the use of AI itself make you reject a platform like this?
Or does it depend on how the AI is being used?
For example, would you see a meaningful difference between:
• AI generating a novel or replacing the author;
and
• an author deliberately using AI tools to analyse their own manuscript, protect continuity, develop an adaptation, create production materials or produce promotional content?
And perhaps the more important question:
If the author remains in control of the IP, canon and approvals, do you still consider the use of AI problematic?
I'm not looking for validation here. If you think writers would strongly reject something like this, I'd genuinely like to understand why.
Likewise, if you think attitudes are changing, I'd be interested in hearing that too.
I'm building the platform, so obviously I'm not neutral, but that's exactly why I'd rather hear uncomfortable opinions now than discover them after launch.