‘Where do you find the time?’ Over the years, whenever I shared news of an upcoming book with friends, I used to perceive such responses as a source of pride.
Recently, as I promote my latest book on AI, titled God-Like, I’ve made an effort not to interpret those same words as an implicit accusation: ‘Where do you find the time?’ Does it imply that I received assistance from ChatGPT?
The reality is that resisting the temptation of AI assistance is increasingly challenging. Nowadays, my word processor offers to assist with the next paragraph or refine the one I just composed.
Given my role at a research charity focusing on AI’s impact on the UK labor market, I encounter daily insights into the far-reaching consequences of this technological revolution across various professions. The creative sectors, in particular, are already experiencing significant transformations.
Upon completing the book, I acknowledged the validity of my friends’ remarks: it was essential to confront the inevitable query directly and provide full disclosure. Hence, I felt the need to include an AI transparency statement at the beginning of my book.
In my quest for a template online, I found none, compelling me to devise one myself. I identified four key dimensions to address:
Firstly, was any text generated using AI?
Secondly, was any text enhanced with AI assistance? This could involve tools like Grammarly suggesting sentence reordering or word substitutions to enhance clarity.
Thirdly, was any text proposed with AI input? This might entail seeking an outline from ChatGPT or generating the next paragraph based on existing content.
Lastly, was the text edited with AI, and if so, were spelling and grammar suggestions accepted or rejected based on human judgment?
For my book, the responses were: 1) No, 2) No, 3) No, and 4) Yes—with manual decisions on accepting or rejecting spelling and grammar corrections. While not flawless, I present my four-part statement as a foundation for further refinement, possibly evolving into a Creative Commons-style standard.
I aimed to foster transparent discussions about the tools writers utilize, as research indicates that a considerable amount of generative AI usage remains undisclosed. With work demands escalating, individuals are hesitant to admit to using tools that expedite tasks, allowing them to reclaim some breathing room and potentially carve out time for leisure or creative pursuits. If AI is poised, as Elon Musk suggests, to ‘solve’ work and empower us to thrive and create, we should openly acknowledge how and where this transformation is unfolding.
As a writer dedicated to my craft, I also integrated the AI transparency statement following a disquieting encounter. During a coffee meeting with a representative from an organization hosting writing workshops and retreats, I inquired about their stance on the impact of generative AI. Their response—’We don’t believe it’s a concern’—resonated with me as a stark contrast to my perspective.
I contend that acknowledging the significance of AI is imperative. Until a mechanism for verifying AI-generated content is established—an arduous task—we must, at the very least, cultivate trust by disclosing the tools we employ in our writing.
These tools, undeniably valuable, can serve as catalysts for collaborative creation. In a notable example from August 2021, Vauhini Vara leveraged an early version of ChatGPT to craft a poignant, intricate, and distinctive narrative about her sister’s passing. Vara’s transparency statement would differ from mine, not to diminish her work but to expand the realm of creative possibilities.
When we engage with a book, we enter a pact of trust with the author. Surrendering the gift of language to machines, as orchestrated by a select group of tech leaders, profoundly undermines this historical trust. While an AI may eventually produce a remarkable book, the question remains: should it matter? The applause may be tepid. Like a flawless, lab-created diamond, it would be artificial rather than artistic—a novelty of minimal value.
In this evolving landscape, writers must establish trust in the authenticity of their creations by openly acknowledging the tools employed in their craft. Dismissing concerns about trust in writing as beneath the dignity of the profession, in my view, is naive.
As detailed in my book, AI, akin to the atomic bomb, is a potent human innovation that we must learn to coexist with. Transparently disclosing our resources is a crucial step in averting a writing competition that breeds suspicion and discord.
