Earlier this week, The Atlantic published a database of written works in the Book3 dataset. This dataset has been (and still is) being used by Google, Microsoft, Meta, Bloomberg, and probably more to train their generative AI software. You can read more about it here.
My novella, THE FINAL RECONCILIATION, is part of that dataset. These companies did not pay for my book, nor any other work in said dataset. All titles were compiled and made available illegally through online piracy.
The Author’s Guild has provided a great article about what authors can do if their work was obtained and used illegally. The good news is, several prominent authors have filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of everyone affected, so you’re covered and will be entitled to some form of compensation if/when the case is settled.
They’ve also put together a handy letter you can customize and send to the CEOs of the aforementioned companies notifying them that you do not consent. I have no idea what good (if any) it will do, but it’s worth a shot. And no, you do not have to be a member of the Author’s Guild to make use of it (I’m not).
In the off chance you’re one of the folks who pirated my work… I’m not going to scold you. I grew up in the age of Napster and Kazaa. There’s a multitude of reasons why someone pirates material, and far be it from me to judge.
So, did you like the book? Great! Leave a review. Buy a hard copy. Subscribe to my Patreon. Or, if you feel bad about it, you can always toss a few coins into the hat.
I’m not a huge corporation. Every sale matters and enables me to keep making art my primary source of income. More sales means more art. It’s really that simple. Please try to keep that in mind the next time you consider pirating a book.
The AI Issue: My Two Cents
I’ve watched the AI debate closely over the last couple of years. As a freelancer who makes his living in the creative arts, I’m deeply concerned about what the future will look like. I’m concerned that my design business will slowly dissolve because authors and publishers are using AI-generated cover art. I’m concerned that readers won’t have to buy a Todd Keisling book because they can have an AI write one for them for free.
Is that extreme? Of course, it seems that way now. But in ten years, after the software has been refined? Not so extreme any more. There’s a corollary discussion to be had about UBI (universal basic income) to offset the displacement of workers and jobs due to AI, but I’m not going to get into that here.
My point is that AI may seem silly and harmless to you now, like a fun toy. I admit I played around with MidJourney when it went public, typing in prompts to see what weird stuff it would spit out. But just a month later, those MidJourney prompts became more refined, more detailed, more uncanny. It’s only improved since then, and therein lies the bigger issue for me: It gets better the more people use it. And while ChatGPT and MidJourney may be able to poorly imitate an artist’s style now, in another decade it may likely become indecipherable from the real thing.
That’s the end game for artists, friends. That’s why the major studios in Hollywood resisted the strike for so long because AI was on the table. It’s why so many have been rallying and screaming about the use of generative AI in general. The more it’s trained, the better it will become.
I’ve seen people argue online by saying “It’s not going away” and simply “Evolve.”
I agree, AI is here to stay, and I’ll be the first to admit it has its uses. Adobe Photoshop’s neural filters are powered by AI to make processes like photo retouching less time consuming. As a writer, I’d love to feed a manuscript into a system and have it compile a comprehensive birds-eye view of the plot structure, or to analyze the characters and generate a profile I can reference those little details later on. Not to suggest where a plot may go, or to do anything that involves the actual creation process.
A creative vision should be bolstered by AI.
AI shouldn’t be used to replace a creative vision.
That creative vision is what makes it art. That human touch, the time and dedication and skill to a particular craft, the distillation of failures and successes and experience into a medium—that is what sets art aside from everything else we lowly humans do in our daily toils. We should be using AI to take care of everything else in our lives so that we are free to make more art and live our lives. Give me an AI that will handle my finances, take care of my taxes, or choose a better insurance plan that won’t bankrupt me.
Right now, the way we’re approaching AI is backwards. We should be feeding it spreadsheets, not works of art, and certainly not works of fiction.
Or, maybe, we shouldn’t be feeding it at all.
TK
I share your concerns. I think we also must keep an eye on how easy it is to censor in our digital world. The recent Roald Dahl sanitation affects every digital copy of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (for example) no matter when you made your purchase. We know about that one because his estate announced their intentions. How much censorship happens to digital works that we don't immediately notice — and how much easier is it to train AI to do the (mindless, impossible-to-appeal, implacable) censoring? As you said, is this an extreme view? Not really, no, for the same reasons you outlined. It's a serious problem, and serious people need to stop urging us to "evolve." (I've heard that one, too.)
I agree with the last part: let's not feed it at all.