More of the Incessant Push for AI

 And why? The tech industry seems to be deaf to the shouts of many creatives with regard to the multitude of concerns that come with unleashing this AI dragon that they so desperately want us to hail as the biggest thing since...ever... Or maybe since Hydra. I don't know, but I'm not buying it. The promotional push is everywhere, thanks to algorithms that no one wants in their lives (Yes, Target. I bought a package of diapers. It was for one baby shower. I don't need your ads at EVERY internet turn, pushing diapers on me).

As a writer, I find my Facebook feed filled with sponsored ads that the algorithms have decided I need for the latest and greatest software that will "write the stories for me." But I don't want the software to write the stories for me--where is the goddamned challenge in that? 

Also, as a screenplay finalist in a handful of script competitions, I got this promotional doozy in my email.

The tone deaf sponsors of this abomination of a competition have since removed it and apologized to the greater screenwriting community (aka the WGA) after one day's worth of backlash, and I applaud my fellow screenwriters for getting the job done.

But the problem is that someone thought it was a good idea in the first place. Someone thought it was a good idea to push the envelope, to sell us on the necessity of AI to "be creative for us." I have gone through the ads in my feed, I've taken the time to click on the little corner icon that brings up the menu where you can choose the option, DON'T SHOW THIS AD AGAIN and DON'T SHOW ADS SIMILAR TO THIS AGAIN, and STILL they keep coming. Okay, fine, I say. If they're going to keep coming, I will leave snarky remarks in the threads just to piss them off, because I want them--and everyone--to know that they can stop selling me shit that I don't want or need. That will make a difference, right? They'll read those comments and discern my discontent, right???

Okay, huge assumption on my part. Wishful thinking, yeah. But you would think, with the snarky feedback and the social media posts that I have made in support of the WGA and against the use of AI in the creative world...you would think that the algorithms would get the hint. But I get it. I am a target audience when it comes to pushing AI writing software. That part of the equation is not going to change.

What I REALLY don't need though is a baked goods company trying to sell me on the benefits of AI in my life. That's right, Wolferman's Bakery, that sells breakfast muffins and pastries sent me a newsletter eblast about using AI to better improve my life. Wolferman's Bakery wants me to think hard on that, and since they asked for opinions on that topic, I decided I would oblige.

This is what I had to say:

I’m not sure why I’m getting a newsletter in support of AI from a baked goods seller (or floral arranger—who knows, because the email came from Wolferman's but the address is 1800flowers…), but whatever… Your email blast found its way to the wrong inbox. You see, I am a writer, a book author, a screenwriter, and I’m not as enamored with the onslaught of promotional advertising being shoved in my face left and right as our money grubbing tech bros hoped I would be.

A good number of writer types are in agreement with my stand as is evidenced by the current Writers Strike, where key components of the agreement, that the AMPTP refuses to recognize, address the usage and implementation of AI in a highly creative field. Add to that the growing number of writers and artists who are filing lawsuits over the vast amount of material that AI has trained on without author/artist consent to create “new” art, “new” stories. Background actors are being scanned for features and TV and being paid a day's wage so that studios can use their images "in perpetuity" without a say as to how those images are used, and without further compensation.

At minimum, there needs to be serious regulation put into place. There needs to be clear rules regarding copyright and compensation, because AI training on the artistic endeavors of others—for the sake of selling their AI technology to the masses and to corporate entities—is clearly a violation of fair use in my opinion.

So no, I am not super excited by this new technology. I have had the opportunity to read a few AI examples in the creative writing field, and to be honest they are monstrosities. And derivative. And I know, you might say that I'm biased, and yes I am, but seriously. They were that bad. And I get it to some degree—artists who don’t make a lot of money, who are trying to get their material out there on a budget, might cave to the cost effective use of AI to self publish a book or to have it read by an AI voice, or to push past the block, or to have it create some artistically rendered book cover. I get that. But you lose something when you rely on artificial intelligence to do the work for you. You lose the sense of pride and accomplishment that comes from the work. And you fail to support the artistic talents of others. Because writing, at least, isn’t about writing another story like the last story. It’s about putting your heart and soul into a story to learn about yourself and to create something special that speaks to you. That you hope will speak to others.

So, no. I am not in support of AI like the tech industry hoped I would be. But thanks for asking.

Anyway, thanks for entertaining me by reading this rant. Also, don't buy books from robot authors.

The AI Experiment

I’m not an A-list writer. I’m happy with the ideas I parlay into scripts and novels, and I aspire to make a decent living from it, sure. But I’m also an introvert comfortable in her own introvert skin, and I don’t spend a lot of time investing in the marketing aspect of the business. I get decent reviews for my books and hit the upper echelon of script entrants who make it to the finalist lists often, but I don’t make a lot of money from it. I work a “real job” for a living, and what I make from writing versus what I spend would clearly put me in debt if it was my sole source of income. I’m also not into podcasts or audiobooks, so I’ve never seriously considered converting my novels to an audiobook format.

But I’ve recently come to the conclusion that it would be foolish to dismiss the audiobook audience. We all have busy lives, and reading, while arguably beneficial to both mind and soul, is time consuming. It’s not designed for multitasking, while audiobooks allow us to listen and drive, or listen and mow the lawn above the roar of the machine’s motor, with headphones or earbuds in place. So, I decided to look into the transfer of book to audiobook and found that to do it properly is…expensive.

Here, you can revisit my opening paragraph that outlines how I don’t make a lot of money. The cost of creating an audiobook—a good audiobook—involves talent. It involves narrators who do their jobs well, and who should be paid a decent wage to do it. But that’s a difficult cost to swallow for an Independent Author (IA, not AI) who is already spending their negative cashflow on things like professional book review sites (Kirkus isn’t free) or the “opportunity” to get honest reviews through NetGalley or other review sites for a fee—by offering your book to readers for free (And those readers love free books—but they don’t always reciprocate with a review…).

(Image found on Twitter
no copyright infringement intended)

Enter the rapidly growing technology of AI or, if you live in a cave, Artificial Intelligence. The technology is among the list of things that the WGA (Writers Guild of America) is currently striking over, and with good reason. Computers are learning to make art, write stories and read in surprisingly accurate likenesses of real people at an exponential rate. It’s currently a point of contention in the book publishing world too, as using credible sounding AI voices to narrate books puts real people out of a job. But back in November of 2022, the technology was being utilized by lay people as a cool thing to play with. 

Soon, I began wondering if having an audiobook available might be a good idea, especially for the visually impaired who would benefit from access to more narrated books in their lives; because everything has some catch-22 built into it, and I found a reasonably priced audiobook package through BookBaby that would convert my books to audiobooks using AI voices. My first novel, The Schoharie, was my experiment. Needless to say, I was disappointed and I regret that experiment. 

BookBaby uses Speechki for its audiobook conversions, and I had reservations from the start. The fervor over AI wasn’t at a fever pitch yet, but there were rumblings. BookBaby and Speechki give their AI narrators names – like Derek Torres—and my first thought was, well that’s kind of deceptive… I told them that I didn’t want to follow through with the order unless it was clear to the buyer that the voice was indeed AI generated. BookBaby assured me that an AI disclaimer would appear on the cover image of the book, and it does. I’m not going to delve into my disappointment with BookBaby’s review and rejection policies during the audiobook’s conversion except to say that maybe it soured me more over the process on a personal level, but in the end, I felt like the conversion was a waste of my money. Lesson learned from that experiment.

Here's why, and it’s not what you might think. First, the conversion is still expensive, especially for Independent Authors who might not have the money. If you can justify the cost of creating an audiobook, aim for real people who can inject the right amount of emotion to your words. The Speechki AI conversion failed to add the right inflection throughout my book – especially when it came to dialogue lines that were questions and…I don’t know. Maybe that’s a good thing, because if AI can’t add the right inflections to achieve the right emotional punch, then we still have a way of telling the difference between a human voice and an AI one. I don’t know how long that difference might last though, and I’m not enthused about the potential to have that line erased.

But let’s address the simple fact that AI is already an important part of our lives. We have Alexa and Siri, and we don’t think twice about asking them for directions or the weather. Although, the endless promotional ads enticing me to sit back and chat with an AI generated therapist is just…creepy as fuck! Stop it! I may be an introvert, but I’m not that hard up for friends. Back on track, though—we don’t think twice about using autocorrect or Grammarly as writing tools. But on that note, autocorrect irritates the hell out of me. I don’t use the word duck as regularly as it thinks I do, and if I do, it’s usually a mistake that it doesn’t correct. And Grammarly…I downloaded it once, then said nope, and deleted it the next day. It ruined the flow of thoughts spilling out of me, and I already write and correct things in spurts.

Anyway, those are some things to think about regarding the future of books and art and movies with AI. I haven’t even touched on the insane level of digital actor replacements being used by deepfakes. It’s a lot to comprehend, a lot to keep watch on, a lot to worry about. Artists already struggle when it come to being compensated for their work. They let some of it slide because of their passion for that work. They don’t need Artificial Intelligence replacing them because of some formula. Screenwriters in particular are confronted with the notion that their scripts should adhere to some “formula,” but in reality, it’s the rulebreakers that take the audience by surprise.

My AI narrated audiobook version of The Schoharie is currently available exclusively through BookBaby. As of the date of this blog entry, the audiobook version hasn’t made one cent. 

And I’m okay with that.