Let's Talk About AI

This is long, but worth it. Stick with me.

I was asked about this directly.

So… here we go.

This is a controversial subject, but it keeps coming up, and I've even been directly asked whether the cover of Nevermore was created with AI.

It wasn't.

My publisher has an art department, and somewhere in that art department is a young man named Kevin who probably developed a nervous twitch every time my name appeared in his inbox.

We went through many—many—versions of the cover before I was satisfied. At one point, I became frustrated enough to threaten to walk away from the publisher entirely.

So, Kevin, if you're reading this: I'm sorry.

Mostly.

But the question I've been asked is this:

How do I feel about writers using AI to generate book covers and promotional images for their books?

My answer?

It's their decision. And you have no right to attack them for it.

If you don't like AI-generated book covers, don't buy books that use them. You have every right to make that choice.

What I have a problem with is the public shaming, attacking and attempts to destroy independent authors because they used a tool someone else doesn't approve of.

And before anybody reaches for the pitchfork, let me explain where I'm coming from.

I've Seen This Movie Before

I was always a pretty good artist as a kid, and art was what I wanted to pursue.

During my junior and senior years of high school, I spent half of each day at my regular school and the other half at a technical school studying what was then called Commercial Art.

This was the late 1980s.

Before computers took over the industry.

Yes, I'm that old.

We did everything by hand.

Advertising illustrations. Lettering. Layout and design. Pencils, pens, rulers, markers, paint.

We learned photography with actual film cameras. Then we went into a darkroom, developed the film ourselves and made prints.

That was the technology of the day.

Life took me in another direction for a while. I got married, raised a family and spent many years working as a chef. I didn't make it to college until I was in my early thirties.

By then, everything had changed.

I earned an associate degree in what was now called Visual Communications.

We were doing many of the same things I'd learned to do in high school—but now almost none of it was being done by hand.

We had Apple computers. Adobe Photoshop. Illustrator. Digital photography.

Computers had become part of the creative process.

I had old-school college professors who were convinced this was going to destroy traditional art and design. Computers were going to do everything. Artists wouldn't be needed anymore.

They were wrong.

The tools changed.

Artists didn't disappear.

In fact, an entire category of creators exploded during that era: digital artists.

People began creating extraordinary things that simply weren't possible with the tools I'd used in high school.

I eventually continued on to earn my bachelor's degree in Graphic Design.

By then, the software was faster, more intuitive and vastly more sophisticated. Web design had become an entire industry. HTML and CSS were things designers suddenly needed to understand.

Once again, computers made certain things easier.

They didn't eliminate the need for human creativity.

And now we've reached AI.

AI Is Different—and We Should Admit That

This is where I think both sides of this argument sometimes go wrong.

AI isn't exactly the same thing as Photoshop.

It isn't exactly the same thing as CGI, CAD, digital animation or a synthesizer.

Generative AI raises legitimate questions that those technologies didn't necessarily raise in the same way.

There are serious conversations we need to have about copyright, training data, consent, compensation, disclosure and what protections human creators should have.

Those aren't stupid concerns. They're totally valid.

And I'm not dismissing artists who are genuinely worried about their livelihoods.

I'm talking about something much narrower:

Attacking an individual independent author because they couldn't afford hundreds or thousands of dollars for artwork.

That doesn't solve any of those problems.

Writing Is Different for Me

As a writer, I draw a much firmer line when it comes to the actual book.

I believe good storytelling is fundamentally a human endeavor.

AI doesn't know what it feels like to lose someone you love.

It doesn't know what falling in love feels like. It hasn't raised a child, buried a parent, had its heart broken, laughed until it couldn't breathe, been terrified, humiliated, hopeful, jealous, lonely or ridiculously happy.

It can recognize patterns in the ways human beings write about those things.

But it hasn't lived them.

That's important to me.

So no, I don't want AI writing my books.

I write my books.

Can AI be useful to a writer?

Absolutely.

Research. Brainstorming. Checking continuity. Asking historical questions. Looking something up at two in the morning when nobody else is awake. Helping organize information.

Famous writers have assistants and researchers.

Do you know who most independent writers have?

Themselves.

And Google.

And Siri.

And Alexa.

And increasingly, AI.

The tool isn't the storyteller.

The writer is.

Now Let's Talk About That Independent Author

This is where I get frustrated.

Many independent and self-published authors simply don't have the financial resources to hire professional artists for everything they need.

And professional artists shouldn't be expected to work for free.

Those two things can be true at the same time.

Independent writers are your neighbors, friends and family members.

They're people with day jobs.

They have kids. Mortgages. Car payments. Grocery bills. Electric bills. Medical bills. Tuition.

And somewhere in the middle of all of that, they decided to write a book.

Some of them spent years doing it.

They write in the evenings. On weekends. Before work. After work.

You'll find some of them sitting at a computer at two in the morning even though they have to get up at six, because everybody else in the house is finally asleep and it's the only quiet time they have.

And somehow they finish the damn thing.

Think about that for a second.

They actually wrote a book.

Then they discover that writing the book was only the beginning.

Editing.

Formatting.

ISBNs.

Cover design.

Websites.

Advertising.

Promotional graphics.

Bookmarks.

Business cards.

Social media.

Review copies.

Events.

Every one of those things can cost money.

Sometimes a lot of money.

So I have a question for the people who attack an unknown independent writer for using AI to create a cover or promotional image:

Should that person not publish their book because they can't afford to hire an artist?

Seriously.

What is the alternative you're proposing?

“Sorry. You don't have enough disposable income to be an author.”

I can't get behind that.

Technology Has Always Changed Creative Work

This doesn't mean every technological change is identical.

It means we've been renegotiating the relationship between technology and creativity for a very long time.

Movies once relied heavily on painted scenery, physical models and practical effects. Today filmmakers also use CGI and enormous digital toolsets.

Animation was once created through thousands upon thousands of hand-drawn images. Digital animation transformed the industry.

Music is recorded, edited, mixed, sampled and manipulated digitally. Synthesizers have existed for decades. Auto-Tune is a tool.

Furniture designers use sophisticated CAD systems.

Graphic designers use Photoshop and Illustrator instead of X-Acto knives, rulers and paste-up boards.

Even Google Search now incorporates generative AI into parts of the search experience.

None of that means human creators suddenly became irrelevant.

It means their tools changed.

AI may prove to be another creative tool.

It may also prove to be something considerably more disruptive.

Probably both.

But we're still figuring that out.

Who Created the Image?

Here's another question that fascinates me.

Suppose an author has an image in their head.

They open an AI image generator and describe it.

Wrong.

Try again.

Change the lighting.

Wrong character.

Try again.

Move this.

Remove that.

Change the clothes.

Wrong again.

Start over.

Twenty prompts later, they're getting closer.

Then they refine it again.

And again.

Eventually they produce something that resembles what they originally imagined.

Did that person paint the image?

No.

Did they draw it?

No.

Did they make creative decisions?

Of course they did.

So what are they?

The artist?

The designer?

The creative director?

The curator?

Something entirely new that we haven't settled on a good word for yet?

I don't know.

And I think that's actually an interesting conversation.

What I don't think is reasonable is pretending there was no human creative judgment involved at all.

You Don't Have to Like It

Here's where I ultimately land.

You don't have to like AI-generated covers.

You don't have to buy books that use them.

You can hire human artists exclusively.

You can advocate for human creators.

You can demand better copyright protections.

You can question how AI companies obtain training data.

You can decide that AI has no place whatsoever in your own creative process.

You do you. But don't be a hypocrite.

But publicly humiliating some unknown writer with a day job who spent three years writing their first novel and couldn't afford a professional cover isn't protecting art.

It's just hurting somebody.

And before we decide that person deserves to have their dream destroyed because they used technology we don't approve of, maybe we should consider their circumstances.

Yes.

Absolutely support human artists.

Support human writers.

Support musicians.

Support photographers.

Support illustrators, designers, artisans and craftspeople.

Buy their work.

Hire them when you can.

Pay them fairly.

I believe all of that.

But realistically, hiring a professional isn't financially possible for everyone, every time, for everything.

And when it isn't?

Maybe we could show people a little kindness.

Maybe we could give them some grace.

Maybe we could disagree with someone's choices without trying to destroy them.

If you don't like the cover of their book because it was created with AI, that's okay.

Don't buy it.

But maybe don't destroy the person behind it either.

They might just be somebody sitting at their kitchen table at two in the morning, trying to make a dream they've had their entire life come true.

And I have a hard time seeing anything wrong with that.

Thanks for your time.

-William